1958-01-23

Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that at the request of the city of Windsor the federal government and the province of Ontario have agreed to undertake jointly a rental housing project in Windsor, pursuant to section 36 of the National Housing Act.
The project is in the final planning stages at the present time and will consist of approximately 200 three and four bedroom row housing rental units. This development is the fourth federal-provincial project in' the city; the previous projects produced 325 residential lots on which two rental housing projects have been constructed, producing 421 rental housing units. The cost of the project will be approximately $2,401,000, which will be shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the province, or by the province and the municipality.
Tenders are expected to be called February 3 and work on the project will commence toward the end of the month. The project will provide immediate employment for about 100 construction workers, and as the units progress this figure is expected to rise to about 300.



WELCOME TO VISITORS IN GALLERY FROM FAR NORTH

['Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any figures, but my impression is that very little has taken place. I received this information at the United Nations.']
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very pleasant task to perform this morning. Through you I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that we have in the gallery this morning six representatives of our northern people of the Eskimo race. These six young men are on their way to Great Whale River from a vocational training course at Leduc, Alberta, where they have learned to operate and maintain the heavy equipment that will be so necessary in the northern development program of Canada in future years.
I think we are all aware that here we see evidence of the shifting of the way of life
of one civilization to another civilization in the short space of a generation. This is their first time to have seen us in operation at the stage of evolution we are in. I think all hon. members will join me and you, Mr. Speaker, in wishing them good fortune and good luck in their future endeavours.



Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make an announcement which I am sure will interest members of the house. For some years now Canada has been one of the largest contributors to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is a body established by the United Nations, and it has had the task of providing food, shelter and medical care as well as educational and rehabilitation facilities to the 930,000 Arab refugees who left their homes as a result of the hostilities which accompanied the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and 1949.
Opinions differ about the way in which the problem of these refugees should be settled, but there is general agreement on the need to assist them in the tragic plight in which they find themselves. UNRWA supplies its relief services to these unfortunate people at the amazingly small cost of $30 per refugee per year, but for some time the financial difficulties of the agency have been growing more and more desperate, despite very generous contributions by several countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Relief services, as I have already informed the house on an earlier occasion, are at subsistence level and recently have had to be cut, and the whole rehabilitation and educational program will have to be abandoned unless more funds are forthcoming.
I need hardly say that maintenance of this rehabilitation program is essential if there is ever to be a solution of the refugee problem. We informed the United Nations some weeks ago that our regular annual cash contribution of $500,000 would be made as usual for 1958-1959, subject to parliamentary approval, but the Secretary General of the United Nations is still appealing to all members of the United Nations to increase their contributions if they possibly can.

External Affairs
The government has accordingly decided to seek parliamentary approval, in supplementary estimates to be presented to the house in due course, for a special additional contribution to UNRWA for this year; and that contribution, subject to parliamentary approval, will be $1,500,000 worth of Canadian flour for the refugees. This represents about 20,000 tons of flour or approximately one million bushels of Canadian wheat.
We hope this substantial contribution of flour will encourage other countries to increase their contributions to UNRWA. Indeed, some have already announced such increases in response to the appeal of the Secretary General of the United Nations. I am sure the house will approve of this proposal. UNRWA and UNEF, the United Nations emergency force, in both of which we are interested, are important aspects of the efforts of the United Nations to establish conditions of peace and security in the Middle East.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I may have a question to ask on the orders of the day, but may I say immediately that we on this side strongly support this generous and realistic proposed action on the part of the government.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the minister will have the complete support of the members of this group in this action which is not only generous but wise. One of the most serious difficulties in the Middle East is this problem of the refugees, and I am glad to see that their misery is going to be mitigated to some extent by the generosity of the Canadian people.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the minister of our support for this proposal. I am particularly glad that the support is to be given to the refugees in the form of Canadian flour from the surplus we have and, second, that an effort is being made to rehabilitate these refugees. That has been the weakness of the whole situation right along. Any help that UNRWA has been giving has been mainly on a maintenance basis. I would strongly urge the minister to let UNRWA and the United Nations know that any further assistance we give should be for the purpose of rehabilitation.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, we are informed that this contribution of flour will release funds that would otherwise be used for food, to the end that some rehabilitation program can be reestablished this year.


On the orders of the day;


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his announcement in connection with the Canadian donation to the United Nations works and relief agency. Can the minister inform the house what ratio of local currency to the dollar value of the Canadian donation of flour is released for rehabilitation in the area?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice. I am unable to reply at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs another question arising out of his statement, which perhaps he would care to take as notice. How much repatriation and resettlement has taken place among the refugees during the last 12 months?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any figures, but my impression is that very little has taken place. I received this information at the United Nations.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relating to an article in Maclean's magazine of February 1, written by Mr. Blair Fraser. I intend to refer to page 37, where a false statement occurs. It appears that this statement derives from an earlier similar false statement which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of November 27, 1957. I should like to relate the two articles together and deal with them now.
In the Hamilton Spectator of November 27 there is an article written by Milford L. Smith, business editor of that newspaper, in which these two paragraphs appear, both of which are incorrect:
The Canadian trade delegation's proposal that British mills export tinplate and sheet steel to Canada brought protests today from Hamilton steel manufacturers that employment here would suffer.
This statement, Mr. Speaker, is incorrect. The Canadian trade delegation made no such proposal. A second statement, also incorrect in part, reads as follows:
Trade Minister Churchill was quoted as saying Canada now imports only one-tenth as much steel from Britain as it does from the United States-

Up to this point that statement is correct. The false part of it follows:
-and that there is a market in Canada for both sheet and tinplate.
That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. I never made that statement.
In Maclean's magazine there occurs this paragraph on page 37.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Tell us what Maclean's said about the Liberal convention, too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should say at this point
that Mr. Blair Fraser's article is a good article dealing with the question of trade and contains a great deal of useful information, but he has fallen into error in this paragraph, which reads as follows:
Tinplate is an ironic example. When the Canadian trade mission visited a British steel plant in Wales, Gordon Churchill remarked that Canada was a potential market for tinplate.
I never made any such remark. I was aware that there was a surplus of tinplate in Canada, and at the same time there was a surplus of tinplate at the Margam steel works in Wales. This statement is completely and utterly false.



MR. MCCULLOUGH-ALLEGED INCOMPLETENESS OF SESSIONAL PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On January 3 I had a return to a question of mine asked on December 23. The return is sessional paper No. 13A. It is signed by the undersecretary of state, and it is incomplete. The answer to question No. 9 is:
To be answered by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I should like to ask the hon. member whether I might have a complete answer to this question. I should like at this time to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that this question No. 9 has not been answered at this time.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has asked me to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, as her voice has failed her this morning. She wishes me to say that the matter will be looked into directly.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Spaaker@: The hon. member for Algoma East.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, the Prime Minister was good enough to give the house some information about the legislative program at that time. In view of the reported desire of the government to finish up the business of this session by the end of the month, and in view of the statement by the leader of the house that one or two further pieces of legislation may be introduced, can the Prime Minister now, in view of the fact we are only eight days from the end of the month, give us information as he did on December 2 regarding the legislative program which faces us?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I wish the Leader of the Opposition had called me, and I would have been then in a position to make a complete announcement at this time. However, I shall endeavour to make that announcement tomorrow or Saturday. I join with my hon. friend in his desire, and it is only fair, that the house be informed as to whether or not further legislation is going to be introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: I desire to make a correction. I did not intend to demote the Leader of the Opposition when I called him the member for Algoma East.



INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REPLACING SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Finance whether it is his intention to proceed at this session with his planned bill to replace the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Yes; the government's intention, as I stated it on December 6, Mr. Speaker, is unchanged. It is our hope, if we can make progress with the business of the house, to bring the bill forward and have it introduced and after first reading allow it to be distributed in order that it may be taken up at the next session of parliament, after persons and organizations interested in the subject have had time to study the bill and submit their views on it to the government.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I should like to make a brief interim reply to questions asked on January 11 and 20 by the hon. member for Assiniboia.

Inquiries of the Ministry The question asked by him is as follows, as reported at page 3195 of Hansard for January 11, 1958:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house of the results of the talks between officials of the new West Indian federation and the Canadian government relating to economic co-operation between the two nations? Was Canada asked for a loan or other economic assistance, and can the Prime Minister say what action Canada is considering to help the newest member of the commonwealth?
At that time I stated that I had not had an opportunity to review this matter with the officials. I am now able to say, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is under active consideration and it is hoped that in the very near future an announcement can be made indicating what steps this government proposes to take to give immediate evidence of Canada's willingness to help this new country, through such practical forms of assistance as may be appropriate. We shall also be giving consideration to more long-term measures of assistance. These matters will be drawn to the attention of the house in due course when consideration is somewhat further advanced. However, I should like to assure hon. members that most urgent study is being given to them.
I might also draw the attention of the house to the fact that a trade mission from Jamaica, one of the most important units or provinces in this new federation of the West Indies, is at present visiting Canada. The trade mission is led by Hon. Wills O. Isaacs, Jamaica's minister of commerce, and is made up of a number of prominent businessmen of that island who have come to Canada to explore ways in which the long-standing trade with Jamaica may be further developed and strengthened. This delegation will arrive in Ottawa on Saturday next; they will be received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and subsequently will have discussions with ministers and officials in various departments. I also plan to spend some time with these visitors. Together we shall explore detailed ways in which the commercial ties between this important island in the Caribbean and ourselves can be strengthened.
It is by visits of trade missions such as this that new commercial contacts are found and the flow of trade broadened and deepened. I am sure that Canadians as a whole will welcome the visit of this Jamaican mission beginning on Saturday.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this would be a question for the minister through whom the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports to parliament, but in his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister. My question is based on the very strong stand taken last year by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and others-
-that there shall be on the part of the government no interference whatever with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in particular with its programming activities and above all its programming activities in relation to opinion broadcasts.
That quotation may be found at page 2822 of Hansard of March 29, 1957. Will the Prime Minister comment on the report in this morning's Globe and Mail following protests in a Conservative caucus concerning certain appearances of the Leader of the Opposition on television, when it states that:
A group of cabinet ministers have agreed to consider approaching C.B.C. chairman A. D. Dunton on the subject.
Is this report in the Globe and Mail correct?


John George Diefenbaker: There should be no interference and will be no interference with the C.B.C. As far as the statement is concerned, it is simply press speculation. The stand we took last year is the stand we take now and shall continue to take.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I am told that next Monday the patients in the old Sacred Heart hospital will be removed to the new hospital. In view of the great need for a place for old people, would the minister consider the possibility of lending the old hospital for a period of ten years to the city of Hull?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take this question as notice.



NEWCASTLE, N. B.  STATEMENT ON PROPOSED NEW FEDERAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi asked me this question:
Can the minister advise as to the cause of the long delay in commencing the erection of the federal public building at Newcastle, New Brunswick? s
The answer is that work was started and the excavation completed when it was found

that subsoil conditions were unfavourable. This was partly due to the fact that at the request of the town council, who visited me here some weeks ago, the building has been moved back either 10 or 15 feet on the property. Because of the condition which has developed it has been necessary to provide for a foundation of piling, and that has meant redesigning. Just as soon as this is completed the work will go ahead. I am hoping that work can be started again very quickly.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY TOLLS    REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. This morning's Gazette carries the story of a speech made by the minister to the dominion marine association at the Seigniory club in the province of Quebec headed "Shipowners Greet Hees' Tolls Views". I quote just one short paragraph, which reads as follows:
Transport minister George Hees tonight told lake shipowners from both Canada and the United States his personal views on seaway tolls "are much in keeping with your own."
These views are that there should be a three to five year toll-free program on the seaway, and the question I wish to ask is this. Does the speech made by the minister indicate that consideration has been given to a three to five year toll-free operation period on the seaway?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. The statement I made was as follows, and I now quote from the text I used:
One matter in which I know you are very much interested is the tolls which will be charged when the seaway opens. This question is, unfortunately, at present under consideration by committees of both countries, and cannot, of course, be discussed here. I may say, however, that my personal views are much in keeping with yours, namely that the seaway will not be able to fulfil its purpose unless it is economically possible for a large volume of shipping to use it. The economy of Canada is very much dependent upon cheap water transportation.
Mr. Speaker, those were the views I expressed, and those were also the views expressed to me by various members of the dominion marine association who have visited me here in Ottawa during the past three months. They are views with which I thoroughly agree.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I asked the minister this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in favour of a three to five year test period during which 96698-232
Inquiries of the Ministry tolls would not be collected on the St. Lawrence seaway, as advocated by the dominion marine association? Does the minister intend to discuss this proposal with that group?
The answer of the minister was as follows: The hon. member for Laurier knows that the question of seaway tolls is at present under discussion by committees both in Canada and the United States, and it would be completely improper for any member of the government to express an opinion on this matter until those discussions have been completed.
My question of privilege is that the minister made a speech to the group at the Seigniory club in which he have his views at greater length than he has expressed them here this morning, because they can be found in the report of the Gazette. The House of Commons, however, is told that the views which the minister has cannot be discussed here because it would be improper when the matter is under discussion by other committees. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not in keeping with the rules of this house as I understand them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier has achieved the result of proving that ministers of this government, contrary to the practice followed by ministers of the previous government, say outside this house what they say inside the house.


Mr. Tucker:: They deny it.


George Harris Hees: Yesterday I was asked a specific question by the hon. member for Laurier. He asked if I would comment on the suggestion made at this meeting regarding the setting aside of tolls for a three to five year period, and I was asked that same question when I went to the meeting at the Seigniory club last night. I gave exactly the same answer to them as I gave to the hon. member in the house yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I said that this question, the question of tolls, could not be discussed until these committees had finished their discussions. I simply expressed a general opinion, which I think the hon. member and every other member of this house would express and with which they would agree, that the seaway will not be fulfilling its proper function unless it is economically possible for a large volume of shipping to pass through it. I would like to ask the hon. member for Laurier if that is not his view, and if he does not agree that is a perfectly sensible sentiment to express.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think this is simply another case of a minister going out of this house and giving information to other groups-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lionel Chevrier: -which he refuses to give to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow a debate on this question of privilege unless there is a motion before the house. Both views have been expressed, and I think the matter might be left there.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have not given him notice, but in view of his willingness to answer questions I would like to put the following one to him:
In view of the current unemployment situation and in the light of there being a definite need for a second trans-Canada highway, has the government had any correspondence or consultations with the provincial governments in connection with such a highway, and have any plans been considered?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there have been some letters from associations concerning a second trans-Canada highway. There has been no general discussion with the provinces on that subject.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister, in which I am seeking information. Is it not correct that the government of Saskatchewan has approached this government asking that a second trans-Canada highway be undertaken? I believe that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: There were general discussions late last summer about the question of highways in the province of Saskatchewan, but as the hon. member knows the present Trans-Canada Highway Act only provides for the main trans-Canada highway. However, I do not think he should worry unduly. We will be doing things about highways a great deal faster than the former government ever did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister's reply that a conference on the subject will be called at an early date?


Howard Charles Green: There has been no such conference, Mr. Speaker, and at the moment there is no plan for calling such a conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary risen to speak to that point?


Frank Claus Christian: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he supports the idea of a second trans-Canada highway, and further will he give consideration to the matter raised by my question?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are considering these and many other questions of benefit to the Canadian people; and as for my personal opinion, this cabinet moves as a unit.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of part of his remarks earlier today on a question of privilege. My question is, was the Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom seeking to increase United Kingdom exports on a selective basis or on a general basis? The second part of the question is this. If it was on a selective basis, would the minister tell the house what steel products he was referring to in his remarks made at Cardiff when he was with the mission?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the interest in the work of the Canadian trade mission in the United Kingdom. When the mission was announced in the house the objectives were declared, and they were expressed in general terms as being first to explore the possibilities within the United Kingdom as to the development of their industry and whether or not they were in a position to supply anything to the Canadian market, and second to acquaint the people of the United Kingdom with the potential purchasing power of Canada and its developing capacity.
At no time was any suggestion made that there would be any interference with Canadian manufacturers in this country. We stressed that Canada imported an enormous quantity of goods each year running into billions of dollars. We also stressed the point that 15 years ago Britain's percentage share of imports into Canada was 18 per cent, and that this had been whittled down to 8i per cent-


Mr.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Gordon Minto Churchill: -under the policies followed by the previous government-


Mr. Pickersgill:: This is a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the hon. member's point of order.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the minister that I believe came squarely within the rules. It was short and to the point, and it asked for information. The question did not give any information but represented a request for information. The minister under the guise of answering my specific question has been wandering around for some minutes with a lot of general remarks on the subject of trade and that sort of thing.


Howard Charles Green: You do not like the answer.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to debate that subject with the minister at any time, but surely there must be some obligation on the minister at this moment to abide by the rules of the house and answer the question asked, or to refuse to answer it if he so wishes and as he has the right to do.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Put your
question on the order paper if you do not like the answer.


George James McIlraith: It is surely not right for the minister to continue with his vague general argument.


Mr. Broome:: Who is rambling now?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would like to refer to the point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was giving a complete answer to the question raised by my hon. friend. I can understand his alarm when I was drawing attention to the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, of
course, can be answered in different ways, and I do not know that I should take it upon myself to determine how it should be answered. It seemed to me that the question related to steel products. It is quite true, as the hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out in his point of order, that the answer should be concise in replying to a question asked at this period of the day, and I would ask the minister to endeavour to make his answer as concise as he can.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I had practically finished my answer when I was interrupted by the hon. member on his point of order. I was drawing attention to the fact that Britain's share of imports into Canada had been whittled down from 18 per cent to 8| per cent under the Grit policy over the last 15 years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No answer at all.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Make it short. Cut it down.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the house whether or not he spoke from a written text when he made his speech at Cardiff?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have reference to my speech at Cardiff. The speech I made at Cardiff-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -was made at a banquet held in a banquet hall there, and I was replying to a toast to Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that the same kind of banquet the Minister of Transport attended?
I hear that was quite a banquet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I made no mention during that speech to any of these questions the hon. member has raised. He will have to be much more specific in his question if he is really looking for information.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question with respect to the minister's visit to Cardiff and the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it not so, as reported, that when the delegation was taken to the huge s+eel plant at Cardiff members of the delegation found that this British firm had virtually a full order book with respect to sheet plate but was very anxious to sell tinplate to the delegation?


Mr. Hahn:: They were on a sightseeing tour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is referring to the Margam steel works at Cardiff, one of the most advanced and perhaps the largest steel works in the British empire.


Mr. Marler:: How about answering the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends appear to require quite a bit of information with regard to the work of the Canadian trade mission in England, because they have been so confused about it. The Margam steel works management made no attempt-and I repeat, made no attempt-to sell tinplate to any member of the Canadian trade mission to my knowledge. They were quite aware that tinplate was being produced here in Canada and was in adequate supply..


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising with a question on the same subject? Does he have a supplementary question?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has any comment to make on an article which appeared in the Toronto publication Saturday Night, issue of January 18, entitled, "The United Kingdom Trade Mission-What did it Achieve?" by Donald R. Gordon, which includes the following paragraph, and I quote from the article:
Politics was seen as a disruptive influence.
"This whole thing was just a political powder keg", a representative of one national trade organization said. "It wasn't a trade mission-It was a political campaign."


An hon. Member:: Give us a travelogue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, are hon. members asking for a travelogue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Heaven forbid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did see the article in Saturday Night. I think it was very carelessly written. I think it was written by someone who is also a C.B.C. commentator, but of that I am not quite sure. The statement to which the Leader of the Opposition refers I think is completely inaccurate. The mission was a trade mission. Its purpose was to develop trade between our two countries, and there was no political significance whatsoever attached to it.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF CREDIT TO CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of Canada to extend substantial credits to Czechoslovakia for the purpose of purchasing an estimated 10 million bushels of Canadian wheat, as reported recently in a United States trade report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question but I wish he had identified the paper from which the clipping comes. There is no truth at all in this rumour. Canadian wheat is generally sold for cash. A few countries are getting wheat from Canada on a short-term credit basis, insured under the Export Credits Insurance Act, and the announcement with regard to our other plan was made to the house a few days ago for the sale of wheat on a longterm credit basis to countries within the Colombo plan. There is no truth at all in the report which the hon. member has sent me.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. First of all may I apologize for not pointing out that the article I sent to the minister was clipped from the Manitoba Rural Co-operator. Has the government of Czechoslovakia requested extended credits from the government for the purchase of Canadian wheat and barley?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no direct communication from the government of Czechoslovakia to us with regard to credit arrangements. I have heard of negotiations going on between people who sell grain and a representative from Czechoslovakia, but there is nothing on a governmental level whatsoever.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the matter of the installation of automatic protection at the Bells Corners crossing, which was raised on Monday by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) and about which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has made representations to me several times.
I am glad to advise that the Canadian National Railways expect to complete by Friday of this week the installation of two flashing lights and one bell at this crossing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who will take his place in the house?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps it is rather a pertinent one, in view of the fact that there is a trade delegation here from Jamaica.
In view of the government's high regard for the commonwealth, is the minister prepared to change the regulations of the late Liberal government concerning the immigration of British subjects from the West Indies, regulations which were so outrageously racialist?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the imminence of the completion of the federation of the West Indies, and other matters to which the Prime Minister

referred earlier this morning, we have been giving attention to the question of our relations with that area from the point of view of immigration. This matter is now receiving the attention of my officials, and will probably be the subject of conversations with the federation officials in the quite near future.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. St. Laurent (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Wishing to take advantage of the generous mood of the Minister of Public Works in the Conservative caucus yesterday, may I ask him whether consideration is being given to urgent repairs, not improvements, to the wharf at Riviere du Loup, province of Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers about what goes on in our caucus, any more than reports about what goes on in his own. I shall be very glad to look into the situation with regard to this particular wharf. We are hoping to be able to send a number of the officials of our economics branch and of the Department of Transport down to Father Point very shortly to look into the whole question of the need there to facilitate navigation across the St. Lawrence river during the winter months.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister now in a position to give some definite information as to the possible date when the tariff board may be expected to begin its hearings with respect to Newfoundland fluorspar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have recently seen the tariff board's tentative schedule of hearings on the various references that are on its docket. I will refresh my memory on it and give my hon. friend a complete answer. May I just say to him that fluorspar, while of special interest in Newfoundland, does affect other parts of Canada as well.
Inquiries of the Ministry



DEFICIT BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the house whether when his colleague the Minister of National Revenue was addressing a dinner meeting of the business paper editors' association and said that he personally thought a deficit budget of half a billion dollars a year for the next two years was a realistic possibility, he was speaking on behalf of the government and announcing government policy, or merely forecasting a drop in the revenues which his department collects?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, neither my hon. friend nor I were present on the occasion in question. Having seen this reference in the newspapers I asked my colleague the Minister of National Revenue about it. As my hon. friend knows, the minister is away ill at the moment. My colleague asserted most emphatically that he never made any such statement as was attributed to him in the press.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what you all say; you never make these statements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of National Revenue is very truthful, and I do not think it becomes the hon. member for Laurier to laugh or make silly gibes. The fact is that the Minister of National Revenue has most emphatically denied making the statement attributed to him in the press article quoted by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I am not usually given to laughing when statements are made by ministers, but when statements are reproduced in the press, then I think it is the privilege of any hon. member to take what appears there as being accurate until it has been denied. I am quite within my rights in interrupting the hon. member as I did a moment ago and saying that not only the Minister of National Revenue but other ministers are denying statements they have made outside of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point that is wrong with the statement just made by the hon. member is that his laughter and gibe came after the denial that the statement had been made, and not before. They had nothing to do with a question.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier has just said that other ministers are denying statements they have made outside the house. I think the hon. member will have to withdraw that statement.


George Carlyle Marler: Why?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rose on a question of privilege this morning and labelled as false some statements in the press that I never made. Now the hon. member for Laurier is saying that ministers of the crown are denying statements they have made outside of the house. If he was referring to me I ask him to withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing anything I have said this morning. When I made that statement earlier I was referring to a speech made by the Minister of Transport. I was simply stating, in effect, that what the Minister of Transport refused to give by way of information to this house yesterday, he went to a meeting of the dominion marine association elsewhere and proceeded to give. I was commenting on that, and surely a member of the house has a right to rise and make some such comment without another hon. member getting up and making insinuations such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made. I repeat to him that I have no intention of withdrawing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same question of privilege, or another one?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to point out that after the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Benidickson:: Is this order, privilege or what?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -had pointed out that the Minister of National Revenue had denied that statement, as I heard him do also, the hon. member for Laurier laughed and went on to say, as I understood him, that the denial of the minister should not be taken as against a statement in the press.


Lionel Chevrier: I simply repeat what I said earlier, that I am not given to laughing; but I am going to laugh now at the statements made by the Minister without Portfolio, because there is no minister in the house who can put the members of the house to sleep faster than he can.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two questions of privilege now before the house at the same time, and I see that the Minister of Transport has another one. Before I hear him I think I should say this. I do not think members ought to be unduly thinskinned at this time in the session. Unless a direct imputation of some impropriety is made against a specific individual in the house I would prefer that members not consider that a matter of personal privilege. If there is an imputation made against a specific minister, yes. Having said that, I shall be glad to hear what the Minister of Transport has to say.


George Harris Hees: I am not thinskinned at all, Mr. Speaker. After a few years in this political life you learn not to be. I believe I explained very carefully to the hon. member for Laurier exactly what I said and what I did not say in the house and at Montebello yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a rule against repetition.


Mr. Speaker:: We dealt with that matter. If the hon. member for Laurier was out of order in reverting to that particular matter, I would ask that the minister not follow his example, because at that time we were discussing a point which had been raised first by the Minister of Finance and then by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now, unless anyone feels very much aggrieved, I think we might pass on to the next order of business.


Lionel Chevrier: Now may I laugh?


Mr. Speaker:: I interrupted the Minister of Transport. If he wishes to continue I will hear him.


George Harris Hees: I thought the matter had been settled when the hon. member for Laurier sat down a few moments ago. However, he rose again-


Mr. Speaker:: It had been settled, and I would ask the Minister of Transport not to reopen it.


Mr. Hodgson:: He reopened it.


Mr. Speaker:: I consider that he reopened it improperly, and because he reopened it improperly does not mean it is proper to proceed with a discussion of it.


George Harris Hees: Can I ask whether if a member rises and introduces something improperly, he is allowed to have it stand without being answered? I should like the privilege of answering him or having him withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: What statement does the hon. May I ask the minister whether he is now member wish to have withdrawn as being a in a position to give that information, or breach of privilege?	whether he would give it to us tomorrow?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Laurier said I had denied making a different statement in Montebello from that which I made in the house yesterday. That is not the case at all. I made exactly the same statement in each place. I was asked by the hon. member for Laurier what comment I had to make on the statement made at Montebello regarding the setting aside of the charging of tolls for three or five years, and I said I did not make a comment on that particular suggestion. I gave the same answer in Montebello last night. My comment last night in my speech at Montebello was simply a general comment and had nothing to do with what the hon. member for Laurier said yesterday. It was simply a general expression of opinion and my feeling about this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Now the hon. member for Laurier would like to reply. This sort of discussion has no end. We heard both the original statement of the minister and the hon. member for Laurier, and they are on Hansard. I think it is a matter of opinion as to what is to be drawn from what they said. We do not achieve any purpose by having hon. members restate these things. If the hon. member will permit me to pass to something else, I shall proceed.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the evidence we have had this morning that the occupational disease which used to plague the former ministry now appears to have infected the present ministry, namely the occupational disease of being misreported in the press, would the minister instruct his department to seek a prophylactic measure against this malady?



CANADA SAVINGS BONDS, TWELFTH SERIES   AMOUNT OF NEW MONEY REPRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to ask another question of the Minister of Finance. On December 12 he gave the members of the house information with regard to the sale of the twelfth series of Canada savings bonds. At that time I asked him whether he could tell us how much of the total he had mentioned represented new money. He said, as reported on page 2246 of Hansard:
Perhaps my hon. friend would allow me to give this figure precisely at the conclusion of the campaign.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The information is available. There may be some minor adjustment required in the figures, but broadly speaking the information is available. I had expected to give it on the estimates of my department. I have had it ready for some days for that purpose, and had expected that those estimates would have been reached. They have been announced on several days. I do not happen to have it in my file at the moment; however, the figure is available. I shall be glad to give it.


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps the minister could give it tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. If I had had notice of my hon. friend's intention to ask this question I could have had an answer in five minutes.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether the dispute involving Canadian National Steamships is any nearer solution now than when he made that extremely long and somewhat exhaustive statement in the house in November of last year?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have received no information from the management of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited that would lead me to believe so.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour doing anything to end this dispute?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that comes 100 per cent under the jurisdiction of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.


George James McIlraith: The answer is no.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he tell the house what progress has been made since he made the statement in the house on October

Inquiries of the Ministry 16 with respect to negotiations with the provinces for financial assistance in the construction of northern development roads, particularly mining roads, which would be so helpful at this time of unemployment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a full answer at this time, but correspondence and negotiations have been going forward with several of the provinces. When some general policy is worked out to the satisfaction of both sides an announcement will be made.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Did the government of New Brunswick submit any proposals to the federal government in connection with the offer of assistance toward construction of forest access roads? I am particularly interested in the Renous-Plaster Rock area of New Brunswick in the municipalities of Northumberland and Victoria.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of his question, and in reply I should like to say that the government of New Brunswick has accepted in principle the dominion government's proposal to share in a co-operative program with us respecting forest access roads, on the basis that they will be built by the province and that we will pay half the sum and 50 per cent of the money provided will go into labour. But I should like to point out once again to the hon. member and to the house that the program is to be planned and carried out by the province; and even though we have been informed of the total amount of $100,000 we have no way of knowing any particular place where they intend to build access roads. We only examined their proposal to see that it meets the criteria that we have laid down.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Because of the fact that doubt is cast as to the future development and production of the CF-105 in an article in this morning's Gazette, would the minister
[Mr. Benidickson.l
acquaint the house with the government's present attitude to the development and production of the CF-105?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, some years ago research work was started to develop a supersonic interceptor capable of intercepting manned bombers which might be expected in about five years' time from now. Development work has proceeded on a year to year basis. Last fall the government authorized a further year's development of that aircraft which has now become known as the CF-105.
The future of that aircraft will depend entirely on the nature of the threat. The matter is constantly under examination, and as long as the threat exists development and production of the CF-105 will proceed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER FROM PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has been able to ascertain yet whether there was any further correspondence with the provincial governments on any subject discussed at the federal-provincial conference and particularly a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question yesterday, and we hope to be able to deal with it in a day or two.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the Prime Minister in a position yet to tell the house whether fiscal grants to the Atlantic provinces will be available for the current fiscal year? The Prime Minister will recall that on January 10 he said this would be abundantly evident within two days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like "soon".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when the government is ready to make an announcement on that subject, it will be made in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two days are pretty nearly eternity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend ought to know something about eternity in the light of the word "soon" used by his leader last Thursday night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: "Soon" is not immediately.

Inquiries of the Ministry
NORTHERN AFFAIRS	Mr. Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will have to
examine the wording of that question very extension OF northern alberta railways to closely. Perhaps I had better take it as
GREAT SLAVE LAKE	nntir>A
On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he has anything to add to the answer given me yesterday by the Minister of Transport with regard to the building of a railroad to the south shore of Great Slave lake?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the proceedings the question of a railway to Pine Point comes more properly under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources than under the Department of Transport, in that we are keeping in closer touch with the two railways concerned as to the possibilities of this operation being started. We still have no firm information from the railways either as to the route or whether they will be undertaking it. I can assure the hon. member that as far as this department and the government are concerned we will do everything we can to look at the project very carefully and do the proper thing.

ALLOCATION of box cars
On the orders of the day:


Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the tie-up of railway rolling stock which existed under the former government due to box cars loaded with grain not being unloaded at terminal points within a reasonable time, can the minister state if the present government has done anything to achieve co-operation between the Canadian wheat board and the terminal authorities so that railway box cars will not be held up unduly because of slowness in unloading grain at terminal points?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the fullest co-operation exists between the Canadian wheat board and the terminal elevators, and that any delay in unloading is not caused through any lack of co-operation between those bodies.


Edward George McCullough: Can the minister say if shipping orders to elevator companies are given in such a way as to assure that space is available for unloading operations at terminal elevators within a reasonable time?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In order to clear up confusion regarding figures as to unemployment compiled each week by the national employment service of the unemployment insurance commission, will the minister table copies of the instructions given to the regional offices, on the basis of which these figures are compiled, including instructions as to whom to include and whom to exclude from such figures?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so.



UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the wide discrepancy between the D.B.S. and N.E.S. figures with regard to unemployment, would the minister ask the dominion bureau of statistics to review its statistical techniques in order to determine whether or not their figure is accurate, and also to determine which of the figures should be accepted as official? After he has done so, will he make a statement to the house on this matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is incorrect to speak about a wide disparity between things which are different. If my hon. friend is attempting to pretend that the figures of which he is talking are measuring exactly the same matter, I think he is quite wrong. I will discuss with the dominion bureau of statistics their methods of making their calculations in order to see if I can satisfy my hon. friend with regard to his inquiry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he will consult with the Minister of Labour with a view, after these discussions have been had, to presenting some kind of document that will thoroughly and accurately describe these two figures and reconcile the differences between them?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall be quite pleased to consult with the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, but I have no knowledge that these figures are not now reliable and accurate.



RENOUS, NEW BRUNSWICK-PROMOTIONS IN NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Roy McWilliam: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is there any truth in the unofficial report that in future there will not be any promotions amongst ammunition workers in naval ammunition depots, and in particular at the ammunition depot at Renous, New Brunswick?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I appreciate the hon. member's kindness in sending me notice of this question. An organizational survey was undertaken last fall at Renous. As a result of this survey it was recommended that there should be some decrease in the present establishment. However, in view of the difficulties of obtaining employment in the area at this time, action in that respect has been deferred. Efforts are being made to find alternative employment for the employees concerned.
Until it is decided to proceed with the recommendations of the complement committee, action on promotions of ammunition workers has been temporarily suspended. No action has been taken to suspend promotion of ammunition workers in other naval ammunition depots.



H.M.C. DOCKYARD, VICTORIA-STATEMENT ON ALLEGED ACCEPTANCE OP OTHER EMPLOYMENT BY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: On January 17 I directed a question to the Minister of National Defence. In his absence the parliamentary assistant to the minister took the question as notice. I wonder whether the minister now has the information sought in the question.


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe the question which was referred to my parliamentary assistant had to do with the employees of H.M.C. Dockyard at Esquimalt taking other employment in their spare time. The policy which has been followed by the department has been in accordance with the regulations which have been already laid down, and which prohibit any employee of the government from taking other employment in certain broad categories, particularly those which

would bring any discredit to the department or would be unfair toward other forms of employment.
However, the department does not interfere more than is necessary in the spare time of its employees. Furthermore, to make a general prohibition that no employee in Dockyard could take any other employment in his spare time would be quite impossible to enforce.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. Since the Prime Minister did not have the information available yesterday, and since I assume that the minister is the responsible minister, can he tell the house whether Professor Huson is being paid at the rate of $35,000 a year, as reported in the Ottawa Journal? If not, can he tell us at what rate he is being paid and whether there is any time limit on the payment?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think it is only fair to say at this time that no fixed salary has been decided at this point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has the minister examined the files of his department in order to see whether all the information which Professor Huson is seeking is not already available in the department?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Professor Huson is certainly going to get some assistance from my department, but he is also going to make a complete investigation and factual study of the United States system.


Lionel Chevrier: Hon. members should not laugh at that question.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harkness for the second reading of Bill No. 237, to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCullough.
(Translation):
Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night, I was dealing with the psychological

aspect of this bill which provides for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities. I should now like to touch upon the practical aspects of this plan.
It is no exaggeration to say that the dairy industry is the backbone of Quebec agriculture. I might add that, in my own constituency, Roberval, it accounts for at least half of the total annual farm income. The support price of butter at 58 cents a pound has saved the farmers of my riding from bankruptcy. It has brought them a degree of security which, although it has not made them rich, has allowed them to pull through. The former St. Laurent government saw fit to support the price of butter at 58 cents a pound although at certain times 125 million pounds of it were in storage throughout the country and butter was selling at 38 cents a pound on the international market. May I congratulate the former minister of agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on his understanding of the problems of eastern farmers, and especially those in the province of Quebec when in 1955, at a time when he was considering to discontinue the support price for butter, because of a surplus in excess of a hundred million pounds, he yielded to the representations of a delegation from rural counties, of which I was a member, requesting that the support price be kept at the same level. Instead of letting that butter spoil in warehouses, the former government sold much of it on the international market and allowed our educational institutions and hospitals to take advantage of the international market price, 38 cents a pound. No sooner had the present government come to power than that privilege was withdrawn from those institutions, to their utter dismay and my own personal deep regret.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Under this bill, unless the new board of stabilization of agricultural prices uses other standards than the average price over the previous ten years, what will be the new guaranteed price for butter?
In 1957, the average price of first grade butter on the Montreal market was 60.6 cents a pound. According to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in the ten years prior to 1958, (that is from 1947 to 1957 inclusive) the average price of butter was 62 cents a pound. Under this bill,-if the board does not take into account other factors than the average price on a 10-year basis,- the guaranteed price of butter will be 49.6 cents a pound, 8.4 cents less than the support price granted by the former Liberal government under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. And if there should be a surplus of butter, as happened these last few years, farmers could count only on this guaranteed price of 49.6 cents a pound, and would have no alternative but to sell their herds as beef cattle and give up the none too prosperous dairy industry.
That is why I urge the government to give special consideration to the basis it will adopt in setting the floor price of butter, so that the price will not be lower than the 58 cent support price now in force. This is a matter of primary importance to the farm people of my constituency, whose interests it is my duty to protect.
According to figures supplied by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the 80 per cent average which is to be set as a guaranteed price for the following products would be these:
Guaranteed price 1958
Average price 1957	80 per cent
Commodity	cents	Grade	Market	centsHogs 	B-l	Toronto	
23.36 per poundButter 	
60.6 per pound	No. 1	Montreal	
49.6 per poundBeef 	.... 18.95 per pound	Good	Toronto	
17.44 per poundEggs 	"A" large	Montreal	
45.4 per doz.Cheese 	
34.1 per pound	White	Toronto	
27.0 per poundSheep 	
22.75 per pound	Good	Toronto	
19.58 per pound
As this bill concerns the stabilization of farm prices by the establishment of guaranteed minimum prices set a year in advance, I would see in it the possibility of some security for the farmer if there was some relationship between the cost of the services required by the farmer-namely the price of farm implements and other farm equipment he has to buy as well as his labour costs- and the standards to be used in setting the
stabilization prices of farm products under this bill. That is why I really wonder about the advantages which this legislation would bring to the Canadian farmer. I realize it is by no means easy, at a time when agriculture is undergoing radical changes, to find a perfect solution to the difficult problem facing our agricultural class which, in our part of the country, is passing from the family stage
96698-233J

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization to the industrial stage, a change tor which our farmers are not all adequately prepared.
It would seem that, to face competition, our farmers will soon be forced to become something like managers of medium sized industrial concerns, and deal with such matters as market trends and production costs. Many of them, already, are clearly aware of those hard realities of our times. In my constituency in particular, with its growing number of progressive farmers, I have noticed a trend toward mechanization, development of larger farm areas and even specialization in a particular type of agricultural production, for instance poultry, hogs or eggs. It seems to me that those trends should not be ignored, and I believe it is time the agricultural loans' act were substantially improved for the benefit of farmers who wish to expand their farms and to make greater use of machinery so as to lower their operating costs as much as possible and also to encourage them to put on the market the finished products required by the consumer. All such capital expenditure requires funds beyond the means of the average farmer, however anxious he may be to keep up with the times.
Along with this last suggestion, I would like the industrial development bank to make its facilities more readily available to small industries in our agricultural communities, so as to open up local markets for our farmers. Not only would those small industries absorb a certain amount of agricultural manpower not at present interested in agriculture-therefore unwittingly overcrowding the farming profession-but would create jobs for those people.
It has always been my view that farming and industry should go hand in hand and that industry and farming in Canada will prosper only at such time as the farm worker can count on a yearly income comparable to that of the industrial worker, taking into account the particular obligations, risks and advantages in each group and profession.
As I like to believe in the good intentions of everybody, I am prepared to adopt this attitude towards the minister, whom I admire for piloting this far, with unruffled patience, so ungainly a bill, and I ask him in closing to avail himself wisely of the discretionary powers which are his under subsection 2 of clause 2 of this bill, if it passes, so that this legislation might serve the interests of farm people, as he expects it will. A 100 per cent farm legislation for an agricultural class 100 per cent worthy of the name, that is what I request for the farmers of my constituency.

(Text):


Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is too vitally important to the family farm everywhere in Canada to be allowed to pass in its present form. To the prairie regions, where agriculture is the main foundation of the economy, this will not only mean the end of the family farm as such, but it will mean depression to every community in that area. This is a fight for the rights of the working people, those people who toil with the sod to make a living for their families on their home property.
The rapid decline of the family farm across this nation can only be accurately described as desperate. The figures prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics illustrating the farmer's net income and gross income as compared with the rapidly rising costs of farming prove to any one who is willing to look at the situation that the farmer is lost in a cost-price squeeze. His position is desperate and requires remedial action, not just a palliative. There is something basically wrong with the position of agriculture in our economy, and measures must be adopted that will rectify the basic wrong.
I am not blaming the present government for the condition of agriculture, but it will be [DOT] blamed if it does not move rapidly to remedy the position. An analysis of the population of the prairie region at the present time shows with regard to those who were actually engaged in farming that approximately 12 per cent have left the farms in the past five years and about 10 per cent are still making a living though in many cases they are living on the depreciation of their farm machinery, while the rest are hanging on the ropes and cannot continue in their present condition for very long. These people are looking to this government to do something. They are justified in doing so because this government said it would take action to prevent the further decline of agriculture and improve its position in general.
The decline of agriculture under the previous government has left that industry in a desperate position. I believe the defeat of the previous government in the agricultural regions of Canada was largely due to the fact that that government had lost touch with the every-day problems of the toiling farmer. The previous administration completely failed to recognize the actual condition of the farmer.
I do not think this was ever better illustrated than during the past election in the province of Manitoba. The Winnipeg Free Press of May 20 carried a report of a public

meeting in a rural area in Manitoba which was attended by the former minister of trade and commerce, Right Hon. C. D. Howe. Mr. Howe was the minister of the government responsible for trade and commerce, the man whose policies were responsible for the export of Canada's surplus grain. Trade policy is the responsibility of government, but under the previous administration the farmer was left to bear the burden of the problems created by lack of trade. The article to which I referred as an illustration of the previous government's failure to recognize the position of agriculture reads in part as follows:
A bronzed farmer rushed into the Carman memorial hall as Mr. Howe was leaving and thrust a piece of paper into his hand which purported to show that it cost 76 cents a bushel to grow oats. "Why'd you cut the price from 60 to 55 cents?" demanded the farmer. Mr. Howe asked him where he got the figure. The farmer said that it was from "statistics".
The reply of the then minister of trade and commerce revealed the attitude of the previous government, which was the reason for its failure and collapse, the reason it deserved to be defeated. What did the minister reply? As reported in this article the minister said:
"You look pretty well fed." said the trade minister, patting the farmer on the stomach with the back of his hand.
There could not have been a clearer presentation of what agriculture really requires than the words of this young farmer, who asked a straightforward, simple and logical question of the minister of the former government who was responsible for Canada's trade policies. It was just as simple as this. The young farmer came forward and in effect said, "These are my costs of production according to your own bureau of statistics, and this is the selling price of my product according to the policy under which you sell my goods. I am skinning my costs down to the very bone. I have done my job in producing food for the hungry world. Your policies of trade have affected the markets where I sell my grain. Now, what are you going to do about it?" The reply was, "You look pretty well fed."
The former government's Agricultural Prices Support Act failed to recognize the principle of parity. The act did not contain this principle, and the former government failed to accept this principle. The Conservative government has now brought forward Bill No. 237, and our quarrel with it is that it, too, fails to accept, recognize or embody the principle of parity.
The former government would place no guarantee on the farmer's costs in its legislation. Under the act it did support prices on a few commodities such as hogs, which were supported at 23 cents in Toronto which
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization meant a support of approximately 21 cents in Winnipeg and 19 cents to farmers in Saskatchewan. These supports were at disastrous levels. Egg prices were guaranteed to packing plants, without any protection to the farmer. It is little wonder that agriculture found itself in such desperate straits and suffered a gradual decline, while the food processing and packing industries reaped tremendous dividends. The present bill fails in exactly the same way. Can it be that this government has already lost touch with the actual every-day problems of the farmer?


Mr. Schulz:: It never was in touch with
them.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, it stated in this house that it was. Agriculture today requires legislation which will guarantee the farmer relief from the cost-price squeeze. It is the government and not the producer that is responsible for the costs of production. When the previous government, supported by the Conservative party at that time, removed price controls and allowed costs to skyrocket it condemned agriculture to its present plight. The farmer is caught in a cost-price squeeze from which he cannot extract himself, and he now relies on the present government to help him out. He looks to this government for this assistance because this government promised him that help.
Members of the present government from the Prime Minister down talked about parity in this house when they were in opposition. They supported and moved resolutions in this house while in opposition which would guarantee the farmer parity. Conservative candidates during the campaign went about the country advocating a program designed to assist agriculture. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had the nerve yesterday to quote in this house some of the planks of the Conservative platform having to do with agriculture, as recorded at page 3621 of Hansard of yesterday's date. I will read one or two of these platform planks:
1. The Progressive Conservative party recognizes the vital place of agriculture in our national economy, stands pledged to assure the maximum stability of income to Canadian farmers.
It guarantees nothing. These are hollow promises, empty, meaningless words.
No. 2 reads:
Our party pledges itself, when returned to power, to take action to improve the condition of agriculture so that our farm people will re-establish their rightful position in our economy, so basic to, our whole national welfare.
Splendid; now do it. Then we come to No. 3r
A Progressive Conservative government wilt maintain a flexible price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers, based: on fair price-cost relationship.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
That is where this government has failed, because it is failing to ensure parity. It does not mention the word "parity" in this bill. It does not mention a fair price-cost relationship in the bill. It fails to give the guarantee which it promised. We will accept this bill when those guarantees are written into it. We will not accept this bill until they are written into it, until there are some guarantees written into it such as the Conservative party stated in the program they presented to the Canadian people, such as the people expected when they voted this government into power.
This government was elected on June 10 and hope rose in the hearts of many people. Then a resolution appeared on the order paper shortly after October 14. Speaking to that resolution the Minister of Agriculture himself used these words, as recorded at page 2187 of Hansard of December 11. In dealing with what the farmer wants he said:
First, he wants prices for his products which will cover his cost of production and leave him enough to live on-
Exactly.
-and second, he desires a sense of security in his price structure, the removal of his long-time fear that prices will fall away to nothing while his crop is growing or his livestock developing to market size.
Then why in Heaven's name don't you do it?


Mr. Harlcness:: Read what I said when this bill was up first.


George Hugh Castleden: We have been looking at the bill ever since. This was on the resolution. When the bill came down the minister was so ashamed of it himself that he brought in three amendments which did not do very much.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Which bill are you referring to; the first, second or third?


George Hugh Castleden: I am referring to the bill now before us, Bill No. 237, with the amendments. The minister says the bill will do this. Why did he not put some guarantees in it; why did he not put the security in it that he says is here? That is all the farmer is asking for. All the farmer is asking for is exactly what the minister said, but he will not put them in the bill. They are not in the bill. It is exactly a sense of security that is required. That is just exactly what the farmer wants, a price for his product which will cover his cost of production and leave him with enough to live on; that sense of security.
Then the minister said, as recorded at page 2189 of Hansard:
I think this legislation will do everything we promised we would do so far as our campaign pledges are concerned.
 *
Here is the bill. It was brought in on December 14. I think it should be called a pill rather than a bill. Certainly the minister was so ashamed of it that he made three amendments shortly after, but those amendments do absolutely nothing basic with regard to the guarantees which are necessary, and it is the guarantees that we are talking about. It is all right to talk about stabilization boards which may do this and that, and about advisory committees which may do this and that under certain regulations by order in council; but there is nothing in the bill which says this is where prices must stay; below this range prices will not be allowed to fall and those prices will be, as the minister states in his own words, such as "will cover his cost of production and leave him enough to live on". When the minister puts this in his bill we will be glad to accept it.
We have asked him to send this bill to the agriculture committee of the house. Let the agriculture committee deal with it. Since December 12 this bill could have gone to that committee. It could have been passed earlier in the session, the committee could have been dealing with it and the minister could have received some of those recommendations from farmers and farm organizations across the country. But he came down with a bill which is a mere will o' the wisp, and nothing substantial has been done.
The bill has aroused opposition from every quarter of organized agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the provincial farm unions, the western wheat pools and others. This is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had to say about it after they received a copy of the bill in the amended form:
The formula in the new bill provides for a moving average of recent prices, with no necessary relation to costs.
That is what we need; that is what we are asking for. I continue:
The government says the use of a parity formula would lead to rigid price supports. The C.F.A. does not accept this: it grants that flexibility must be allowed in actually setting supports but claims that without a parity formula as a guide the economic position of the farmer becomes a constant matter of controversy.
We are going to have recommendations by stabilization boards, recommendations to cabinet, with no instructions to carry them out. There is no assurance that they will be carried out, and we are constantly going to have confusion. There will be requests for something to be done, but the farmer will be left in uncertainty and he cannot help but be left in confusion. Why not place something in the bill which relates the price of his commodity to his costs of production? If that was placed

in the bill we might have something. The federation's statement goes on to say:
This makes much more difficult constructive negotiation of price supports and useful discussion of measures needed to meet the farmers' problem.
The formula which is mentioned in this amended bill is based on the average wholesale market price for the past 10 years, and bears absolutely no relationship to the farmer's parity position.
It should be pointed out to everyone that if you follow the basic prices established by this formula they automatically continue to decline. Just so long as there is a trend toward lower farm prices, prices of farm commodities are going to decline. As long as there is a trend toward lower prices those lower guaranteed prices will persist, even though farm costs may continue to increase to higher and still higher levels, because in the bill as it stands at the present time there is no proper meshing of these two things together so the farmer himself can arrive at a stable price which would allow him to plan his production in advance and put himself in a position where he can possibly meet the serious situation which he is now facing.
This bill lacks definite assurances and guarantees which the government said in its program the farmers would have; definite assurances and guarantees which the farm organizations have asked for; definite assurances that the farm organizations have asked for in their representations to the government on this bill. Under this bill the economic position of the farmer could even deteriorate; it all depends on the whim of the government and their own regulations. The bill lacks guarantees; it lacks assurances.
It is because the bill provides no stability that we are protesting it so vigorously at this time. Those who sent us here sent us to ask for a square deal for agriculture, to ask that the family farm might be saved as the cornerstone of our economy. Under this legislation there is no assurance whatsoever that the family farm will not disappear, to be replaced by the large factory farm or the contract farm, as has happened in many countries and is happening in some parts even here in Canada.
The large packing house operators, the rich processing industries, will hire the farmer and his family to produce commodities for them at contract rates. The farmers will take all the risks and the processors will reap the profits because of a system of support prices guaranteeing floor prices in the storage plant, with rider clauses to guarantee the processor floor prices in storage and the costs of storage.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
What this bill will have to do before we will support it is provide guarantees as to the prices the farmer receives, the prices in the hands of the producer, in the hands of the man who does the work and takes the risks. We believe this is a last ditch fight for hundreds of thousands of family farms across Canada. It is a fight to obtain some anchor of security for one of the most important industries in our economy. Instead of an anchor of security the minister has given us a balloon which he launched into the air to see how the wind was blowing.
This bill has no guarantees and it leaves the farmer without any assurance, even though he is engaged in the hazardous occupation of growing food for a hungry world. In that fine occupation, because of circumstances completely beyond his control, he has reached the verge of bankruptcy. Just as surely as the wage earner needs a minimum wage in these days of high costs of living, so the farmer must have support prices based on his production costs. The disposal of surplus products is surely the duty of the government. With the situation existing in the world today the farmer should not be compelled to carry an extra load on his already breaking back. The family farm must not be allowed to be sacrificed by a government which promised to save it. The only policy which can save it is a policy having as its foundation the principle of parity.
The bill ignores the principle of parity completely, and for that reason it must be condemned completely. We intend to continue to condemn it and to do our utmost to change it in order to make it into a piece of legislation that will at last place some foundation under this important industry. Yesterday the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had the unmitigated gall to imply that the bill brought security and peace of mind to the long-harassed farmers of Canada, and those of western Canada particularly. What a farce. What complete misrepresentation of a bill which has within it no guarantees of security. How can a producer possibly have peace of mind if he has to operate under legislation which has no guarantees in it at all?
We shall continue to fight the battle with every means at our disposal until we are able to establish a sound foundation for security in the bill. There must be recognition of the right of the farmer to his costs of production and enough money on which to live. That is all he is asking. The bill as it stands today can be termed nothing but a callous betrayal of people who on June 10 last were given some glimmer of hope that if the Conservatives were elected to office they would

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization place a proper foundation under agriculture. The bill is a complete denial of the promise and betrayal of that hope. The people of Canada should and will reject the bill in its present form, and they will reject everyone who supports it.


Mr. Thompson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is the first time I have spoken in the house I beg your indulgence for the remarks I am about to make. At this late stage in the session it may be redundant to congratulate you upon your election to office. However, I should like to say that having observed your conduct in the house since the beginning of the session and the good humoured way in which you have handled some of the more sensitive situations which have arisen, I feel that the confidence placed in you by hon. members has long since been justified.
To all hon. members, and more particularly to those who are veteran members, I wish to express my appreciation for the cordial and friendly attitude which has been displayed by them to a new member.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in paying tribute to my leader the Prime Minister, who I am satisfied will eventually be acclaimed and acknowledged as the greatest prime minister this country has ever had.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to give the house some idea of the importance of agriculture in my riding, I should like to point out that farming has been carried on in Northumberland since the latter part of the fourteenth century. The early pioneers were composed of people from the British Isles and the United States, retired members of military units of that day. These people cleared and worked the land, and in many cases their descendants still occupy the original farms created many years ago. As a result of their efforts places like Cobourg, Campbellford, Brighton, Colborne and Hastings sprang up, as well as many other smaller communities.
At one time wheat was the main product of my riding. Every year hundreds of wagonloads of grain were loaded into sailing 
vessels at the numerous ports that dotted the lake front along lake Ontario. Even at that time wheat was commanding a price as high as $1.00 a bushel. The farmers of Northumberland had an outstanding reputation for the wheat they grew. In 1832 the first thresher used in Upper Canada was brought into Northumberland. In 1843 the first Hussey reaper in Upper Canada was used near Cobourg, and in 1847 the first McCormick reaper in Upper Canada was also used near Cobourg.
There are agricultural organizations in my riding which have been in existence for over 100 years. In 1952 the Brighton agricultural society celebrated the one hundredth anniversary of the Brighton fall fair. The Seymour and Percy agricultural societies have likewise marked the one hundredth anniversaries of the Campbellford and Wark-worth fall fairs. The Roseneath fall fair is one of the finest of its kind in eastern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I think the foregoing should serve to illustrate the background of my riding as an agricultural community, and it is still essentially an agricultural community. Northumberland is an area of mixed farming, made up of small or family type farms. Vegetables are grown as a cash crop and processed by the local canning factories. There are milk producers, beef producers, hog producers, poultry and egg producers. There are commercial dairies and cheese factories. In spite of any claim that might be made by any other hon. member on behalf of his riding, the finest McIntosh and Northern Spy apples in the world are grown by the apple growers of Northumberland. Honey producers and potato growers are also found within the limits of my riding, and in recent years a considerable number of tobacco growers have become established.
Although agriculture is not the only industry of importance in Northumberland, I consider it to be the most important industry, and have therefore chosen to speak for the first time in the house on this agricultural stabilization bill. In doing so I am not holding myself out as an expert on the subject, but only as a member endeavouring to represent his constituents. I want to address my remarks particularly to hon. members who do not represent rural ridings and who consequently may not be aware of the necessity for legislation of this kind. Almost every member who has participated in this debate has pointed out the depressed state into which agriculture has fallen over the last few years. The situation in my riding is no exception. The prices received for agricultural products

have not increased in proportion to the cost of equipment which farmers require to carry on their activities.
It is not necessary to quote figures. They have been quoted by other speakers, and they are also a matter of record. As a result of those conditions farmers in many cases are producing at a loss. There is absolutely no incentive for the younger people to stay on the farms, and they are leaving in large numbers. Many farmers in my riding actually find it necessary to work off the farm in order to supplement their income. This story has been repeated again and again in this house and elsewhere, but it bears repetition because it reflects a serious situation.
In my opinion the question we have to decide is whether or not it is to our benefit to maintain agriculture as a national industry. If we do not consider agriculture worth while to maintain, eventually we will be placed in the position of having to rely on someone else to feed us, and in the event of a third world war we would have to accept whatever hand-outs we could get from other countries. This whole question affects our survival as a nation. If on the other hand we do consider that agriculture should be maintained, then we must be prepared to support and stabilize it, and this bill is designed to do just that.
There are other good reasons, Mr. Speaker, for supporting agriculture as an industry. During world war II, when through force of circumstances farmers were placed in a good bargaining position, ceiling prices were put on farm products. This measure was accepted by farmers as necessary and for the general welfare of the nation. Having asked the farmers to assume that regulation, we should now be prepared to give them the corresponding privilege of supporting and stabilizing farm prices with funds from the public treasury.
Another point which should be mentioned is the effect of the status of agriculture on the economy as a whole. A great deal of concern has been expressed about unemployment since this* session began, and various suggestions have been made as to how the problem could be best overcome. The farmer constitutes a large proportion of the purchasing power of this country, and if farmers were put in the position where they could operate at a profit it would be a boost to the entire economy, not only as a result of the extra money that would be in circulation but as a result of the many jobs that would be opened when farmers no longer found it necessary to work off the farm to make a living.
I should like now to deal briefly with the bill itself. I consider that the speaker who
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization immediately preceded me made one of the more rational and less impassioned speeches to be made by any member of his group, although it still did not convince me that this bill is not going to do the job for agriculture that we want done.
This bill represents the first attempt by any government to introduce long-term legislation of a comprehensive nature to put agriculture in Canada on a sound basis. Its objective is to give some stability to farm prices and to raise farm incomes to the level where farming can be carried on at a profit instead of at a loss. In this respect I am pleased to support it, because I think it represents a definite step in the right direction. As the minister pointed out, it is not a panacea or cure-all for agriculture, but it is a sincere attempt to put a floor under agriculture and to raise it to a proper level.
The bill introduces entirely new concepts as far as Canadian agricultural price support legislation is concerned. The features of guaranteed forward pricing and a statutory permanent floor price are progressive and forward-looking measures. To my mind, so many members of the opposition have been so keen to criticize the bill that they have missed entirely the significance of these new features which are so far-reaching in their implications.
I feel that the farmers of my riding consider that this bill is a step in the right direction and would wish me to support it. As far as the amendment to refer the bill to the agriculture committee is concerned, I think such a move would only serve to delay its passage indefinitely and would thereby deprive the farmers of its benefits. I therefore cannot support such an amendment.
In speaking on this bill at the present stage the right hon. member for Melville, the former minister of agriculture, made an attempt which was far short of convincing to compare this bill with the present Agricultural Prices Support Act. Mr. Speaker, one might just as well attempt to compare an old flivver with a new car. There may be some slight similarity, but the new model has many modern and up to date features which the old one has not. The present act was originally enacted to assist the farmers in the transition from war to peace whenever that should be. It was at best only designed as a temporary measure, and making it permanent did not change its nature. It contains no guarantees whatsoever. Supports can be put in and taken off at random, and the farmer never knows where he is.
The record of performance of the present act is contained between the covers of the
3684	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization blue book entitled "The Agricultural Prices Support Board-Annual Report to the Minister of Agriculture for the Year 195657". It has supported ten products since 1946 at a cost to the national treasury of $24 million in regular price supports. Apart from the record outlined in the report, if the act had been of any value agriculture would not now be in its present state.
I should now like to deal briefly with some of the statements made by the right hon. member for Melville in discussing the act and the bill. He says the act is more flexible. In that contention he may be correct but, by the same token, the act has no stability. The bill has both, and both are important. If I were a farmer I would be most anxious to know that the price of a product I was about to produce would not drop out of sight during the long period of production. If I knew there was a minimum fixed amount beyond which the price could not drop during that period, I could commence production with a much greater sense of security and confidence. If this minimum amount was set at a realistic figure and taking into consideration my probable cost of production, I would feel that much more secure.
That is stability, and that is the purpose of this bill. That is why one of the most important features of this bill is that of advance price supports. The formula in the bill also ensures that there will be some relationship between price supports set for various products, so that a balanced production may be maintained.
The right hon. member also mentioned deficiency payments. I would point out that this bill also contains provision for deficiency payments where necessary. He further mentioned that the act has a three-year basis which is fundamental to that legislation. The three years are 1943, 1944 and 1945, and he says, "We took that basis because farmers were fairly well satisfied at the time". The act was passed in 1944, at which time he could not possibly have known that the farmers were satisfied in 1945. Hence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he was assuming that farmers would be fairly well satisfied in 1945.
Another matter mentioned by the right hon. member for Melville was the committee appointed under the act. The right hon. member said he never at any time asked the present committee to advise on specific things. My reaction is that a committee without a specific job will accomplish nothing; and as far as coming to the minister is concerned, any farm organization should be at leisure to come to the minister on any mutually
[Mr. Thompson (Northumberland) .1

satisfactory date to discuss anything it wishes. Such being the case, what necessity is there for a committee at all unless it has a specific job to do? The advisory committee contemplated by the bill has a specific job to do, and it will therefore be done.
I am not going to pursue any further the attempt made by the right hon. member to compare the act and the bill. Suffice it to say that I consider that his arguments with regard to flexibility, the basis of setting support prices, stabilization, the advisory committee, the functioning of the present act and also his justification for supporting the bill do not stand up under the slightest examination.
I should like to commend the present Minister of Agriculture for the amount of effort he has put into preparing this bill. I think the amendments he proposes to make, after having received the representations and suggestions of various farm organizations, as well as the suggestions of the members of this house, indicate a sincere desire on his part to introduce legislation of real benefit to the farmers of this country. It has been pointed out previously that price supports alone will not provide the whole answer to the agricultural problem. There are many aspects to the problem. The fruit and vegetable growers say it will be of little or no benefit to them, although they are not criticizing it when they say that. What they require is more protection from imports so they can have the benefit of our own markets.
I was surprised at the remarks made by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was discussing the matter of trade earlier this session. He suggested that if we wanted to get along with our big neighbour to the south, tradewise, we would have to play ball. His idea of playing ball apparently is to allow a United States tariff twice as high as our Canadian tariff on the same agricultural product. It is a fact that this condition now exists and has existed; and surely if there is to be any variation in tariff between the two countries on the same product it should be the other way around. He also criticized the Prime Minister for protesting out loud against the trade policies of the United States. I wonder how he justifies this criticism having regard to his own agricultural policy unveiled last week.
During the course of the debate yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West, whom I consider to be a very fine gentleman, referred to a meeting which had taken place in my riding during the Christmas recess. I am satisfied to let the hon. member derive whatever little comfort he can derive from having read the report of that

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
meeting. I would, however, like to say that the report he read was not at all accurate. The meeting was not nearly as large as he made it out to be. It was only a meeting attended by a few members of the executive of the local farm union. I might also say that since the meeting I have heard from several people who attended, saying they did not agree with what went on at the meeting.
I feel that I know the people in my riding and they are reasonable people, people of sober reflection. Having had the opportunity to look at this bill and consider it at length, I am satisfied that they are ready to go along with it and support it. That is much more than can be said of the members of the C.C.F. group.
I do not know whether I should take exception to a remark made by the hon. member when he referred to the quickness with which the people of my riding move. From my own observations since I have been in this house I think the people in my riding move just as quickly as people anywhere else. During this session I have gathered that the members of that group subscribe to the proposition that the more voluble you are and the more quickly you speak, the more intelligent you therefore are. In other words volubility and quickness of speech is to them a mark of intelligence, and conversely slowness of speech is a mark of ignorance. This may serve to justify all the talking they have been doing since the beginning of the session, but I do not think it necessarily proves that the proposition is correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: In a
lighter vein, Mr. Speaker, there has been a bit of talk about the fulfilment of election promises, and I am satisfied that this government is indeed fulfilling those election promises. In this regard I would like to read a letter which I received just before Christmas. It comes from the North pole and is dated December 10, 6.00 a.m.


Jacob Schulz: That is where you are going when this speech is finished.


Benjamin Cope (Ben) Thompson: It reads as follows:
I am sending this letter to tell you
That the Conservative government has taken away
The things that X really needed-
My workshop, my reindeer and my sleigh.
But I am making my rounds on a donkey,
He is old, he is crippled, he is slow,
So you all know if I miss you at Christmas
That I am out on my ass in the snow.
Your old friend,
Santa Claus
I hope no one will think I treat this situation as a joke. I do not. I think it is a very serious situation to which an awful lot of thought* must be given.
In concluding my remarks I would say that I am pleased to hear that the minister intends to keep an eye on the operation of the legislation to make sure that at all times the benefit of the support prices is passed on to the producers, and also that the farm organizations are to be consulted as to whom they may wish to represent them on the advisory committee. This is most important, because we wish to ensure that the farmers themselves have a definite voice in the setting of the prices.
All of us who represent rural constituencies will be following with interest the operation of this bill. At the present time there are 30 statutes being administered by the Department of Agriculture, and I predict that this bill will do as much for agriculture as all the other 30 have done. For these reasons I am giving my support to this bill.


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: There are one or two things I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, which are within the purview of this bill now before the house. I do so with the knowledge that the farming population of my county and of the province in which I live is directly concerned with any measure respecting the welfare of the agricultural industry.
This bill is intended to stabilize the prices of agricultural products. The farmers in my own area are particularly engaged in the dairy and livestock branches of the industry, and as such have already had an opportunity of appreciating the benefits of price supports on pork and butter as provided by the prices support act. They realize it is mainly through this legislation that they have been able to remain in the industry, and I therefore listened with concern to the Minister of Agriculture use the example of the price of butter to illustrate how this proposed measure would function. His statement that under this new act the minimum price set on butter would now be 48 cents per pound did not carry too cheerful a note to the ears of those interested in this matter.
I am prepared to admit that it is not the intention of the government to allow the price of' this commodity to fall to that level, at least so far as they are directly concerned. However, as was so clearly stated by the former minister of agriculture, the right hon. member for Melville, once a price is set by law trade tends to gravitate toward that price, and it would be very unfortunate indeed if the price on butter were to be thus affected.
3686	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
There is one other aspect of the situation to which I should like to draw the attention of this house. I refer to pulpwood as a farm product. This has been mentioned [DOT] already during the course of the present debate, and I am inclined to agree with those who make the claim that pulpwood should fall within the scope of the proposed bill. This might appear as a novelty, having regard to the economy of western agriculture, but it is none the less a matter of vital importance particularly in the economy of the maritime agricultural industry.
I know that farmers in my riding-and this situation applies to most sections of New Brunswick-depend upon revenue derived from farm wood lots as an essential part of their annual revenue. I am also well aware that many farmers are hard pressed today on account of the stalemate in the pulpwood industry. Therefore the situation in this respect could very well be compared with the situation of the western farmer unable to sell his wheat. I would therefore welcome any action on the part of the government which would have the effect of assisting farm pulpwood producers under this bill.
I believe we cannot overemphasize the necessity of taking a very close look at the present state of the agricultural economy, more particularly with respect to the economy of the so-called subsistence farmer.
This is now indicating the effects of a deep, broad evolution. Many small farms have had to be abandoned, while their owners were forced to seek employment in the labour field for the subsistence of their family. It appears to me to be an appalling situation to have former farm owners now on the labour market looking for work and depending upon unemployment insurance for their subsistence, while their farm lots are idle and unproductive.
This is more than just such a bad situation. It is a challenge to the administrative powers of the country. It is only fair to say that an economy which permits people who are unable to find work in the labour field to face the dread of hunger while these same people are the owners of good, fertile farm lots, irrespective of their size, is a situation not a credit to our economic system. A solution should be found under which a farm owner at least would not be haunted with the fear of want, let alone be denied the opportunity of making any financial profits.
The bill now before this house remains to be proven, and I want to warn the present government that in view of its electoral promises it will be held highly responsible by the farm people of this country if the results achieved by this bill do not provide


a satisfactory solution to the present agricultural situation. If this government feels in its own mind that it can give the assurance that this bill will provide this solution, then I am prepared to support it, in lieu of a more concrete definite and precise measure, which I would have liked to see.


Mr. J. A. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of previous speakers from all sides of the house with reference to this bill and to the opinions expressed on it by various farm organizations and by our farmers at home in Prince Edward Island. The constituency of Kings, which I have the honour to represent, is comprised mainly of farmers and fishermen, much the same as the other two counties in my native province.
I make no pretense of being a farmer, even though I grow a few acres of potatoes each year, but ever since the war, when I began doing business with the farmers as a general merchant and a shipper of produce, I have been acutely conscious of their difficulties. Their problems have been my problems. And as they have discussed them with me daily, I can assure hon. members from close personal knowledge and observation that many of our farmers have been forced to undergo severe hardships in the past few years.
The position of the farmer has become more and more untenable, so that farms are being abandoned at an alarming rate. In 1911 the number of farms in operation in our province was 14,163. Over the next 30 years the number dropped to 12,230. In the next 10 years the number dropped to 10,137, and we all know the number has taken a further serious drop since 1951. In our province there has been very little amalgamation of farms into larger units, and not much corporate farming. The crux of our problem is that farm prices have just not kept up with the costs of production, and farmers have been forced out of the industry for financial reasons and young men have been unable to take up farming.
Our province has no land settlement policy, and the assistance provided by the Farm Loan Board leaves much to be desired under the present regulations. I do not intend to go into the farming problems of our area in detail, as that would take too long a time, other than to affirm that conditions are not good in the farming industry in the province of Prince Edward Island. Many of the farmers are not cultivating their farms, only living on them. Young men are shying away from going into farming, and the industry generally has become much weaker. More than anything else the farmer in our province wants stability in his industry. Along with

the other primary producer, the fisherman, he sutlers from instability of crop return and price income as no other worth-while industry does in this country.
Our party has promised that in order to overcome this problem there should be a flexible price support program. Although the farmer has suffered unjustly for the past number of years he is a responsible individual in every way, and probably gives more thought to national problems than any other class of citizen. He is not asking for support prices that will produce large surpluses, which will have to be given away, or worse still, destroyed, to relieve a glut on the market.
We all know what happened in the United States, and we should not be irresponsible enough to follow a program such as theirs. According to a recent United States Department of Agriculture Press Release for the fiscal year 1957 the cost of price support was $3.3 billion. There are a total of 4.8 million farms in the United States. Most price supports go to 1.3 million of them on large scale farms, the owners of which receive an average of $2,000 per farm. The other 3.7 million of the small farms received an average of slightly more than $100 per farm. In plain words the plan of our neighbours to the south tended to make the rich richer, and was of very little help to the small farmer.
We are all aware, too, of the great difficulty and embarrassment that surpluses produced under this plan have caused in world markets. We in Canada have directly felt the effects of United States give-away programs resulting from their agricultural policy. They are now faced with the prospect of further reducing their percentage of parity. Let us benefit from their errors and ensure that we do not get into the same unhappy position as the government of that country. This bill provides the flexibility that is needed in such legislation-which is reasonable and fair to all.
It is necessary at this point, Mr. Speaker, that there be a clear understanding of the problem of prices from the viewpoint of the consumer as well as from that of the producer. Some consumers have no objection to increased prices for various household commodities, automobiles, etc., yet object to any increases in food prices. There is a certain element of unfairness in this attitude, in that the prices of the former commodities have risen greatly whereas the prices of many agricultural products have risen little or not at all. It is not necessary to point out again that there has been a sharp increase in the cost of everything the farmer must buy such as machinery, automobiles and household effects. I feel strongly that a definite campaign
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization should be instituted to educate the consumer to understand the position of the producer and to appreciate that the primary producer should be entitled to a fair return for his labour and his investment, which is a big item today; and that he should be entitled to a fair share of the national income.
One feature of this bill which I feel deserves special commendation is the consideration of pulpwood on the farm as a product within the scope of the proposed legislation. This is a branch of farming which has produced considerable income for our farmers, and is particularly valuable in supplementing income during the winter months. Any assistance, even to a limited extent, would be greatly appreciated by our farmers.
One coming from Prince Edward Island could not speak of agriculture without mentioning the important place of potato growing in that industry. Without fear of contradiction, Mr. Speaker, I can say it is well known that we grow the best potatoes in the world.


Mr. Mclvor:: Except Ireland.


John Augustine Macdonald: I must admit that some of our varieties came from there originally. It is our cash crop, and a very speculative one. It is one which we realize the farmer can get into and out of very quickly; hence we did not expect it would be a designated commodity, but we are pleased to know that it can, with all other agricultural commodities, be given consideration when required. I hope that if and when such occasions arise the board and the government will deal generously with this important aspect of agriculture.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that I have talked to a number of farmers in our area and explained this bill. Almost without exception they thought it was a good bill; they thought it should be given a chance; they honestly felt, as we do, that it will finally bring to the agricultural industry a real measure of stability.
I was impressed by the intimation of the former minister of agriculture that he would be supporting this measure. Many of us did not expect him to give unreserved support, but we respect his judgment in these matters. We have spent long hours here with various representatives of farm organizations. Changes have been made in the bill so that it is now generally satisfactory to the farming industry. They feel that it should be given a chance, and I know they would like to see the legislation put on the statute books as soon as possible.
I intend to support this bill and I hope it will be passed quickly, and with a large
3688	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization majority, so that our farmers will be able to settle down and plan their programs accordingly for the coming season.


Mr. Louis Denisei (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, although we have already heard quite a number of members on this subject, still in a sense it is with a bit of reluctance that one gets up to speak on this bill. There is no doubt that the minister and the government mean well; there is no doubt that they want to help the farmers just as much as any other members in this house; but, of course, they want to do it in their own way.
To get up at this time and state that one is not in favour of this bill as it stands now; or if one gets up and criticizes this bill, even if it is constructive criticism, even if the criticism is made with the full intention of trying to make a sincere contribution to agriculture, might be misinterpreted in some quarters as a gesture of opposition to the cause of agriculture and the betterment of the farmer's position across the country.
Indeed, already I can almost see persons getting up either in this house or in other places and saying the Liberals are opposed to the welfare of the farmers and are not interested in solving the problems that exist. These persons will point to the fact that some Liberals rose in their places in the house and spoke against this bill, and they will say, "You see, I told you; this bill was meant to help agriculture. This man got up and spoke against this bill, so he is against agriculture." I can already hear this oversimplified argument, which is entirely false and misleading; yet it will be laid on like a gramaphone record in all the constituencies across the country.
This sort of disruptive argument by innuendo has already been practised in this house, when an hon. member said, "It should be remembered that there is no farm member from Manitoba representing the Liberal party." I had to rise on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, and state quite clearly that the constituency of St. Boniface is a semi-rural and semi-urban constituency, and that the electors of St. Boniface know very well that I am keenly interested in agriculture. If I had left the remark of my hon. friend unanswered the impression would have been created that he was right and that there were no Liberals in Manitoba interested in agriculture. He thought I was not in this house, or he does not know St. Boniface. The moral of the story is, of course, that when you do not know you do not say.
This point having been straightened out, there remains unfortunately the whispering campaign and the intensive propaganda circulated in the last election campaign which


went around creating the impression that the Liberals were not interested in the problems of the farmers. The big mistake made by the Liberals at that time was to let the propaganda float around with insufficient information and correction. The Liberal party has always been interested in agriculture and it still is. One has only to read the proceedings of the last Liberal convention to realize that. One has only to recall the resolutions brought in by the delegation from Manitoba to know that we lead the way in the field of agriculture.
I have observed with great interest the approach of the minister to the problems of agriculture and how he finally emerged with the present concoction which, to my way of thinking, does not give us anything better than the act it proposes to repeal and be substituted for. I am speaking, of course, of the present Agricultural Prices Support Act, which has been in force for some time.
I know, and I stated in the house during the debate on the throne speech, that the problem of agriculture is not new to Canada. It has been with us for many years, and it is so great that it will remain with us for a good number of years. It cannot be solved in one day. As a matter of fact there are very few solutions that can be of a permanent nature because of the economics of the problem.
Therefore I am surprised that the minister seems to take the attitude that he will almost solve the problems in one bill. Oh, I know that lately he backtracked and said that this was no panacea; that one bill would not solve all the problems, but action speaks louder than words. What is the minister doing?
The minister was asked on December 14 by the hon. member for Assiniboia whether he would not give the house the assurance that the bill would be referred to the agriculture committee so it could be studied in all its details. The minister replied that he could not give the assurance, and I quote from page 2393 of Hansard:
If what the hon. member proposes was done this bill would not be through for months.
The minister then added:
In other words, if the bill were sent to the agricultural committee and we had there a full discussion of various types of what support policies might be put into effect and their advantages and disadvantages and so forth, it would certainly take weeks, and I am sure it would take months. The total effect would be that the bill itself would not be through and it would not be possible to put it into effect and the farmers of this country would not get the benefits of it.
The minister felt on December 14-perhaps he does not feel that way any more-that he had discovered the panacea to solve the problems of the farmers. Having in mind his feelings toward this bill I am sure some partisans

will take advantage of the simple fact that I have risen and told the minister that I am not in agreement with him. As a matter of fact it would appear that in some quarters some people think the opposition is strictly a voting machine, even if it appears that what an hon. member is saying is constructive criticism, and that is exactly my approach to this bill, criticism of a constructive nature.
I have had occasion to compare the present bill with the present legislation, and I cannot say at this stage that it gives us very much. Of course some amendments have now been made, but it was with great difficulty that we finally obtained copies of the amendments.
You will all recall what happened in December. The minister indicated that there were amendments to be made, and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested that the bill be withdrawn, reprinted and presented to the house again. 1 suggested at that time that we should at least have copies of the amendments in order that they could be properly studied.
There was quite an argument. At first the minister was lukewarm to that suggestion. Then he suggested that perhaps the amendments were not that substantial. He was supported by two of his colleagues in the cabinet, who intimated that the amendments were not substantial. This leads me to make two points. First, if they were not substan-r tial amendments then why is it that one of them is actually the preamble to the bill? Everybody knows that the preamble to a bill outlines the principles of the bill. Therefore in effect the minister was admitting at that time, as did two of his colleagues, that the principles of the bill were not substantial. Try to defeat the logic of that argument.
Something else happened on that occasion which really surprised me. The Acting Prime Minister covered up the procedure adopted by the Minister of Agriculture by saying that he was merely following the practice of previous governments. I should like to know if an intelligent man can be asked to make an intelligent study and an intelligent decision regarding matters and facts of which he has no knowledge or only limited knowledge. It is a fair presumption that all members of the house are intelligent, whether they are backbenchers or not, and obviously a member of the house should have the text of any legislation upon which he is being asked to vote.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If any practice is basically wrong I cannot see why it should be adhered to whether it has been in operation for one year or 100 years; and
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization to hide behind such a weak argument is indeed the most extravagant display and confession of one's own weakness. I might add, Mr. Speaker, and in this I imagine I am voicing the feelings of most members of the house, that I have not been elected by the electors of St. Boniface to become a rubber stamp for the decisions that might arise out of the deliberations of a selected very few.
As others have said in the house, the bill represents some progress in price support legislation. Price guarantees are to be in effect at all times on key commodities. Price supports will be reviewed annually and established on key commodities twelve months in advance. We find also that there is provision for a larger revolving fund. A minimum guaranteed floor is also a desirable feature. There is certainly in the bill a stab in the right direction, and I am sure it is the intention of the minister that his purposes should always be aimed in the right direction.
I venture to say there is still a lot that could be done to make this a better bill. This would obviously take time, but there is no rush about the bill. We could go on for a few months with what we already have on the statute books. What I say is, could we not try to make it better? This bill, while it recognizes certain principles which might very well be in the interests of the farmers, will not in the next few months give more to the farmers in actual cash than what the farmers can get under the present legislation. Of course after the bill is in effect the board directed by the minister or the governor in council possibly could try to play Santa Claus at some time immediately prior to the next general election and try to get the full credit for it. But if anybody is to play Santa Claus with the taxpayers' money it is for this house to do so, not for the board, the minister or the government.
I would have thought that after the question of the hon. member for Assiniboia on December 14 the minister would have given a better reply to his further question of December 17, when he asked if the minister was prepared to reverse his decision and have the bill referred to the committee on agriculture. I would venture to say that when the minister took office he did not know very much more about agriculture than most lawyers know, but he has approached the problem in commendable ways which appear sound and logical. He is earnest and means well.
Perhaps, however, the minister should accept a little more advice. It appears that somehow at a certain stage he felt that he had solved the problem, and then produced this bill. Now it has become apparent that
3690	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization although he had gone correctly part of the way, there was and there still is quite a bit to do. Many are begging him to have the bill referred to the agriculture committee, but he says there is no time. I guess there is no time now, but there was time on December 14.
I would ask him what is the rush. Of course the problems of agriculture are urgent. There is need to help the farmers, and this as soon as possible; but it is not by simply producing a bill and calling it the agricultural stabilization act or an act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities that the problems of the farmers will necessarily be solved. The essence of the bill is what is important, not the intention of the minister. The intention of the minister is no criterion of what is right or wrong. Many people have had good intentions, yet the ways in which they tried to implement them turned out to be insufficient, and the desired results were not achieved.
We have passed a number of bills which were of an emergency nature. The legislation respecting cash advances on grain is a perfect example. That was stop-gap legislation. It was strictly an emergency measure, and this opinion has been confirmed by hundreds of farmers to whom I have spoken and with whom I have corresponded since that legislation was passed. But there is not the same urgency, the same immediate need, having regard particularly to the fact that the present bill does not cure the need that it pretends to want to cure. We have had quite an amount of legislation at this session which is strictly a hand-out prior to the next general election, but surely the government does not expect that this bill will help the farming population sufficiently; and I would suggest that upon reflection further study is necessary.
I understand that if the bill were referred to the committee on agriculture we would then have the advantage of hearing evidence from farm organizations. We would have the privilege of hearing the experts. I feel quite sure, in spite of the fact there are in the house a great number of members, including the minister, who are more and more conversant with the problem of agriculture, that we would gain immensely in dealing with agricultural problems generally by having the benefit of hearing more from the farmers of all parts of Canada. The minister, while relenting the other day, admitted that his bill was no cure-all. I agree entirely. But what about a better prescription, well analysed and better prepared, before forcing it upon the patient?
There is opposition to the bill. Many meetings have been held by farm organizations


in western Canada, particularly in Manitoba and more particularly in my own constituency during the Christmas recess. I was confronted at that time with great opposition from the farmers regarding this bill and I feel it is my duty to say so in the house. Furthermore, I have here a letter which I have received. I propose to give the full text, its origin and everything. It was written to me by a man who is a district director of the Manitoba farmers' union, Mr. Neil Simon-sen. He writes to me from Sanford, Manitoba, under date of December 15, 1957.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member reads the letter, is it a letter which comments on the proceedings on this bill in the house?


Louis Deniset: It comments on the bill itself, and it registers opposition to the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might proceed with it, but I am doubtful that it is in order to read from newspaper articles or letters commenting on the proceedings of the house at this session. Perhaps the hon. member could proceed, and we will see.


Louis Deniset: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should just state, as I have already done, that I have received this letter from a district director of the Manitoba farmers' union, which is a recognized farmers' organization, in which he registers definite opposition to this bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make just a few more observations. I am not prepared to go as far as some members of the C.C.F. party want to go. I actually believe, quite'sincerely, that they exaggerate. I feel quite certain that if they ever felt there was a possibility, as we on this side of the house do, that some day they would form a government, they would never be as extravagant as they are. We know quite well that soon or later we will be on the other side of the house and we feel, therefore, we should adopt a responsible attitude towards farm problems.
Then, I should like to say a word with regard to the amendment which, if I recall correctly, is to the effect that this matter be referred to the agriculture committee. I was in favour of this amendment in December. However, there have been statements made that perhaps in 10 days, or a short time thereafter, the session will be completed and this makes it impossible to have the bill referred to the agriculture committee. I am in favour of the principle of the amendment however, and so far as this particular amendment is concerned I simply must register the fact that I shall have to abstain from voting. I cannot vote against a principle in which I

believe, and on the other hand I cannot vote in favour of something I believe to be impractical.
In so far as the bill itself is concerned, after everything I have said today which stems from the studies I have made, and also as a result of the instructions and representations I have received from not only my own constituency but from all over the province of Manitoba, I must state that I cannot vote in favour of this bill.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, as a representative from a large rural constituency, I am glad to take part in the debate on second reading of this agricultural stabilization bill. I do so in the hope I shall be able to convince more hon. members of the necessity of supporting the amendment which we in the C.C.F. party have moved. Our amendment relates to the referral of the subject matter of this bill to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. I am afraid that some of the newer members in the house are not completely acquainted with the operations of this standing committee. It is understood, of course, that this committee would receive recommendations from farm organizations and interested organizations all across Canada as to what should be the subject matter of this bill.
I think we can very well see that if farm organizations are consulted, and if they are asked to prepare draft legislation that may relieve the problems confronting farmers all across Canada, we would have a bill which would meet the needs of agriculture today. One of the complaints which has been voiced by farm organizations against this bill is the fact that in drafting it initially none of the farm organizations in Canada were consulted. It is true, of course, that the farm organizations were later consulted with a view to improving the legislation. Indeed that, in my opinion, has been the purpose of this debate, and it is the purpose of my participation in it. I am hoping that by presenting the views of my constituents, and the views which I myself have as a practical farmer, this legislation may be improved upon for the benefit of the people of Canada.
We know that the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed in 1944. We are aware also of the fact that it was the only legislation which agriculture had up until the present time. The members of the government have stated how useless this legislation was. The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) admitted that the Agricultural Prices Support Act was just as bad as he claimed the agricultural stabilization bill is. We are, therefore, in the position of having
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization secured the best possible bill for the benefit of farmers. We know quite well that the agricultural stabilization bill, or any other measure that is passed this year, probably will be on the statute books for the next 15 or 20 years.
We in the C.C.F., and I must give full marks to my hon. friends in the Social Credit party, have been successful in achieving results so far. It was our suggestions at the resolution stage, along with the suggestions of farm organizations, which prompted the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to make certain changes. The minister stated at page 2652 of Hansard for December 20, when he moved second reading:
However, concern has been expressed by members of parliament of this party representing rural constituencies-*
The minister then goes on to express the opinion that the wording of these clauses has led to a misunderstanding. I looked very carefully through the debate on the resolution stage of the bill, and I noted that the only comment made on the bill was made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) when he stated:
I want to make the definite statement that we are proud of the proposed legislation-
I imagine that criticism from a government member must have cut the minister to the quick, and on that basis he introduced the amendments.


Mr. Montgomery:: It is not because you
talk in the house that you have influence.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Pardon me? The hon. member will have to speak up if he has any statement to make. He has no statement to make, I take it. He is not like the members of the Conservative party who have taken this opportunity, and rightly so, to make their maiden speeches in the house on this subject. I think we who are connected with agriculture are grateful to them for their comments. It is rather interesting to find in the Star-Phoenix of about the second week in January, an article which reflects in some way on the speeches which have been made. It is entitled "Ottawa Notebook" and is written by Harry Jones, M.P. for Saskatoon. The article states in part:
Each member must decide whether he would rather have legislation on the record or delay its passage by speechmaking.
I think we can look at the record of yesterday and find out who were the members who took part in the debate. The article "Ottawa Notebook" goes on:
It is obvious that on measures where each party indicates that they will not vote against the government and indicate their support for the particular item of legislation there is not any point in making speeches merely to have the speeches recorded in Hansard.
3692	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
I suspect that the hon. member has given away some of the secrets about the speeches which have been made. Nevertheless as I have mentioned, I appreciate the fact that these members of the government who represent-


Mr. Jones:: Is the hon. member saying that he agrees with this bill?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: This is just a build-up for murder.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I am pointing out to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) that what he writes to his newspaper in an effort to condemn members who have spoken on the bill, is a reflection on him when he wants to take part in the debate.


Henry Frank Jones: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What was referred to there by the hon. member is completely wrong. What I pointed out in that article is that Conservative members did not deem it wise to speak on a matter on which agreement had been secured. You have indicated that you do not agree with this bill. That is why we must speak on it.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The only thing the hon. member's speech would indicate is that it is rather wise for members to stay within their field of knowledge. The hon. member is a lawyer in Saskatoon. I happen to be a farmer.


Henry Frank Jones: I was born and raised on a farm.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think we can understand the difference in point of view there. I find it very interesting to study the position taken by the Liberal party. It has been officially stated by their farm spokesman, namely the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), that they are going to support the bill. At the same time they have indicated that it is a bad bill. This is an indication that this once great party is again only attempting to play politics. They have agreed that this bill is so bad that it is going to harm the people of Canada and they are prepared to support it so that it can inflict harm on the people of Canada. If they were indeed taking the right view they would try to improve the bill. If they feel that the bill is not as good as the one which they themselves drafted, namely the Agricultural Prices Support Act, then I think they would be in duty bound as representatives in a democratic parliament to vote against it. However, again we have an indication that "soon" can mean very late'.
I want to make reference to a comment made by the former minister of agriculture to a statement made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz). The hon. member
[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) .1

pointed out the very small amount that had been spent for agricultural supports over the period of years, and the former minister of agriculture went to great lengths, as he is capable of doing, to attempt to show that it had cost the government, in fact, a huge sum of money for stabilization under the old Agricultural Prices Support Act. I have the annual report of the Minister of Agriculture for the year ended March 31, 1957. In this annual report it is stated that up to March 31, 1956, the net cost of operations of the board amounted to $89,196,061.31. It goes on to state that this amount includes approximately $70 million written off as a loss in respect of the foot-and-mouth disease program. From this statement it is fairly evident that the cost to the government of the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been less than $20 million. If the former minister of agriculture trys to make it appear any differently, he is in fact making a travesty on truth.


Mr. Gardiner:: I rise on a question of privilege. What I did state was that this is a revolving fund and that the cost to the government is not necessarily the extent of the advantage done to the farm community. I said that $400 million was used and of course the product was taken in, sold out and any earnings were put back into the treasury. Hence it is hardly correct to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Melville is not really raising a question of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Kindersley said I said something that I did not say.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter which should not be raised until the end of the hon. member's speech. The right hon. member is interrupting the member who has the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood the member for Kindersley had yielded the floor and I had the right to raise a question of privilege.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The hon. member for Melville on many occasions has taken the privilege of putting a reflection on figures which would lead people to a different conclusion-


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, you have done that not I.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: -than the facts would in reality indicate. Nevertheless, I think this points up again the difficult position in which the members of the Liberal party find themselves on this bill. The hon. member for Meadow Lake admitted that he was a better saxaphone player than he was a critic of this legislation but he concluded by saying he was going to support it.

With the objective of improving this legislation I, like many hon. members, took the opportunity during the Christmas recess of meeting with as many of my farmers and representatives of farm organizations as I possibly could. At one of those meetings held in Kindersley a resolution was passed giving me guidance and direction for my conduct in the house. I am going to place that resolution on record since it is quite brief. It explains the stand that the people in my constituency want me to take. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the agricultural stabilization bill fails to give any basic improvement to offset the declining position of agriculture, such as stating a definite cost-price formula upon which forward support prices could be based.
And whereas the government failed to honour their promise of consulting farm organizations in the drafting of the stabilization bill;
Therefore be it resolved that we oppose the bill as such and request that the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization before a final draft is submitted to the house.
I think it is quite apparent that that resolution is the principle upon which I am debating. As I mentioned, that resolution was endorsed at ten meetings which I was able to hold during the Christmas recess.
I think we can safely assume, Mr. Speaker, that the objective of this agricultural legislation should be to provide a reasonable standard of living to the family style farm. I do not think it should be the intention of any farm legislation to provide a standard of living or a guarantee for the benefit of any regional or sectional interest in Canada. It should not apply only to Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia or Saskatchewan. We recognize the fact that agriculture is still Canada's basic industry. I assert that it is impossible to have a healthy nation without a strong, expanding agriculture. Let us measure this bill up against these qualifications.
We find that the western farmer is specifically excluded from any benefits that might result under the act. I do not know why we are excluded but, as reported at page 2187 of Hansard, at the resolution stage this was stated by the Minister of Agriculture:
The reason for this is not to interfere in any way with the operations of the wheat board,-
Just what kind of ghost are they trying to conjure up here, Mr. Speaker? The Canadian wheat board is approved by the great majority of Canadian western farmers. We also know that the Canadian wheat board is allowed to operate within the legislative program set down by this parliament. We have recently passed legislation for cash advances which are operated through the Canadian wheat
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization board. Can we, by any stretch of the imagination, assume that by including wheat, oats and barley we would in any way reflect on the operations of the Canadian wheat board or make it more difficult for them to operate? If there was conflict between the operation of these acts, surely it should have shown itself before now. The old Agricultural Prices Support Act included oats and barley and we did not notice any apparent conflict. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the fact that that conflict did not exist because of the inactivity of the previous government with regard to promoting any price supports for those products. I would suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to this aspect of the bill, namely the inclusion of western wheat, oats and barley. It is just as important to agriculture to have western agriculture in a healthy condition as it is to have agriculture in any other area in a healthy condition.
At the resolution stage I pointed out to the minister some of the figures relating to the cost of production of wheat. In doing so I think I was able to prove to the satisfaction of all hon. members the necessity for some immediate program of assistance for western farmers. The principle of deficiency payments has been in part recognized in this bill and that is something that is being currently requested by farm organizations.
In this matter of wheat we can go back to the time of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, when that act was being adopted and call to witness the then hon. member for Lake Centre, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). He thought that wheat was an important subject because he said, as reported at page 5602 of Hansard for July 29, 1944, the following:
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is in connection with grain farmers. The grain farmers in western Canada today are not as well off proportionately, even taking into consideration present day prices, as other groups of farmers across this dominion.
There we have the present Prime Minister back in 1944 pleading for the grain farmer and, later on in the same debate, as recorded at page 5603 of Hansard, the then member for Lake Centre and the present Prime Minister stated:
I mention this for the purpose of asking the minister to consider raising the standard level of prices paid to the grain farmers to the end that our farmers in Saskatchewan may attain parity price or a reasonable price above that amount having regard to all the circumstances.
What a transformation we have from the battle that was being put up by the then member for Lake Centre to what is in the bill before us! We find even during the election campaign that the present Prime Minister

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization was reported in the Star-Phoenix of May 29, 1957 as having said while speaking in Saskatoon that any person who voted for a Liberal candidate in that election would be voting for a wheat policy which has proved ineffective, lacking in initiative and which has brought about the most serious situation western Canada has ever faced.
There is an account of the tragic circumstances which existed in western Canada and which are being completely ignored in this agricultural legislation today. I do not know what has happened in the period from 1944 through the election campaign of 1957 to date. I do not know what has changed the picture, with one exception, and that is the election of a Conservative government.
I do not think we should forget these statements made in the past. I think it is important that I, as the representative for a farming constituency, should put up the same battle for the farmers I represent as was put up by the former member for Lake Centre- I might say with equal justification. As has been mentioned, the objective of this legislation is to provide a reasonable standard of living for the farm family. The preamble to the bill certainly sounds very nice, but there is no operative clause. There is nothing to instil this principle in the legislation. Where is the clause or the principle which takes into consideration the fact that in the last ten years the cost of production has risen 50 per cent and that there has been a decline in the price of wheat to the extent of 20 per cent during that same period? It is no different from the Agricultural Prices Support Act because in that legislation there appeared some very nice-sounding phrases in section 2, where it stated that the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture. This principle is again referred to when the legislation goes on to state that they shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between returns for agriculture and those from other occupations.
I therefore respectfully suggest that those who have become so enamoured of the amendments made to the bill by the minister- amendments which he claimed did not change the bill-should take a second look at this whole proposition and give consideration to the cost-price predicament facing farmers across Canada.
I want to refer to some other words spoken by the former member for Lake Centre when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was introduced in 1944. He stated, as recorded at page 5600 of Hansard, that the farmer understands floor prices to be prices set at a level which will assure him of a reasonable profit over and above his

cost of production, although some consider them to be the same as parity prices. Mr. Speaker, here we have another witness going to bat for the farmers of Canada-at least he did so thirteen years ago-asking for the adoption of parity prices, but I wonder just what happened to the same parity principle when the Minister of Agriculture drafted this legislation? The Prime Minister argued for parity prices, prices to meet the cost of production and to give the farmers a reasonable profit. He wanted 100 per cent parity; he wanted full equality. However, we find on January 23, 1957-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would like to read from the rules-


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: No privilege:


James Garfield Gardiner: Whenever any matter of
privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately-


Some hon. Members:: No privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has misquoted me. Would I have the right to put him straight or not?


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a matter of privilege the right hon. gentleman has the right to rise at any time. If it is merely a correction to a speech the better practice is to defer rising until the speech has been concluded and to make then the correction if the right hon. gentleman' considers it is necessary to do so.	,


James Garfield Gardiner: It is more than a correction. He is attributing to me an absolutely incorrect statement of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I will hear the right hon. gentleman.


James Garfield Gardiner: A question was asked here in the house the other day. I was asked whether I at one time had been in favour of parity prices and I stated to the house that I had at one time been in favour of parity prices but that when the bill was drafted in 1944 it had been proven to me that parity- as they have it in the United States-was not in the interests of the farmers of this country.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, this is not privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend is now trying to say when this bill went through I was in favour of 100 per cent parity and I never
was.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member complains that the hon. member who has the floor has attributed to him statements which he did not make.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the wind is blowing through the rock pile. I was referring to the present Prime Minister. I know that the former minister of agriculture was an aspirant to that post but I have never quoted him in all these remarks I have been making. It is true that he piloted the Agricultural Prices Support Act through the house, it was his child, his progeny-


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood the member to refer to the minister who drafted the act of 1944. If he did not I am sorry. I drafted the act.


An hon. Member:: How are you going to
vote?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: And now he is
officiating at the funeral. I was referring to the fact that on January 23 we in the C.C.F. had continued our fight for fairness to the farmers by moving an amendment to the speech from the throne requesting the government to take the necessary step to establish a system of parity prices for agricultural products at levels of 100 per cent parity of income for agricultural producers. We wanted a fair deal for agriculture but the government of the day, which was of course a Liberal government, voted against us. Ah, Mr. Speaker, but so did the official opposition; they stated that agriculture did not deserve a full share and they have refused to recognize at this time and to place in the bill a clause to implement parity or a fair cost-price relationship. They have refused to recognize this to a large extent because of what has happened in the United States. They have risen to great heights in condemnation of the United States legislative program.
I think we have had some experience during the last five months with respect to the relationship between Canada and the United States and it seems to be the favourite habit of this present Conservative government to send notes of protest to the United States government. However, now we have gone on to a wholesale criticism of the proposal of the United States program. I would suggest that before members of the government condemn in its entirety the United States program they would do well to look at some of the things that are occurring in the United States right now. For instance, in the January 17,	1958, issue of the
Christian Science Monitor there is an article entitled, "Scathing Senate Fire Singes Benson Data". The article states:
Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson's customary cheery smile was wiped out in short order by a senate agriculture committee which lost no time in attacking not only the administration's farm program, but, in effect, the secretary's integrity.
The article goes on to state:
The secretary was accused in effect, of trying to build up the administration case for price support changes by juggling statistics in such a way as to make the price support program appear more costly than it really is.
Again and again, Senator Ellender called for the "true picture."
"I am not going to permit misleading information to be presented if I can help it," he said at one point.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to say any more as far as the condemnation which this government is making of the principle of giving the farmer a fair share of the national income is concerned. The complaint the government is making of the United States' proposal is condemnation of the large payments which have been made to individuals in that country. If they were so concerned about these large payments that are being made to individuals why did not members of the government concern themselves with that problem of vertical integration here in Canada? What principle is placed in this legislation to prevent large amounts of money being paid to packers, to the factory style farm? I think that is a problem which should be very carefully reviewed because I maintain that the principle of this legislation should be to provide a reasonable standard of living to the family style farm and to prevent ourselves from being subjected to the same criticism which is having a telling effect in the United States.
I hope that the few words I have said will be given further consideration and that the minister will agree to accept the motion we have moved of referring this bill to the committee on agriculture and colonization with a view to improving it. If he does not see fit to accept the amendment we have moved I think we would be satisfied if he would give the house his assurance that it would be sent to that committee at second reading. The purpose of our condemnation or criticism of this bill, as the case may be, is to bring about a better bill to assist agriculture in the extremely difficult circumstances in which it finds itself today and one of which we can be justifiably proud as legislators in the parliament of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make a correction on the first interruption. The suggestion is made, and it is correct, that I signed a return while minister of agriculture to the effect that something over $90 million had been utilized as a net amount under the Agricultural Prices Support Act in the years that it has been in operation.
I had previously said in reply to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz) that
3696	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization a total amount of $400 million was used in the revolving fund and that part of the amount is the net amount which is something over $96 million and I also went on to say that that is not the return which the farmer gets.
Certain groups of farmers did have the amount of $96 million distributed among them but the benefit the farmer receives under that act is in the price which is established for him. He gets a certain amount on every pound of butter, every dozen eggs and every pound of pork and so on down the line and that runs into hundreds of millions of dollars.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balilefords):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill No. 237 was first introduced in the house and the members had an opportunity to see just what was in it, strong protests were raised both by the members of the C.C.F. and the Social Credit groups, as well as the farm organizations across Canada. As soon as I saw the bill I wondered who had drawn it up, or who was responsible for drawing it up, as it was quite evident that it was not drawn up by farmers. We have found out since that the farm organizations were not consulted in any way before the bill made its appearance in the house.
The first bill had no preamble, and proposed to establish a base price for a commodity by calculating the average price at representative markets for the three years immediately preceding the year in which the base price was established, and a floor price of 80 per cent of the base price was to be mandatory. However, the new bill carries with it a preamble, which I think is an improvement to the bill. The preamble states that 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 cost of the goods and services that they buy. This partly meets one of the objections that I raised to the bill when I spoke on December 11. I said at that time that there was not a single word in the legislation which indicated that the farmer would get his fair share of the national income.
While the preamble says that it is expedient to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the cost of the goods and services that they buy, the explanatory note on page 2 states that in order to provide basic security to farmers guaranteed by legislation on key commodities, minimum floor prices of 80 per cent of the base price will


be mandatory. I claim that 80 per cent of the base price certainly is not what is required to put agriculture back on its feet. Surely if there is to be a fair relationship between the prices received by farmers and the cost of the goods and services they buy, they must get 100 per cent of their cost of production and enough besides that to enable them to live properly.
I do not suppose that anybody has worked out yet what the base price would be for any of these commodities for the ten years immediately preceding the year in which the base price is to be established. It might figure out at only 80 per cent of the cost of production, and certainly 80 per cent of 80 per cent would be of no great help to the farmers. The minister has complained that most of the speeches in the debate were setting out the position of the farmer financially, claiming that the government knew all these things and knew that help was needed to put agriculture back on its feet. If this legislation is not going to give them 100 per cent of parity we might as well throw it out and go back to the Agricultural Prices Support Act which the government found quite convenient to use very recently in the case of floor prices on sugar beets.
As far as I am concerned, I represent an agricultural constituency, and I am certain of one thing and that is that the farmers will expect me to fight for the kind of legislation which will put them back on their feet, and which will stop the exodus from the farms and prevent many thousands more farmers from going bankrupt. As far as I am concerned, if we are going to throw out the Agricultural Prices Support Act I want something put in its place that is going to do a job. I do not want any half-baked legislation with which the farmers that I represent are going to be very much dissatisfied. I want to see a support price set at a level that will ensure the cost of production and a reasonable profit. And if this is not done, it will be a denial of the farmers' due.
Can the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) tell me of any other industry in Canada that would be satisfied to produce their commodities at 80 per cent of their cost and sell them at 80 per cent of their cost. Of course not, and nobody would expect them to do so, and if they were forced to do that they would soon go out of business. So I say, if the government is going to try and put agriculture back on its feet surely we can have a bill that will do just that. I wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had anything to do with the drafting of this bill, or who was responsible for it. It certainly does not look as though the Prime Minister .had anything whatsoever to do with it; perhaps he did not

even see it. But if he saw it, and if he had anything to do with the drafting, he has a lot to answer for; or at least a lot of words to swallow. For at least 13 years he has been talking inside and outside of this house, claiming that floor prices should be at a level which would ensure the cost of production and a reasonable profit. Now that he is Prime Minister of Canada is he backing away from the things that he advocated down through the years?
The Prime Minister has gone up and down the length and breadth of this country; he has spoken in every province and in almost every town in the dominion and he has been advocating those things for the last 13 years. Now I say let him back up the things he has been advocating and give us a decent bill.
I want to take the house back just 13 years, to February 4, 1944, when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was being discussed in the house. At page 192 of Hansard for February 4, 1944, the present Prime Minister had this to say:
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.
That is just what I said a few moments ago. In stating what I did I can bring another good witness in the person of the Prime Minister again. Speaking on July 29, 1944, at page 5600 of Hansard, the Prime Minister had this to say:
In other words some will say that the bill will ensure parity prices.-
He was talking about the Agricultural Prices Support Act which was under discussion at that time. I continue:
-when in fact, there is nothing in the bill to indicate that parity prices will be the aim of the board in the price levels which it will set. This measure sets a floor price by an indirect method,-
That is what the present bill purports to do. The Prime Minister continued:
-that of permitting the board to go into the market and make purchases, but the level of prices at which the board will make those purchases is not indicated. The farmer understands floor prices to be prices set at a level which will assure him of a reasonable profit over and above his cost of production, although some consider them to be the same as parity prices.
Listen to this.
To be fair to the farmers of Canada, and not hold out to them hopes that may not culminate in action, the minister should set forth in this bill the principle that prices paid in respect of farm commodities shall be based upon cost of production and a reasonable profit.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
That is exactly what we in the C.C.F. are asking the Minister of Agriculture and the government to do in this bill. I quote again from the Prime Minister:
That would not require his setting price levels today to be effective in the post-war period. But if this bill is to be anything more than the promise of a hope, there must be something in it to show that the prices farmers are to receive will assure them of reasonable cost plus a fair return.
A few lines farther down on the page the Prime Minister had this to say:
Under this legislation the farmers of Canada may hope that the price they are going to receive will be a fair one. And a year hence or two years hence may realize for the first time that under this legislation there is no mandatory requirement on the board to assure our farm population a fair return for products they produce.
That is exactly why we in the C.C.F. are insisting that this government do something more than hold out a hope to the farmer. Many of our farmers are desperate and I do not want to see this government hold out a carrot before their noses, hold out a promise before them which will only go part way toward solving the pressing need for prices which will ensure them their cost of production and, as the Prime Minister said so many times, "plus a reasonable return".
Therefore, I again plead with the Minister of Agriculture to let this bill go to the agriculture committee where we can have the farmers and the farm organizations come before that committee and try to bring forward a bill which will do the job which is needed.
I could say a lot more at this time, Mr. Speaker, but it would appear that we are coming close to the end of the debate and I hope that the minister will agree to let this bill go to the agricultural committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Solon Earl Low: Before the minister speaks to close the debate I feel that I should like to take just a few minutes of the time of the house to express some of the reasons why, unless the minister brings in some fairly substantial amendments to the bill, we will not be able to support the motion for second reading. I must begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the bill as it now stands is unacceptable to the farmers and farm organizations of the country. Even if some of the amendments that have been suggested are implemented, it would still be unacceptable.
I take the position that I do for the reason that I represent a farm constituency. Over the years my people have asked me to work for parity prices, to work for forward pricing, to work for some marketing and pricing legislation that is based definitely on the cost-price relationship. They have asked me also to work for the protection of the family farmer, and to see to it that conditions are laid down so that he is not driven from the farm. They have asked me also, Mr. Speaker, to see what I could possibly do to ensure that we have in this country the kind of pricing and marketing legislation that will guarantee the farmers their fair share of the national income.
Having been given those instructions, I would not be true to my trust as the representative of an agricultural area in this country if I did not constantly work for those things. My group in the house thus far have spoken and have given the foundation reasons why these important things should be made a part of any farm legislation introduced here. I should like to speak for just one moment rather directly to the minister. He is a friend of mine. He comes from my own province, and he knows the situation out there. I feel quite certain that he has a knowledge of agricultural problems. I am quite certain that if he were given a free hand to do so he would try to introduce an agricultural prices support bill that would truly reflect the needs of the farmers in this country.
I am afraid, however, that the minister has been frightened by the adverse publicity that so many of the eastern newspapers have given at any mention whatever of parity prices. Unfortunately, he has been supported in his fear of parity prices by statements that have been made by the former minister of agriculture. I am very much surprised at that, especially in view of the fact that all during the election campaign Conservative candidates stated that they would do their best to have parity prices established in any farm legislation that came into this house. The parity principle itself is nothing to be

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
afraid of. I am surprised at grown men, men of experience and vision, coming into this house and saying that you cannot establish the parity principle without getting into the same trouble as the people in the United States have experienced.
I think that is foolish. After all, Mr. Speaker, there are many devices that could be incorporated into agricultural legislation which would prevent the subsidization of vast surpluses of unwanted goods. It is not necessary that parity, established as a principle in agricultural legislation, give rise to unwanted and unmanageable surpluses of food. There is, for instance, the technique of quotas for delivery.
Taking under consideration, for example, the supply and the demand situation at any period it would be a simple matter amongst the wheat growers of western Canada to adopt, for example, as the standard an average size productive unit which would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 to 500 acres. If that were established as the comparative unit and if the minister were to suggest that deliveries from all such units of grain produced would be subject to the 100 per cent parity price, but units, for instance, that may be larger than that would not be able to enjoy the parity principle on all that they produce, I am quite certain that they could control the situation without having too great a bureaucracy to do it. I am afraid that he shows his fear of legislative responsibility or administrative responsibility. But I am just as positive as I am that I stand here that we could introduce into our situation the parity principle without building up unmanageable surpluses of food such as those which have been built up in the United States.
One of the reasons why we were anxious to see this bill sent to the committee for study was in order to see whether it would not be possible to find some such techniques and introduce them into the bill. We are not suggesting for one minute that we adopt the 100 per cent parity principle and have that apply to all of the production that could possibly be brought into being by farms of all sizes, whether they be individual, family or corporate farms. We are not suggesting that for one moment. But the fact that the government have shied away from parity and are now trying to deny that they ever had anything to do with it is, in my opinion, surprising in the extreme. It is because of the fact to some extent that the government has not included in this bill any suggestion that we adhere to the parity principle that we feel disappointed. We feel that unless some substantial amendment is brought in by the 96698-234
minister before second reading or is suggested at least before second reading is called for, we could not support the second reading of the bill.
We have taken the position that any legislation designed to stabilize the prices of agricultural commodities should base its operative clauses on the cost-price relationship. The farmers and the farm organizations for years have asked for that principle. Unless the minister announces that it will be his intention to amend the bill to make it clear that the base price shall be based upon the cost-price relationship, then I say that our group cannot support the second reading of the bill. That is a most important point. The way in which the thing is worded in section 7 of the bill now, just does not mean anything.
We in this group have also taken the position that the formula should be based on a fixed period. I cannot see how in the world you can do justice to the farmers of the country with a moving average, whether it be a three-year, five-year or ten-year average; no matter what average may be adopted. We suggest that the only fair method would be to have a fixed average period. It may be 1925-1929. It may be what some of the farm organizations have suggested, namely 1943-1945, or it may be ten years from 1947 to 1958. That would be perfectly satisfactory. If the minister were to suggest that he will bring in an amendment to establish that fixed period for comparing the cost-price relationship, then we would be prepared to give that amendment support. But unless he does so, it is just one more reason why we cannot support the second reading of the bill.
From what I have heard in the debate thus far I would judge that there are a good many people in the house who have the very erroneous idea that the western grain grower is an especially favoured fellow in this country. One of the reasons why we feel we must be severely critical of the bill is that it does not include western wheat, oats and barley growers. The western grain grower is left out of the calculation altogether, in spite of the fact that he is an extremely important part of the agricultural industry and in spite of the fact that it is that part of the industry which is at present so greatly depressed. Why in the world they would be left out, in the light of those facts, is something that I cannot understand.
I have heard a good many hon. members talk as if the western grain grower just puts in his crop, and a very big one, and has nothing else to do until he harvests in the fall. They seem to think that he just goes
3700	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization down to the beach and spends his time there until he takes off his crop and then, after it is off, goes to California and spends the winter. That just is not so. I want to put on the record some facts to back up what I am now saying. For example, it would be interesting to take a look at a table that I obtained from a study conducted by the conference on economic progress at Washington, covering agriculture in both the United States and Canada. Here is a table showing the size of occupied farms by acreage groups in the prairie provinces-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-based on the 1951 census. On examining this table hon. members will be very much surprised, I am sure. The table is as follows:
Occupied farms by acreage groups in the prairie provinces; 1951 census:
3 to	69	acre	size	
10,39170 to	239	acre	size	
59,411240 to	399	acre	size	
71,921400 to	559	acre	size	
40,824560 to	759	acre	size	
28,587760 to 1,119 acre size	
15,931
The number of those over 1,119 acres or 1,120 acres would be comparatively small. Hence the extent of the farms is not so great as a good many people have been led to believe. From the figures I have given in the table, it is perfectly clear that the great bulk of occupied farms fall into those groups operating farms between 70 acres and 559 acres. That is, in the three western provinces or the three prairie provinces, of a total of 227,129 farms there were 172,156 of the size between 70 acres and 559 acres. Hence the average size of the grain farm in the prairies would certainly be much smaller than that which has been suggested here. The great bulk of them lie between 70 acres and 599 acres. I have not worked out the average size, but I would think that the average size family farm today in the west would not be 200 acres. During the past 20 years there has been an accelerated trend toward larger average farms per operator just as there has in eastern Canada.
I heard one hon. member a few moments ago talk about the reduction in the number of farms in Ontario. If I remember the figures correctly, he indicated that the number had been reduced by something like 12,000. That is a serious situation. If we are going to get into the same condition out west as that in which they find themselves in Ontario with regard to the number of farms, believe me it is going to be a serious situation for this country. We do not want that to happen. It has been stressed over and over again-and I want to add my voice- that we must do something to preserve the family size farm and to keep those people on the farm quite happy and prosperous.


It has been said that the western farmers are pretty well fixed and need little, if any, help. We have maintained over the years that our farmers all through Canada have needed realistic marketing and price legislation. Otherwise they simply could not maintain prosperity and they could not share equitably in the national income and in the prosperity enjoyed by other sections of our population. Perhaps the most significant figures in assessing this situation are those which will be found in another table showing the breakdown of dollar revenues earned per farm unit on the prairie provinces. Hon. members may be surprised, particularly those who think that if we do something to help the farmers we will be paying subsidies to just a few farmers, to see the picture presented by these figures. I have heard such sentiments expressed and I disagree. It is not so and I deny it emphatically and, to prove it is not so, I want to put these facts on the record. Whoever says such things is doing irreparable damage to the farmer.
Gross revenues per farm unit based on the 1951 figures, which year was one of the largest income years we have had for a long time-in fact farm cash income in 1951 reached the peak in Canada, then declining and has continued to decline until today- indicated that 124,839 farms in the three prairie provinces produced less than $2,500 per unit. Let that sink in; I am going to repeat it. One hundred and twenty-four thousand, eight hundred and thirty-nine farms in these three prairie provinces produced in 1951 less than $2,500 per unit. That was gross production and of that number 57,602 produced less than $1,200 per unit gross. They had to pay all their expenses in addition to a lot of difficulties which they faced in gambling against weather and that sort of thing. Let me go on: 42,603 produced between $2,500 and $3,749 per unit gross. All these figures I am quoting are gross and of course out of them they had to pay all their expenses including labour, cost of machinery, repairs, etc.
Twenty-five thousand and fifty units produced between $3,750 and $4,999 per unit. Twenty-four thousand and thirty-eight produced between $5,000 and $7,999 per unit and 9,224 only produced between $7,500 and $9,999 per unit. Now does that mean affluence? That gives the lie to those people who constantly say, "Oh, you fellows are exaggerating the situation." Nine thousand two hundred and twenty-four produced between $7,500 and $9,999 per unit gross and from there on the number producing anything more than $10,000 was very rapidly declining. Let me show you how.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Six thousand one hundred and eighty-four of all these farms in western Canada produced, gross, between $10,000 and $14,999 per unit. One thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven only produced between $15,000 and $19,999 per unit and 1,863 only produced over $20,000 per unit. So when people talk about where the subsidies might be channelled into the hands of a few, these figures give them the lie.


Edward George McCullough: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question. Is this not a very good argument in answer to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) in respect of the statements he made yesterday?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, as a matter of fact, I am hoping that my hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) will listen and will take these figures, which are authentic, into very careful and serious consideration.


Mr. Nicholson:: Not many of these went to California?


Solon Earl Low: There could not have been many of these who went to California, and when one considers this table showing these gross income figures and compares them with the income figures for wages and salaries earned by people employed in industry, it becomes perfectly clear that the people in agriculture -at least 50 per cent of western Canadian farm families-lag way behind industrial workers in the cities. No one is putting up the claim that industrial workers are overpaid in relation to their cost of living, but on the other hand we do not want to forget that these figures do not include rents because the average farmer has his home, of some kind, somewhere on the farm. Most of them do not have such facilities as indoor toilets, running water and all that sort of thing. They certainly have to bundle up every time they go out, and we must remember that neither do they include that portion of the food which the farmer produces for himself. We know he is a little better off in that regard.
However, when we analyse the figures we see a number of the farmers in the western provinces who are producing a gross income each year which will give them little more than enough to keep one foot ahead of the sheriff and we must come to the conclusion, therefore, that something has to be done so that prices and marketing conditions for them are improved. That is what we have got to work for.
Someone has suggested that low income farm families be moved into the cities to find employment in industry. I do not believe
96698-234i
that such a suggestion becomes a person of average intelligence. The farmers of this country have established themselves, most of them after long and arduous work. I wish to speak particularly of those in the Peace river country. Those fellows went in there many years ago and carved out little farms and homes from the wooded wilderness. Many of them have been clearing the land by hand with axes and saws. Many of those old farmers went up there just after the first world war under some sort of military reestablishment scheme such as that of the soldiers' settlement board. Some have worked all those years since, struggling to clear their farms and to get them on a paying basis. They are just now beginning to get enough cleared and under real cultivation to be able to live.
Now these people have pioneered and have established their homes and they love the place. They are all they have in the world and to suggest for one moment that they should move out of their small farms and establish themselves in cities is just absolute foolishness. They do not want to move; they want to stay and to feel that they are contributing to the strength of this country by producing food. They do not want and they would not ask for help except for the fact that marketing conditions and prices are simply beyond their ability, individually or collectively in small groups, to control.
These are the things which I think my friend Ezra Benson, who has been quoted here so many times, had in mind when he suggested that the things the governments ought to be prepared to do for farmers are those things which the farmers cannot do for themselves. But the government ought to be prepared to do them, especially when it is the government which establishes all the other policies under which the farmers have to work and try to exist, such as tariffs, import duties and all that sort of protection to industry. Believe me, the farmer is the forgotten man in this regard and something has to be done to see that he has a substantially better chance.
As I said, some have suggested that low income farm families should move into the city to find employment in industry. In the first place we must consider if it is possible. No, it is not possible. They can be run off or chased out by allowing conditions to deteriorate to the point where they cannot stay on the farms any longer but that is not desirable. Suppose it were possible. I then appeal to the minister to consider this important point. Would the existing labour force in the cities and industrial centres like to see many thousands of Canadian farmers
3702	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization move out of agriculture and into industrial jobs? Judging from the protests we have heard about immigration swelling the ranks of labour and taking away Canadian jobs I am quite certain that the workers in industry would not favour any such thing and indeed they would resist it with all their might especially since we have considerable unemployment already in the industrial centres without that condition from the farms.
Industry also requires skilled tradesmen. Farm trained people would not quickly qualify as such. It would take quite a long time and probably for some time they would swell the ranks of the unemployed and become just one more burden on government. Let us add to that the fact that automation is progressing very rapidly throughout all industry. Machines are replacing men so rapidly that industrial labourers will be hard put to it in the next few years to maintain themselves in jobs with take home pay. Why in the world, then, consider a suggestion that will swell the ranks of those who are already seeking doles or handouts.
I think it must become clear to the government and to any thinking person that the thing to do is to produce conditions that will maintain the farmers on the farms where they belong and where they want to be and help them to keep themselves going, and you do not have to be too generous with them even at that. There are those, of course, who make the claim that there are inefficient farmers. Of course there are, just as there are inefficient people engaged in any occupation. But just because a farmer happens to be a bit inefficient in his farm operations why in the name of common sense would you send him into the city to become a part of the rabble. That is a silly idea. I think the place for people who are somewhat inefficient might be right out there on the farms where they can do a bit of subsistence farming and contribute to their own upkeep. That is no argument at all against providing the proper kind of farm legislation.
I have come to the conclusion after long study of this situation that the real strength of agriculture in any country is the family farmer. It is not the corporate farmer or the big industrial farmer, that is the packer who goes out and buys a farm for the purpose of raising his own produce, that is the strength of our agriculture in this country. The real strength of agriculture is the family farmer who stays at it year after year, decade after decade, who trains his boys and girls to take their places on the farm to succeed him and keep things going to preserve the fertility of the soil that is so dear to them. If you look at the situation in England,


France or in any country that has become strong in agriculture you will find that it is the family farmer who is at the root of that strength.
In this fact there is a tremendous argument for introducing a farm bill that will give these people the proper protection and see to it that they receive their fair share of the national income. I say to you again that unless the minister assures us that there will be a firm declaration in the wording of the bill to the effect that one of its purposes is to ensure the farmer his fair share of the national income we will find it difficult to support the bill. We would like to be assured that the government and the board that will be set up under the bill are going to be guided by the farmer's estimated average cost of production rather than by the "have regard to" provision. We have had enough experience with that "have regard to" business before and it was not a happy experience by any means.


An hon. Member:: It was "have disregard to".


Solon Earl Low: Yes, it turned out to be an exceedingly intensified type of disregard and I am looking straight at my good friend, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) when I say that. I also suggest that unless the minister can assure us that the base price he speaks of will have due regard, in fact absolute regard, for the cost-price relationship by a change in clause 7 we will find it very difficult to support the bill under those circumstances. Unless the minister announces that he will establish a fixed period, something firm to tie it to, an anchor he cannot get away from, a stipulation he cannot argue around, then I do not know whether it will be possible for us to think that Bill No. 237 by the wildest stretch of imagination will be one bit better than the bill that was introduced by my friend the hon. member for Melville some years ago. That bill which became known as the Agricultural Prices Support Act has not been used as it ought to have been used. I do not know whether that is the fault of the former minister of agriculture but it is certainly the fault of his party.
The important thing is that there is very little that can be done under this bill that could not be done under the existing act. There are some pious phrases about forward pricing and that sort of thing but there is nothing in the bill to indicate that the government will take into consideration the matter of deficiency payments. Clause 10 contains a sort of confused suggestion that the board might be able to pay deficiency payments but there has to be something much more definite than that. I wonder why the

minister while he was at it did not take enough time and call in a sufficient number of experts from various countries and from various parts of this country including representatives of farm organizations to have enabled him to sit down and draft a bill that would be worth while, a measure that would have been of permanent value. That is what we wanted and that is what we thought we would get. I am bitterly disappointed by this bill and my people in the Peace River country are also going to be disappointed by it. My friends who sit behind me in this house are going to find it exceedingly difficult to give even halfhearted support to this bill even if the minister were to bring in the proposals that I have already suggested. I would like to hear him make a firm commitment on these points before I decide which way I am going to lead my group in voting on this measure.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, before the minister closes the debate there are two or three matters that I should like to bring to his attention in the hope that he will deal with them when he speaks and the first is this. I am sorry to note that the minister is leaving the house just when I am going to ask him to deal with questions concerning his bill but in any event he may be able to hear me from where he is now standing. When I was speaking on this bill yesterday as recorded at page 3628 of Hansard I said:
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said this afternoon that it is most important that the farmer knows, before he puts his crop in, how much he is going to get for it. In this bill is there any provision for that?
I had in mind at that time, as is clear from my previous remarks, the Canadian western farmer, and the Minister of Agriculture replied "yes". I have again looked through the bill most carefully and as I understand it if the bill were not passed deficiency payments could be made in respect of oats and barley, but once this bill is passed as it repeals the Agricultural Prices Support Act deficiency payments can no longer be made under the measure which is now before us in respect of oats and barley.
In view of the fact that oats and barley handled by the wheat board are definitely excluded from the bill, I do not know how the minister could have said yesterday that under this bill something could be done to give some protection to the western Canadian grain farmers. I examined the bill just as carefully as I could. I wondered whether I had missed some section. I could not see where I had. However, I am now fortified in my view that I was right by a speech entitled: "A Radio Address by the Hon. Douglas
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization S. Harkness, Minister of Agriculture for Canada", in a series of reports from parliament hill to the province of Alberta. In this speech, which has been sent through the mails to hon. members, I find this statement in regard to the matter. I hope that he will clear it up when he speaks. The minister said:
Our political opponents have also attacked the bill because wheat, oats and barley produced in the prairie provinces and handled by the wheat board are not included. The reason they are not included is, of course, that if they were it would mean the end of the wheat board which the great majority of western farmers strongly support and wish to keep in operation.
I read that first paragraph to make it very clear that even the minister, when he said yesterday that it did apply to western grain growers, was mistaken. He knows he was mistaken, and that brings me to this point. If that is so, Mr. Speaker,-and I presume we can accept the words of the minister himself in the matter-then the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why is this bill drawn in this way? The minister says that it would be the end of the wheat board. The wheat board is there to market grain and it has done a very good job in marketing grain. It pays to the producers of grain, whose grain it markets, what it sells the grain for, less the cost of handling it. I do not think it would ruin the wheat board if the government were to provide the wheat board with moneys to make deficiency payments, as requested by the wheat pools of western Canada.
It did not ruin the wheat board to provide the money to pay the excess storage charges on grain out of which our farmers got an extra eight cents they otherwise would not have got. I submit it would not ruin the wheat board if the government had put a section in this bill-it would not need to be more than two or three lines-providing that out of the funds appropriated under this legislation enough money could be given to the wheat board to make payments to producers who deliver their grain to the wheat board to give those producers a fair share of the national income. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, how it can be suggested that this would ruin the wheat board, or do away with the wheat board, any more than the provision for paying part of the storage cost did.
What I find very hard to understand is this. The government can do nothing more under this bill than it could under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Why was the bill brought in unless it was intended to enable the government to do more for our farmers than it could already do. One would have thought that in some way the reason for a new bill was that they wanted to give themselves more power to do something for our

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization farmers. Instead of that, by this bill they take away from themselves the power to do anything for the growers of oats and barley on the western plains. They entitled their bill:
An act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities.
Then they go on to say in the preamble:
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-
It is rather misleading, Mr. Speaker, to ask this house to pass a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodites in order to assist the industry of agriculture and leave out of it any provision-in fact, take out of the law the provision that is already there-to help the grain farmers of the western plains. Are they not an important branch of the agricultural industry? Do they not count with the members of this government?


An hon. Member:: Oh.


An hon. Member:: Somebody over there said "No".


Walter Adam Tucker: I know somebody across the way said "no", but I could hardly believe my ears. Why did he say "no" After all, actions speak louder than words.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He just said he said "oh", not "no".


Walter Adam Tucker: Actions speak louder than words. If the minister wanted to help out the farmers of western Canada and was bringing in a bill for this parliament to pass, why did he not make it a better bill than the existing law? Why did he cut down on the powers to help the farmers of western Canada instead of increasing them?


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Walter Adam Tucker: I wish I could speak loud enough to penetrate the intelligence of some of the people opposite. I am still awaiting a reply to the question. The minister said in the broadcast speech that he made-and I suppose it is addressed to the people in western Canada:
Agriculture is Canada's most important industry-
Does he not include his own grain growers in Alberta? I continue:
-and its economic health is vital not only to those directly engaged in it but to all Canadian citizens.
He went on to say:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Read it all and it will be much better than the speech you are making yourself.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will read enough of it to give an idea what is in it. I continue:
During this period the farmer's cost of production has been constantly rising. At the same time the price he has been receiving for his commodities has been falling.
Here is the statement of the minister and yet this bill which he proposes to help the farmer out does not do anything to help the great agricultural grain growing industry of western Canada. We have asked this question: Do you intend to bring in some further legislation in order to give you the power to help out the grain growing industry in western Canada? To every such question the government has been as silent as the grave.
This is the policy which they say is going to help out the agricultural industry. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, speaking as one representative of the great grain growing agricultural industry of western Canada, this bill, no matter what may be said about it by the hon. gentlemen opposite, which is supposed to help the agricultural industry, if it does not help out the great grain growing industry of western Canada will not get my support, as I said yesterday. I am surprised at the number of members of the Conservative party elected from the farming districts of western Canada tolerating a bill such as this being brought in by their own government.
Let the minister say when he speaks-if it is true, as he says, that farmers in western Canada have been suffering from the cost-price squeeze-whether this bill helps them any and, if not, why not, and what he proposes to do about it. And why, when he is bringing in a bill to deal with this question, he did not provide that out of the moneys appropriated by parliament, funds could be given to the wheat board to distribute when it makes interim payments to the grain producers in order to give them a fair return for their product. Why was it not put in this bill? The suggestion that it would ruin the wheat board is just nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The minister has to give a better reason than that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Ask the chairman of the Saskatchewan wheat pool about that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would venture to say that if my hon. friend had said to the chairman of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, "Would you say it is appropriate to provide a sum of money to give the wheat board in order to make a further deficiency payment to the

farmers on the wheat marketed a year ago", the head of the Saskatchewan wheat pool would have said that he was in favour of it 100 per cent and more, if that were possible. I have no doubt in the world that he would have said that.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is in favour of it.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course he is in favour of it because in the submission made to the government no later than January 13th of this year by the wheat pools, with one of which the man to whom the minister has referred is associated, they point out the terribly depressed conditions of western Canadian farmers because of the fact that during the last ten years their costs have gone up by 50.3 per cent and the average amount received on the farm by farmers for wheat they produce has declined by 20.8 per cent. Here is the industry that hon. members opposite used to say 10 years ago was not being properly treated. Today that industry is paying 50 per cent more for what it has to buy and receiving 20 per cent less than at the time when my hon. friends used to sympathize with them, and yet they do not propose now to do anything about it.
In their submission to the government the wheat pools were very careful about what they requested. I want to read all their recommendations because the minister has suggested that the head of our wheat pool is against what I am suggesting. In their submission they say:
(a)	That immediate steps be taken to ensure that grain producers will receive a return from the production of the farm that will bear a fair relationship to their costs of production and to Canadian living standards.
(b)	That the price of wheat sold for domestic human consumption should be established on the basis of the index of costs of production and Canadian living standards, rather than on export market prices.
(c)	That if price supports and other policies fail to provide fair relationship prices on agricultural products, that deficiency payments be provided by the treasury of Canada.
There is one clause that answers my hon. friend. They say in effect that if the various policies now in existence, which policies so far as grain is concerned are administered by the wheat board, have failed to provide fair relationship prices for agricultural products, then deficiency payments should be provided out of the treasury of Canada. I am sure they have it in mind that when such deficiency payments are provided the cheapest, most efficient and fairest way to make them would be to use the machinery of the wheat board, and I am very sure that the head of the wheat pool would have no objection to that.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Douglas Scott Harkness: You should talk with him about it instead of trying to say what he would do or would not do.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been elected on the basis of holding out promises to the farmers of Canada, particularly western Canada, that his party would improve their position. Of course, no amount of talk such as the minister engages in is going to relieve the government of their obligation to keep their promises to the farmers of western Canada. In their submission the wheat pools go on to say:
(d)	That since the price of grain resulted in a serious drop in farm revenue for 1955-56, that such deficiency payments be made on wheat, oats and barley delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the year ended 31st July, 1956.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought up before and the Speaker who was in the chair at the time ruled that it was out of order to deal with deficiency payments for western wheat, oats and barley as they are not included in the bill. I submit that the hon. member is out of order in all that he has been saying for the last several minutes and that he should discontinue talking about deficiency payments for western wheat, oats and barley, which are not included in the bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to clause 2 of the bill. I will read it because apparently the minister is not too familiar with it. It says in so many words that wheat, oats and barley marketed through the wheat board shall not be covered by the bill. When it is definitely indicated by this bill that grains already provided for by the Agricultural Price Support Act are not to be covered and it is proposed to repeal that act so that deficiency payments can no longer be paid with regard to oats and barley, then I submit that I am in order. It is provided in the bill that deficiency payments may be made to farmers except farmers whose wheat, oats and barley are handled through the wheat board and for the minister to try to avoid my comments about this definite provision of his own bill is rather strange, to say the least. Let me read the clause. Clause 2 (1) (a) reads as follows:
"Agricultural commodity" means
(i) any of the following commodities produced in Canada, namely, cattle, hogs and sheep; butter, cheese and eggs; and wheat, oats and barley not produced in the designated area as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act; hereinafter called "named commodity".
Here is a provision that excludes those commodities that I say should be included in some form. Is it not in order for me, Mr. 3706	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Speaker, to say that I do not agree with these commodities being excluded which the minister proposes to exclude from the bill? What can we discuss if we cannot deal with the actual provisions of the bill itself?
The bill also provides in clause 17 for the repeal of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Under that act deficiency payments could be made to western Canada producers of oats and barley. This bill proposes to repeal that legislation and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) would try to prevent me referring to it. I ask you to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we can discuss the actual proposals of the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order, I said nothing about the hon. member referring to wheat, oats and barley produced in the area as described in the act. What I did say was that it is out of order for him to be making a large part of his speech about deficiency payments on these three grains produced in western Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Rosthern is definitely in order because as I read the legislation, while a mandatory floor on wheat, oats and barley produced on the prairies is not provided, nevertheless there is power under this legislation if the governor in council wishes to use it to include wheat, oats and barley produced on the prairies and to make deficiency payments. I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) inadvertently made a wrong statement when he said that a ruling had been made on this point. I do not think a ruling was made by the Speaker. I think a point of order was raised. I may foe mistaken, and I am prepared to foe corrected, but I do not believe a ruling was made.
I think the Minister of Agriculture agrees with us that on the basis of previous statements he has made it is in order-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: -to discuss the advisability of including wheat, oats and barley produced on the prairies. I have in my hand Hansard for December 20, page 2652, where I find that the Minister of Agriculture 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-
I suggest on the basis of the minister's own statement that it is clearly within the scope


of this bill to include wheat, oats and barley if the government sees fit, and it would seem to me that in discussing the broad principles of the legislation it would be an almost unheard of thing to rule out a reference to one-third of the farmers of this country who are producing grain on the prairies. I think the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is entirely in order.


Mr. Quelch:: I agree with the former two speakers that this matter should be in order to be discussed at this time. I think that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) states that the Speaker made a ruling he should be required to read from Hansard where that ruling was made. I was in the house when that matter was brought up. It was at the end of the day, and as I heard it no ruling was made. If there had been an indication a ruling was to be made I would have wanted to have the opportunity to speak on that question because I am firmly convinced that hon. members are within their rights in discussing this question.
The Agricultural Prices Support Act, as it stands today, contains a provision covering oats and barley. This bill proposes to take that right away from the raisers of oats and barley. If this bill proposes to take something away from the farmers which they have a right to expect today, then surely we should be allowed to discuss whether or not that right should be taken away. The position with regard to wheat is similar. This bill definitely states that wheat grown in eastern Canada outside of the designated area can be covered, but wheat grown within the designated area cannot be covered. Surely we have a right then to argue that wheat grown within the designated area should be covered by the bill. I believe, therefore, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is within his rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I cannot find any ruling made by the Speaker. However, I will ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill instead of attempting a general discussion.


Walter Adam Tucker: I shall try to do that. I thought I was discussing the principle of the bill, as I understood it. I read from the title of the bill and also the preamble to the bill, which stated the measure was to benefit agricultural producers generally. I was pointing out that a very substantial branch of agricultural producers were not being covered by the bill, so although I believed I was discussing the principle of the bill I shall defer to your ruling in that regard.

When interrupted by the Minister of Agriculture-I would remind him that I was answering his question as to whether the head of our wheat pool was favourable to deficiency payments being made to our people in western Canada-I was reading to him the submission that was made to his government just 10 days ago-I was reading paragraph (d) of that submission which reads:
That since the price of grain resulted in a serious drop in farm revenue for 1955-56, that such deficiency payments be made on wheat, oats and barley delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the year ended 31st July, 1956.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; you just indicated to the hon. gentleman he should address himself to the general principle of the bill. This is the very point I brought up. I did not bring up the point mentioned by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) or the point mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) or the point which the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is now mentioning. The point of order I made was that it was not in order to speak about this submission which was made by the western wheat pool heads in regard to deficiency payments for the 1955-56 crop; that has nothing to do with this bill whatever.


Mr. Slefura:: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to clause 10, paragraph (b) which says:
-pay to producers of an agricultural commodity, directly or through such agent as the board may determine, the amount by which the prescribed price exceeds a price determined by the board to be the average price at which the commodity is sold in such markets and during such periods as the board considers appropriate;
I believe that in this clause we have the principle of deficiency payments. If the minister denies that there is a form of deficiency payments in that bill, perhaps he should explain what that clause does mean.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to the point of order, I submit that the minister cannot deny that the bill proposes to repeal the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Deficiency payments can be made by the government under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, under the set up under that act to the growers of oats and barley in western Canada. When this bill is carried that act is repealed and the government can no longer make these deficiency payments on oats and barley. In this submission by the wheat pools they ask for deficiency payments on oats and barley as well as wheat.
How can the minister possibly say that the question of deficiency payments on grain is not involved in this bill? It is involved in the bill I submit to you. If they are involved in the bill, I submit to you it is an outrageous thing for the Minister of Agriculture to try 96698-235
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization to silence members who are proposing to improve the position of our western Canadian farmers, who certainly are an important branch of agriculture.
Surely it is not correct that we cannot even speak in this house in favour of the same treatment being given to them as is being given to other branches of agriculture under this bill. The position is taken by a minister who comes from western Canada, Mr. Speaker, that I am not even to speak about it. I hope you do not make a ruling according to that, but I await your ruling with interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member is in order as long as he does not discuss deficiency payments beyond the terms of the bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: If you are ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot discuss deficiency payments, I am going to appeal your ruling because deficiency payments are an integral part of this bill. The question of whether or not they shall be applied to oats and barley, and the fact the government is proposing to repeal that provision with the passage of this bill, is surely a proper subject for discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member misunderstood me. I have said that he has a right to discuss that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that there is a Speaker who will restrain the desires of hon. members opposite to some extent.
I have read paragraph (d) of the submission made 10 days ago asking the government to make deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the crop year ended July 31, 1956. I am sure that they have in mind that the government would make available to the wheat board the money to make these deficiency payments. Why does the government not do something about it, now that they are purporting to deal with the situation in which agriculture finds itself today and about which the minister spoke so eloquently in the radio speech which he is proposing to have aired in western Canada on the 25th of this month.
Then, the wheat pool asked this:
(e)	That similar payments be provided on wheat, oats and barley delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the year ended 31st July 1957.
If the minister is going to deal with the situation in which farmers find themselves, where they are not getting a fair share of the national income, why does he definitely exclude that part of agriculture which everybody in the west knows needs deficiency payments to give those farmers a fair deal? I
3708	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister will not give any assurance that something is going to be done to give the government power to deal with these reasonable requests to which I have just referred in regard to deficiency payments to give our farmers a chance to meet their rising costs of living and to give them a chance to share in the prosperity this country has been enjoying for the last 10 years, then I do not see how I can support the bill.
The other day the minister made a great point of the fact that the basis of this bill was the cost of production. This does not satisfy me either. There was a clause written into the Agricultural Prices Support Act to the effect that the objective of that measure was to give the farmer a fair share of the national income, not to keep him on a basis where he just got his cost of production. Where would the Canadian economy or the Canadian people be without the food that the farmers grow? Surely when the farmers are doing this worth-while work they are entitled to a fair share of that national income.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why didn't you give it to them?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with what you are doing. You are in power. You are proposing to take out of the actual operative section of the bill this provision that that should be the objective of the board under that act. Why do you want to take it out of the bill? Is it because you do not want to be bound by it? By putting it in the preamble, of course you are not bound by it because it is just a recital which does not bind anybody. If it were put in the actual body of the act it would be the binding obligation on the board operating under that act to do its very best to achieve the objective of seeing that the farmer got a fair deal. Now this government in this bill proposes to repeal that provision which, when it was passed, the head of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture described as one of the most forward provisions that had been written in any act of parliament for many years. Now this government, after all the promises it made to our farmers, proposes to strike out of the law of the land that provision to which we could appeal with regard to getting fair payment for farmers first by supported prices and then by deficiency payments, under the law as passed by this parliament.
I should like to know-I think the minister should tell us when he speaks-why they strike a provision like that out of the law and only, after insistence by their own backbenchers and after protests from the farmers of this country, go so far as to


put in something that is not nearly as good. But they did not even put it in the operative section of the bill; they put it in the preamble. Why did they not put it in the operative section of the bill. Why put it in the preamble -if they wanted to do at least as well as the previous government had done when it passed the Agricultural Prices Support Act?
Mr. Speaker, we are meeting here after an election where the people on the farms indicated that they wanted something more done than had been done in the past for them, in order to give them a fair deal. The hon. gentleman's leader pledged himself to that objective on one platform after another all throughout Canada. He obtained thousands of votes on that basis. Now we are faced with a bill which repeals some of the basic rights of the farmers of western Canada and does away with rights they already have. It does not meet their needs in any way, shape or form. It purports to give them rights based on their cost of production but not to give them a fair share of the national income. I wonder how they think people will feel who really believed those promises of their leader. I wonder what the leader himself must think as he considers the promises he made upon which he received hundreds of votes throughout western Canada, when he sees that in this bill, which purports to be designed to give the farmer a better deal, the western farmers who grow grain and live by that means are forgotten men and are struck right out of the bill. Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for the farmers of western Canada and it is not good enough for me.


Mr. F. S. Zaplifny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is likely to be the most important of any to come before this house in the present session. While I have already on a previous occasion stated my views on the bill which is before us as originally introduced, I think at this time it is necessary to assess what progress has been made by this parliament in connection with this important legislation.
The situation with which we are faced at the present time is that the government has refused to accept the advice offered by the members of this group and of the Social Credit group to refer its subject matter to the committee on agriculture. On the other hand, we have been asked by members supporting the government, particularly in the speeches made yesterday, to accept this bill fairly well on faith, on the claim that they trust the powers which are granted to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and they are asking us to do the same.
The members of the C.C.F. group have stood four square for the acceptance of the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
principle of parity prices for farm products for as many years as there have been C.C.F. members in this house. The members of the Social Credit party have also supported that principle. We are now being put in the position of having either to accept or reject the invitation from the government side to accept on faith a bill which does not meet the principle of parity prices for farm products.
The stand which we have taken in the past and which we are taking now is well supported by the farm organizations across Canada. It will not be necessary for me to document that support to any large extent because it has already been documented in great detail as the debate has proceeded. However, I am going to refer to one or two statements which have been put out by farm organizations and which deal with this legislation. Before I do so, however, I want to point out why it would be very difficult for either the members of this party at least and the Social Credit members-because apparently, by and large, the Liberal members are prepared to accept this bill on faith- to accept it in that way and why it would be difficult for the organized farmers to accept it on the basis of trusting the minister to administer the bill in such a way as to give the benefit of the doubt-if we can perhaps call it that-to the agricultural producer.
I have in my hand two statements which appeared in the Winnipeg newspapers on almost the same day. Both of them appeared during the Christmas recess, between Christmas day and New Years day. One of them was a statement, as reported by the Canadian Press, from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). It appeared under the heading "Economic Outlook Good for '58, Says Harkness". The significant part of that statement is this. I may say this has a direct relationship to whether we can or cannot trust the administration of this bill to the minister in the hope that he can interpret as generously as possible what is contained in the bill itself. The minister is reported to have made this statement, and this is in quotation marks. If he did not use these words, he can correct them. These words refer to the question of prices of agricultural products and are as follows:
Regardless of circumstances that may develop, farmers will be assured prices almost as good as those secured in the past.
Almost on the same way there appeared a report of a speech delivered by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, Mr. J. H. Wesson, under the headline "Farmers 96698-2354
Find Their Expenses Much Greater Than Their Income". The report goes on to say this:
He said, despite having delivered the equivalent of a better than average crop, farmers found their expenses for the year were much greater than their income. The reason was the continued increase in the cost of things farmers buy, while prices of farm products are declining.
If we take those two statements side by side, what do we find, Mr. Speaker? On the one hand the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool-there is no doubt that all other farm leaders will agree with what he had to say on that occasion-is claiming that the farmers are finding that their expenses are greater than their income, that their prices are still declining while their costs of production are still increasing. That is the situation with which we are faced and with which we have been faced for the last few years. In the face of that situation, what does the Minister of Agriculture undertake to do? He undertakes that regardless of circumstances that may develop farmers will be assured prices almost as good as those secured in the past. In other words, he is undertaking publicly to administer the bill in such a way that farmers will receive a little bit less than they have been receiving in the past few years, because he says prices will be almost as good. If you take "almost as good" as something which is bad you get something which is worse, and that is what the minister is promising the farmers of Canada-prices a little worse than they have been in the last four or five years.
That is a statement of the minister himself as reported in the press and, on the basis of that statement, no farm organization, no individual farmer and no member of this house who is interested in agriculture can accept it and leave this bill to be administered, on the statement of the minister himself, in such a way as to result in such prices. The minister has already publicly declared that it would be administered in such a way that prices will be a little worse than they have been in the last few years, and that is the point I wish to emphasize.
So we find the situation where the C.C.F. and Social Credit members are continuing their struggle to have written into the bill something which will assure to the farmers their fair share of the national income and something that will bear a direct relationship to or acceptance of the principle of parity prices.
Members supporting the government in their speeches yesterday-I do not wish to take the time of the house to quote them in detail-said on several occasions that they believed the farmers should receive their fair
3710	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization share of the national income. This was said by several members of the Progressive Conservative party yesterday. At the same time, however, they said they did not believe in parity prices as a method by which farmers could receive such fair share. That declaration, coming from government-supporting members, gives us even more reason for worry and concern as to the effect of this bill. If it is to be passed in this house in its present form and be left to the minister to administer in accordance with his public statement that it is his declared intention to administer prices in such a way that they will be slightly worse than they have been in the last few years, some further consideration must be given to this subject.
These two statements are completely inconsistent and contradictory. If they profess to believe that farmers are entitled to their fair share of the national income there can be no semblance of logic in saying at the same time that they do not agree with the principle of parity prices, because parity means equality. If in one breath you say you believe the farmer is entitled to equality and in the next breath you say you do not then you cancel out your own argument.
In my respectful submission, therefore, we cannot entrust the administration of this bill in its present form to the Minister of Agriculture having regard to his declared intention, nor can we entrust it to the advice of those members supporting the government because in either case it appears to me the whole question of the parity price principle will be sacrificed to the law of supply and demand.
We also have to consider the further proof of the minister's own statement when introducing the resolution preceding this bill, in which he stated very definitely that it was one of his motives in the bill to avoid any incentive to production. In other words, he intended to keep prices low enough to make sure they did not encourage any large volume of agricultural production. I would ask the minister how he squares that statement with the traditional policy of tariff protection in his own party. What is tariff protection if it is not an incentive for certain manufacturing industries to expand the production of certain manufactured articles? It was put there for that express purpose-as an incentive- and has remained on the statute books of Canada ever since.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), furthermore, is busily scurrying around trying to find ways and means to increase tariff protection', yet the Minister of Agriculture, who sits with him on the treasury benches, tells us it is all very well


and it is perfectly good to provide through our tariff structure an incentive to the manufacturer, regardless of whether that costs the Canadian consumer something- and it is costing them plenty, in fact, $400 million-but as soon as it comes to agriculture, he says, "No, we will not provide any incentive; we will allow the law of supply and demand to come in and make sure the farmer will always get a little less than his cost of production." That is the declared purpose and motive.
On the face of this we certainly have to go further than we have gone into this bill. Then we have to take into account the attitude of our Liberal friends on this side of the house because, after all, many of them represent agricultural constituencies. I should not say that many of them are from western Canada, because there are not many now, but there are a few. It is a matter of deep concern to me to note the attitude taken by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) yesterday, when he stated he would not be guilty of voting for a bill which would repeal the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Today he reinforced that statement very forcibly, and I congratulate him on his stand because it is a consistent one. However, while he was talking all that ran through my mind was what was said in this house a couple of days ago by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) and the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). When the hon. member for Rosthern made the statement to which I have just referred he was in effect accusing the other two members of being guilty of doing that very thing, because we find recorded at page 3610 of Hansard the following statement by the hon. member for Meadow Lake:
I hold in my hand the death warrant of any Conservative candidate running in a farming area in western Canada. I hold in my hand Bill No. 237. I would also say that I hold my own passport to this place after the next election.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a real expression of responsible statemanship; there is a member representing an agricultural community who regards this bill as a death warrant for any Conservative candidate running against him. Why? Because it is not good for agriculture. Furthermore, he regards it as a passport back to this house. I might advise the hon. gentleman that I think he will find he has got his passport and his death warrant all mixed up and I think it is a question of where he will end up after the next election.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was at that time pointing out the danger that was being run by the members of the official opposition in allowing their political partisanship to loom larger than the consideration of the principles of this bill. I mentioned that whereas the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) had stated in his address that he would not support this bill because of the fact it repeals the Agricultural Prices Support Act which in his opinion at least is a better act than the one foreshadowed by this bill, on the other hand the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), who is the acknowledged leader of that party for the province of Saskatchewan at least, when speaking on December 20 last in this house on this bill as the lead off speaker for that party made a couple of statements which give rise to grave misgivings as to what the actual motives of that party are with regard to this legislation.
I think he was rather shooting from the hip at that time and being a westerner I suspect he would realize the danger of that practice unless you know in which direction the gun happens to be pointing particularly if you are making a cross hand draw as he was doing. In deciding how he was going to treat this measure, as recorded at page 2673 of Hansard of that date, the hon. member for Melville used these words:
I said a few moments ago that as far as I am concerned I am voting for the measure which has been brought in.
The hon. member was, of course, referring to Bill No. 237. He then went on to give some of his reasons, as follows:
Since it has been decided by the government to repeal the present measure

The Agricultural Prices Support Act.
-and bring this amendment 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.
As usual, this is one of those sentences that starts off in one direction and ends up going in another but the only analysis one could make of that stand is that the hon. member believes that Bill No. 237 is not good and chiefly it is not good because it repeals the present Agricultural Prices Support Act which, in his opinion, can do more for the farmers than can the present bill. Then the hon. member concludes with the strange decision that because this bill does away with an act that is better than the bill, he is going to vote for the bill. Later on in the speech, of course, he clarifies the reason for that by saying-I am only paraphrasing-that he is
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization content to let this bill come forward and be adopted in order to let the farmers see how bad a bill it is and then he is going to go to the country and fight the government on the basis of a bad act.
We in this group feel that this is hardly the way to approach legislation as important to agriculture as this because, after all, if it is unsatisfactory legislation it is the duty of all members of the house-not only opposition members but all members of the house who have an interest in this subject-to do everything possible to improve it. I suspect that the hon. member for Melville was organizing a sort of game of cops and robbers. Here he had cast the terrible Tories in the role of a group of robbers who were going to swoop down on the farmers and take away a good act from them and thus give an opportunity to the Liberals to come rushing in from the other side, in the role of the cops to rescue the farmers. Of course what he failed to take into account was that the farmers for the past 22 years have had more experience with the cops than they have had with the robbers and at the present time they hardly know by which side they would rather be rescued.
What we in this group have been trying to do during the course of this debate has been to relate to what is now before us the express and considered desire of the farm organizations across this country with respect to farm legislation to see whether it measures up to what the farm organizations actually wish and also to see whether it measures up to what the party that is now in power pledged itself to do when it was in opposition and particularly during the course of the last general election. That is what I intend to do in a moment.
I have before me a large volume of representations from farm union locals across my constituency as well as outside the constituency and some submissions from the federation of agriculture in the various provinces much of which has already been put on the record and it would be redundant to put it on the record again.


William Moore Benidickson: But you will.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: However, I have two representative resolutions which I believe set out rather fully the attitude of both the federation of agriculture and of the farmers' unions in relation to what they expect this government to do with respect to farm prices.
I wish to read a resolution submitted by the Gilbert Plains local of the Manitoba farmers' union in my own constituency copies of which were forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Springfield
3712	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization (Mr. Schulz) and to me. Some of the hon. members from the west will know that this particular part of Manitoba is the area in which the farm unions developed the earliest and this is one of the largest and most influential locals in the province. They placed the matter before the government and members of the opposition in the words of the following resolution:
That whereas decreased farm income due to depressed prices during a time when other industries are prospering and the cost to the farmer is ever increasing, drastically affects the living standard of the farmer;
And whereas there appears to he no lessening of the price-squeeze pressure on the agriculture industry, therefore he it resolved:
(a)	That we urge the government of Canada to establish a price support program based on 100 per cent parity on all agricultural products produced and consumed in Canada; and be it further resolved
(b)	That the export prices on farm produce be negotiated and set by the government and farm organizations.
I turn to a copy of a night letter which was dispatched to the Minister of Agriculture on December 18, 1957, by the provincial board of the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation, which reads as follows:
Your proposed price support legislation fails to assure the farmer of improvement in present financial position. It is our contention and was one of the main planks in your election platform and continuing policy (Hansard, April 8, 1941; March 23, 1953; March 12, 1956) that price support legislation should provide a formula based on a period of years when the income of the farmer was in fair relationship to other groups in the Canadian economy.
That pretty well sets out the point of view of both those major farm organizations. The minister is well aware of that because in both cases copies of these, or the originals, were sent to the Minister of Agriculture as well as to the members of the house. Lest the minister thinks that this farm organization does not mean business, listen to this press dispatch that was issued somewhere around January 1 this year. I am not sure of the date but it was very close to January 1. This appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, and reads as follows:
Two Manitoba farm leaders-in predictions for 1958-agree that Conservatives will lose considerable support in western Canada if proposed federal price support legislation passes in its present form.
May I point out that this was after the minister had offered those five amendments to which I shall make reference a little later on. I continue with the quotation:
James Patterson, president of the Manitoba farmers' union, and Percy Burnell, president of the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation, both claim that the controversial price support bill is the most important matter facing the present government.


"The political future of government hinges largely on the price support bill," said Mr. Patterson. If it passes in its present form, it will have a detrimental effect on the government's position in western Canada.
This is borne out by the following statement by Mr. Burnell:
If in 1958 the farmer does not see an adequate degree of support, his present disappointment might well become resentment.
That sets out quite clearly that those farm organizations have not only placed before the government what their stand is on this particular question but they are prepared to follow it up by taking the appropriate action to see to it that the government is held to its pledges. In other words, they have pledged themselves publicly to keep the government honest, and we are trying to do the same thing on this side of the house.
I think that somewhere along the line the Minister of Agriculture will have to admit that his proposed legislation went off the tracks. When he introduced this legislation on December 11, I believe it was, he made a brave speech. It is all on the record and I do not need to quote from it. But he in effect told this house that the government had given full consideration to this question, had taken advice from the different sources from which he was going to take any advice and as much as said to the members of this House of Commons, which includes his own supporters, that this was the final word; this is what you are going to get whether you like it or not.
He did not get very far. He had hitched a very new shining engine to his farm train. Before he got to the next station the thing was derailed. The first thing he knew he was forced to bring in five amendments and put them before the house in a most unusual manner, a manner which was, of course, strictly out of order. If it had not been for the unanimous consent he received he could not have done it. Then he brought another bright, new, shining engine to the rescue, but it too went off the rails. He decided that what he needed was not a new locomotive but a new cowcatcher. Therefore, he hitched the preamble in front of the bill. He thought he was going to persuade the farmers that because he had put cost-price relationship in the preamble everything was going to be fine, because those who believe in parity prices are going to be satisfied that it means parity prices, and those who do not believe in parity prices, which includes more than half of his party and probably 90 per cent of it, are going to be satisfied that it does not mean parity prices. He thought he was going to satisfy everybody. The point I wish to

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
make is that when you try to satisfy everybody by deceiving them you usually end up by satisfying nobody. That is what happened.
I think what is needed now-and I propose this as assistance to the minister rather than criticism-is for the members of this house to put that train back on the rails again. There is a way in which that can be done. Before I come to that I want to set out what in my opinion are some of the things that have to be put in the new bill that I am going to propose to the minister. I think this pretty well represents the opinion of organized agriculture as well as the opinion of a large number of hon. members in this house. These things are needed in order to clear away all this wreckage for which the minister is responsible and the confusion which he himself has introduced by first introducing a bill, and then introducing some amendments and reprinting the bill which has no legal status, and confusing almost everybody who reads Hansard as to what is actually before the house now. On top of that, I must say the minister intends to bring in some more amendments.
As a matter of fact I will make him a small wager at the present time. I will bet him a bottle of the finest pasteurized milk that money can buy-and I will purchase it at a parity price, too-that before this discussion is over he is going to introduce some more amendments to this already amended version of the reprinted bill. There is a danger that it may create still further confusion. I suggest to him that what he should do is withdraw this bill entirely and introduce a new one, and that new bill should contain certain principles which I shall mention in a moment.
Before I do that, in order to put the matter formally before the house, I am going to move as an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Springfield; the following:
That Bill No. 237 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing at this session legislation making definite and statutory provision for parity prices for agricultural products at levels that will assure to producers their fair share of the national income.
I have placed this amendment before the house, and I would like to mention now what in my opinion are five necessary inclusions in this proposed new bill which would do a great deal towards meeting the desire of organized agriculture and certainly would clear away the confusion which has been created by the minister again in trying to introduce his bill in two separate parts.
In my opinion, a satisfactory bill should contain within it, first, the parity price principle, and not in the preamble but expressed
in the legislation itself, having legal and binding effect. Second, it must contain a price formula which will relate support prices in the bill to the parity price principle. Third, it must have a firm provision for assuring producers that they will get full value of any deficiency payments that will be made. Fourth, it must give the stabilization board authority equal to the responsibility they will carry for the price levels that are adopted. Fifth, it must treat producers in all parts of Canada on the same basis.
It would be obvious that the five points are designed to fill out the inadequacies in the present bill. If time permitted I would go over each one of them to point out how the bill at the present time does not live up to these five main principles but I see that my time is rapidly running out. Therefore, I shall have to conclude by making one final appeal.
This is not to the Minister of Agriculture. He has already spoken on two occasions at least and he will probably speak again before this is decided. But I do want to make a special appeal to the Prime Minister himself. After all the speeches that have been made on the subject the record is full of the pledges that have been made by the Prime Minister at one time or another in the house and outside of it on the question of parity prices for farm products. The hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) only today placed on the record some of the statements made by the Prime Minister when he was sitting in the opposition indicating the attitude he then took, and supposedly his party along with him, on the question of parity for farm products.
I do not need to put any more quotations on the record. All farmers know, all members of the house know, everybody knows that the Prime Minister went across the country from one end to the other, spoke to agricultural audiences during the election campaign and pledged himself solidly that if he became prime minister he would introduce legislation to bring about parity prices for farm products. As a matter of fact, he spoke right in my home town and I heard him make the statement. Therefore there is no doubt as to what his pledge was.
The Prime Minister has seen fit to disregard or ignore the whole debate so far. There have been times when he has been present and has heard some of the views expressed and statements made from both sides of the house but he himself has not uttered one word either in defence of the proposed legislation or to state, as I think he should state, that this legislation is not adequate and therefore he is prepared to have
3714	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the bill withdrawn and introduce something which does meet the pledges he made right across Canada. He has not done either the one thing or the other. He has ignored the debate. He has absented himself from the debate. He has taken the attitude that perhaps he is not involved in the debate and that any blame that will arise because of this inadequate legislation will fall upon other shoulders than his own.
I think that is quite unfair to the Minister of Agriculture. I see no reason why he should have to bail the Prime Minister out of all the pledges he made. I think the Prime Minister has a duty to the house, to the country and to agriculture to stand up in the house as Prime Minister and to defend his policies and the pledges which he made on behalf of his party. If he does not do that we shall have to assume that the members of the government are retreating from the position which they took before the election.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point out to Your Honour that in my opinion this amendment is out of order on two grounds. The first ground is that in effect it is the same amendment as the one which we voted on this afternoon. The amendment we voted on this afternoon was to the effect that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. The effect of this amendment is exactly the same, that the bill be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of the house consideration should be given to the advisability, and so forth.
In other words, it is really just another means of saying what the previous amendment said, that the bill be not now read a second time and that something else be done about the matter. In the short time I have had I have not been able to find the citation covering this matter but I remember there is a citation which says that two amendments to the same effect cannot be moved in connection with the same bill. In addition, Mr. Speaker, citation 659 on page 229 of Beauchesne, third edition states:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading.
That is exactly what this amendment does. Therefore on that ground, as well as on the other ground, I would maintain that it is out of order. The citation goes on to state:
It must oppose the principle of the bill.


This amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill which is that of introducing a form of price support for agricultural commodities. Therefore the amendment is out of order on that ground. The citation then notes:
When the natural products marketing bill was up for second reading, on the 24th April, 1934, a member moved in amendment that "this house, while prepared to support legislation for assisting the orderly marketing of natural products-
The very same sort of thing we are talking about.
-"is unalterably opposed to the enactment of any compulsory measures which delegate to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation, etc."
The amendment now before us differs from that only in that it proposes that powers of this sort should be given rather than that they should not be given. The citation continues:
The Speaker ruled this amendment out of order because it did not challenge the principle of the bill and it anticipated the committee stage.
I would submit that is exactly what this amendment does. Therefore there are really three grounds, as I see it, on which the amendment should be ruled out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may speak to the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture, he claimed that the amendment should be ruled out of order. His first reason was that it was the same as the previous amendment that was voted on this afternoon. I think it is obvious that the amendments are entirely different. The first amendment was to refer the subject matter of the bill to the agricultural committee. It expressed no opinion as to in what way the committee should conduct its deliberations. It did not give any instruction to the committee as to what should be considered. It was an amendment opposing the bill and suggesting that the subject matter be referred to the agricultural committee.
This amendment is entirely different because it expresses the belief that in the opinion of the house another measure should be introduced to provide parity prices. I think they are entirely separate amendments. The other one was that the bill should not now be read a second time but that the subject matter should be referred to the agricultural committee and this one states a principle, namely support of parity prices.
The minister quoted Beauchesne, citation 659, as a second reason why the amendment should not be considered in order. That citation reads:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating

a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the bill.
I suggest that the amendment is entirely in order on that ground. It is definitely in opposition to the principle of the bill. It enunciates, of course, a declaration of policy but not in approval of the principle of the bill. I think citation 657 is the one that governs the introduction of such an amendment. It reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress-
I suggest that this amendment is in order because it meets the first requirement. It is a resolution that is opposed to the principle of the bill. It differs from the bill and it is opposed to the progress of the bill. For these reasons I believe the amendment is entirely in order.


Victor Quelch: I do not think the arguments of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) were well taken, Mr. Speaker. I was amazed to hear him suggest that there was any similarity between this amendment and the one we dealt with before recess. The former one asked that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the agriculture committee. The hope was that in that committee we would hear representations from farm organizations. We do not know what their representations might be. They might be entirely different from parity.
This amendment asks for consideration of the principle of parity and therefore the two amendments are quite different. On the other point I would say very definitely this is an amendment which does challenge the principle of the bill introduced by the minister. This one brings in the principle of parity. Our main argument, both in this group and in the C.C.F. group, is that the bill introduced by the minister does not embody the principle of parity prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I may say a further word on this point of order, in view of what the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has said and the arguments introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I feel there is no question but that there is no challenge so far as the principle of the bill is concerned: in other words, that the amendment does not challenge the principle of the bill because the amendment says that
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing at this session legislation making definite statutory provision for parity prices for agricultural products at levels that will assure producers their fair share of the national income.
If we read the preamble to the bill, we find that the purpose of the bill is to give an adequate return to farmers; that is the general principle and purpose of the bill. We find the preamble reads:
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;-
The only ground on which my friends of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties could possibly maintain that this bill does not do exactly what they call for in the amendment is that it does not mention the word "parity". As a matter of fact, they mention the word "parity" without having defined it, so we do not know what they are talking about.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: I should like to ask the minister if he would give us a definition right now of what he means by "parity".


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that is scarcely part of the point of order, but I could reply to that when I wind up this debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture should suggest that this bill is one, the purpose of which is to provide parity prices. For many days now it has been the burden of his argument that to place in any measure a formula-and that of course is what parity price is entirely based upon, a formula-is something that the government could not contemplate doing.
Then, the minister referred only to the preamble of the bill. The preamble does not in any way bind the government. The bill that is now before the house allows the government to set any prices for any agricultural commodity at any level it sees fit, with the exception of a certain level for nine specific commodities. I feel it is obvious that the measure before the house is the very opposite of what we propose by this motion in which we ask the house to approve the principle of parity prices.


Victor Quelch: In reply to what the minister said a few minutes ago, I would point out that when the leader of this group spoke he stated that the bill does not contain the principle of parity. He suggested to the minister three or four amendments that he should make in order that parity might be placed in the bill. We are hoping that the minister,
3718	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization when he speaks, will tell us he is going to embody these amendments in the bill. So far he has not moved these amendments, and until such time as he does move these amendments parity is not in the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I say a word? It seems to *me that the hon. member for Assiniboia has completely defeated himself by his own arguments. He alleges, and of course we do not admit his argument, that this bill has nothing to do with parity and does not enable the government to establish a parity price formula. Then, he says he is moving an amendment which suggests that legislation be introduced to make definite, statutory provision for parity prices. Since, therefore, he says that his amendment would, in effect, amend the bill to make it a different bill- and that is his argument-then his amendment is out of order because it raises a distinctly new subject matter which, applying his own argument, is entirely foreign to the subject matter of the present bill. Of course, he cannot do that except by a distinct motion after notice.
I would refer Your Honour in this connection to citations 354 and 355 in Beauchesne's third edition. Citation 354 says:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
Citation 355 says:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
If, therefore, the hon. member is sincere in his proposition that this bill does not introduce a system of parity or support which will involve giving the farmers a fair share of the national income, then he must admit his motion raises a distinctly new proposition which is entirely foreign to the subject matter of the bill.
Of course, the fact is that the bill does do exactly what the Minister of Agriculture has suggested and, therefore, the hon. member's motion is out of order on the other ground that it does not state a principle opposed to the bill. Whichever way he wants to put it, it seems to me that on the basis of citation 659 or on the basis of citations 354 and 355, the hon. member's amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the assistance they have given me, but they display a considerable difference of opinion. This proposed amendment also displays a great deal of ingenuity in its phraseology. It is rather difficult to bring it within the citations to which I have been referred. I think that it must be considered as calling for two things, and I propose to deal with it on that basis.


The first part of the amendment is:
That Bill No. 237 be not now read a second time,-
This part, by itself, is out of order, of course, because that is just a denial of the motion before the house that the bill be read a second time and the way that would be disposed of would be by voting against second reading. So far as that [DOT] part of the amendment goes, by itself, it would not be in order.
In so far as the remainder of the amendment is concerned, it does not propose that something be done with this bill and that is what gives me some difficulty. On the contrary, the previous amendment proposed that the bill be referred to a committee, and that is quite in order. If the principle of the bill is opposed, and some other proper disposition of the bill is moved by way of amendment, then that is in order. But this amendment does not seek to dispose of the bill at all. It simply calls upon the house to start, de novo, with some other proceedings, presumably to consider bringing in another bill. This would have to be done at the instance of the government and, being a money bill, would require a fresh resolution and the institution of fresh proceedings. Therefore, from that point of view, I am not considering the latter part of the amendment as an amendment to the principle of the bill at all but as proposing something that is quite extraneous to the matter before the house and something which would be introduced by a motion on the order paper at any time but in my view could not be stated by way of amendment at this time.
That makes it unnecessary for me to deal with the argument as to whether, if the second part of this amendment is acceptable, it initiates a principle different from that in the present bill. On that point, the main difference among those who spoke seemed to be over the question of parity. It seems to me that parity as a principle could be introduced under the resolution by amendment at the committee stage. I am not ruling that that is the case but, without looking at the resolution again, I would say it is possible that amendments at the committee stage could give effect to the change in principle, if there is any change in principle proposed by this amendment. Hence in my view the amendment is not in order as it stands.


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Speaker, I am changing my seat for the purpose of getting a little bit closer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). Perhaps I shall have a little more effect in this position. He seems to be made out of such hard stuff that we cannot get anything into or out of him.

In the last few days, in discussing this agricultural stabilization bill, we have witnessed a spectacle that I think will go down in history as equalling that of the pipe line debate of the year before last. Perhaps the older members are accustomed to this kind of shemozzle but I am quite sure that with every new member it will leave a bad taste.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacob Schulz: I intend to prove what I say. I would just ask hon. members opposite to keep quiet and they will get the proof. I could not understand why the minister did not accept our amendment. When this amendment was moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue)-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny).


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough).


Jacob Schulz: -or rather the hon. member for Moose Mountain, (Mr. McCullough) I was sure the minister would accept it and get rid of this bill because it can only have a bad reflection on him to try to push through anything which first of all is ill-conceived and maliciously designed. If I were in his place I would not for one moment hesitate to turn the matter over to the committee on agriculture and say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recall that we disposed of the amendment just before the adjournment. It is not in order now to talk about whether or not the minister should have accepted that amendment. The house has not accepted the amendment.


Jacob Schulz: In view of the fact that this amendment just now was ruled out of order, I do not know what to do next, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacob Schulz: Perhaps the best thing we could do now is this. I have seen one man committing political suicide.


An hon. Member:: That is you.


Jacob Schulz: But I have never seen one man committing suicide on a group of men. That is exactly what happened with this bill. They tell me that in Japan they have what they call hara-kiri. They tell me that it is an action that results from a combination of pride and stubbornness. This is exactly what we have here, namely a combination of pride and stubbornness which runs away with common sense. If the Conservative party are trying to push this legislation through in spite of their promises and in spite of economic reasons against it, I cannot
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization understand their thinking. Perhaps I can even come to this conclusion after watching this debate for the last two days. Perhaps we should follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) and submit this bill to this liars' club.


An hon. Member:: Are you a member?


Jacob Schulz: Perhaps that would be a proper amendment.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps you are a charter member.


Jacob Schulz: We could call it the Conservative liars' club. Of course, when we send it down there, we shall have to include a few of the promises of the Conservative party so that these people may judge it accordingly. I have one here. On April 20 the Winnipeg Tribune came out with this statement:
Progressive Conservative Leader John Diefen-baker has pledged his party's support for parity prices in agriculture. Mr. Diefenbaker, contesting Prince Albert riding in the June 10 federal election, said Thursday night that if his party is elected in the forthcoming election, farmers would be "assured a fair and just share" of Canada's wealth.


An hon. Member:: That is what they are getting.


Jacob Schulz: Then there is this quotation:
"I want to see the farmer protected", he said. "The parity we want to introduce would bring a level between prices and costs."
Where is that in the bill? Hence we shall have to include that in our package when we send it down there. I think there is another thing we shall be obliged to include and it is this document which I hold in my hand entitled "A New National Policy". We should be obliged to draw to their attention the section in it entitled "A Fair Share for Farmers".


An hon. Member:: They are getting it.


Jacob Schulz: There is a possibility that that man could win a prize. After all we have one personality who has won the Nobel prize for peace. Perhaps there is a chance he would win another prize for Canada. This is terrific. Are hon. members listening. Perhaps I am the only one who took these people seriously and perhaps that is the reason it is so hard for me to take it. I am quite sure the people here were never taken seriously. For example, here in my hand I have a cartoon which was drawn by the cartoonist for the Winnipeg Free Press. It shows a horse which they call parity prices. On top of the horse are three riders. First there is the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, (Mr. Coldwell) of the C.C.F. driving the horse, with Social

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Credit right behind hanging on to him and then Mr. Drew who just could not quite make it.


An hon. Member:: You should table that
cartoon.


Jacob Schulz: I should certainly like to do so. It would go down in history.


Mr. Studer:: Most of them never saw a
horse.


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would help me a little bit in getting this pamphlet on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will proceed with the discussion of the principle of the bill.


Jacob Schulz: This is it, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What principle?


Irvin William Studer: Trying to explain the principle of the horse.


Jacob Schulz: This is the principle, but they just could not make it.


An hon. Member:: The first should be last and the last should be first.


Jacob Schulz: I am fully aware of the fact that nothing would be more dull than a world without surprises and disappointments, but I am beginning to wonder how big a dose of each a man can take before it gets on his nerves. After all the pleasant surprises when this parliament opened, the disappointments are now coming in such numbers and in such sizes that it is hard to take it. I am not one of those who came into this world with a silver spoon in his mouth and I learned the hard way that anything splendid is rare. I know it is hard to find perfection but I must say the proud and stubborn displays of this government and its complete disregard for normal and economic principles in this bill are hard to take.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Jacob Schulz: They cannot even keep quiet because they cannot take the truth. I do not mind being confronted with opposing ideas and ideologies; as a matter of fact I expected them when I came here. I have lived long enough to learn from bitter experience that the economic thinking of the Conservatives is the same as those of the Liberal party and is based on the principle of exploitation. They believe in exploiting the farmer and therefore it makes it so hard for them to provide a fair deal for the farmer-it is against their conception.


An hon. Member:: Go climb on your broom and be off.


Jacob Schulz: I knew I would have to fight just as this group have always had to fight for everything we have achieved so far for the Canadian people.


Irvin William Studer: You haven't achieved anything; no one believes the socialists, anyway.


Jacob Schulz: When you are confronted with a simple question of submitting a bill to the committee on agriculture I cannot understand it. Here is a man whom everyone regards as an honest man, building up an agricultural policy that is not correct in the first place, but then he is too proud to consult anybody and finally has to retrace his steps. But now he refuses to budge, and he sits there waiting for the moment when he can take the lady to the altar. It is going to take a long time because she has to be fixed up first. She has wrinkles in her stockings and her slip is showing too. We want to find out first if she has any principles; we want to find out about her behaviour and her character before we get married to this heartless creature. And heartless it is. As a matter of fact it is a measure full of deceit, spiked with booby traps, covered up with beautiful phrases, and disguised by have to regard clauses. That is it. If they think the farmers are going to fall for that one they have another guess coming.
When you look at it you come to the conclusion that there is no sign of fairness or honesty in this bill. Take, for example, the base price in the bill

where does it come from? Is there any reason for taking the last ten years? I want to see one man who can give me one reason. It was grabbed out of the air. Surely if you take a base price you go back and find a time when there was a relationship between cost and price and you take it from there. Thereafter you measure what happened since and how much the price went down and how much the cost went up since that time. It just does not make sense. That is the whole thing, it is completely out of line. When you take the last few years the prices have been completely out of line with costs, as never before in history, and yet this is the thing which will be used to measure the farmers' prices for next year.
Let us take another point. It says that prices will be guaranteed. By whom will they be guaranteed-by the Minister of Agriculture? I mentioned last time I spoke that we have trusted one minister of agriculture before and we do not intend to do it any more. A guaranteed price means that it must be in the bill, guaranteed by the law of the land. There is nothing of this kind in here and how could anybody expect the farmers to be satisfied with this when they have had

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
such bitter experience for eleven years? That is certainly hard to understand. How will they be guaranteed?
Here is an example of how these prices will be guaranteed. The minister let the cat out of the bag in his New Year message to the farmers. This has been quoted by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) before but I think this ought to be on the record again so I will quote-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member not to read something which is already on the record and I would say that in debate repetition is just as bad as irrelevancy.


Jacob Schulz: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make this clear. The minister said that the farmers will get from this bill just about as good a price as they got in the past. That is the way he will establish the guaranteed price.
I am not interested in the stabilization of prices; I am interested in raising prices and there is nothing in here about that. His statement provides the proof that he has no intention of doing anything about it and there is another proof right in the bill: Why does the second clause of the bill talk about 80 per cent of the base price? If he had any intention of using the first part of the bill for designated products he would not need the second one, but it is there. Just in case he cannot catch the prices at the floor he will catch them some place in the basement. I am not interested in this part at all because the farmers cannot afford to have prices go down any further.
There is another thing I want to mention. We have been told in the last few days, even when the resolution was introduced, that there would be a 12-month guarantee. I now want to quote from the minister's speech: These are the words of the Minister of Agriculture as recorded at page 2188 of Hansard of December 11, 1957:
There is a base price which is part of a formula arrived at by the use of the three year moving average. There is a guaranteed price which will be in effect for the following 12 months with respect to each of the commodities for which it may be required. Third, there is an assured floor price on certain basic commodities.
That means that there are designated commodities which are entirely under the jurisdiction and within the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture which will be guaranteed for 12 months. I would like to see one place in the bill where this is stated. There is nothing of the kind in the bill. How could anybody be so naive as to think that we would accept a thing like that?
I have the bill before me and subclause 1 of clause 9 states that any period can be set on the designated commodities. Is this the way to treat parliament?


An hon. Member:: No, I do not think it is.


Jacob Schulz: Of course it is not, and you know it. We have also been told that the board to be established under this measure will ensure that the prices will bear a fair relationship to the cost of production. That is very nice; I deeply appreciate that. This is contained in a subclause of clause 8; but in subclause 1 of clause 7 it is provided that the board shall have regard to the base price when setting prices. There is a straight contradiction. One cancels out the other. How can these two provisions work together if the minister or the governor in council shall have regard to the cost price and the board shall have regard to the base price? Has anyone ever heard of anything more befuddled or confused? And yet this is what has been brought before parliament in this bill. This is certainly not what I expected when I came to Ottawa.
I have reached the conclusion, and it is a horrible conclusion, that the minister does not even know what is contained in the bill. How can I believe anything else, Mr. Speaker, because surely he would not have told us day after day that the guaranteed price would be for 12 months when it is not so unless he did not know what the bill contains. This is the kind of stuff that is being sold out in the country.
There is another reason for my coming to this terrible conclusion. Today the minister argued with us that western wheat, oats and barley do not come within the scope of this bill. That is not true because if it were true do you think for one moment that we would stand for it? But we know that these products do come under the bill under the designated commodities. Thank goodness they do not come under the named commodities because this would only put the price down. That is the reason we are keeping quiet on this point. The bill plainly says that the designated commodities shall apply to any agricultural product. Surely that must include western wheat, oats and barley too.
Another thing which convinces me that the minister does not know what is in the bill is that he has been arguing day after day that deficiency payments are not included in the bill. They certainly are included in the bill, but we cannot read the bill. I wish the minister would go over his own bill because obviously somebody put something over on him.


An hon. Member:: If somebody put a bag over your head it would not hurt.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Jacob Schulz: I was rather amused listening to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) apologizing for the minister. They said, in effect, "After all, he is inexperienced; he must be honest and fair and decent", and everything else. I am willing to credit him with all those qualities, but if it is true, as they said, that someone has influenced him, it is worse because the minister must take the responsibility for what is in this bill and nobody else can accept that responsibility.
We have been confronted with the absurd statement that this bill is accepted in the country. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) rose in his place yesterday and made quite a spiel about how eagerly the farmers will grab for this measure. I have the record of the reaction of the farm organizations in my hand and it is an appalling record. You will observe that there is a large bundle of papers representing the opinions of the farm organizations as to Bill No. 237. The first objection and the first alarm came from the Ontario farmer's union which voiced the opinion that this bill is empty. Indeed, it is empty. I cannot really begin to describe the emptiness and confusion of this bill. Every time I think about it it reminds me of a story and perhaps by relating that story I can drive home my point concerning the emptiness of this measure.
The story is as follows: There was a rather heavy woman who went to town one day and while strolling up the street she came upon one of the sidewalk scales where one can get weighed.


An hon. Member:: What has this got to do with this bill?


Jacob Schulz: You just wait and see. The woman decided that she would weigh herself but she did not notice the sign hanging on the machine which said that it was out of order. She inserted her penny and stepped on the machine and watched the needle come up to 60 where it stopped. Behind her were standing two little boys who looked on with amazement wondering how it was possible for such a heavy woman to weigh only 60 pounds according to the scale. Then one of the small boys turned to the other and said, "You know what? The old bag must be empty."


An hon. Member:: Do you see how it is
related to the bill now?


Jacob Schulz: I hope that drives the point home.


Irvin William Studer: You had better not get on the scale.


Jacob Schulz: Oh, I have been on, do not worry. The next objection came from the farm organization in Manitoba which has already been quoted by the hon. member for Dauphin and therefore I will omit it. The next came from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and I want to place this on the record. It appeared immediately after the amendments to this bill were proposed and it reads:
"The amendments to the agricultural stabilization bill announced today in the House of Commons by the Minister of Agriculture do not provide for a formula as a guide to price supports based on the relationship between farm prices and cost of goods and services used by farmers, the demand which is at the centre of Canadian Federation of Agriculture policy," H. H. Hannam, president of the federation said today.
The amendment providing a preamble to the bill, does say in general terms that the stabilization measure is being enacted to assist agriculture to realize a fair relationship between the prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services they buy. Such a general statement of objectives is also, however, in the present act, and it is not the same thing, nor does it serve the same useful purpose, as a statistical formula to express this relationship. The kind of formula recommended by the federation would make it possible for price support policy to be discussed and negotiated in light of an agreed measure of the farmer's position in the economy.
There is nothing of this kind in Bill No. 237.
The next objection comes from the Ontario federation of agriculture, which was misused yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It had already been put on the record by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw).
The next one comes from the Manitoba pool elevators, which is one of the most reactionary organizations the world has ever seen. If they object to this bill, it must be bad because they are usually satisfied with anything. I want to read from this:
There is nothing in the bill to suggest that provision is made for a comparison of the relationship between the price the farmer receives for his commodities and the price he has to pay for goods and services.
Then, a little farther down it says this:
Vigorous opposition against the bill is mounting and farm organizations generally are critical of its general content.
The last paragraph reads:
The present bill can only suggest that it was pushed through as a matter of political expediency rather than as a measure designed to be of assistance to the hard-pressed agricultural industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see the hon. member has quite a sheaf of documents and therefore may I remind him of the practice with respect to reading from documents, particularly when they reflect on the conduct of the members of the house, as the one

he is now reading does. Citation 266 of Beauchesne, third edition, reads:
The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly, is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others. Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.
I would suggest that the hon. member confine his use of these documents as evidence that there are protests and differences, but not to quote from them, particularly when they undertake to tell the members of this house how they are to deal with this matter. The hon. member has a right to express his own opinion but, as this citation shows, it is not in- order to marshal a lot of outside opinion and read it.


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, accept your ruling. I have one more document here which I think should be of value. I will not quote it, but I want to say that ever since Christmas or the new year I have been accused of being the man who stirred up the western farmers. My meeting was held on December 27, but this is a page out of the Western Producer, published on December 26, and it says "On To Ottawa". It goes on to explain that the Saskatchewan wheat pool, at their convention, threatened a march to Ottawa if nothing is done for the farmers. It goes on to explain that at the annual meeting the Alberta wheat pool delegates authorized the Alberta wheat pool to join the Alberta farmers' union in the march to Ottawa. I hope that everybody who meets me in the elevators or in the corridors will not any more say to me, "Jake, when is your army coming?" because I did not stir them up; it was done before I got there. The farmers can think.
I want to suggest another thing which I think is in order. The government does not need to worry; there will be no march on Ottawa and I will tell you why. The people who promoted the first march on Ottawa are following the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). He has decided that this is just good enough to make political hay at the next election. Of course, I know I really should be nice to the hon. member for Melville today because he was rather nice to me the other day.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nobody I would rather have in my constituency if I wanted to get elected.


Jacob Schulz: He went so far as to remind the house that I am one of the most successful farmers, perhaps more successful than most farmers. Then he went on to tell the house
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization that I have also been a successful farm leader and I appreciate that very much. Perhaps from now on I will be nice, too. Perhaps it is the best because it is just like whipping a dead horse, anyway.
I hold in my hand a bundle of press clippings which show what the press thinks of this bill. Is there anything in this world that can convince this government that it cannot get away with this bill? The government tells us that this is a very simple bill and easily understood. For example, the minister made this explanation when he introduced the resolution. He said, as reported at page 2187 of Hansard:
The formula is simple and readily understood; and I think this is a matter of great importance, because every farmer in the country can understand the formula, know how it applies and in many cases calculate for himself what the base price is likely to be.
It surely is simple. There is only one thing the minister missed. He should go on and say that his name should be Simpleton, conceived by simple minds who know nothing about support prices for agriculture and who are not able to take any advice. I cannot understand it. The government year after year promises the farmer that they will be giving the farmers parity prices. Why are they not doing it when we are now living in a time when everybody admits that the farmers are finished. I have a clipping from the Financial Post of November 2, 1957, which makes this statement:
Canadian farmers, as a group, are not sharing in the nation's economic growth to the same degree as their fellow countrymen.
Then, it goes on to say:
It's generally felt that on average the labour income per farm worker (from farming) is about half that of the non-farm worker (from his employment).


An hon. Member:: You did all right.


Jacob Schulz: That indicates the low level to which farmers have been reduced. I could go on and give other quotations. This morning I took a clipping from the Manitoba Co-operator.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You will soon have your scissors worn out.


Jacob Schulz: It says that the average income of Saskatchewan farmers dropped to a new low of $550 in 1957 from $1,090 in 1956, according to a brief presented to the Saskatchewan government by the Saskatchewan farmers union.


An hon. Member:: A C.C.F. government.


Jacob Schulz: This is what we have today, and now we have a measure before us that does not come anywhere near solving the problem. How is it possible for a group of

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization people who are confronted with an election and who should have learned something from the last election to act in such a manner? They must have learned that the farmers have some weight when it comes to elections. They wiped out the former government and we are going to do the same thing with you.


An hon. Member:: Big talk from a little man.


Jacob Schulz: There is only one thing that bothers me. I want to be very honest with the government because I do not want to see the Liberals come back. Therefore I can say that I want to be honest.


An hon. Member:: Why not be fair?


Jacob Schulz: If I were just a politician I would simply do what the Liberals are doing. I would let the bill go through because it would be a good election weapon. But I have not been sent here to win elections. My order is to fight this useless bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I speak on the bill. The farm lore of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) is likely to catch me up short. In addition, I have only had one letter from a farmer and he wanted a cold storage plant. The justification for the remarks I want to make has been established by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Baskin) who appealed to the minister as someone he very much admired and respected to bring the pulpwood products of the farms of Ontario under the bill.
The constituency of Port Arthur takes a back seat to none when it comes to pulp-wood farming. Thousands of cords are cut there by men who own their own land and the question I raise for ministerial answer is the inadequacy of the 80 per cent floor based on a 10-year average for farm pulpwood if such pulpwood should come under the bill. I think the hon. member for Renfrew South made the point very well, that the price farmers have been getting for their pulpwood in general is much below the actual cost of pulpwood cut on pulpwood limits belonging to the various companies. Yet I could not see his point in hoping that farm pulpwood would come under the bill because if the price that farmers are getting at the present time for their pulpwood is low in relation to the actual cost of pulpwood from the other main source, a much bigger source, by the way, what good will the 80 per cent floor do them? Unless there is quite a drop

in the price of farm pulpwood there will not be any benefit and such a drop is hardly likely at the present time because no matter how much the production of the pulp mills may be restricted because of poor market conditions the fact still remains that the farm wood is cheaper for the pulp mills than wood from their own limits and it certainly is apparent in our area that they will continue to buy farm pulpwood. Therefore the price is likely to remain up and the product will therefore not come under the 80 per cent provision.
I should like to point out to the minister that I think any application of the bill to farm pulpwood is most unlikely to do much good and I should like to suggest to him and to hon. members from Ontario who have pulpwood farmers in their constituencies that these farmers are going to have to count on help under legislation of the Ontario provincial government, such as the farm marketing act. If the minister is going to heed the call of his several supporters who have requested the inclusion of pulpwood as one of the commodities, I hope he will give us a fairly complete explanation of how it would possibly work to the advantage of the pulpwood farmers of Ontario.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, if the government is sincere in its desire to establish farm prices that will represent a fair relationship between the prices received by the farmers and the cost of the goods and services they have to buy, then I would think they would welcome advice from any and all farm groups and representatives. If this is so, then there will be no objection to including some of the recommendations of these organizations when they are all in favour of parity prices.
However, if the Conservative Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) believes that Bill No. 237, already amended in a number of instances since it was first introduced, is the answer to solving the farm problem, then there is no need to listen to representations from farm organizations or their representatives. It may well be that the Minister of Agriculture agrees with his colleague, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), who spoke before the amendments to the first draft of the bill were introduced and who said, foolishly I think, as reported on page 2290 of Hansard'.
I want to make the definite statement that we are proud of the proposed legislation, as proud as we are of the legislation we have put on the books to date.
I suggest his statement was foolish in the light of the amendments that followed but no more unrealistic than the bill that his

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
minister had introduced. I understand the hon. member for Marquette comes from a predominantly farm riding and I am told that when he returned to his constituency it was brought to his attention that hero worship of the party is O.K. in its place but that it has no place when the welfare of the farmers of Marquette riding is at stake. I am told that the hon. member was so informed at a meeting of the farmers.
For a moment let us take a look at the situation in the rural areas of Ontario. The problems of northern Ontario and the riding of Timiskaming in particular are the same as the problems throughout Ontario. In his election booklet the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the plight of the farmers and had this to say:
The farmers' share of the national income has gone down in the last eight years by some 6 per cent and the services that the farmer has to buy have increased by 20 per cent. Furthermore, there has been a continuing reduction in the farmers' share of the consumer dollar, from 59.3 cents of the dollar to approximately 50 cents today.
I suggest that since this statement was made the drop has continued to well below 50 cents. It is recognized that a loss of income of 6 per cent in eight years and a rise in the cost of production by 20 per cent can only result in the abandonment of the family farm with the farmer moving into the urban centres to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Farmers are a land conscious people. They will suffer many hardships to establish their farms. This is particularly true in northern Ontario where not much over 60 years ago farmers went in, cut down the trees and established themselves on farms on which many of them still live today.
The farm family, the husband, wife and children, have their chores to do. If one is on a dairy farm, the cows demand the same attention morning and night, seven days a week. Yet a good many of my friends on farms will suffer from the strain of long hours, the whims of nature, the uncertainty of markets and an irregular income because they are devoted to the land. However, the farmers of Canada will only subsidize our agricultural economy for so long. Perhaps they have waited too long, it is not for me to say. But the fact that 1400 farms support only 400 fulltime farmers in my own riding indicates that time, for our farm population, is running out.
Perhaps the government today realizes that the farm population now comprises only 14 per cent of the total population. This farm population has been divided into many various farm organizations and into as many as 80 commodity groups. The government may think that this large number of divisions makes the position of the various commodity
groups that much weaker. It is true that in years gone by they have gone their selfish way. However, today they are united in a common front demanding the principle of parity prices. It has not been possible for the rural press, the manufacturing or financial interests, or even some political parties to divide the farmers in their adherence to the principle of 100 per cent parity prices. Each organization is asking for a fair price-cost relationship in so far as their products are concerned. The farmers, in adopting the principle of parity prices, are presenting a united, solid front.
Why then has the present government not given parity prices for agricultural products. I agree with those who say that farm products should include pulpwood from farms, timber and Christmas trees. It cannot be said that the Prime Minister does not understand the principle of parity prices. He campaigned throughout the rural areas on this platform. It is no secret that some of the candidates running on the Conservative ticket did not endorse this program. Obviously the Minister of Agriculture did not approve of parity prices, so we have this bill which appears to be unsatisfactory to all farm people with whom I have come in contact. One of the main excuses for not putting the principle of 100 per cent parity in the bill is the results of the farm program developed in the United States.
Mr. Benson, the United States secretary of agriculture, has become a great leader in the eyes of our new Minister of Agriculture. It seems surprising to me that a government which opposes trade and financial investment coming from the United States will, at the same time, accept the results of a farm program with which Mr. Benson has been experimenting, and which he calls parity prices. Recently the secretary of agriculture has presented to congress suggestions for changing parity prices. He has run into grave difficulties, I suggest, for the simple reason that his primary purpose in establishing parity prices was not to keep the small farmer on the farm but was rather to serve other interests.
In his report he made certain claims about the cost of this program in the United States similar to some of the claims that have been made in Canada over the years when this program has been opposed. In discussing these proposals one by one Chairman Ellender objected to the statements that were being made concerning the amount of money that this plan was costing.
I should like to mention some of the things that were included in the cost of the program, but were finally discarded because obviously they did not come under the farm program
3724	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization in the United States. These moneys were not used to subsidize farm prices. Such things as money for school lunches, food for troops and disaster relief were included in the charges against the price support program. Such things as disaster relief and school lunches certainly cost money, but by no stretch of the imagination could anyone say that parity prices did not work because expenditures of this type were charged against the program.
We all know that Mr. Benson wants to make some changes in that program. If the minister is going to refer to Mr. Benson, I would suggest that he take a look at the recent developments before using Mr. Benson and his plan as an example of the philosophy that "It won't work because it did not work there." We understand that the United States program must have cost money. Obviously there is a cost when any product is subsidized. Sometimes we have had products subsidized which we did not want subsidized, and there is one that affects me to some extent and one that probably cannot be justified any better than the demand for price supports under certain agricultural products.
While in Canada our farm prices were dropping and costs were rising in the United States, by using this plan, we find as reported in the Christian Science Monitor that prices received by farmers have been running 3 per cent above a year ago; surpluses have been cut; farm real estate is at an all time high and three-quarters of the United States farms are owned by the people who operate them. Farmers' debts total only 11 per cent of their assets.
In my particular area the debts on farms are again becoming a problem. We find that the farm loan board is now pressing for payment of overdue loans. Farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to make even interest payments on these loans.
I too visited some of my farm people at Christmas. In northern Ontario, and particularly in my riding of Timiskaming, a great number of commodities are produced. It is not safe to say that one commodity is the main one. I would assume that dairy products probably rank first in dollar value, but there are large sections producing beef, pork, eggs, butter, cheese, whole milk, pulp and Christmas trees. All the things, with the exception of fruit, that are produced on the farms in southern Ontario are produced in that area. Each one of these commodity groups have particular problems of their own. Many of these problems are not going to be solved by the passage of this legislation. However, all these groups are united in their organizations and in their demand for a fair

price-cost relationsnip. They all know that no matter what products they are producing, if it costs them more to produce a product than they get in return for that product then they are not going to be able to succeed.
The principle of parity prices has not been adopted in many industries, but it has been adopted in one with which I am familiar. The commodity group in my riding that is the best organized is the whole milk producers. These whole milk producers have been organized for quite some time. They have been able to negotiate their price; they have some control over the amount of the product that is going into the markets. It is true that they have been assisted by legislation which, by their militancy, they were able to have passed. Other farm groups have not been able to establish these rights, nor do they have the same strength in bargaining. The milk producers have been able to establish parity prices worked out on a formula which they agree probably is not the best one, but at least it is a formula. Hence they know that when their costs go up, then also the price of their product goes up.
It has a definite relationship. It is worked out and negotiated and the farmer is able to look ahead from one day to another and find out exactly how much money he is going to have to spend. If it can be done for the milk producing industry through the Ontario whole milk league, and if they are able to negotiate this kind of contract, I certainly see no reason why the federal government cannot put on the books legislation to allow the farmers to establish a relationship between their cost of production and sales, not only for the commodities which are named but for all commodities so that everybody engaging in that industry will know exactly how much money they can count on and how much money they are going to have.
Many of the people who do not live on a farm are never too sure just how much a farm costs. It is true that there are farms in parts of the country that are very cheap. They are farms that you could not possibly live on. It is generally assumed in Ontario that a milk producer is in a fairly enviable position. If you want to buy a dairy farm in Timiskaming today with a four-can quota, the cost would probably be $25,000 and that would be a 160-acre farm. The cost of 20 cows at $250 each would be $5,000. A barn equipped with the latest equipment so that you could eliminate the problem of labour would cost $10,000. Dairy equipment for a dairy farm with a four-can quota would cost approximately $3,000. A farm house that would meet the needs of the day in a rural area would cost approximately $8,000.

The farmland, if you bought it separately, would run about $50 an acre, or $18,000. Hence your farm would cost you fairly close to $40,000 equipped to handle four cans of milk a day. Four cans of milk a day-and milk is considered to be a fairly good income commodity-would bring an income of approximately $16 per day and for 365 days the amount would be $5,840.
Obviously for anybody who had $35,000 or $40,000 to spend, even in that commodity where we consider we have established some form of parity formula, to those who do not live on farms and have no great love for farming I would suggest that it would be a bad investment where you get a gross income of less than $6,000 on an investment of approximately $40,000. Besides that, the cows must be milked every day. They must be milked morning and night. There will be no time off. It would allow you to have enough equipment so that you will not have to hire help but it means that you will be tied to the farm morning, noon and night. If this is true of one commodity that works on a parity formula, how is it going to work for those poor people who are obliged to exist in that market of dog-eat-dog?
If we suggest that because we do not want to establish huge surpluses, we cannot afford to put in parity prices, then let us consider the one time when we came the closest we have ever come for years and years to establishing a parity price in Canadian agriculture and that was in the years from 1943 to 1951. For those who live on a farm were not those the best years they have ever experienced? That was the time when the cost of production came the closest it has come in years to the selling price of their commodities. Yet we did not find the farmer going out and buying more land or producing huge surpluses. With the farm that he had he found that he was getting only enough money to live on, and it was only in those days.
I remember being in Grey county only a few years ago and talking to a farmer there. He said to me, "This is the fifteenth tractor I have bought and this is the first one I have never been able to pay cash for." He said, "I am now farming five farms of 160 acres and I am going more in the hole every day. Every time I have less money than I need to live on I go out and buy or rent another farm and try to produce some more". The more he produced, the worse the condition became and he had reached the stage where he could no longer pay for his tractor.
That is happening in many areas of Ontario. It is happening today, I am sure, in most of the areas of Canada. But in 1951, when we were probably the closest we had ever
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization come to parity the farmers in my area at least were painting their barns. They were doing repairs to their houses. They were buying some equipment. They were living on their own farms and producing only the amount they needed to get along.
I am satisfied that if we had that parity established and could establish it with this bill, the situation would be improved. I see no reason why we should not give our Canadian people a fair break. The labour people have told you that they are not opposed to it. They want the farmer to get enough money to live on so he can buy the production that the farmer does buy. He is a very heavy consumer and he buys this production from my friends in the factories who are manufacturing them. When the farmer has no money he is not buying and then my friends are unemployed; and there are many of them unemployed today because the farmer is not buying. When they have not any money, they in turn do not buy the best cuts of meat. They do not buy butter and they do not buy the other things that the farmer has to sell. That is the only place where the working people can cut down, namely on food, and that is where they cut down first. So the prosperity of the farmer is important. I see no reason why the government should not give them prosperity on the farm. Prosperity on the farm will result in more employment in Ontario and certainly a much more happy and stable farm and agricultural community which in turn is a large consumer.
I received a letter the other day. Everybody seems to be getting letters. I received one which I do not want to read in particular, but I should like to refer to it. It came from a farm meeting. I should like to refer to one amusing thing. I had a farm candidate opposing me in the last election and the same candidate is opposing me in this coming election. He happens to be a Conservative. He also happens to be a member of both farm organizations and a well known farmer in that area. According to my information, he attended this meeting and they discussed the bill clause by clause. I sent them copies of both bills. They discussed the new one and the old one and they discussed the reprinted one. When they were finished discussing it they called on this particular gentleman to give what his opinion of the bill happened to be. Incidentally, most of the farmers at that particular meeting would be supporters of mine, so they gave him the opportunity to present his side of the argument. I should
3726	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization like to tell the minister that he did not support the bill but said that it was not satisfactory in its present form and should be amended.
I suggest that anybody who is close to agriculture can have no qualms whatsoever about giving the farmer a fair deal. If all farm organizations want parity prices, then why in the name of thunder should the House of Commons oppose them? I do not see any reason why we should have any Objection unless there is an ulterior motive and I might suggest it is this. The Searle Grain Company put out a pamphlet which I seldom ever read. However, I read this one and it sounds a bit like The Rural Scene which says such things as this.
The principal factor in the cost of everything we buy is the cost of labour. The unions have grown so powerful that they can practically dictate their own wage rates.
Then it goes on to say this. I was a union organizer and this is not true, I can assure you:
Employers have long since given up all thought of resisting their demands.
Then this pamphlet continues in a similar vein. It was either responsible for the drafting of this act, because they use the same words, or else the act was responsible for the writing of this pamphlet. It is the only organization of which I have read which is in support of this bill. If the grain companies opposed it I could not care less, but I do know that the people in my area who are on the farms, and mine is a mixed farming area which is quite exceptional and is known all over Ontario as the little clay belt, have dropped from 1,400 to 400 farms. Unless we do something about it the only people who will be left on the farms will be people who are working in the towns, and I suggest that we should go ahead and do something about this. If the minister has amendments to make then I certainly suggest when he speaks he should present them and we will be quite happy to have a look at them.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to inform the house that if the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this opportunity has been a long time coming. In the thirteen years in which I have been in this house I do not remember any piece of legislation on which there have been so many incorrect statements made and so many misrepresentations put forward as has been the case with respect to this bill, particularly those coming from members of the C.C.F. party. I understand that a considerable number of these absolute mis-statements of fact

have been due to ignorance but at the same time I know a considerable number of them have not been due to ignorance but have rather been made for purely political purposes, something which I deplore in a matter of this kind. The misrepresentations have even gone so far as the procedural matters in connection with the bill. I will refer particularly to one later, but in connection with the amendment introduced by the member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) to refer this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -to the committee so that this bill would not now be read a second time-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -representation was made by speaker after speaker that this was a motion to refer this bill to the agricultural committee so that that committee could make amendments-


George Carlyle Marler: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -while the whole purpose was to kill the bill.


George Carlyle Marler: The house has taken a decision with regard to an amendment and the hon. gentleman is certainly out of order in referring to something that has already been decided upon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is too ignorant to know that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount is quite correct and I would ask the hon. minister not to deal with a matter which has been decided.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I quite appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to hear these things. They have not wanted to hear the truth of this matter; they have wanted to obscure the truth and to distort the bill, to distort its provisions and its purpose. I have cited this amendment as just one example, something which anyone could see for himself, of an attempt which was made to make it appear that this was a motion to send the bill to the agriculture committee for study, while it was actually a means of killing the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: Have the decency to honour the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister knows this point has been raised as a matter of order.

I have checked the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz) and the hon. gentleman is subject to the same rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am, as always, ready to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I did not think I was out of order since I was merely citing this as an example.


George Carlyle Marler: Then do not cite it as an example.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a bad example.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as the Liberal members' criticisms of this bill are concerned I must say they have been very mixed. Of course it is difficult to tell just what their criticisms are, as it was difficult to tell what they were going to do or what they wanted. All I can do is take the general line of the criticism of the Liberal party, put forward by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) and which was followed by certain other members of that party. That criticism essentially boiled down to the allegation that this bill is no better than the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which has been on our statute books now for some eleven years, and that it might not be as good-


Walter Adam Tucker: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think if the members of the party opposite were to go out and speak to almost any farmer in this country in connection with this matter they would find very little agreement with that point of view, because it is quite apparent that this bill has many advantages over the Agricultural Prices Support Act and it differs from that act in many important respects. I have mentioned four of them before, and I do not wish to be repetitive as many of the hon. members have been and to prolong this debate-


George Carlyle Marler: What are you doing now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The four very important differences between this legislation and the old are firstly that this bill provides for a mandatory floor price at all times on nine key commodities. The act which is presently on the statute books provides for no mandatory floors of any kind. Secondly, this bill provides for forward pricing. It has provided that a guaranteed annual price
Business of the House
be set for any commodity and this shall be in effect for the following twelve months, which puts the farmer in a position where he at least knows the minimum price, which he is going to get for the following twelve months.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was provided for under the other one, too.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is something that has never been done before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Melville knows quite well that there is no such provision in the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a provision for two years on butter and one year on eggs-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was never provided for.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was always provided for.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The third main difference is that this legislation provides for a definite formula of a ten year moving average on which to calculate support prices and what they should be. Fourthly, it provides for an advisory committee for the specific purpose of advising what commodities should be under price support and the levels of that support.
I see hon. members are calling it ten o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Sinclair:: Filibustering his own bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A great way to get business done.
On motion of Mr. Harkness the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: May I ask
the leader of the house if we will continue with this tomorrow and afterwards the order in which the estimates will be taken up. Will it be as announced last night?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this bill tomorrow and will take the estimates of the departments of citizenship and immigration, finance and national revenue.


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

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

Mr. Castle-den: 1.	What floor space, if any, is rented by the P.F.R.A. for offices in the town of Melville, Saskatchewan?
2.	From whom is this space rented?
3.	What yearly rental is paid for same, and what is the period of the lease?
4.	What are the names of all the persons employed on the staff at the Melville office during 1957, (a) permanent; (b) temporary?
5.	What amounts were paid to each of the staff in (a) salaries; (b) travelling and other expenses?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1. 993 square feet-White lunch block, 226 Main street, Melville, Saskatchewan.
2. C. Perdicaris, Melville, Saskatchewan.
3. $2,280 per 1958.	annum; expires	April 30,
4. (a) Permanent: Gillespie, W. M.; (b) temporary: Falloon, J. E., Jonah, W. E.,		
Kroeger, L. J.,	Rogowski, J., Stiglitz, E.,	
Zeldenrust, G.		
5.	(a)	(b)
	Salary or	Travelling
	Wages	Expenses
Falloon, J. E. ..	
$3,377.00	$ 227.90Gillespie, W. M.	
5,552.50	2,365.50Jonah, W. E. ..	
3,962.50	522.40Kroeger, L. J. .	
3,975.00	1,583.42Rogowski, J. ..	
3,797.00	435.36Stiglitz, E	
2,622.00	358.35Zeldenrust, G. .	
2,214.50	85.10
Friday, January 24, 1958