1958-01-22

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any biological warfare experiments or research been carried out in Canada in 1956 or 1957, under the direction of American (U.S.A.) scientists?
2.	If so, under what agreement or agreements were these arrangements made?
3.	How many American scientists have been involved in such experiments?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first part of the question is no. The second and third parts of the question are not applicable in view of the answer to the first part of the question. However, in fairness to the hon. member who asked the question I should say that during this period United States scientists have assisted in biological warfare experiments, but the work was at all times and at all stages under the direction of Canadian scientists. This assistance was provided under the basic standardization agreement among the armies of the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, 1954. Seven American scientists assisted in these experiments for a period of about four months during the winter of 1956-57.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence supplementary to the starred question on biological warfare experiments. Can the minister indicate the location, the scope and the safety precautions taken in connection with these biological warfare experiments?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, some of the experiments have been carried out at the experimental station at Suffield, Alberta.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did any companies supply engineering services worth more than $50,000 to the Department of Defence Production during the fiscal years ending March, 1956 and March, 1957?
2.	If so, (a) what companies; (b) what was the amount, by company, of these services?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in two parts. The answer to the first part is yes. The answer to the second part is rather lengthy. There is a list of about
12 or 15 different companies. Perhaps the mover would be willing if this list were to be printed in Hansard rather than being read aloud at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this answer be printed in Hansard instead of being given orally?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Question answered.


Howard Charles Green: The list is as follows:
Fiscal year ending March 1956:
(b) Value of
(a) Firm	Services
Avro Aircraft Limited, Malton, Ont		$162,858
Canadair	Limited, Montreal, P.Q	 179,181
Canadian Aviation Electronics Limited,
Montreal, P.Q	 348,494
Canadian General Electric Company
Limited,	Toronto, Ont	 165,664
Computing Devices of Canada Limited,
Ottawa,	Ont.,	 375,177
Gilfillan Bros., Inc., Los Angeles, Cal.,
U.S.A	 223,857
Given Manufacturing Company, Los
Angeles, Cal., U.S.A	 169,288
Orenda Engines Limited, Toronto, Ont., 104,183 P.S.C. Applied Research Limited, Toronto,
Ont	 51,617
R.C.A. Victor Company Limited, Ottawa,
Ont	 63,223
Sperry Gyroscope Company of Canada
Limited, Montreal, P.Q	 59,922
Fiscal year ending March 1957:
(b) Value of
(a) Firm	Services
Avro Aircraft Limited, Malton, Ont		137,081
Canadair Limited, Montreal, P.Q	 116,392
Canadian Aviation Electronics Limited,
Montreal, P.Q	 408,899
Canadian General Electric Company
Limited, Toronto, Ont	 114,530
Computing Devices of Canada Limited,
Ottawa, Ont	 716,767
deHavilland Aircraft of Canada Limited,
Toronto, Ont	 83,076
Mechron Engineering Products Limited,
Ottawa, Ont	 64,442
National Scientific Laboratories Inc.,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A	 50,369
Orenda Engines Limited, Toronto, Ont. 153,473 Philco Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa.,
U.S.A	 135,768
Waste King Corporation, Los Angeles,
Cal., U.S.A	 89,395
Note: Information based on contracts primarily for technical and field service representatives and consulting engineering services.



DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION (1951) LTD.   ENGINEERING SERVICES

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did any companies supply engineering services worth more than $50,000 to Defence Construction (1951) Limited, during the fiscal years ending March, 1956 and March, 1957?
2.	If so, (a) what companies; (b) what was the amount, by company, of these services?

Questions


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a similar question and is in two parts. The answer to the first part is yes. In answer to the second part of the question there is another list of a number of companies, and I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard rather than read orally.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?
Some hoii. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Question answered.


Howard Charles Green: The answer to part 2 of the question is as follows:
(a)-1956	(b)
H. H. Angus & Associates Ltd., Toronto,
Ontario	 $ 58,083
Associated Engineering Services, Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta	 124,878
Beauchemin & Hurter, Montreal, Quebec.. 122,362
George Demers, Quebec, Quebec	 85,205
M. M. Dillon & Co. Ltd., London, Ontario 158,525 Donald Inspection Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.. 115,817 R. M. Hardy & Associates, Edmonton,
Alberta	 70,974
A. D. Margison & Associates, Toronto,
Ontario	 275,562
C. C. Parker & Associates Ltd., Hamilton,
Ontario	 340,552
Procter, Redfern & Laughlin, Toronto,
Ontario	 122,861
Ripley & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta 128,172 Stadler & Hurter Co., Montreal, Quebec ..	50,674
Surveyer, Nenniger & Chenevert, Montreal,
Quebec	 138,200
Underwood. McLellan & Associates, Saskatoon, Sask	 266,042
Warnock-Hersey Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario 158,458 Wiggs, Walford, Frost & Lindsay, Montreal,
Quebec.
Engineering services	$ 22,854
Engineering and architectural... 290,862 313,716
(a)-1957	(b)
Associated Engineering Services, Ltd.,
Edmonton, Alberta	 $131,243
George Demers, Quebec, Quebec	 70,145
M. M. Dillon & Co. Ltd., London, Ontario 151,288 Donald Inspection Ltd., Toronto, Ontario 61,714 Ewbank & Partners (Canada) Ltd., & Dilworth, Secord & Associates, Toronto,
Ontario	 308,166
C. C. Parker & Associates, Hamilton,
Ontario	 318,691
A. D. Margison & Associates, Toronto,
Ontario	 152,314
Ripley & Associates Limited, Edmonton,
Alberta	 171,719
Surveyer, Nenniger & Chenevert, Montreal,
Quebec	 91,531
Underwood, McLellan & Associates, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	   125,528
Warnock-Hersey Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario 98,725 Wiggs, Walford, Frost & Lindsay, Montreal Quebec. Engineering and architectural services	 79,352



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. Hansell: 1. Has the government considered the recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee of 1946 on a design for a distinctive Canadian flag? 
2. If so, have steps been taken by the government to bring down legislation implementing the committee's recommendations?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker, this question
has been standing now for several days. I permitted it to stand the last time it was called.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT, 1957  SECTION 60

Mr. Casileden: With reference to section 60 of the Auditor General's Report, 1957:
1.	What official of the Department of National Defence authorized the expenditure of some $2,068,000 for the joint maritime warfare school at Halifax?
2.	To whom was the original contract of $750,000 awarded?
3.	Was this project abandoned?
4.	If so, on what date, and what was the total expenditure on the project up to time of abandonment?
5.	What was the cost of the building erected to house this project?
6.	What use is being made of the building?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part
1 of this question is that the authority for expenditure was minute of treasury board No. 438,477, dated November 14, 1952.
The answer to part 2 is Computing Devices of Canada Limited.
The answer to part 3 is yes. This project was cancelled in July, 1956, and in June, 1957, the former government issued a cabinet directive transferring the trainer to the Department of Transport. Arrangements were made by the Department of Transport with the civil aeronautic authority for the trainer to be converted to an air traffic control simulator by Computing Devices of Canada Limited, the cost of such conversion being met by the civil aeronautic authority. It is expected that this conversion will be completed in April, and the trainer will then be moved to the C.A.A. establishment in Indianapolis where it will be used by both D.O.T. and C.A.A. It has been agreed that C.A.A. will rent the equipment for the nominal sum of $1 per year.
The answer to part 4 is that the decision to cancel the project was taken on July 24, 1956. The expenditure on the project was $5,052,617.55. The answer to part 5 is that the building in which the trainer was to be housed comprises 75,655 square feet. The space allocated for the trainer was 35,000 square feet. The proportionate cost of the 35,000 square feet is $700,000.
The answer to part 6 is that this space is to be used for the accommodation of an alternative trainer, which has now been ordered

from the United Kingdom at a cost of $900,000. This is to be installed during 1958-59.



HARBOUR COMMISSION, CORNWALL

Mr. Lavigne: 1.	Has the city of Cornwall applied to the Department of Transport to have incorporated a harbour commission?
2.	If so, has the application been dealt with, and in what manner?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both parts of this question is that a letter has recently been received from counsel for the city of Cornwall indicating that the city council passed a resolution last October relating to the establishment of a local harbour commission. A very careful search of departmental records has been made but the resolution has not been found on file in the department, and it would appear that it was either not forwarded to the department at that time for consideration or, if it was forwarded, that it did not reach the department.
However, in view of the recent letter received from counsel for the city the matter is now being followed up further with the appropriate municipal officials.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Christian: Since June 10, 1957, what action has been taken by the government to encourage decentralization of industry and to encourage industrial development?


A. PATRICK DE SHAYE
Mr. Castleden: 1.	Is a Mr. A. Patrick De Shaye in the employ of the P.F.R.A. or P.F.A.A. in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how long has he been so employed?
3.	In what capacity is he employed?
4.	What sums of money have been paid to Mr. De Shaye for each year during his employment in (a) salary; (b) expenses; (c) any other fees or payments?
5.	Was Mr. De Shaye in the employ of P.F.R.A. or P.F.A.A. during September of 1957?
6.	What was the amount paid to him during September 1957, in (a) salary; (b) expenses or other fees?
7.	What are the details of his expense account for (a) May 1957; (b) September 1957?


HONEY IMPORTS
Mr. While: 1.	How many pounds of honey were imported into Canada from the United States of America, during the calendar year 1957?
2.	Was this honey graded or inspected by Canadian fruit and vegetable inspectors?
Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	Did this honey conform to Canadian grades and classifications?
4.	Was any of this honey detained because of failure to conform with class and grade marked on packages?
5.	If so, how many pounds were placed under detention?
6.	How many pounds of manufacturing honey were imported into Canada from the United States of America, during the calendar year 1957?
7.	How many pounds from other countries, and from what countries?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States has been concluded yet covering the operation of the North American air defence command, which was set up six months ago?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question I must state that it has not been concluded. I do know, or I heard yesterday, that the first draft of the note is now being concluded and it is to be sent to the United States authorities for consideration.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether this exchange of notes is between the Department of External Affairs and the department of state of the United States or between the defence departments of the two countries?


Sidney Earle Smith: It is being negotiated through the ordinary diplomatic channels.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if his attention has been directed to the statement of two important members of the recent trade mission which under his direction went to the United Kingdom. This statement appears in this morning's papers, and is to the effect that in the interests of that mission the government's proposal of a diversion of trade from one friendly country to another should be dropped. Has the minister any comment to make on this statement?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would be
very pleased to comment on the inaccuracy
3598	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the hon. member's statement, because as was not against any individual member, and I read the article in the paper they did not I do not consider the point of order well say that the government's proposal should taken.
be dropped. They say this talk largely Mr. Fleming: Bogus points of order, emanated from my hon. friends opposite,
who are apparently opposed to increasing skim milk powder-provision of credits to our trade with the United Kingdom.	India


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Oh, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They say that this talk should be discontinued because it will have an adverse effect on our general trade relations. My hon. friends opposite are the ones wholly responsible for the comments made by these two distinguished members of the mission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
under the rules of the house no hon. member has the right to attribute-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Chevrier:: On a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Well, why don't you say so?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Well, shut up and he will say so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope this beginning is not significant. The hon. member has a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has no right to attribute to another hon. member something the hon. member has previously denied. We have clearly indicated on this side that we are not opposed to increasing trade with the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This statement has come up before, and the hon. gentleman should not make that remark. Under the rules of the house he should be asked to withdraw it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the point of order is rather unsoundly based, something like the amendment the other day. But I accept the hon. member's explanation, and I would suggest to him that it is very interesting to us to see his increased interest in the United Kingdom. I hope he will now speak about the commonwealth.


Pierre Gauthier: Withdraw.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How about answering my question?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the point has been dealt with. Actually the imputation

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of press statements that New Zealand would like to offer India credits for the purchase of skim milk powder. My question is, has India approached Canada, or are there any discussions going on, for any such credit? Is such a credit available, in order that an additional market may be obtained for our dry skim milk powder, of which I am told we have 25 million to 30 million pounds on hand?
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture:) Mr. Speaker, India has not approached us in regard to securing supplies of dry skim milk. We would be very glad to entertain any requests in regard to that matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement yesterday in reply to my question of January 7. Will the Prime Minister now take the initiative in trying to persuade the leaders of the governments of the United Kingdom, United States, France and India to attend a summit conference in Canada at an early date?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to add anything to what I said yesterday or to that portion of the reply to the letter of Premier Bulganin which dealt with the possibility of a summit conference. Further than that I would not want to go at this time in this delicate matter.


STATEMENT ON REPORTED RUSSIAN DRIVE TO ESTABLISH EUROPEAN BUFFER ZONE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: On Monday, January 13, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary asked the following question:
I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice.

Would he care to comment on Canada's position with respect to the neutrality drive of the Soviet government for the establishment of a buffer zone in Europe?
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member was referring to what has come to be known as the "Polish plan" for the setting up of an atomic-free zone in Europe. In his letter to the Prime Minister of December 13, Mr. Bulganin referred to this plan. I can best answer that question by reading a few sentences from the reply the Prime Minister tabled yesterday to the first Bulganin letter:
-we are studying the comments which * you made on a proposal put forward earlier by Poland for the creation of a zone in central Europe free of nuclear armaments. The NATO communique pointed out that we are prepared to examine any proposal, from whatever source, for general or partial disarmament and we therefore intend to join with our NATO allies in looking into the implications of this type of proposal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not realize there is a very great difference between a neutral zone and a zone free of atomic weapons?


Sidney Earle Smith: I do, but
the question asked me included the words "neutral zone".


THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I by leave of the house at this time-I should have done it earlier-announce the transfer of Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, the hon. member for Oxford, from the position of parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister to that of parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I might add that in the last few months Mr. Nesbitt has been one of the able representatives of Canada at the United Nations. I felt it only proper that an opportunity should be given him to serve the department to which he has contributed so much.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, following up the remarks of the Prime Minister, may I congratulate the hon. member upon his transfer to the Department of External Affairs, and also express my own appreciation of the fine work he did at the United Nations assembly.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL RESOURCES



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, since there has been such a serious decline in the mining industry in British Columbia in production and certainly in employment over the past few months, I wonder if the Minister of Justice would give consideration to the question I put to him on the orders of the day on November 4, which reads as follows:
Will the minister seek the advice of his law officers and inform the house as to whether British Columbia has a right, under subsection 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act, to impose a special tax on mineral resources, the declared effect of which is to discourage the export of iron ore from that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's question offends in two respects. First it asks for an opinion of the Minister of Justice on a point of law, and second it deals with the actions of a government other than the government of Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If there is an infringement of the British North America Act, Mr. Speaker, is it not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to see that it is corrected?


Mr. Speaker:: That may be, but it is not his responsibility to respond to a question in the house on a point of law.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of news reports in the press and over the radio this morning. Will the government give favourable consideration to the request of some 35 municipalities in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for a suspension or setting aside of the rate increases recently granted by the board of transport commissioners to the Bell Telephone Company?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question raised is one that is receiving the consideration of the government at this time. Further than that I cannot go.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. St. Laurent (Temiscouaia):: Since the Minister of Justice informed the house

Inquiries of the Ministry on December 17 that the government had decided to subsidize a company controlled in the United States which operates the Britannia mine in British Columbia, could the minister tell the house what payment or payments have been made to keep this mine in operation?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that any payments have been made yet. When the further supplementary estimates are introduced in the house within the next few days there will be an item in those estimates covering the payments that were announced by my colleague the Minister of Justice.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a report requested by the U.A.W. international union on the construction of an atomic energy plant at Monroe, Michigan? If so, is the Prime Minister satisfied that the public safety is assured?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall have to take notice of that question.



DES JOACHIMS-INQUIRY AS TO RESUMPTION OF PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to the question I asked last Monday. I wonder whether he could now tell us when work on the N.P.D. project at Des Joachims will be resumed. The reason I am asking this question is that 21 per cent of the labour force around Pembroke are out of work and are very interested in this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising the question again and pinning it down more closely. The hon. member was talking the other day about the N.R.U. reactor. There are two reactors at Chalk River, the N.R.X. and the N.R.U., both of which are being used. The hon. member was, I think, interested, rather in the N.P.D. power reactor on which work was discontinued last April due to a modification of the plans. A redesigning program was carried out; a report on the new design has been received, and my hope is that work on this project will be resumed very shortly.
[Mr. St. Laurent (Temiscouata) .1


James Moffat Forgie: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and so we may understand each other on this question, I should like to read the second paragraph of my question to the minister last Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if there is any question of privilege-


James Moffat Forgie: My point is that the minister is placing an entirely wrong interpretation on what I said last Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. member, but I see no point of privilege in that; also, I do not think the house spends time well in arguing about-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Moffat Forgie: I object to the indifference of this man to the truth of the question I asked.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have to withdraw that remark. There has been no concealment of the truth on this side at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not quite catch the remark. What are the words complained of?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member accused me of concealing the truth.


James Moffat Forgie: I did not say anything of the sort. I said I was mindful of the indifference of this man to the statement I made in the house last Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not understand the hon. member to accuse the minister of an untruth. He referred to the truth of his question, as I understood the remark. Am I correct in assuming that the hon. member for Renfrew North makes no imputation against the minister with respect to his truthfulness?


James Moffat Forgie: Absolutely.


An hon. Member:: That can be taken two ways.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY SUGGESTED TOLL-FREE TEST PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: 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 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? I did not give the minister notice of this question; I understood from the press that he was present at the meeting and probably had an opportunity of ascertaining

what the position was. If he was not, perhaps he would be good enough to answer the question.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member for Laurier knows that the question of seaway tolls is at present under discussion by committees both in Canada and in 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.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alex B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which just came to my attention this morning. I regret that I have not given the minister notice of this. Has this advertisement which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of January 11 come to his attention:
Rooms. Furnished apartments for approximately 60 American men coming into this area to work on natural gas, until approximately June 1, 1958.
I would ask the minister whether this has come to his attention and, if so, whether it has had the approval of his department with respect to immigration.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The advertisement has not come to my attention nor, so far as I know, to the attention of my department, but I will make some inquiries and see if this is a matter about which I should make a further statement.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Mountain yesterday inquired if a decision had been reached in regard to demurrage charges. My hon. friend referred to an application by the railways for increased demurrage charges, but I am advised by the board of transport commissioners that it is not an application to increase charges but to apply demurrage charges on grain cars at the lakehead. The matter is before the board, and hearings are now taking place.
Inquiries of the Ministry LIVESTOCK



BRUCELLOSIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister consider the possibility of increasing the compensation paid to farmers whose cattle are infected with brucellosis and have to be slaughtered? As the minister is, of course, aware, at present the compensation paid for grade cattle is $40 and for registered cattle $100. It is my understanding that these rates of compensation were put into effect many years ago, and are somewhat unrealistic in view of present conditions.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I will be very glad to have the matter looked into.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie:) Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Prime Minister whether he would look at the question I asked on Friday last about the correspondence respecting the federal-provincial conference and the reply given by the Minister of Public Works on Saturday, when I was not able to be in the house, from which he will see that the minister did not answer the question I asked. What I asked was whether there had been a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia about any matter discussed at the federal-provincial conference and whether, if there had been such a letter, it could be tabled.
Howard Charles Green: The hon. member asked some weeks ago for the tabling of correspondence from the provincial premiers which called for a further meeting of the dominion-provincial conference, and once or twice after that he made inquiries as to when this correspondence would be tabled. It was in response to his original request that correspondence was tabled, and when I answered him last week I pointed out that all the correspondence which had been sought had been tabled. If there is anything further which the hon. member is requesting, all he has to do is make his desire known today in plain language and the government will try to meet his request.


Mr. Pickersgill:: What I asked on Friday last, if the Minister of Public Works would look this up, was whether he would give an answer

Inquiries of the Ministry to the question I had asked on January 7, and I specified January 7. Here is the question I asked on that date-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we should enter into a debate now on whether or not a question has been answered. If the hon. member wishes to put a question he may do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is, had a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia been received by the Prime Minister before he tabled the correspondence on January 11, which was not tabled with that correspondence and which relates to any aspect of the federal-provincial conference?


Howard Charles Green: We will look into that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister not know whether there has been a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia, or is it a hidden document?


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows about a lot of matters of which the hon. member does not seem to be aware.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES  PASSES FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if any progress has been made with regard to obtaining air line passes for those members of parliament who come from constituencies which are a great distance from Ottawa?


George Harris Hees: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.



STATEMENT ON DELIVERY QUOTA SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Rosthern asked me a question regarding quotas on the delivery of grain in the prairie provinces. I promised to give him a reply on Monday, but I deferred it because of the general interest in other subjects.
This question is one which does not permit of a short answer, and is actually a type of question which simply asks for a repetition in the house of material already available in public documents. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out the other day, the Canadian wheat board statistical summary gives the quota position in considerable detail.

But perhaps the hon. member for Rosthern was interested in just the general situation, and the answer is that taking the prairie provinces as a whole the main difference between the position now and a year ago is that the board has not yet authorized any 4-bushel general quotas. The number of delivery points on 2 and 3-bushel general quotas are about the same as a year ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Would the minister say what action is being taken to equalize the quotas in the various provinces? As he will know, quotas in Manitoba are relatively low; Saskatchewan is in the middle, with Alberta relatively high. Can he say what action will be taken to attempt to equalize quotas by the end of the crop year.	__


Gordon Minto Churchill: The matter is, of course, under constant study, but the hon. member is fully aware of the conditions which have caused the disparity among the three provinces. The delivery quotas in Alberta and Saskatchewan compare favourably with the position a year ago as a result of heavy shipments of grain from those provinces to the Pacific coast, and from Saskatchewan out through Fort Churchill. In Manitoba the quotas have not advanced as rapidly as in the other two provinces, because shipments through Fort William and Port Arthur have not been of the same magnitude as a year ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder what action is being taken or contemplated to increase shipments of grain eastward in order that Manitoba quotas may be increased?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member will recall that when we were announcing the recent wheat deal with India we indicated that half the quantity would be shipped through the Atlantic ports as a direct measure to ease the situation and enlarge the delivery quotas in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister could have given the number of points in each province on the respective quotas. It is true that this detailed information is available to hon. members, but it seems to me that there is a general interest in the comparative position with regard to the delivery points in each province; how many are on quotas of 1 bushel, 2 bushels, 3 bushels and 4 bushels, and whether any are on 5 bushels in any province. In view of the interest which I believe the house generally has in this matter I do not see why the minister does not give us this general picture.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to furnish information of this nature and any other information of the kind which the hon. gentleman may require, but I do not think that would be in an oral answer, but rather that it would be a question for the order paper.


Walter Adam Tucker: The reason I did not put it on the order paper was that when I put a similar question on the order paper it took six weeks for the government to answer.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was not sure what the minister's position was in the matter. Do I take it that on this important question of grain delivery quotas he wishes that question put on the order paper; or will he answer it in the house today or when he is able to get the information as to the relative positions in regard to grain delivery quota points in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is worried about my position on this matter. It is very clear and very sound. I suggest that his question should properly be placed on the order paper because the answer involves statistical information which should not be given orally.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the information could be given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be a tendency today to carry forward at this stage an argument which may be relevant later on and which was perhaps relevant yesterday. The hon. member has had his answer, and I agree that that is the sort of question that would be better placed on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government now received a report of the survey being made by the railway companies in regard to the economic feasibility of the building of a railway from the province of Alberta to the south shore of Great Slave lake?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, not as yet.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Both the Minister of Transport and
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in response to questions I directed to them in October and November of last year stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows very well he is not asking a supplementary question.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Are we to assume-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the question of the hon. member for Rosthern. I will hear the hon. member for Mackenzie River.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to the one I asked a minute ago. What are we to conclude from a statement made by the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources, Mr. Robertson, in Yellowknife last week, as reported in the Edmonton Journal of January 16, that the only decision that has to be made at the present time is in regard to the route of the railway? The gentleman is reported as having said that he expects to ride on this train in two or three years. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: are we to conclude that the government has taken a firm decision to build the railway itself regardless of the report of the railway companies?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am answering this question is because the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is not in the house at the moment. I am not aware of the statement which is attributed by the hon. member to the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources, and all I can do is repeat to the hon. member that I have not yet received a report from the railways regarding the feasibility or otherwise of this proposed new railway.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. As minister of the appropriate department, would the Minister of Transport not receive the report before any other department did?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure I would receive it as quickly as any other department.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Inquiries of the Ministry Perhaps he would not mind bringing us up to date on how many provinces have now given an assurance to the minister that they will have their hospitalization programs ready for July 1 next to qualify for federal payments. Perhaps the minister would also indicate which provinces they are.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no province has definitely agreed to have its hospitalization scheme in effect on July 1, although I do expect that there will be three or four provincial schemes in operation at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, arising out of his statement that he believes three or four provinces will be ready to participate in the hospital insurance plan when it becomes effective on July 1. Assuming that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta are three of the provinces, can he tell us the fourth one?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I think I mentioned earlier, I fully believe that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta will be in the scheme by July 1, and there has been an indication that Newfoundland might also be in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Manitoba?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a question of privilege but with a view to giving the house information on a subject concerning which a great number of hon. members have questioned me and concerning which I presume they will continue to request information.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, once again a case has been brought to my attention where the figures for registrations at the national employment service are being used as an official government figure for jobless in Canada. The latest case, Mr. Speaker, was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which recently has been using the figure of 796,000 as an official jobless figure. As I said yesterday, this figure has never been accepted as such, not by the previous government, not by the national employment service and not

by the dominion bureau of statistics. The official unemployment figure for December 14, 1957, is 386,000, put out as such by the dominion bureau of statistics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, whose sympathy in this matter we all appreciate, if he could give us the latest figure he now has. I am interested in knowing the jobless figure as distinguished from the figure representing the number of applicants for unemployment insurance. He gave the figure as of mid-December, and I wonder if he could now give us the latest figure he has?


Michael Starr: The latest figure we now have is for December 14, 1957. That figure is 386,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand that my hon. friend has no figure since the middle of December and that my statement last night of 500,000 jobless is inaccurate?


Michael Starr: The figure of 500,000 which the hon. member gave yesterday was purely a prophecy or speculation. The figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics are the official unemployment figures representing those seeking work. These are issued in the middle of every month for the month previous.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this question may I ask a further supplementary question. If my hon. friend tells us he has no figure other than the one for mid-December I accept that readily, but will he not agree with me that in the D.B.S. figures would not be included, for instance, the 4,000 men laid off at the Chrysler Corporation in Windsor the day before yesterday? Anyone who is out of work for an anticipated period of 30 days or less is not included in the D.B.S. figure; is that not the situation?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those who are laid off for a short period of time are not considered as unemployed and seeking work simply because they are laid off just for that period of time and will receive unemployment insurance and will be going back to their jobs. In other words they have a job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then my figure is correct.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that as of January 9, 1958, there were 796,000 registered as unemployed?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have explained this matter very fully.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.

I notice that in his announcement the other day a large number of the 796,000 could not be properly classified as unemployed for various reasons. Will the minister not agree that there are also many thousands of people who are not registered for unemployment insurance because they are not insurable, and that there are thousands who because of age and other reasons are not employed who are not listed in the D.B.S. figures, so that in actual fact the number who are really unemployed may be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the figure given by the unemployment insurance commission?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the house will agree that this becomes a debate if it is carried on at length.
The minister has made a statement in an effort to clarify two figures, and it seems to me that argument about what the figures mean might be deferred until a more appropriate occasion.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. This question has nothing to do with the figures which have been given. Is the minister prepared to consider as unemployed a man who is drawing unemployment insurance benefits?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, not in every case.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
said his question had nothing to do with the figures. It seems to me it relates directly to the question which I have said in my opinion -and I hope the house will accept this- cannot profitably be pursued further in this way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it not true that a man must be unemployed to draw unemployment insurance?


Mr. Baskin:: How dumb can you get?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it true that the 386,000 figure for the unemployed is in fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member was not in the house when I suggested that I felt that the questions and dispute or argument about the figures which the Minister of Labour had given could not usefully be pursued at this time-96698-228i
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I gave him notice. Will the minister inform the house how many employees have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways in the city of Montreal and vicinity since October 1 last up to date?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have already made inquiries of the management of the Canadian National Railways, and when I receive the information I shall be glad to communicate the answer to the hon. member.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister yet in position to give a reply to the question I raised about the possibility of opening an unemployment insurance office at Mattawa?


Michael Starr: I shall look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and advise the hon. member.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that there are now in Toronto 56,000 people seeking jobs and his department has so kindly increased the staff by 25 per cent to take care of those applicants, will the minister also acquire extra premises to accommodate those applicants so they will not have to stand outside and endure the inclemency of the present season?


Michael Starr: If the situation warrants such a move we shall look into it and provide such added facilities.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the

Inquiries of the Ministry Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would find it possible to answer the question I put on the order paper on November 1, and another I put on the order paper on December 4, before his estimates come before the house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is possible to get the answers they will be brought in before that time. The one put on the order paper on November 1, particularly, involves a good deal of research, but we shall do our best in that regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the acting house leader if he would look into the question I asked on October 15 and to which a reply has not been given and whether, in view of the important matter involved in that question, he will see to it that I be given a reply at the earliest possible moment.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. 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? The answer to order paper question No. 178 on November 20 last led me to believe that construction would start shortly after that date.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive notice of this question until just as I was coming into the house, and I will have to make inquiries and obtain the answer.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports that Professor Gordon Huson has indicated that it will take him about a year to make his report on old age security and old age and survivors insurance, can the Prime Minister say whether this is the length of time he had in mind when he said it was the desire of the government to have this undertaking completed at the earliest possible date? Does "earliest possible date", when
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
used by the Prime Minister, mean something like "soon" when used by the Leader of the Opposition?


John George Diefenbaker: I assure my hon. friend that it has no such signification whatsoever. "Soon" used to have the meaning to give Canadians an appreciation of the meaning of eternity. That is not what I had in mind. I noticed what Professor Huson stated. My hope is, and my desire is, and the desire of this government is, that in so far as the United States system investigation is concerned, there should be no greater delay than three or four months. That is my idea of securing a report at the earliest possible date under those circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister any assurance from Professor Huson that there will be a report within that period of time, rather than by Christmas, as suggested in the newspapers today?


John George Diefenbaker: I have simply expressed the view that there is an urgency for an early report. That is what I want Professor Huson to produce with reference to the American system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the press report was correct which indicated that Professor Huson was being paid at the rate of $35,000 a year?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not see that press report and I am unable to give any answer to a hypothetical question, as this is.


Mr. Sinclair:: Tell us how much he is getting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister aware that his own commissioner said that it would take him at least a year?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, again my hon. friend is apparently quoting from a press dispatch. I am pointing out that there is a need for early action, and I want to see early action in this regard. Consideration of this matter was too long delayed by the former government. We do not intend to have similar delays.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Saturday, January 18, 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.
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to make some remarks with regard to the bill respecting farm price stabilization. Hon. members will know that I am not at my best as an orator but am possibly a little more effective on the saxophone. Of course the rules of the house preclude the use of that offensive weapon, and also it would be against the regulations of the piccolo players' union. However, I am going to do my best to play a few tunes on this particular legislation without the instrument to which I am accustomed.
I think the first question that comes to our minds is why we should have this bill at all. It replaces the Agricultural Prices Support Act introduced by the former government in 1944, and is essentially very similar in its nature. The former legislation was an insurance policy against drastic drops in agricultural prices, and the legislation now before us fulfils the same function. They are both just that and nothing more.
I think the main reason why new legislation had to be introduced was not that it does any more than the former legislation, but that certain promises had been made and there had to be at least some attempt made that might look like fulfilment of those promises. We all know, of course, that the position of the farmer is not as good as it was a few years ago so far as his share of the national income is concerned, and that it is desirable to give him a larger share. That promise was made to our farmers by the government now in power during the last election campaign.
I know when I quote from the document I hold in my hand hon. members opposite will want to know what I am reading from. This book is entitled "3,001 Promises, By Saskatchewan's Most Promising Son, John G. Diefenbaker, Q.C.". It was compiled by the press of Canada and published by a very reputable Ottawa organization that is well known and appreciated from coast to coast, the national Liberal federation.
I am only going to quote very briefly. In his opening campaign speech in Toronto the new Prime Minister had this to say with regard to the desirability of doing something for the farmers of the country: "We will assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income." We also find that on April 26 the Globe and Mail reported him as saying that "farmers would get their fair share of the national income."
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


An hon. Member:: They will.


John Hornby Harrison: But I do not think they will under this bill. In fact the bill will not put one thin red dime into my constituency from the point of view of building up the income of the farmer above what it now is. However, these were the promises that were made at that time, and Bill No. 237 is supposed to be the fulfilment of those promises. I am happy that the bill has been introduced and that it has been so firmly established that it represents the answer to supplying the farmer with a fair share of the national wealth. On Monday the Prime Minister said that the Conservatives had already fulfilled that promise. I take it he was referring to this bill and the one having to do with cash advances on farm-stored grain.
I believe the Minister of Finance also said in his remarks yesterday that they had already fulfilled their promises to the farmers through the legislation before the house and that already passed. I am glad to have these statements on the record if this legislation is supposed to be the fulfilment of the promises made. I am reminded of a story I once heard about two hunters. Of course when hunters get together they are inclined to reminisce about their hunting prowess. One of them said he had been out in the province of Saskatchewan hunting ducks in the fall, and that with one shot from his shotgun he had brought down seven ducks. The second hunter agreed that was quite a feat, but he said, "You were using a shotgun with a lot of pellets in one shell. And in Saskatchewan the ducks are so thick that I do not think it is a particularly great feat to knock down seven with a shell of that kind."
The second hunter went on to say, "I was hunting in the province of Quebec with a .22 rifle using .22 short ammunition. I saw a fox standing in front of a large rock. I took dead aim at the fox and shot it, but the bullet bounced off the rock and knocked a squirrel out of a tree." The first hunter said, "That is not too bad for a single shot, but all you got was two animals and you must remember that I got seven with the shot I fired." The second hunter said, "I have not finished my story. I was standing on the bank of a stream at the time I fired my rifle and the recoil was so great that I fell over backward into the stream. When I got up my pants were so full of fish that a button flew off and killed a partridge."
It may be that there is a moral to that story for the government, the moral being that if you go hunting in Quebec you had better be careful about flying buttons.
3608	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member is going to relate this to the bill.


John Hornby Harrison: I am going to relate it to the bill. I intend to do so now because I think it is very relevant. You might say that story is a slight exaggeration of the truth, and definitely the bill before us is an exaggeration of what is going to be done for the farmers of western Canada particularly.
It has been suggested that the bill should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, but in my opinion it could be more appropriately sent to another organization. In the United States there is an organization called the Burlington liars' club. Tall stories can be entered in contests they hold. If one were to take this bill and put a heading on it indicating what it is supposed to do, namely provide our farmers with a fair share of the national wealth, it would stand a pretty fair chance of winning first prize if it were entered in such a contest. This would bring some United States dollars into the treasury, and that might be very welcome as our trade with that country drops.
In so far as the bill itself is concerned, I do not like to be too rough on the minister because I do not think he had too much to do with the contents of this bill. I have a very high regard for the minister, but I think he was caught between two fires. In the first place, a promise had been made, a promise that should be fulfilled because there is nothing wrong with giving the farmers some share in the wealth of this country. If you honestly intend to do that it is very easily done. There have been occasions in the past when it has been deemed desirable that some segment of the population obtain a better share of the national wealth. I have in mind, as a precedent, the children of this country. It was found desirable that they be given a little better living standard. In order to do that we just sent them a monthly cheque and called it a family allowance. The same thing has been done in the way of pensions for the aged and so on. It is not difficult, therefore, if you actually want to give somebody a share in the wealth of the nation.
However, this measure is not going to do that job any more than the earlier measure did. The price support act passed in 1944 was never advertised as a measure to give the farmer his share of the national wealth. At that time, of course, the farmer was obtaining a fairly substantial share of the wealth of this country. This bill is nothing more than a duplicate of the other measure which was designed as insurance against any drastic drop in agricultural prices. As


an insurance policy it is a very desirable thing to have, and it does not make too much difference whether the insurance is obtained under this bill or the old bill. I have no particular criticism of this bill if they call it what it is, and that is an insurance policy against a drop in prices. If the government tries to tell farmers this measure will give them a share of the national wealth, then I must disagree entirely.
Why should we change from the act we have? What was wrong with the act we had? Why could not the act have been amended or changes made in it without introducing legislation into the house? I assume such a course would not have met the requirements of the Conservative party, because they had promised something and they wanted to make it appear as if they were fulfilling that promise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to vote against it?


John Hornby Harrison: My friend asks me if I am going to vote against it. I am going to answer that question directly. If you would, by any chance, look the other way when I am voting, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to vote for this bill twice because the sooner we get this measure into the hands of the farmers the sooner they can evaluate it. Right now they are getting a lot of eyewash about what this measure is going to do for them. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and believe me the eating is not going to be as good as the minister and the government have led the farmers to believe. In short, we have been told there are a lot of plums in this cake, but there are not going to be too many plums found in it when it comes to the actual eating.
So much for why we have to have a bill at all. A lot of window dressing is required to cover the promise that has been made. I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture for this at all because, as I say, he is caught between two fires. On the one hand he has a promise to fulfil, and on the other hand he has to obtain money from the treasury in order to fulfil it. I believe the Minister of Finance has said, "Doug, just go right ahead but do not cost us any money. If you want an extra $50 million in the pot and I only have to make an entry in the ledger, so the money is not going to leave the office, then that is fine with me."
Therefore we have this change from the old act, and instead of a $200 million revolving fund we have a revolving fund of $250 million. The minister has told us during this session that they are using only $30 million of the old $200 million fund

and $170 million is lying idle. He is going to add another $50 million to the idle fund to make it $220 million. This is not going to hurt the Minister of Finance, nor is it going to put any more money in the hands of the farmers.
I want to discuss this measure particularly in the light of what it does for the western farmers. I said I was going to play a few tunes on it, and if I had my saxophone perhaps I would start with "Home Sweet Home". However, I would find that song not quite appropriate to this bill because I come from the west, and this measure does not do anything for the west. The only fundamental change in this bill from the old price support measure, so far as the western farmers are concerned, is a change in the name. Instead of the old Agricultural Prices Support Act we will now have the agricultural prices stabilization act, the only change being the substitution of the word "stabilization" for the word "support". This is not going to put any money in the western farmers' pockets. Western grain is specifically excluded from this measure, and grain is their main source of income.


Mr. Palleil:: You get cash advances on
grain, do you not?


John Hornby Harrison: I am glad the hon. member
asked me about cash advances. From time to time we get guidance that is very beneficial, and the hon. member for Peel has helped me recall a point that I had forgotten. I certainly wanted to mention it. Cash advances are evidently the other part of this legislative program designed to give the farmer his share of the national income. I was home at the end of November and early in December, just to see what was the effect of this measure in my own riding.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon.
member that the house disposed of the bill to provide for cash advances some time last year. We are dealing, it is true, with a broad bill, but it does not deal with cash advances.


John Hornby Harrison: Yes, Mr. Speaker; but as
you will recognize, I am answering a question from the hon. member for Peel.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member pay no attention to interruptions that are out of order.


John Hornby Harrison: Perhaps I could inform the
hon. member for Peel about the situation privately, if that would suit. The answer is certainly not good. So far as my riding is concerned, and the west generally, the figures indicate that only about 10 per cent of the farmers can come under that bill. They are all the big farmers.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not right.


John Hornby Harrison: It is right. The minister
says it is not right. I would tell the minister that there are not five farmers out of a hundred in my riding who can qualify under this legislation to receive any cash advances. However, that legislation did this; it pointed up the value of the previous legislation covering bank loans, and some farmers who damned that measure are now borrowing under it. They find they have to pay interest, but at least they can get some money because the basis of that measure is the equity they have in their grain, while the basis of the cash advance measure is the amount of land they have. I am happy to have these interjections, because they help me in establishing points that I want to establish.
I will say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if he would like to come to Meadow Lake during the next election campaign we could debate this matter, and I am no debater. I am just a saxophone player. I might add that some people who are maybe a little bit unfriendly have said that I am a rather indifferent saxophone player. But in spite of those disadvantages-


Mr. Anderson:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Hornby Harrison: After I have finished. As I say, Mr. Speaker, in spite of those disadvantages I do not mind debating with the Minister of Trade and Commerce the agricultural policy of the government right in the town of Meadow Lake, before an audience of farmers, on the basis of whether this piece of legislation I hold in my hand, namely Bill No. 237, and the one that preceded it with respect to cash advances, fulfil the promise with regard to giving to the farmer his share of the national income. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not put one thin dime in the pocket of anybody who is a grain farmer in my riding at any time in the future because western farmers are necessarily excluded from benefits. That is, they are necessarily excluded as far as the government is concerned. I do not know why the government should exclude western farmers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you would talk to the president of your Saskatchewan wheat pool you would find out.


John Hornby Harrison: The president of my Saskatchewan wheat pool is somebody for whom I have great respect but he is not personally affected by this legislation. There are a great many farmers in my riding who should be but they are not going to be. As I said, the fundamental change in it, as far as the western farmer is concerned, is the change of "support" to "stabilization".
3S10	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


William Anderson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Hornby Harrison: As soon as I finish. If the hon. member would like to just write down his questions he can ask them all in order after I have finished. The government is going to change "support" to "stabilization". That is not going to give the farmer any money. It could cost them a little bit of money because as they write their friends in eastern Canada who come under the bill as far as grain is concerned they will have to write the word "stabilization", which takes twice as much ink to write as does the word "support". They will lose that much by this bill.


Mr. Cardiff:: I do not know why the hon. member should object to this legislation. We have been supporting legislation for you over the years.


John Hornby Harrison: We now have a Prime Minister who comes from western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. gentleman says "hear, hear". I wonder whether the people from the west will say "hear, hear" after they see this bill. On every previous occasion when we have had a Tory prime minister from the west, rather than doing things for the west, he did things to the west. This hon. gentleman is carrying on in the same tradition. In the first instance he turned down the British free trade offer. In the second place, and something that showed the sectional and regional views of the Tory party, we are no longer getting the dam the construction of which he promised would be started in December of last year. Instead, if we want to get in on the cheap power policy of this government we are obliged to move to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.
Now we have this bill, and written right into it by this gentleman from the west, who is supposed to be doing things for western Canada and not to it, is the exclusion of all farmers in the west from any benefits as far as grain is concerned. But as long as they move to some other place they can come under the provisions of this bill.
There is nothing new about this Conservative procedure, Mr. Speaker. We have had these things in the past from Mr. Bennett. He did the same thing. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we have any more of these Tory champions of the west coming here as prime minister, we shall soon have a desert out in the west, because people will be obliged to move to other parts of the country in order to enjoy the amenities which ordinary Canadians enjoy. If they want power they must go to the maritimes. If they want


the price support which everybody else enjoys, they must move to eastern Canada.


John Cameron Pallett: What about natural gas?


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. gentleman mentions natural gas. I am going to point this out to the hon. member for Peel, who is always helpful. I should make him my parliamentary assistant. That is another matter in which we are discriminated against in the west. You say you do not want any United States capital in there yet that is what has put Alberta on its feet. Then we have another policy of this government that will not allow natural gas, of which we have a great deal in both Alberta and Saskatchewan, to go out of the country to where there is a market.
I am glad the hon. gentleman points up these discriminatory Tory policies, because that is one thing I had forgotten. This is done under a Prime Minister who is supposed to be doing things for the west and who is now doing things to us. I had three items I wanted to mention, and that makes four. He has been in office for only about six or seven months. That is a very good record for somebody who is supposed to come from the west and who is already doing things to us.
As far as this bill is concerned-and I refer to the first section-it has a discriminatory section written into it, and in that regard it differs from the other bill. I want to discuss the differences between this bill and the previous one. This is the first thing; it is discriminatory against western farmers.
The next item is that we have $50 million more in the pot than we had before. That means exactly nothing, because it is only a bookkeeping entry in the treasury department. As I said, we are not now using $170 million of the $200 million that was available under the last act. I want to make this point. If you are going to do away with the other act of course you must have this one, and it does no more or no less than the other. But the government are putting flowers on it in order to try to sell it to the farmers. They are not going to sell it. 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.


William Anderson: Press the other valve down.


John Hornby Harrison: That is very good. This will put the pressure on the safety valve. This bill is one thing that I think we shall let speak for itself in the next election, and it will be able to do a little bit of pressing on valves.

The third point that was written out in this bill is this. We have a board. The Prime Minister in the debate in the last couple of days said the price support bill did not have a board. I find that statement hard to line up with the minister saying that what we should have is flexibility in this bill. A board is going to make the bill less flexible. I should like to know what farmer out west is going to be happy because this bill has a board mentioned in it. I would say that a board, on the occasion the government requires it, is there to give the maximum of delay in action and does not provide anything else.


An hon. Member:: That is what it used to be.


John Hornby Harrison: The other item provided is a committee. There was a committee of an advisory nature under the last bill and this one is a committee of farmers and heads of farm organizations. I see the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand looking at me. I should like to quote him on this very matter in this debate. He has outlined two functions of this committee fairly well. As reported at page 3480 of Hansard the hon. member said this:
This committee is to be composed of farmers and representatives of farm organizations. If those representatives are not satisfied with the way in which the government conducts itself,-
In other words, if they do not like the prices that the government support.
-having received the advice of that committee, there is only one thing they have to do and that is to resign from the committee. Until that time is reached they must accept, and I have no doubt they will accept, part of the responsibility for the prices that are set.
So here is a committee to take some responsibility, but as soon as it does not agree with the government it must resign. The parliamentary assistant to the minister has already told this committee where it can go, in no uncertain terms. It must take responsibility, but that is all. I will ask this question of the Minister of Agriculture; he does not need to answer it before I am through. Does this bill in the final analysis not come down to this; that apart from boards or advisory committees or anything else which might be put into the measure, action in the final analysis means a decision of the minister and of the government?
That is exactly what was provided in the last act. The government could do anything under the last act that it can do under this proposal; and there was no necessity, as I see it, for bringing in a new and flowery piece of legislation such as this present bill which the minister is trying to foist upon the farmers as something new.
3611
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The parliamentary assistant to the minister said you could judge the sincerity of the government by this bill. I think he is quite right in saying that, because this bill is the most insincere piece of legislation I have ever seen. He went on to say, further, that the farmer is in as serious a position today as he was in the thirties. And this is what he offers to farmers, presuming they are in that condition. I do not agree with him that the position today is as serious as it was in the thirties. It is bad, but not that bad. But if they were in such a position this is what he would offer them, to help the farmers out of their trouble.
I think that is in accord with previous Conservative policy. While we were in the depression of the thirties Mr. Bennett was in office, and he made a similar proposition. He said, "We will help the farmers out west, and any of them who have any wheat will be given five cents a bushel premium for what they grow". Unfortunately at that time, and Mr. Bennett knew it quite well, there were not five farmers in a hundred who had any wheat at all. The result was that to those who had, more was added, while those who had not were sent empty away. But I think that compares favourably with the position taken by the parliamentary assistant when he said this was the help necessary to the farmers, if they were in as bad a position as they were in the thirties.
The parliamentary assistant then said that this measure has another function, namely to guarantee prices. Just what prices does it guarantee? He said prices would be based on not less than 80 per cent of the average price over the 10-year period, a sliding base period. I agree that it is a sliding period. It is possible that the price could slide right into the basement; it could keep going down. In fact it could go down to zero and you could have a guaranteed price which was 80 per cent of nothing. If this is a guarantee the question is raised, what is a guarantee? I do not think this represents a guarantee.
Mr. Speaker, I have gone through five different points in this bill and the only one that means anything to western farmers, or which affects western farmers, is the name. The government has changed the word "support" to "stabilization".
Hon. members opposite will probably go out during an election campaign and say this is a great bill. I do not care what they say about it, because it is the farmers who will make the decision in the final analysis. So when somebody asks me whether I intend to vote for this bill, I say I will be glad to vote for it twice, having regard to the Prime
3612	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Minister's statement in October that an election would not be too long delayed, and knowing that the farmers themselves will be able to vote on this matter.
And I would suggest that if a farmer supports the government by supporting a Conservative candidate he is giving assent to the government's contention that they are providing him through this bill and the one which preceded it, the cash advance legislation, with a fair share of the national income. Every farmer in the west who agrees that that is being done for him by these two pieces of legislation deserves everything he will not get from this and the other measure. The farmers in my riding, as I have said, have not a hope in the world of getting anything more out of this than they got out of the legislation to provide cash advances.


An hon. Member:: Why are you voting for it, then?


John Hornby Harrison: I have explained that. I do not explain it with any timidity, either. I am glad this bill has been brought in. I am glad to support it, so that it may be brought to the tribunal of the farmers themselves. They will certainly pass judgment on it, and they will not put their stamp of approval on it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to a vote I am happy to support any kind of legislation upon which the government places its stamp of approval, merely to bring it before the public so that they can test the cake by eating it; and they will find that a lot of the cake they have been promised, and which they thought would contain so many raisins, is going to contain some very sour dough by the time they get it.
If this bill and the one preceding it are the answer to sharing the national wealth with the farmers, I am sure it is a long way off the mark. It was conceived in desperation during the election campaign, to secure votes; it was born in this house in hesitation, because it was changed three times-we have had three bills before us before we have got through second reading-it was received by the farmers with consternation and frustration, and it will finally be the annihilation of those who offer this insurance against disaster from too low farm prices.
I think the sooner this is put before the farmers the better for their own good, and I will be surprised if, on the basis of this legislation, I am not here to discuss the matter further after the next election.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not think since the pipe-line debate raged in this house has a government presented a more unpopular measure than the bill now before us.


The agricultural producers of this country took this government seriously during the election campaign, believing it meant what it said when it promised a system of support prices which would be based on an adequate parity relationship. They believed the government meant what it said when it promised to provide prices for agricultural products which would give to agricultural producers their fair share of the national income. But the bill which is now before the house in amended form is an absolute and complete repudiation by the government of its own campaign pledge to provide adequate parity for agricultural producers.
I am amazed that the Prime Minister should have allowed such a bill to come before the house, though I am quite certain that the Minister of Agriculture thinks the bill is all right, because the record of the minister over the years is not one that would suggest he is in favour of adequate support prices. You can read the Hansard record since the Minister of Agriculture came into this house, and you will not find in that record one single speech in which the hon. gentleman stood up and asked for an adequate price support program that would give the agricultural producers of this country adequate parity.
Instead of that the record of the Minister of Agriculture in this house is one of opposition to motions that have been moved by hon. members in this group asking for adequate support prices. Not since he came to this house has the minister said he believed in stable marketing to the point where he thought the Canadian wheat board should be the sole agency buying and selling oats and barley. However, I had expected that the Prime Minister's attitude would be different, because over the years his record in this house is clear. He has fought for parity prices; the words are in the record. Sometimes he moved motions toward that end, and sometimes he voted for them.


Mr. Power:: He got out most of the time.


Hazen Robert Argue: An hon. member has said, "He got out most of the time." Perhaps the hon. member can say that, but I do not think I could make that statement. Nevertheless I am shocked that in the light of his record the Prime Minister should have given his stamp of approval either to the original bill or to this amendment of the original bill.
There is another thing I could not believe at first, although I think it is true now because I have heard it said so often. It is that the ordinary member of the Conservative party did not know what would be contained

in the original bill, nor was there a caucus held before that bill was introduced.


John Cameron Pallett: Speak for your own party.


Hazen Robert Argue: You can get up and deny it if you like, but I have been told that by members of the Conservative party. They told me that as backbenchers they were not consulted, though the backbenchers in that party represent agricultural producers in many ridings. The Minister of Agriculture did not take them into his confidence in a caucus and tell them what he intended to do, so no wonder when the original bill was brought in the backbenchers on the other side of the house representing agricultural constituencies were horrified that the government was bringing in this bill as its version of adequate parity.
The press is full of many comments on the hurried meetings that were held and the consultations of the Minister of Agriculture with the farm organizations and the pressure that was applied. The minister is a proud man, but he swallowed his pride when he brought in the amendments. He said the amendments did not mean there was any difference in the principle. I am quite sure he is right on that score. Since he is the man who is going to administer the bill he should know what the amendments mean. He explained that the reason he took the 10-year average was that the farm organizations told him that the prices during the past year had not been satisfactory and so he went back and included five of the best years. Then, as reported at page 2653 of Hansard of December 20, 1957, the minister went on to say:
I personally favour the three-year moving average formula-
He replaced the three-year moving average formula with the 10-year moving average formula because the farm organizations said the three-year formula was no good. The 10-year formula is not much better, but it is a slight improvement. The Minister of Agriculture said he was changing the formula, but that he was not convinced and still thought the three-year moving average was the best.
This legislation has been before the house off and on for some months, and I have yet to hear of a single farm organization which has placed its stamp of approval on it. I have yet to see a letter from an individual producer who thinks the government has fulfilled its pledge. I am quite prepared to admit that the government might accomplish something under this legislation. It might, in fact, improve agricultural prices under this bill, just as it was theoretically possible for the previous government to improve prices under 96698-229i
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization its legislation. But if the government does improve agricultural prices under the bill that is before us there will be a suspicion abroad in this country that the prices have been improved just for the forthcoming election campaign, for a period of one year, or just long enough to get the government by; because there is no guarantee under this legislation that prices will be maintained on an adequate parity basis.
Following this the minister, in order to substantiate his case, said "Look at all the trouble the Americans are in." Well, it is true that the Americans are in some trouble, but as a wheat producer I would love to get into that same kind of trouble. When I haul a bushel of good wheat I receive $1.20. If the wheat is an inferior grade I receive much less. The United States producer, on the other hand, receives $2 a bushel for his wheat. Does he receive a cash advance for half of a 6-bushel quota at a rate of 50 cents a bushel? Not at all. He receives a cash advance of $2 a bushel on 90 per cent of all the wheat he has threshed. The minister rose in this house and said Mr. Benson says they are in trouble in the United States.


John Cameron Pallett: And they are.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers in the United States are in trouble precisely because the secretary of agriculture in that country has followed the same kind of policy of which our Minister of Agriculture now approves. With the possible exception of Mr. Dulles I do not think there is a man in a responsible position in the United States at this time who is more discredited than the United States secretary of agriculture. The event that happened in the recent United States election is precisely what happened in Canada in the recent Canadian election.
We who represent agricultural constituencies in the main are very often told that we represent a dwindling portion of the nation's population and that we are not very important. If anyone will look at the election records of this country and the United States he will see that the farmers in both countries exercise an extremely important influence on the results of elections. The farmers more than any other single group in this country are responsible for defeating the Liberal party on June 10. The farmers of the United States said to President Eisenhower and to the congress of the United States in the last election there that they did not like the Republican agricultural program, as a result the Republicans no longer control the congress of that country.
When the Minister of Agriculture in this country brings forth Mr. Benson's program
3614	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization and parrots Mr. Benson's statements to substantiate his own position, I say he is undermining the influence of the Conservative party in this country, because the people know that Mr. Benson, in the words of the senator who is chairman of the United States senate agriculture sub-committee, is proposing steps at this time to drive thousands of United States farmers off the land, and is threatening to destroy the very basis of United States agriculture. That is precisely what this government will do under this legislation if one is to judge from the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture up to the present time.
Oh, it is probably true that if hon. members of this house bring enough pressure to bear on the government it will do something for the farmer under this legislation, but all it will do is provide political prices for agricultural products; and the farmer is sick to death of political prices, because they certainly do not help the people they claim to be directed toward assisting. The position of the government is inadequate.
What is the position of the official opposition? It is weird and strange. Initially the former minister of agriculture damned this bill. Why, he said, it is practically the same as the one he had, which resulted in his being chased from office and in the Liberal party having the smallest representation from the three prairie provinces.


Mr. Gardiner:: We did not lose more seats in Saskatchewan than you did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Out of 48 seats in the three prairie provinces his party has six; that is all. I am afraid they are not going to have six if they keep up this kind of opposition in the house. In my opinion the hon. member for Meadow Lake made the strangest speech any member of parliament has ever made in this house. What did he say about this legislation? He said, "This legislation is the death warrant of the farmers of Canada." Then he said, "I am going to vote for the bill to make sure of the death warrant of the Conservative party."


John Hornby Harrison: On a question of privilege, the hon. member would want to be fair about this. I said it would be the death warrant of Tory candidates. Is that not correct?


Hazen Robert Argue: I accept the hon. member's correction.


John Hornby Harrison: It makes a lot of difference.


Hazen Robert Argue: In his statement the hon. member damned this legislation and suggested that it is going to be the death warrant of the Conservative party. Then he said he was going to vote for it. He is going to sign


the death warrant of the Conservative party in order to put this nefarious legislation on the statute books of this country.


John Hornby Harrison: It is neither better nor worse than what we had before.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, never was a truer word spoken.


John Hornby Harrison: That is correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: The old Agricultural Prices Support Act was the death warrant of the Liberal party and this agricultural prices stabilization legislation-and I agree with the hon. gentleman-will be the death warrant of the Conservative party. I am happy that both those old parties will now be destined to the grave. I think it is the best thing that could happen so far as the agricultural producers of this country are concerned.
In this session we have seen that there is no difference between those two parties. One is in and the other wants to be in. The Liberal party had been in so long that it does not know how to get back in now. It has been making the strangest speeches in this house, and the party passed the weirdest resolutions at their recent convention. Are they for something more for the farmer? Of course they are not. They have been out of office seven months, but they have learned nothing. They have been passing and approving the same old kind of discredited policy that they have promoted in this house. They have a four-page agricultural resolution with 16 subparagraphs, which was passed by the resolutions committee. It might have come out of the grass, but it was the brass that doctored it up and presented it to the convention, or perhaps it did not present it. As long as the resolutions committee passed it I suppose it is policy, that is Liberal democracy.


John Hornby Harrison: You should not talk about democracy.


Hazen Robert Argue: What did they say about parity prices? Nothing. What did they say about the great demand today to give deficiency payments to the agricultural producers of western Canada, and give them an adequate income? What did they say about the unanimous resolutions which have been passed by prairie farm organizations for deficiency payments? Well, their fourth resolution reads in this way:
Maintain and extend a system of support prices and deficiency payments-
It sounds good, but I continue:
-where appropriate-

I think that demolishes it. The resolution goes on:
-administered in such a way as to obtain for farmers for their products prices bearing a fair relationship to their costs of production and designed to ensure to farmers a fair share of the national income and encourage the production of marketable farm products.
It will be noted that they said "deficiency payments, where appropriate."
Their sixth resolution deals in some detail with their wheat policy, but they did not mention a word about the great drive for deficiency payments that is now being made, because obviously they are not in favour of deficiency payments. Well, that is a rather strong statement to make. I have been listening to members of the official opposition discuss this question. They have not asked for any deficiency payments on wheat; they have not asked for the 20-cent deficiency payment that is now the fulcrum of the great drive on the prairies for justice for the agricultural producers.
They have not mentioned it, but I have evidence to show what they think of it, and from a very good friend of the members of the opposition. I hold in my hand an article in the Regina Leader-Post dated January 13, 1958. It was written by E. N. Davis, who is an associate editor of the Leader-Post. I do not think there is any stronger supporter of the Liberal party anywhere in Canada than the Regina Leader-Post. This man was travelling on the train with the Saskatchewan delegation and he had a chance to be with them in their intimate conversation. He was in the back room to use a phrase with these men on the train, and this is what he says:
Strong opposition against the deficiency payment system advocated by the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was evident. The inclination was to scoff at the practicability and desirability of hand-outs of many millions of dollars to the farmers from the federal treasury.
Such hand-outs, it was contended would encourage grain production and the accumulation of still larger surpluses, and discourage the movement from the land of farmers who lack the land and capital to farm economically.
The people on the prairies today are united as never before in their demand for deficiency payments, and the Liberal party in opposition is strongly opposed to the people on the prairies. We have heard about the death warrant of the Conservative party. This statement constitutes the death warrant of the Liberal party in western Canada in the next election.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock I had been saying that although the people on the prairies are united as they have never been before in asking the government for deficiency payments, apparently the Liberal convention overlooked supporting deficiency payments on grain. In fact it is reliably reported that the Saskatchewan delegates to the convention were opposed to such payments.
I had said that the tactics of the official opposition were very difficult to understand. After the hon. member for Meadow Lake had said that the bill now before us was so bad that it would mean the death of the Conservative government, I was absolutely amazed that he should say that he proposes to vote for this legislation when he considers it so bad and the government so ill advised as to have introduced it.
In asking for deficiency payments the people on the prairies are doing so because they are caught in a terrible cost-price squeeze. Since the end of the war the cost of production has gone up more than 50 per cent and the prices of agricultural products have fallen by more than 7 per cent. In asking for deficiency payments they realize the very low prices that are being paid for the grain that is sold. They realize that apparently the day is rapidly approaching when interim and final payments on oats and barley will become a thing of the past, and that so far as wheat is concerned there will probably only be one payment in the future, with the price for the current crop year being lower than it has been in recent years.
The price of oats is so low today that oats are being sold at exactly the initial price of 66 cents a bushel, so the oat pool will suffer a very substantial net loss involving a cost to the treasury. No. 1 feed barley is selling for 87J cents a bushel, which is half a cent a bushel above the initial price for the main grade of barley, so the producers cannot look forward to an interim or final payment on the barley crop.
The reasons for which they are asking for deficiency payments on the 1955-56 crop are becoming greater and stronger as the days go by. What are they asking? They are asking for a payment of 20 cents a bushel out of the national treasury on the 1955-56 crop. They are asking for comparable payments for barley and oats for the same period. Agricultural experts have always said that the price of barley should be about two-thirds the price of wheat, and that the price of oats should be about half the price of wheat. Using the same proportions for deficiency payments,

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization I suggest that the wheat pools and the prairie people will be asking for at least as much and perhaps more on the 1956-57 accounts whenever they are closed.
The prairie people are deadly earnest in asking that the federal government today pay deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley for the 1955-56 crop, amounting to approximately $95 million; and undoubtedly they will be asking for at least as much for the next pool period. They are asking for a payment of $190 million from the national., treasury.
Oh, I know there will be outcries in certain quarters if the government decides to use deficiency payments in those crop years to bolster the falling incomes of the prairie grain producers, but I suggest that such payments are valuable and necessary not only to the people to whom they will be made but also to the Canadian economy at the present time. Yesterday the Minister of Finance suggested in one part of his speech that the government was prepared to budget for a deficit if that was necessary to solve the unemployment problem.
That was good news. I suggest that as a first step	in	budgeting	for a deficit	thegovernment should announce deficiency payments on	the	grain in	question and	paysubstantial sums of money to the prairie producers.	If	that were	done it would	notonly help	the	incomes	of people on	the
prairies, but the money going into circulation through being spent on goods produced in Canada would have a very beneficial effect as far as unemployment is concerned.
When I was in Saskatchewan during the Christmas recess I discussed this bill and the matter of deficiency payments with people representing all the farm organizations, people who in the past have supported every political party represented in the House of Commons. Their unanimous opinion was that unless the federal government agreed to a deficiency payment on the 1955-56 crop year a mass delegation of prairie people to Ottawa should be organized. They did not have in mind just a delegation of farmers. They spelled out the people they felt should be included in the delegation. They said it should contain representatives of businessmen, representatives of the urban municipalities, the teachers' federation, the rural municipal secretaries, the clergy and homemakers' associations, a cross section of the people of western Canada.
There is a precedent for such a large delegation, because in 1942, some 400 from Saskatchewan came to Ottawa to wait upon the government and ask for a substantial increase in the price of wheat. At a later

date, as a result of that delegation appearing in Ottawa a very substantial increase was made in the price of wheat. I say to the government at this time, therefore, that if they insist upon promoting a bill which guarantees no more to the producers than is guaranteed by this bill, that is merely an encouragement to the people of the prairies to organize this mass delegation to come to Ottawa, of which they are talking so much at the present time.
The minister says he does not want a parity formula in the bill. He has refused to put any kind of parity formula in the bill, even though the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have said that their main request is for a 70 per cent parity formula. I want to say immediately that I do not believe 70 per cent is enough, but the point I am making is that even though the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asks for 30 per cent less than full parity, which in almost every if not every instance is lower than the market prices of these commodities today, the government has refused. The government has not only refused to put in a formula, but they have refused to put in a formula that at the moment would cost the treasury little or nothing.
I do not understand the attitude of the government. I do not understand the attitude of the minister. I do not know why he should oppose putting this formula in the bill, unless he is prepared to let prices go lower and lower until they are very much below even the 70 per cent parity formula. I am making a special plea now to the government and to the members on the government side of the house to accept-


An hon. Member:: You will have to do a better job.


Hazen Robert Argue: -to accept the formula of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Surely that is the rock bottom minimum. Even with that formula thousands of farmers will go out of production and will have to leave their farms. Although the farmers, through the federation, are asking for a minimum stop loss formula, the government says no.
I wonder what the government really has in mind for the producers when they will not accept this very modest request. I question the sincerity of the government in doing something adequate under this bill over a long period of time. I am not saying they will not do something soon. I am not saying they will not do something in the face of an election. I question their sincerity to do the right thing over a long period of time.

Why do I question their sincerity? Because they have had the Agricultural Prices Support Act available to them since June 21, when they took office, and although agricultural commodity prices have been low during that period they have not used the powers available to increase agricultural prices. Apparently they never really intended to improve the prices of agricultural products or the incomes of producers by reasonable amounts. I know of no sensible reason why the government did not use the instrument available, the Agricultural Prices Support Act, to improve the prices of agricultural commodities.
How often have I heard Conservative members condemn the previous administration for the low floor price on eggs? Has anything been done to increase that floor price? No. We get the same kind of glib assurances from this Minister of Agriculture as we got from the last one, that steps are being taken to hold up the floor price. All the time the producers know they are being chiselled and rooked by the packers of this country. There is no guarantee that grades are carried through to the consumer. The government has done no more in the last seven months than the previous administration did to increase prices of farm products. The price of hogs has fallen by 12 cents a pound, from 35 cents to 23 cents, but nothing was done to increase the support price for hogs.


Mr. Villeneuve (Glengarry-Prescoil):: Would the hon. member answer a question? Will you tell me how you are going to regulate supply and demand? There were 83,000 hogs per week shipped last July when the price reached 38 cents in Montreal, and in November there were about 130,000 shipped-


Hazen Robert Argue: Is this a question or a statement?


Osie F. Villeneuve: I am
asking how you regulate supply.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend asks me how to regulate supply and demand. The only inference I can draw from that question is that he would not regulate it. When the farmers have something to sell the hon. member would allow the price to go down, as it has for the last few months.


Osie F. Villeneuve: I am
asking you how you would do it.


Hazen Robert Argue: My friend talks about regulating supply and demand when two-thirds of the world is hungry; when we have three-quarters of a million unemployed in this country, and we see on television pictures of unemployed families who we know have not enough of the right kind of food. Then my hon. friend asks how are we going to regulate supply and demand. He is living in the last
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization century, and so is the Conservative party so far as this legislation is concerned.


Osie F. Villeneuve: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to my friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor. Was the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Osie F. Villeneuve: That
is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Will he state his question of privilege?


Osie F. Villeneuve: What was stated about supply and demand is very true, but we have not the facilities at this time of year; and how are you going to arrange that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must recognize that is not a question of privilege.


Hazen Robert Argue: The longer the debate goes on the worse the situation becomes. The hon. member now says we have not the facilities. We have not a decent bill. We have not really got support prices, and now we have not any facilities. We have not a government that wants to do something, and that is quite clear. We have a government that has presented a bill which is political window dressing to blind a number of people who put faith in them and thought they really meant to do something.
The federation of agriculture has calculated what the proposed support prices for the various agricultural commodities would be on the 80 per cent basis. I have taken these prices and reduced them by the amount of inflation since 1935, to get comparable figures in terms of real purchasing power in 1935. I find that although hogs sold for 12 cents a pound in 1935, in the middle of the depression, the guaranteed price under this 80 per cent clause of 23.36 cents a pound would be only 8.6 cents in terms of 1935 dollars, a worse position for the producer than 1935. The price of beef was 6 cents a pound in 1935, and under this plan it would be 6.45 cents in terms of real purchasing power. The wholesale price of eggs was 31 cents in 1935, and would be 16.8 cents in terms of the same dollars under this bill. The wholesale price of butter in 1935 was 23 cents a pound, and under this legislation would be 18 cents a pound in terms of real purchasing power.
The basic and absolute guarantee under this bill, therefore, would be at a lower level and would place the producers of this country in a worse position than when they kicked out the last Conservative government that was
3618	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization in power in this country. This government had better get the word "grass" in its vocabulary. The brass had better start listening to the rumblings of the grass, because the 600,000 farm families are not prepared to be kicked out of their occupation without doing something about it.
The government have a lot of fine phrases in this legislation about the cost of production. The minister says that is the most important thing that is going to be considered, the cost of production. The figures for Alberta, based on studies made by the Alberta government, show that in 1955 in order to give efficient butter producers 58 cents an hour for their labour, the price of butter would have to be 85 cents a pound. The government's basic floor price in this legislation is 45 cents a pound. In order to give the farmer engaged in egg production 58 cents an hour for his labour, eggs would have to be 40 cents a dozen. Then the minister is saying, "Well, now, if you just leave it to me, I am going to get the price up from 28 cents or 29 cents a dozen to 30 cents a dozen".


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did it.


Hazen Robert Argue: You got the price up to 30 cents a dozen. I want to congratulate the Minister. It is just three quarters of the level necessary to pay a farmer 58 cents an hour, and he is proud of it. He sits over there smiling about it. That is an accomplishment that will ruin the egg producers. If this bill to give 80 per cent of the floor price results in the drop of prices to this level, it will mean the ruination of most of the people engaged in farming today.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to issue a challenge to the government. I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to appear with me on any public platform in western Canada or in any other part of Canada, at a meeting sponsored by a bona fide farm organization, to discuss how under this legislation that is now being proposed he intends to condemn the agricultural producers of this country to an unfair share of the national income and how he intends to continue to regard people who produce in the agricultural industry as second class citizens.
I challenge him to come to the city of Regina. Let us take the exhibition auditorium, and let us have a public debate. I suggest that after that public debate the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) will have exactly the same success as the former hon. member for Qu'Appelle had when he had something to do with similar debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
us have it on television, too.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with this house, and having it here?


Hazen Robert Argue: I say this legislation is not what the Conservative party promised or, if it is, then what they promised was an absolute sham and a farce.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, after spending the last 40 minutes listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia this house will understand the type of thing under which those of us in Saskatchewan have had to bear up for a number of years.
I might let my first remarks deal specifically with the hon. member. I should like to remind the hon. member that not so long ago there was another person in the province of Saskatchewan who issued a challenge to a discredited member of his own party who had left them and gone to seek refuge in what he apparently thought was a safer place. The premier of Saskatchewan issued the challenge to the hon. member that he would hound him out of the province. This debate was held in the constituency of the hon. member, and great was the advertising and great was the interest. I suppose that from one half to two thirds of the people of Saskatchewan listened to that debate over the radio or saw it in some form or other. What was the result of that great debate?


An hon. Member:: Who won the election?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What was the result of that great debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Liberals were defeated.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We had a man
who up to that time was a discredited man, trying to find some place to go in order to find his way back into the House of Commons. That debate saw two noisy people, one saying that black was black and the other that white was white. All they did as a result of that debate was to destroy the illusion that the premier of Saskatchewan is invincible. All they did was to build up this discredited member of that party; and today the Liberal party, which used to oppose him, is considering bringing him back in as provincial leader.


An hon. Member:: It serves him right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I just mentioned this to show how fond my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia is of challenging. He likes to pick on someone, bring him out into the open and then, by yelling, hope to convince the audience that he has the better point of view. But here he is in a place where he has a chance to put up his

arguments. We have heard them today, Mr. Speaker, and I should just like to say a few words about what he has said.
This morning, before lunch, he said these changes in the bill were forced on the Minister of Agriculture by caucuses and by farm organizations. Does he not remember that for years and years the Conservative party has advocated across this country that farm organizations should be consulted? Does he not remember that, in the case of the cash advance bill, with no machinery set up in advance-


An hon. Member:: Why did you not consult with them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -we did consult with farm organizations. If he will tell the full story, he knows that farm organizations have been down here consulting with us on this bill. He keeps mentioning the possibility that there is going to be a march on Ottawa. He makes such statements sometimes as a promise and sometimes as a threat. I am going to ask the hon. member this question. Where is your march on Ottawa? Is it all wind and fury? Is it the braying of an immature person who has not yet reached the stage of realizing that he must face reality? May I say that he is talking about the most respected leaders in western Canada. My hon. friend should remember these facts. We hear the hon. member stand up in the house and say that he has failed to hear one organization or one farmer approve of this bill.


An hon. Member:: He does not read the newspapers.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether he considers the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to be an organization? They issued a press statement in which they said there were certain things in this bill they did not like and there were certain things in this bill which they did like.


Hazen Robert Argue: Read it all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am going to read it:
This bill establishes the desirable principle that on certain key commodities there will be price guarantees in effect at all times, and it names those key commodities. The procedure provided in the bill of regularly reviewing the level of price supports and establishing them on key commodities twelve months in advance is a desirable one. Provision in the bill for a minimum guaranteed floor on each of the named key commodities the levels of which are set by law is also, in principle, a desirable feature. The new bill provides for a larger revolving fund which may imply an intention by the government to make more generous use of price guarantees. This is welcomed by the C.F.A.


Hazen Robert Argue: Read it all.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only difference between the C.F.A. position and that of the present government is the type of formula. The C.F.A. formula is based on three points, namely the moving average, a price to indicate the flow of supply and demand, the question of getting a suitable base, 1925 to 1926, and also the cost of production factor. That is a difference of point of view, and I will be coming back to that later in my remarks.
The hon. member says that no one farmer has ever made any comment and no organization has ever made any comment. I should like to read from the Rural Co-Operator of Tuesday, January 14, 1958. The article is by Gordon Greer, president of the Ontario federation of agriculture. I would ask the hon. member to listen, because a person is never so smart as when he learns to appreciate the fact that there are other points of view and that he may be wrong. Listen to this:
I would like to report to our members on the new agricultural stabilization bill which got first reading in the House of Commons on December 20, 1957. I am glad to report that Hon. Douglas Harkness, Canadian Minister of Agriculture, consulted the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on the provisions of the stabilization bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that bill A or bill B?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then in parenthesis we find this:
(The Canadian Federation of Agriculture had previously presented to him its policy on price support legislation. The federation makes known its policies, including those on price support legislation, to all political parties.)
Let me quote some more:
I would like to say that Hon. Mr. Harkness and his government have included many desirable features in the bill-policies that the federation of agriculture have been advocating for a long time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Read on.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall do so.
A list of some of the desirable features being sought by the Ontario federation of agriculture follows. It lists five things that this bill provides. Having read a copy of this statement, how can the hon. member stand up and say what he does? Let him read the article in his own time and he will find the whole thing is exactly as I have read it. The hon. member does not like to hear anything which opposes his particular prejudiced point of view.
The hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned that he was in Saskatchewan during the Christmas recess and met farmer after farmer who said, "We are going to have to do something; march on Ottawa," and so on. I will have something to say about that later, but in the meantime I will tell the house this
3620	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization little anecdote. I too went to my constituency, which is parallel to the hon. member's own riding. In view of the statements which had been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, X asked everybody I met what their reaction was. They said, "Oh, you know that guy; always shooting off at the mouth".
I did notice that the hon. member has softened in his attitude since he made his first remarks on this subject at the resolution stage. He said this morning he was prepared to admit that the bill might provide better prices, but it was just for election purposes. How often must we point out to the hon. member that the reason his party is being destroyed in western Canada is that it constantly breathes suspicion, lives suspicion and preaches suspicion? There is no such thing in their minds as giving the person who opposes them the benefit of the doubt.
The hon. member for Assiniboia reminds me of a stunt I saw pulled by a young lad on a farm, who used to hide in the pumphouse beside the well and when the horses came to the trough, would jump out and say "Boo". The horses would skedaddle off into the pasture. After a while the horses did not run so often. The hon. member for Assiniboia is in the position of that little boy. He keeps on shouting "Boo". He will never grow up, and he does not seem to learn that you cannot keep on scaring people all the time.
The hon. member mentioned this morning the wonderful scheme they have in the United States, pointing out that he would like to get $2 a bushel for wheat. I can say that I, for one, and every farmer in western Canada, would join with him in that wish. We would like it even better if we could get $3, but how much sense is there in that? All that farmers want is their fair share. They do not want to be pensioners of the government, but to live on their own efforts and to be rid of this fear of uncertainty that presently surrounds them.
There is one thing I wish to put clearly before the hon. member for Assiniboia and before all of those of his opinion who come from the western provinces. In advocating these flat payments, as in the United States, have they not listened to the Minister of Agriculture saying that the great bulk of this money is being funnelled to a small number of farmers; I think the figures quoted showed that 80 per cent would go to about 25 per cent of the farmers. The hon. member wants to funnel into the hands of the big farmers of Assiniboia constituency as much of this payment as he can so they can go off to Florida or California, as some people accuse farmers of doing. But I should like


him to go down to the ordinary constituencies of Saskatchewan where two-thirds of the farmers are small farmers. This suggestion of flat payments is not the answer to their problem.
The hon. member had some friendly words to say to the official opposition. It has been amusing to hear the official opposition try to say that this bill is really the same as their act. I think one hon. member said this morning that he was willing to see all the old parties consigned to the grave. I want to say something at about the same level of seriousness, namely that I think the people of western Canada are sick and tired of both those parties across the way. When the grave will be opened up to them I do not know, but I hope it will be soon.
I think I have said enough about the hon. member for Assiniboia to make clear that in my opinion he is a lot of noise and fury. It is just like going by a slough in Saskatchewan. You hear all the frogs croaking there and you think: there must be a million of them. But you get one of them, and the noise is cut by half.
This bill is called an act to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities. Quite frankly, as I have said in this house before, I was shocked to hear the outcry against this bill which was raised at the resolution stage even before the critics had seen a copy of the bill, because those of us who have been engaged in this long fight to try to bring the problems of agriculture before the people of Canada have recognized that stability of prices is the first step.
Not only was I shocked by what happened in this house, but I got a serious shock when I went out to my own province during the recess and saw in the newspapers that misrepresentations which had been made in this house were being picked up and published in western Canada. Here is one example from the Western Producer, one of the finest farm papers in western Canada, of December 26, 1957. I am going to read one paragraph as an example of the type of misrepresentation which has resulted because of the statements made by hon. members in the southeast corner of this house:
The measure would put guaranteed floor prices under cattle, hogs, sheep, butter, cheese, eggs, and non-prairie wheat, oats and barley.
And listen to this:
The support price would be 80 per cent of the average price for the preceding three years.
Where did that idea come from? It arose because this weekly paper takes what is heard on the radio and what is read in other papers and summarizes it into stories, and here it is quoting the words of various C.C.F. members because the newspaper thought they

described what the bill really does. In all fairness to that newspaper I wish to say that during the holidays I explained what the bill really proposed to do, and the following week a story was published giving the other viewpoint.
Here is another story which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune which speaks of a meeting attended by "the C.C.F. member of parliament for Springfield". Some quotations from that news story would indicate the impressions created by that hon. member:
"The proposed agricultural stabilization act was 'dangerous and wicked' ".
Mr. Schulz suggested a farmers' march on Ottawa to protest the bill, which he termed "a joker". He said the bill would put farm floor prices 20 per cent lower than during the Liberal administration.
Mr. Schulz based his figures on the fact that the new Conservative government is willing to guarantee 80 per cent of parity.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who know what the terms of this bill really provide can only wonder whether this is a case of misrepresentation or a case of failure to understand the terms of the bill. In any case, it is not what the bill says it will do, or we will do. I will not use the words I have in mind concerning what I think with regard to this type of presentation of the facts. I will simply say what I think the same newspaper said in its editorial column, and label this type of misinformation as dangerous nonsense.
In the Regina Leader-Post of December 30, 1957, we find this campaign of suggesting marches on Ottawa strengthened by one hon. member. Here is another story, a story of a meeting at Weyburn attended by the hon. member for Assiniboia. This is part of the story as reported in the December 30, 1957, issue of the Regina Leader-Post:
In expressing his own reactions to the proposed bill, Mr. Argue said he was extremely disappointed that the government's legislation as it is will establish floor prices substantially lower than the currently drastic low prices for agricultural products.
Mr. Argue said the floor prices are to be set on certain key commodities at 80 per cent of the average market price for the past ten years. For most agricultural commodities this means a depression level.
"Another serious flaw is that guaranteed prices will have no relationship to cost of production and the government is apparently prepared to allow further increases in the cost of production without any corresponding increase in prices to the producer," Mr. Argue said.
He said that during the election campaign the Progressive Conservatives promised parity prices.
I am skipping a bit and then picking up with the following quotation:
The meeting felt a fair price to producers would be 100 per cent parity based on the 1940-50 period. It was also felt that price support should fluctuate with cost of production.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Mr. Speaker, are these words a true description of what this bill provides? Why do some hon. members seek to convey the idea that this is a broken promise by the Conservative party? Why do they tell only one part of the story and refer to only one part of the bill? Why do they ignore the part of the bill which they know provides for annual support prices based on the cost of production? I will endeavour to keep the record straight, because I do not think this has been done.
With this in mind I am going to place on the record of this house the words taken from the Progressive Conservative pamphlet on agricultural policy published in 1957. On the cover of this pamphlet appear the words of the present Prime Minister while speaking in Saskatoon on March 25, 1957.


Mr. McCullough:: What about the bill?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It reads in part:
In summary, the Progressive Conservative policy has as its purpose the assurance of a maximum of stability of income to Canadian farmers. The essential purpose of the Conservative development program is equality to regions and to groups in all parts of Canada and the raising of opportunities for the undeveloped parts of our country in a national resources program. Agriculture and its welfare is a basic cornerstone in that policy. Our pledge to agriculture is not new but has been developed through the years.


Edward George McCullough: That is Tory boloney.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On page 2 it goes on to say:
The Progressive Conservative party believes that the crisis in the Canadian farm economy is the direct result of the blundering inaction and indecision of the present government. They have no national farm policy, only a haphazard method of doing too little too late when specific crises arise. They have allowed the Canadian farmer to become the forgotten man of the Canadian post war economy.
Our party, on forming the government, will put into effect a national farm policy based on the following principles:


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is what the Liberals said at their convention just the other day.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The principles are set out as follows:
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.
2.	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.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why do you not give them $2 for wheat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would ask my hon. friends to listen very closely to the third principle.


Hazen Robert Argue: Louder.
3622	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It reads as
follows:
3.	A Progressive Conservative government will maintain a flexible price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers, based on fair price-cost relationship.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is all flexible downward, that is the trouble.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I continue:
We will include a definite formula in the Agricultural Prices Support Act for arriving at support prices, such formula to allow for variation in production and demand for individual products.


Hazen Robert Argue: Where is it?


Mr. Schulz:: What is the formula?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I continue:
The formula and support prices will be established in consultation with representative farm organizations and will be announced each year well in advance of the production period as required.


Hazen Robert Argue: When was the announcement made?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we have broken no promises. On the contrary, we are establishing a new faith in government in Canada. Part 3 of our election program calls for a flexible price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on fair price-cost relationships. That is provided for in this bill. It calls for a formula for arriving at support prices, such formula to allow for variations in production and demand for individual products. This too is provided in the bill. It also calls for such formula and support prices to be established in consultation with representative farm organizations. This, too, has been met. The bill before us-


Hazen Robert Argue: Which bill?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -does all the things we promised; and to say that this bill represents a repudiation of those promises is a travesty of the facts. This type of comment being made in this chamber does not bring dignity or honour to any of us.


Hazen Robert Argue: What bill are you talking about?


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a lot of bull coming from a bull frog.


Mr. Jones:: You are the frog.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You were taken out of the pond just a little while ago, and you are still all wet.


Mr. Slanton:: You are a big frog in a small pond.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is an authority on the type of subject


he just mentioned, knows full well that what we are trying to do is to organize and get rolling a comprehensive farm program. I am going to say to him in all seriousness that he and his party will be held responsible and will have to take the consequences for the misrepresentation he was guilty of in the debate on the resolution, the misrepresentation he was guilty of in western Canada, and the misrepresentation he is guilty of at the present time on a matter that is so vital to western agriculture and to agriculture in all parts of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a false statement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My time is
limited in this debate, and I wish to make it clear to the house that there was a justifiable and logical reason for doing the things we did. Any person who examines the record of agriculture in this country over the last 50 years will see that there has been a tremendous fluctuation up and down in the prices of farm commodities. If he were a farmer himself he would know what the experience of farmers has been. The farmers have sowed their crops and watched them grow and the prices seemed to work up, but when the farmers produced and harvested their crops the market prices have collapsed and started a downward trend. This has been occurring across this country for many years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since June 21.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The farmers in western Canada tried to meet the situation by the pools. We set up the great wheat pools in the three prairie provinces. They were designed to give the farmer initial, interim and final payments in an effort to average out the price and achieve some measure of stability; but in 1929, when a surplus had been built up over the previous two or three years, the wheat pools of the western provinces collapsed. It is only fair to point out to this house that it was a Conservative government which stepped into that situation, saved those pools and kept them operating.


Hazen Robert Argue: And paid them 20 cents a bushel.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Ever since then the federal government has taken some responsibility in stabilizing western prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: You paid them only 20 cents a bushel.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The interruptions do not worry me, Mr. Speaker. I have grown up with that sort of thing; I know how much effect it has on me, and I am sure it has the same effect on other hon. members in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise the minister not to invite interruptions, because there will be plenty of them in any event. However, I shall try to prevent any interruptions that are not properly made on a point of order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your help. Quite frankly I enjoy it this way myself, because I know who suffers as a result of these clashes.
The story I have been outlining concerning the pools is the story of how western Canada tried in its own way to meet this problem, but we had to face up to the fact that we needed federal help. In eastern Canada, of course, the farmers have gone in for producer boards as a means of stabilizing their prices.
I think an illustration of what I am talking about will paint the picture much clearer than anything else I could say. In Ontario and Saskatchewan one of our side products is turkeys. Consider a farmer who has had difficulty trying to sell his grain. He observes that the price of turkeys has gone up to anywhere between 45 and 50 cents a pound. He then decides that next year he is going to raise turkeys. He proceeds to purchase some turkeys and raise them; then when he is ready to market them in the fall he discovers that a large number of farmers in his area have had the same idea. When they go to sell their turkeys the price declines to 20 cents a pound, and all the farmers have lost their shirts. As a result it is difficult to persuade farmers to go into cash crops because of the uncertainty.
That is the reason for the stabilization bill. It is the first step in an effort to see if it is possible to get a group of farm representatives to sit down and look over the facts before us such as the cost of production, supply and demand and other relevant considerations, and then determine a price that will gauge the market in order to give a price that is close to the cost of production but which will not cause huge surpluses.
It must be very clear that if you produce too much then the support price the next year must be reduced as a warning to decrease production. If the support price does not produce enough, as in the case of butter, then we shall have to bring it up carefully until it does. Meanwhile the farmer who does produce each year knows that the support price will be announced before he puts in his crop, or before he breeds his animals. He will not lose his shirt, as in the case I have just given.
It is absolutely, clear, Mr. Speaker, that support prices must be flexible, or we will destroy the scheme with surpluses and the
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization farmer will be back to where he was before. In setting a support price the bill says:
The governor in council shall have regard to the estimated average cost of production of the commodity.
This is an effort on our part to set supports as close as possible to the cost of production without creating unmanageable surpluses. I believe it is a sensible approach and makes the plan workable.
I would like to say a word to those who have been peddling the propaganda in favour of a 100 per cent parity price system. The 100 per cent of parity is a magic figure. It seems to suggest to every farmer that he is going to get the full cost of production and a return on his investment; but it does not stand sober analysis, Mr. Speaker.
Any person with reasonable intelligence who thinks for a moment realizes that a 100 per cent parity price is a fallacy. Cost of production, according to most statistical and formal approaches, is based on the average cost; and the bitter truth is that this arbitrary average means the ruin of the small farmer, for a very simple reason. The reason is that the small farmer usually has costs of production above the average, and the large farmer has costs of production below the average.
In plain terms, an arbitrary 100 per cent parity price would be mainly an extra bonus to the big farmer.
In western Canada today nearly two-thirds of our farmers farm 300 acres or less; if the specified acreage is used as the measuring stick. These farmers need help; they need crop insurance, they need a farm credit program; they need to cut costs; they need producer boards to help them bargain, and they need some help in setting up those conservation methods which will help them to greater efficiency and lower costs. All these are part of our 13-point program.
I think the people of western Canada and of all Canada want to see any government put that policy into effect to see if it will help in lifting the farmers out of this lower standard of living into which they have fallen over the last few years, when the farmers who composed one-sixth of the population got only one-twelfth of the income of this country. I put before the house in all seriousness that this stabilized price legislation is the first step in any program to achieve this long-range program. If we are going to get farmers to shift from one product to another product where there is a higher return, we have to guarantee that if they make some investment they will have a price that will save them from losing out in that particular year. If we want to encourage
3624	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the smaller farmer or the man with poor land to expand or shift to meet new conditions, we have to give him some guarantee that he will not lose out by going into that expansion, by reducing his costs and increasing his efficiency.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, this stabilization bill is necessary to give some peace of mind to a group of people who have always been considered to be the backbone of the country, and who have not had that security over the last few years.
I think I can do no less than point this out to the house and to my hon. friends to my right in the southeast corner of the house. If you were seriously and sincerely interested in this problem, then you would take a look at this legislation which has been accepted by the farm organizations as a step forward, and give it a real trial with enthusiastic and sincere support. But no, Mr. Speaker, they do not do that. They do not even mention-


Mr. Casileden:: Will the minister permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will permit the question at the end of my remarks. They do not even mention that this problem is so serious that in the province of Saskatchewan, where most of the C.C.F. noise is coming from now, the people have worried about it for many years. In 1950 the government of the province of Saskatchewan set up a royal commission on agricultural and rural life to study this very problem. There are 14 volumes of reports. How many members of the C.C.F. party who come from Saskatchewan have stood up in this house and told us what those reports were?
This group of men and women studied this problem for four years. They heard farmers and organizations all over Saskatchewan on this very problem, and they have devoted a whole volume to agricultural markets and prices. Here is the informed opinion of a group of commissioners whose names are known to every member of the C.C.F. party in the province of Saskatchewan.
My hon. friends of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan say that these commissioners are the stooges of the C.C.F. party. Who are these people? The commission was headed by Professor W. B. Baker, and the other names are Mrs. Nancy Adams, Ethel-ton, Mr. T. H. Bourassa, Mr. H. L. Fowler, Mr. Charles W. Gibbings from Rosetown, vice president of the wheat pool, Mr. J. L. Phelps, a minister of the C.C.F. government and for five years president of the Saskatchewan farm union. Mr. Fowler is one of the heads of the federated co-op.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

What did these people say about this very matter? I am going to put this on the record. These are all serious, sincere, and informed people of the province of Saskatchewan, and many of them are from the C.C.F. party. Above all they are good citizens of the province of Saskatchewan. What do these serious-minded people say about this type of thing? Let us look at the record. At page 177, chapter 10, we find the following:
The Role oi Support Prices in a Comprehensive Agricultural Program.
I ask any member of the house to stand up and give a quotation which differs from, or gives a different meaning to, what I am going to read:
In chapter II were indicated the types of programs which, either directly or indirectly, would operate to stabilize farm incomes at a higher level. In general, they were programs which would tend to correct deficiencies in the economy and to create conditions which would place agriculture on a more equal footing with the rest of the economy.
What are these things? I am now turning to page 182, and I would ask all serious and sincere members in the party to my right to study this chart which compares forward prices, as under this legislation, with 100 per cent parity prices and with 75 per cent parity prices. They will find that this whole interesting bit of information makes one clear point, namely that advance prices or forward prices, as in this bill, are superior to 100 per cent parity prices and much superior, of course, to 75 per cent parity prices. This is not my opinion; this is the opinion of five men and women who worked for four years listening to people and for three years in reporting on the problem. Let me read what they say; listen, Mr. Speaker:
It should also be noted that support prices alone will not solve the problems of low income groups in agriculture. Other programs are necessary. If a support price program is considered to be the sole solution to agricultural problems, it will be self-defeating no matter how carefully it is constructed or administered. If the support scheme does not involve any income transfer over the years, small producers will benefit only from having their small profits or losses stabilized.
This is the opinion of a group of people after studying this question and writing on it for a period of six or seven years.


Edward George McCullough: What do they say about deficiency payments?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall deal with deficiency payments in due course. I am now going to read four conclusions, which will be found on page 211. These conclusions deal with support prices. Conclusion No. 37 was in these words:
A comprehensive agricultural program which gave agriculture bargaining power equal to other groups

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
in the economy would reduce the need for a support price program. If the agricultural program is more limited and full employment and a high level of exports are not maintained, a support program is necessary. A support program would be desirable even if a comprehensive program were in force, although its operations would probably be limited to isolated marketing maladjustments.
This bill is part of a comprehensive farm program. This bill becomes the first step in achieving that equality of income that the first conclusion recommends. Conclusion No. 38 is in these words:
A support program should include the following principles:-
I wish hon. members behind me, beside me and across the floor would listen to these six principles.
(a)	It should be based on parity of costs and product prices because such a basis is readily understandable.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) should go out to a group of farmers and start to explain the very fine Canadian Federation of Agriculture formula, how many farmers in a hundred would be able to work out that formula? But they certainly understand when you take ten years or three years or simply an arithmetical average. The first recommendation simply involves an arithmetical average which does show the relation of product prices and, in the words of the report, is readily understandable.
(b)	It should cover all farm products.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Does this bill?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: How many
times have we heard hon. members say that this legislation does not cover all farm products? How many times have we heard the statement that it only covers so many named products? They refuse to understand or are unable to understand. They apparently cannot get it through their heads that this bill can cover all agriculture products with the exception of the three grains in western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is designed for that
purpose.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is designed to cover all agricultural products so the second conclusion in the report is met in the bill.
(c)	It should use a recent period of full employment and normal trade as a base.
Not going back to 1909 to 1914, not going back to 1925 to 1929, but a recent period. This bill does that.
(d)	It should guarantee only a reasonable maximum of production from any one farm.
It is this point-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Jacob Schulz: I should like to ask a question. Does the minister not know that a minority report was issued which proposed parity prices?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacob Schulz: I asked him a question. Does he not know that a minority report was issued supporting parity prices and that the minority report is now endorsed by the organizations in Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: He does not know it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I read the newspapers of my province. I know that there was a group of men sitting on the platform. I know that newspaper reports inferred that there was a minority report on this particular volume but there was no written minority report. There was a minority report or another volume on the question on what was going to happen to small farms. But I am not quarreling with that. I simply say: Do they want to repudiate Mr. Phelps and throw him to the wolves? Do they repudiate Charlie Gibbons? Do they repudiate Mr. Bourassa? Do they repudiate Mr. Fowler? Do they repudiate Mrs. Adams? Do they repudiate Mr. Baker? I am going to conclude by answering this one question. If my hon. friends were conscious of the wisdom of this minority report why did they not bring it into the house and discuss it? Why did they hide it?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) had been in the house during the last ten years or even during the last five years I think he would have understood-


An hon. Member:: If he had been you
would not have been here.


Walter Adam Tucker: -why the C.C.F. feel as they do with regard to the present bill and the way in which the government has acted since it has been in office. Those who were here remember what close allies they were in their attacks upon the government of the day with regard to its endeavours to support prices as high as it was possible to do so at that time. The Conservative opposition of that time joined forces with the C.C.F. and attacked the government of the day just about as violently as the C.C.F. is attacking the Conservative party today.
There is no doubt in my mind that the idea was spread throughout the country that if the Conservative party were elected to office there would be something done along the lines that the C.C.F. have been advocating. Therefore the government does not need to feel surprised at the attitude of the C.C.F. with respect to the government not having

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization kept its promises. They do not need to feel surprised if a lot of people who voted Conservative in the last election are very disappointed.
As a matter of fact, the government now pours scorn upon the idea of the support price policy of the United States government but I know that neither they nor their leader did that when they were in opposition. In fact, throughout the campaign their leader suggested that if he were elected to office he would follow a similar policy. They should not feel put out if the people believed them when they made these promises and held out these inducements. They should not feel hurt about it. It would be surprising if the people had not believed some of the things they said.
For example, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke at Shellbrook, Saskatchewan on April 19 last he was reported in this way:
Mr. Diefenbaker went on to outline five ways in which the Progressive Conservative party would achieve stability for agriculture.
The very first one, Mr. Speaker, was the enactment of permanent floor legislation based on a definite formula. Where is the definite formula in this legislation? That is what the farm organizations have been asking for. That is the thing for which the Liberal government of the day was attacked most violently by the Conservative party. Their present attitude as revealed in the bill they have brought before the house and by the position they have taken with regard to it indicates that the attitude they took then was not sincere but one designed to get votes at all costs. They do not need to be surprised if western Canada is surprised at their present attitude.
There were other places where the present Prime Minister held out similar inducements. For example, the Toronto Daily Star of April 26, 1957 reported the then leader of the opposition in this way:
For the farmers, he pledged a fair share of the national income through a flexible support program to ensure adequate parity between farm prices and costs.
Later in the campaign he came out even more definitely in dealing with the unsatisfactory nature of the situation so far as the farmers were concerned. For example, I have an excerpt from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 14, 1957 with respect to a press conference held by the present Prime Minister, in which report I find the following:
On agriculture, Mr. Diefenbaker promised flexible support prices similar to those instituted in the United States by the Eisenhower administration.
What are we to think of a party that goes to the country promising a similar system to that

of the United States and then when in power pours scorn and contempt on that policy? It must be a big surprise to the people of western Canada. I am sure they have great respect for the present Prime Minister. I do not believe they thought for a single minute he did not intend to carry out those things which he held out to the people. It is really a shock that a party that condemned the Liberal government year in and year out because they did not do something to ensure a greater degree of parity of income for the farmers of this country, should after seven months in office, Mr. Speaker, have brought forward a bill which, in my opinion, is not as good as the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Mr. Montgomery:: Vote against it then.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Is the hon. gentleman going to vote against it?


Walter Adam Tucker: I feel like voting against it. I certainly will not vote for this bill. I would not want to be found guilty of taking off the statute books the Agricultural Prices Support Act and replacing it with this measure which, in my opinion, is not nearly as good. This step will not be taken through any vote of mine.


James William Baskin: You will hide behind the curtains.


Walter Adam Tucker: What a shabby performance in the light of their promises to the people of Canada. For example, the national Conservative party leader wound up a three-day tour of Manitoba by pledging again to reverse the continued decline in farm income. What have they done to reverse the continued decline in farm income? They have been in office for seven months-


James William Baskin: You were there for 22 years.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with the government that is now in office, and which was elected by the people on a pledge to reverse the declining farm income. No amount of interruption from hon. members opposite is going to cover up the facts. This only emphasizes the fact that they do not want the facts brought out.
This government has been in office for seven months and it introduces a measure which the farm organizations and the members of both the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties, in fact anyone who reads the bill, will see does nothing which could not have been done under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The only real difference is that the Agricultural Prices Support Act contained a provision relative to the setting of floor prices. This is a

part-a section-of the act and not a recital or part of the preamble. I shall read from this section of the act:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1), the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
In other words, it prescribes the duty of this board to give the farmer a fair share of the national income. This is part of an act of parliament. Now we are asked to repeal this measure. I ask all members who represent farm constituencies to note that this bill now before us repeals this section which is part of the law of the land today, and proposes to replace it with a wishy-washy preamble. Anyone who knows anything about the interpretation of law knows that a preamble has not the same binding effect as something contained in the body of the act itself. The preamble in this bill is not even as definite as the section to which I have referred because it says:
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 from 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;
This preamble, of course, has not the same force as the directive we find in the body of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which is already the law of the land. What was written in here as an objective of this board was that they should endeavour to see that the farmer got a fair share of the national income, and now this government proceeds to introduce a measure which will replace that with something that is not even in the act itself but only in the preamble and which does not go nearly so far. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that I say that no vote of mine is going to take the Agricultural Prices Support Act off the statute books and replace it with this measure which I do not consider nearly as good?
The present Prime Minister referred, as I have said already, to the declining farm income. Then, at Kipling, on May 17, 1957, he is reported as follows:
Speaking at an afternoon rally in the Kipling recreation hall, the Progressive Conservative leader told the 400 persons present that the basic price of $1.40 now paid for wheat was too low, and in the light of rising living costs, worth only 50 cents when compared with purchasing power in depression years.
Then, at Regina, on May 17 he said:
The $1.40 a bushel basic price for top grade prairie wheat on delivery was equivalent to only 50 cents in terms of purchasing power in the depression of the 1930's.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
If there is one thing that was held out to the farmers of western Canada it was the fact that if they elected a Conservative government that Conservative government would improve the declining purchasing power of the farmer do something worth while about restoring that purchasing power. What have they done after seven months in office?


James William Baskin: Plenty.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why have they proposed to replace the Agricultural Prices Support Act? This bill is not as good.


James William Baskin: It is much better.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not think so but that is your opinion. I did not interfere with the minister when he was developing his argument in his speech. I am not surprised when my friends across here do that; I am used to it. However, when the members of the Tory party get into a position where they have to take the same attitude as the C.C.F. have done and try to prevent me from presenting a reasoned argument in this house, then it looks as if they are closer under the skin politically than we even thought.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No one has tried to prevent you.


Walter Adam Tucker: Your supporters are, over there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Somebody asked you a question, that is all.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is all right, but I did not-


James William Baskin: Are you going to vote for the bill?


Walter Adam Tucker: I said I am not going to vote for it.


James William Baskin: You are a trained seal; you have to vote for it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I can understand why my friends opposite feel so keenly about wanting to interfere with my speech. They know in their own hearts that they have done absolutely nothing to carry out the promises of their leader. What have they done for the grain growers of western Canada? They gave them a small cash advance, of which only a very small number have taken advantage.


James William Baskin: What did you give them?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am speaking about what you promised, and on the basis of which you got elected. This is what I am speaking about, the promises to improve the position of the western farmer. What have they done? Oats and barley were and are under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, but they do not come within the provisions of this bill.
3628	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Douglas Scott Harkness: Were they ever supported under that measure?


Walter Adam Tucker: They could have been if you had done what you promised to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Were they ever supported under that measure?


Walter Adam Tucker: You had the power. Does the minister mean to tell me that when his leader makes a promise to do something to restore the purchasing power of the western farmer he can turn around and say, because we did not do it they do not intend to carry out their promises.


James William Baskin: We are doing it.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then what you are trying to tell me is that on top of that he is doing away with the power he now has over the price of oats and barley. He has taken away that power in this bill so he cannot do anything about it.
He is taking away that power so he cannot do anything about the price of oats and barley. Once this bill passes the minister does not have to do anything in regard to supporting the prices of wheat, oats and barley, which is the main source of income of the western farmer. Is this the way he promised to take action to get them a higher standard of living? Is this what his leader meant to do when he went around the country telling the farmer that he was getting the equivalent of 50 cents a bushel, if elected to turn around and say, "We will take away the power to act under the law as it now exists"? That is what they are doing under this proposed bill. What is the answer when he is asked on the floor of this house the question, "What are you going to do with regard to the western farmer to carry out the promises made by the leader? Are you going to raise the initial price or make a deficiency payment?" No answer is given. We have been seven months waiting for the government to carry out these promises to the western Canadian farmers. What have they done to help them out? There has been a small cash advance on farm-stored grain of which only a few have been able to take advantage, and now in this bill a reduction of their powers so they will not be able to do anything in respect of their main products, namely wheat, oats and barley. They refuse to do anything about wheat. I suggest that is a rather poor showing after seven months in the light of the promises made.
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?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: Where is it made? You are taking the power to deal with oats and barley out of the present act and you say it does not apply to wheat grown in western Canada. The statement of the minister, either consciously or unconsciously, was a direct contradiction-


An hon. Member:: He was conscious.


Walter Adam Tucker: If he was conscious, then there is only one other explanation, namely that he made a deliberate misstatement when he said that this bill is doing something in the way mentioned to help the farmers in western Canada. Nothing whatever is being done to help them in that way. Once this bill becomes law,-and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) well knows it,-he has no right to do anything in regard to oats and barley and wheat grown in western Canada. What is the use of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources pretending that this bill carries out their promise to put the western farmer in a position where he knows where he will be at when he plants his crop? When this bill is passed, they will have no right to deal with oats, barley or wheat. If they wanted to do something about it, why did they not take power to give deficiency payments with regard to wheat- as they already have it in regard to oats and barley?


Henry Frank Jones: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sorry the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) is moaning and groaning so much now. Just wait until the people of Saskatoon hear how they have been let down with regard to the promises made, and he will moan and groan some more. I have noticed people moaning and groaning in this house before now, and I have noted that the ones who moan and groan when other people are trying to present a reasonable argument are generally those who do not come back.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman is digging his political grave this afternoon.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have heard that for a long time, and I will say this to my hon. friends. When they have been elected as many times as I have been elected they will have the right to talk like this.


James William Baskin: You did not make much of a leader out there.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did my best and that is all anyone can do. After I got through leading out there the people were willing to send me back to represent them here in this House of Commons. As has been pointed out, when

the present Prime Minister was their leader in Saskatchewan I do not think he managed to elect a single Tory out there. At least under my leadership 15 members were elected.


James William Baskin: The Prime Minister did fairly well since then.


Walter Adam Tucker: Something has been said about another matter, and I think this is what made my hon. friend the member for Saskatoon groan, and also called forth some groans from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He read paragraph 4 of the recently adopted Liberal platform in regard to agriculture. I should like to read it again, Mr. Speaker. Then I should like to make a short comment on it. It reads:
4. Maintain and extend a system of support prices and deficiency payments, where appropriate, administered in such a way as to obtain for farmers for their products prices bearing a fair relationship to their costs of production and designed to ensure to farmers a fair share of the national income and encourage the production of marketable farm products.
I was one of the committee which drafted this resolution. My hon. friend made some suggestion that this was drafted by the so called brass. I was a member of the committee and sat right through from start to finish in the drafting of this resolution. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if every party drafted up its resolutions with as careful consideration for the wishes of the people sent there by their constituencies to represent their wishes from all parts of Canada, they could say that they were having democratic processes operating fully. This resolution is the result of the combined representations from the whole country. It represents the wishes of Liberals from one end of Canada to the other. It was not drawn up by any brass. It was drawn up by the representatives of Liberals from all over Canada and is based upon their wishes. I think those who have known me for any length of time- I have been quite a while around here-know that when I say that I am telling nothing more than the straight truth. Any idea that this policy was dictated by anybody is completely incorrect.
The next thing I wish to mention is this. My friend the hon. member for Assiniboia made some slighting reference to the fact that in this program we said that we would advocate making deficiency payments where appropriate. The attitude of the farmers' organizations, all of them, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, was this: They took exactly that same attitude. They took the attitude that the primary way of supporting farm income is by maintaining prices for the product as high as possible but
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization where it is not possible, owing to the fact that we are a trading nation, to raise prices high enough to give the farmer a fair share of the national income, then bolster up his income by making deficiency payments. Everybody in this house knows very well that there is a strict limit on what you can do in raising farm income by raising support prices because, as has been pointed out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture more than once, if you get prices of farm products much higher than prices, we will say, in the United States, then goods will flow in from the United States to get the benefit of those Canadian prices. That means that you are obliged to put on tariffs or embargoes against imports into Canada. Once you get embarked on a policy like that you are going to have reprisals taken against you and Canada is the last nation on earth which can afford to start any trade war or any system whereby embargoes and tariffs will be imposed against our exports of agricultural products.
As I pointed out in a previous speech on the resolution preceding this bill, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture took the attitude that you could only raise support prices to about 70 per cent of parity and that you could not raise them much higher than the price of similar products in the United States for the reason I have stated. Some years ago-two years ago, I believe-the Canadian Federation of Agriculture realized that this system of support prices, hedged in as it was by the inability to raise prices much higher than outside prices, was not enabling the Agricultural Prices Support Act to give the farmer a fair share of the national income.
They set up a committee to study this, and last July they changed their policy, and said: we should get the farmers as large a share of the national income as possible by maintaining support prices as high as possible. If that does not give the farmer a fair share of the national income you should then resort to deficiency payments. And they stated to the government in a memorandum last July that they had changed their policy with regard to asking for greater use of deficiency payments. I call the attention of the house to the fact that this statement was made to the government last July and that the election was in June. So the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had before that time only been asking for deficiency payments in cases largely limited to perishable products. But in July they came out for a system of raising the farmers income to a fair share of the national income by a more extended use of deficiency payments.
That, in my opinion, was a historic decision on the part of the Canadian Federation
3630	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization of Agriculture. Based on that I would have hoped that the present government, taking advantage of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, would have embarked on a system of giving deficiency payments where appropriate; in other words, where you could not maintain prices high enough to give the farmers a fair deal then you the government could have taken steps under the Agricultural Prices Support Act in one way or another to make deficiency payments. What do we find? The government have introduced this bill to repeal the Agricultural Prices Support Act. They say that the main consideration under this bill will be the cost of production to the farmers. This was stated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources however speaking today referred in a most scathing way to the proposal of giving the farmer his cost of production. He stated, in effect, that giving a farmer his cost of production was a ridiculous attitude. But this is what the Minister of Agriculture said was the main purpose of the bill. In his speech, as reported on page 2652 of Hansard, he made this statement very clearly. He said:
The addition of this new subsection will make it clear that cost of production is a most important factor to be taken into consideration in setting the guaranteed annual price.
If this is the purpose of the government, what becomes of the pretence that this bill is better than the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and what becomes of the attitude of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that prices should be supported as high as possible and then the farmers income raised enough by deficiency payments to enable him to have a fair share of the national income?
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) also had something to say about our failure at our convention to endorse deficiency payments with regard to wheat. I would point out to him that clause 4 of our agricultural program applies to all agricultural products-wheat, oats, barley and every other farm product. It was drawn to apply to farmers generally throughout Canada. It was definitely drawn to apply to wheat, oats and barley.
At the convention I drew to the attention of the committee dealing with this plank in the program what had been said to the cabinet on January 13 last in a submission by the wheat pools of the west. I want to read a few words from that submission made to the cabinet-the present cabinet-by the wheat pools on January 13 of this year. Here is what they said:
We believe, Mr. Prime Minister, that when you gave assurances that policies would be formulated


that would ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on the cost-price relationship you had not overlooked the grain producers of western Canada, nor do we believe you have overlooked them now.
That is a charitable statement because nothing has been done by this cabinet so far to show that they have not overlooked this question. And so they asked, as they say, for an audience with the Prime Minister and they pointed out-I ask hon. members to note these figures-that since 1947 there has been an increase of 50.3 per cent in the cost of commodities and services used by western farmers, an increase of 50 per cent in costs in the course of practically 10 years. During the same period there had been a drop of 20.8 per cent in the average price of wheat on the farms. And, incidentally, I ask what has the present government done about that? It has done nothing, despite the fact that it has now been in office for seven months. The submission goes on to say:
We do not need to remind you, sir, or your colleagues, that wheat constitutes the main source of farm revenue in western Canada.
That being the case, how have they, the government kept their promise to raise the revenues of the farmers of western Canada? The submission goes on to point out that wheat deliveries have been up to the average deliveries during the previous years, and therefore that low farm income is not due to failure to make deliveries. It goes on to say:
During the period since 1947 in which the relationship of farm costs and farm prices has been showing an ever-widening divergence, other groups have taken steps to meet the problem of increasing costs.
I would ask hon. members representing other parts of Canada and other occupational groups to note these figures:
The gross national product which may be regarded as a barometer of economic activity has more than doubled.
I ask all hon. members to bear this in mind. The fall in the price that farmers received for their wheat has amounted to 20.8 per cent since 1947, whale the value of the gross national product of the people as a whole in Canada has more than doubled. The average weekly earnings of those employed in industry, exclusive of primary production industries, have increased to the extent of 77.3 per cent in that period. I ask hon. members to bear in mind that while farmers have had to suffer a reduction of what they realize on their wheat amounting to 20 per cent, wages have increased by 77 per cent. And then the submission goes on to say:
Including the 3.6 per cent increase in freight rates which has not yet been implemented, general freight rates have increased 120 per cent.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
And then:
The general wholesale price index has risen 39.5 per cent.
After which, they say this:
In the face of these conditions all indicating there have been major adjustments in most segments of the economy, farmers are still required to sell their grain both for domestic consumption and for export at prices dictated by international price levels without regard to the spiralling costs of production, and without regard to the general high level of the Canadian economy.
The submission goes on to point out that Canada is one of the few countries whose farmers have to compete unassisted in world wheat markets against wheat offerings from countries which are heavily subsidized, and urge that the government take immediate steps to ensure that farm producers will receive a return for the production of their farms which would bear a fair relationship to cost of production and Canadian living standards. Further, they say:
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.
This is exactly along the lines of the Liberal program. It proposed that where the price received by a farmer does not bring him a fair income, then deficiency payments should be made. This was why the words "where appropriate" were used. Does the hon. member for Assiniboia say we should have said we would give deficiency payments whether appropriate or not?
The Liberal party in drawing up this program tried to be very careful and reasonable in making to the people of Canada only what it felt were fair and reasonable promises which could be carried out. So when it is suggested that nothing was included in this program in regard to deficiency payments on wheat my answer is that I was present when this was discussed. If anyone will read the resolutions he will find that paragraph 6 said that we would maintain a Canadian wheat board and during periods of crop surplus the Liberal government would do certain things. But otherwise the general policy in regard to agriculture including deficiency payments was to be applied to the products of the western farmer the same as the eastern farmer. We felt that the western farmer was entitled as much as anybody else to deficiency payments in order to bring his income up to a fair level compared to that of other people. The idea was that the wheat board should handle the marketing of the farmer's grain but all the wheat board has to distribute is that for which it sells the grain and if a farmer is going to get any more it must be provided by the rest of the economy in the
form of deficiency payments to bring his income up to a fair level compared to that received by everybody else.
The thing I do not like about the present bill is that-


James William Baskin: It is not yours.


Walter Adam Tucker: -it falls short of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The objective laid down by the law enacted by this parliament in the Agricultural Prices Support Act was that there should be an endeavour made to ensure that the farmer would receive a fair share of the national income compared to that received by other people. This applied generally. It did not apply specifically to wheat because it was felt at the time the act was passed that the wheat board could look after that problem but we all know now that the wheat board cannot ensure the farmer receiving fair payment for his wheat from the money the board realizes from the sale of it. We now have before us a bill that repeals the provision of the act that is part of the law of our land and which guarantees, to the extent that the law can, the farmer receiving a fair share of the national income.


James William Baskin: You will vote for it though.


Walter Adam Tucker: We have before us a bill introduced by this government that repeals that important section of the act. What does it substitute in its place? It substitutes a bill that provides for the setting of a base price over a period of ten years and under which the price of other commodities besides wheat, oats and barley will be guaranteed at 80 per cent of that price. As a result of this agriculture will not be nearly in as favourable a position as most of the other branches of the economy.
This government proposes in this bill that it will guarantee the farmer 80 per cent of what he has been getting; in other words, even less than before. This bill takes from the government's hands the power to do anything about dealing with wheat, oats and barley which crops are the main source of income of the farmers in western Canada. On the other hand the government does not say what it will do to help the western farmer by way of implementing its election promises. The government has been in office for seven months and has been asked over and over again what it is going to do to assist the western farmer. All the government has seen fit to do is to bring down a bill such as the one before us which repeals the very section of the Agricultural Prices Support Act which did protect the position of the farmers and guarantee, to the extent the law can, a fair deal for the farmers. And then, members of the government turn to us and
3632	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization say, "we have done something in this bill for the farmers of Canada and particularly for western farmers."


James William Baskin: We have done more in seven months than you did in 22 years.


Walter Adam Tucker: What is the reaction of Canadian farmers to this legislation? I say that the government will hear the answer of the farmers whenever it dares to go to the country.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out by several hon. members of this group, we are in favour of the amendment to refer the subject matter of the bill now under discussion to the committee on agriculture and colonization. In fact, in speaking at the resolution stage, my colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) had this to say, as recorded on page 2200 of Hansard of December 11, 1957:
I would therefore urge upon the minister the desirability of sending the bill to the agriculture committee in the form of a draft bill.
We submit that had the minister seen fit to follow this suggestion which was made to him in good faith on December 11 by the hon. member for Acadia this whole question would have been solved long ago. The farm organizations would have readily appeared before that committee together with other organizations throughout Canada and presented their submissions. In those hearings of the committee on agriculture and colonization there could have been drafted a bill which would have been of greater value to the farmers of Canada than the one that is proposed at the present time.
The farm organizations point out that the well-being of the agricultural industry revolves around three main policy areas; namely production, marketing and pricing. I believe it has been well established down through the years that the farmers of Canada can produce not only the foodstuffs required by this nation but can produce them in quantities that permit us to export to other countries in the world. We are fully capable of doing this and so there is no cry or lack in the field of production. The second consideration, marketing, is a matter of government policy. I was happy to observe that a royal commission has been established to study intensively the whole question of marketing to determine whether or not there is any large degree of waste or extravagance in the merchandising and marketing of such agricultural products as meats, bread, eggs, dairy products and so on.
The agricultural producer is often blamed by the consumer for the high prices of these commodities but the opposite is the case


today. At this time the farmer's share of the consumer dollar is less than 43 cents. During the last few weeks much has been said in this house concerning the price of eggs and the established floor price under eggs if such there be.
I have in my hand a sales slip which was issued on October 26, 1957. The farmer in this case took 90 dozen eggs to market. He had over seven dozen grade A large eggs for which he received 38 cents a dozen. However, by December 13 that price had fallen to 29 cents a dozen. Another significant thing revealed by this sales slip is the price spread which existed at that time between eggs of various sizes. Between grade A large eggs and grade A medium eggs there was a spread of 15 cents. Between grade A medium and small eggs there was a further spread of nine cents a dozen.
I have made some inquiries as to how much it actually costs to produce eggs. The department of agriculture of the province of Alberta advises that using the first central test average of 6.25 pounds a dozen eggs the feed cost would be 17.0 cents per dozen. It is generally assumed that feed represents 60 per cent of the production cost and therefore the total cost in this case would be 28.3 cents per dozen. In other words, it actually costs the egg producers of the province of Alberta 28.3 cents a dozen to produce eggs and on October 26 when the farmer in question delivered 90 dozen eggs he received less than 19 cents a dozen for them. I wish to point out that they were not all pullet eggs, either, because 9 dozen of the 90 dozen were grade A large eggs; 52 dozen were grade A medium, and 29 dozen were pullets and one dozen cracked eggs.
As far as this bill is concerned, we have to ask ourselves this question. Is it going to be of any greater value to the farmers of Canada than the present Agricultural Prices Support Act? If it is not going to be of any greater value, why is it being introduced at the present time? We are very doubtful whether this bill contains anything that will ensure the farmers of Canada a better deal than did the present legislation. We take this position. There was actually nothing wrong with the Agricultural Prices Support Act in its setup; but there was certainly something definitely wrong with the administration of that legislation by the former minister of agriculture and his officials. As it stands now, this legislation includes too many "mays" to our liking. The minister may, if he wishes, do this; the minister may do that. Not too often

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
do you see in this bill, "the minister shall''. The old Agricultural Prices Support Act had this clause in it:
The board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
What did the Agricultural Prices Support Act cost the people of Canada during the 11 years of its administration? The figure $250 million has been bandied around this country in the last few weeks, leaving the impression that if this bill is passed $250 million will be made available tomorrow to those engaged in agriculture. We know that is not true. We know that there is $200 million available in a revolving fund under the present Agricultural Prices Support Act; but how much of that was used? I find that during 11 years from 1946 to 1957, potatoes were supported to the extent of about $2 million. This information may be found in a return made to a question of mine on December 2. Apples were supported by nearly $7 million; beans by $200,000; honey by $177,000; skimmed milk by $677,000; Cheddar cheese by $155,000; creamery butter by $13,189,000; shelled eggs by $728,000. These are round figures.
This return points out that hogs were supported during the years of the hoof-and-mouth disease to the extent of around $36 million; and cattle, during that same period- a disaster period-to the amount of $33 million. We maintain that that disaster payment to reimburse those farmers of Canada who had suffered losses because of the hoof-and-mouth disease should never have been taken from this fund. That being the case, approximately $25 million was used in 11 years to support the prices of agricultural products in Canada. In other words, we can put it this way: It has cost the people of Canada approximately 15 cents per person per year to support the prices of our agricultural products.
The machinery provided by the Agricultural Prices Support Act was never used to any great extent. On numerous occasions we tried to convince the former minister of agriculture, with little or no success, that more use could be made of the act. We ask ourselves this question. Is this legislation going to be used to any greater extent? Is it going to be used so that the farmers of Canada may receive their fair share of the national income? Is it going to guarantee the producer of foodstuffs not only .the cost of production but a reasonable profit?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did that all the time.


James Alexander Smith: That is your opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Your representations are misrepresentations.


James Alexander Smith: The
former minister of agriculture, now the hon. member for Melville, turned over the reins of his government to the new Conservative government at a time when the farmers of Canada, who represent approximately 17 per cent of the population of Canada, were receiving less than 7 per cent of the national income, and he says they were doing it all the time. That is a bunch of bunk.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a lot of bunk you are talking. That is not the fact at all.


James Alexander Smith: That is the way I interpret it, but certainly the hon. member never interpreted it in that way at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right, I do not.


James Alexander Smith: I have a right to my own opinion, and mine happens to be based on facts.
In introducing this legislation the minister pointed out that provision is made that the guaranteed price may-and I want to emphasize the word "may"-be made effective by the board, which the act provides for, through it purchasing the commodity; by paying deficiency payments and making such other payments as the governor in council may direct-and I want to re-emphasize the word "may".
As I already pointed out, it is this business of "may" which leaves so much discretion to the minister and his staff that bothers this group, and it also bothers the farmers of Canada generally. The United States support plan has been bitterly condemned in this house by government supporters, but when one starts to analyse that program he finds that a very large percentage of the money spent in the United States on the support plan was to support certain commodities which do not come under the scope of this legislation at all, namely such products as wheat, cotton, rice and tobacco, none of which is named in this legislation. I should like to mention that the named products in this legislation which are cattle, hogs, sheep, butter, cheese, and wheat, oats and barley which are not handled through the Canadian wheat board. Other products are known as designated products, such as fruits, vegetables and poultry. In relation to those designated products the legislation provides that the minister may pay such prices which are designated as such percentage of the base price thereof.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
There is no guarantee in this legislation that those specified, designated products will receive even 80 per cent of the 10-year average. We do realize that this bill recognizes the principle of forward prices but we regret that it does not provide any guide as to the level at which supports should be established either annually on key commodities or on other commodities from time to time.
During the few years I have been in the House of Commons I have listened with great interest to, and taken part in, several debates on the present Agricultural Prices Support Act. I recollected recently listening in 1956 to the now Prime Minister (Mr. Die-fenbaker, who then sat in the opposition. On March 12, 1956, the Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Prince Albert, made a very eloquent plea in the House of Commons for a better deal for the farmers of Canada. I should just like to put a portion of that speech on the record. It is to be found at page 2021 of Hansard of March 12, 1956. The then hon. member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister, had this to say:
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established

I want to emphasize the word "parity".
-and it is parity-
These are words spoken by the present Prime Minister of Canada.
-that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today. Not charity but parity.
The situation is the same today as it was in 1956. The farmers of Canada are asking for parity, not charity. The Prime Minister went on to say:
When one looks at the general price relationship one begins to realize how far in recent years that desirable end has been departed from. As far as parity is concerned, it must he related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.
I know of no better definition of parity than that which appeared in yesterday's New York Times. I have made the necessary changes in the definition to meet the situation in this country. It is as follows:
"Parity prices are the dollars and cents prices that give to farm products the same buying or purchasing power they had in a selected base period when prices received by and prices paid by farmers were regarded as in good balance . . . It has been put this way: If you can sell a truck load of barley and buy with the money received so much food, clothing, building materials, fertilizer, farm machinery and other living and production items as you could in a chosen favourable period in the past then your barley is selling at a parity price."
On that same day, March 12, 1956, the present Prime Minister moved an amendment and here are the words of his amendment:

That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
If this bill, Mr. Speaker, only contained provision for a small proportion o;f the requests made by the present Prime Minister when he sat on the opposition benches, we of this group would not be opposing it. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has made an extensive analysis of what the bill, if it is passed, will mean to the farmers of Canada. They compare the prices that will be arrived at with their formula. It is true that the bill proposes to use a ten-year period from 1948 to 1957 and to take 80 per cent of the average price of the agricultural product concerned and use that as the base price provided it is a named product. Using the C.F.A. formula of 70 per cent of parity and comparing it with the 80 per cent of the average price what do we find? Under this legislation B-l hogs on the Toronto market would net farmers $23.27 while under the C.F.A. formula using 70 per cent of parity the result would be $23.50. Butter would be 49.6 cents under this legislation and 50.1 cents under the C.F.A. 70 per cent of parity formula. Under this legislation grade A large eggs on the Montreal market would be 45.4 cents and under the C.F.A. 70 per cent of parity formula 45.9 cents. In other words, the C.F.A. formula of 70 per cent of parity is in all cases higher than the 80 per cent average that will be used under this legislation.
We do know that the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 were good years as far as agriculture was concerned. We also know, however, that the last years have been bad years and that prices have been declining continually. We have no assurance that the decline is not going to continue because certainly this legislation does not offer too much that would cause one to think that there would be an upward rise in prices. As the good years are dropped off 'one by one and the poor years are added, the 80 per cent average price is going to continue to decline.
I listened with interest to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) when he was replying to speeches made from the ranks of the Liberal and the C.C.F. parties. I noticed that he pointed out to the house that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had said some very nice things about the bill. The federation has pointed out that there are some features of the bill that are reasonably good. On the other hand, the federation pointed out at the same time something that as far as they are concerned is of

prime importance, and the minister tailed to read this. The federation had this to say:
On the other hand the bill provides no guide as to the level at which price supports should be established either annually on key commodities or on other commodities from time to time. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has repeatedly urged that there should be a formula in the bill to be used as such a guide, and that the formula should compare prices received by farmers with the cost of goods and services which the farmer must buy. This is commonly referred to as a parity formula. The absence of such a formula, or even of a statement of objectives which recognizes the fundamental importance of the parity position of the farmer in price support policy, is a serious omission.
That was the view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on December 15. We of this group are of the opinion that the legislation fails to recognize the economic position of the farmers of Canada, that it fails to recognize that the farmers of Canada are not receiving nearly their fair share of the national income, that for years now the prices of their commodities have been gradually going down while their operating costs have been continually rising. If this situation is permitted to continue we can look forward to nothing short of a complete collapse in our agricultural industry.
We are given to understand that the farm organizations were not consulted prior to the introduction of the first draft of the bill and therefore the draft bill must be classed as the brain child of the present Minister of Agriculture and the backbenchers of his party. It was their major effort to improve the position of the farmers of Canada from its present low level to something better, and if this is the best the new government can do I think it must stand condemned on this its first major effort to improve the condition of those engaged in agriculture.
We maintain that the government has broken its campaign pledges, pledges which were made to the farmers of Canada from coast to coast. I hold in my hand the famous little blue pamphlet which contains such statements as this, that a Progressive Conservative government will maintain a flexible price support program. It also says that they will include a definite formula under the Agricultural Prices Support Act for arriving at support prices, such formula to allow for variations in production and demand for individual products.
Mr. Speaker, for years there has been a lot said in the newspapers across Canada about price support for agricultural products. Some major newspapers in Canada seem to feel that a price support program for agricultural products would ruin the nation entirely. I hold in my hand a clipping taken from the Wheat Pool Budget of April 13, 1956, which 96698-230
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization deals with this matter. This report points out that if support prices for agricultural products are out of the question, what then about other industries of much less importance to the national economy? For nearly 100 years our infant industries have been sheltered from the chill winds of competition by towering tariff walls. Who has paid for this protection? All the consumers of Canada, but to a greater degree than any other class the farmers of Canada have paid. Agriculture has paid millions, yes, over the years, hundreds of millions, so that these infants could be mollycoddled behind the protective shelter of tariffs and grow into the giants that they have become. Was it or is it today an equitable proposition that farmers should, at uncounted cost, hold a sheltering umbrella over other industries, but sinful to suggest that like aid be extended to agriculture in its time of trouble.
Then, the article goes on and points out that when protection is removed from all sections of the Canadian community, and when acceptable recognition has been given for the huge sums agriculture has already paid in providing for that protection in the past, then those who are opposed to support prices for farm products will be in a better position to talk.
Mr. Speaker, we in this group have studied the proposed bill very closely. We recognize that amendments have already been made to the original draft of this bill. We submit that further amendments are necessary. We would like to see an amendment made to clause 8, subclause 2, so that the section would read:
The base price of an agricultural commodity shall be the average price at representative markets as determined by the board for the ten years 1948 to 1957 inclusive.
The preamble has been mentioned on many occasions by other speakers in this debate, and it could be amended by inserting in the sixth line the following words: "In order that the farmers of Canada receive a fair share of the national income."
Another clause, clause 7-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman):: Order. On second reading of the bill the hon. member cannot discuss the clauses.


James Alexander Smith: I am not
discussing the clauses at all, I am just suggesting changes that might be made. I have not even got them before me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman):: The
hon. member is anticipating the committee stage when he suggests amendments that may be made to the sections.
3636	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


James Alexander Smith: I am
prepared to bow to your ruling. It is true that this bill suggests that the minister shall appoint an advisory committee, but it does not state that the minister shall call the advisory committee together or listen to the representations from this group. Nor does the bill contain a provision to the effect that the advisory committee shall be called together at regular intervals.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I may say that there are three alternatives open to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) in so far as this bill is concerned. He could refer the measure to the committee on agriculture and colonization, even at this late date, or he could withdraw this bill and introduce another bill which would contain assurance of parity prices for agricultural products based on a definite period of time, whether it be 1925 to 1929, 1943 to 1945 or even the last ten years. This move, if it is made, will ensure the farmers their rightful share of the national income. Failing the adoption of either of these two courses, the minister could introduce further amendments along the lines I have suggested which would change the whole concept of this bill.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, during this debate we have heard many promises being made today and we heard the words "death warrant" used a couple of times. We in this party are very familiar with such statements because I think we remember 'Some very famous ones that were made before June 10, and some that were ready to be published afterwards. Representing, as I do, parts of two of the wealthiest counties of the province of Ontario, and having very many sound and successful farmers in that riding, and realizing that the economies of most of the towns and villages in that riding are dependent for the buoyancy of their incomes upon the farmer, I feel I should say a few words on this bill. It is a measure to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural products.
I feel that this is one of the most forwardlooking, one of the most progressive pieces of legislation with regard to agriculture that has been introduced in this house for many years. I hope it will be passed before too long so that the farmers of this country will profit from it in the very near future. To do as the amendment suggests, that is to send the measure to the committee on agriculture and colonization, would result in a great deal of delay; in fact, this bill might not even be passed during this session of parliament.
For many years hon. members of this house have been asking that some concrete effort be made to bring the farmers' income into balance with that of people in other segments
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman) .1

of our economy. I might say that today we have heard a lot of discussion from representatives of the western provinces about how poorly the farmers out there have been treated. Representing a riding in central Ontario, I might say that the farmers of Ontario are sometimes very envious of the things that have been done for the farmers of western Canada. I might cite a few of them. There was the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which, according to the 1957-58 estimates, costs the taxpayers of this country approximately $539,479 for administration. Then, there is the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which costs $4,730,150, and another item for major irrigation and reclamation projects in western Canada, costing $7,340,500, as well as the amount set aside for guaranteed loans and cash advances on farm-stored grain.
According to the dominion bureau of statistics, the net income of farmers in Ontario dropped from $422.1 million in 1955 to $405.6 million in 1956, whereas the net farm income in the three prairie provinces increased in that year. However, in this bill we have an indication that the Conservative government is prepared to do something to help the agricultural economy, not just in the east, not just in the west, but throughout the entire length and breadth of this great country.
Several members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), have tried to give the impression that this bill does not contain any new legislation but that practically all the items are the same as those to be found in the Agricultural Prices Support Act as passed in 1944. There are, however, many differences in this bill, such as the naming of an advisory committee composed of farmers and representatives of farming organizations. There are certain named commodities that will be brought immediately under the administration of this act. Rather than just one price being named and there are two, there is a definite time period in which these prices will remain in effect. The amount of money allocated to this board to be used in this program has been increased from $200 million to $250 million. So we see, Mr. Speaker, there are many differences in this legislation which will make it more effective.
Also as a consideration in regard to this act we have a new government, a new Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and in the Department of Agriculture we have a new minister who has indicated by his actions and interest in the affairs of agriculture that he is not only interested in the question of fulfilling election promises-as has been indicated so many times in this house-but

he realizes and appreciates the plight that agriculture is in today and is ready and willing to do something about it.
We have already had an indication of this in many phases of our agricultural economy. We have had the legislation to provide noninterest cash advances to western farmers, and action in the field of poultry and turkeys, an industry which has been operating at a loss for several years due to the tremendous importation of these products from the United States. In fact I still remember that last year when the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) brought to the attention of the former minister of agriculture the fact that United States turkeys were being brought into Canada and sold as Canadian turkeys in plastic bags, the minister indicated that he had no knowledge that there was any such scheme and nothing was done about it. However, when this situation was brought to the attention of the minister of today it was not long before these products were brought under the import-export act with the result that this year our poultry and turkey producers did not have to operate under such unfair competition. The same action was taken with regard to powdered skim milk, butter, oil and sugar beets.
We now have a royal commission on price spreads, something that has been asked for for many years and the minister has indicated that this government is giving definite consideration to the question of crop insurance, a measure that is definitely needed on a country-wide basis. It is quite apparent that the minister is doing everything in his power to assist agriculture.
Since I came into this house in 1953 hon. members from every part of the house, including the Liberal party, indicated in their speeches that something must be done to assist agriculture. All of our farm organizations presented briefs indicating that although farm prices in 1956 were 6 per cent lower than in 1949 the costs of goods and services the farmer buys had increased by 20 per cent, and that in a period of 10 years the number of those engaged in agriculture had dropped by 24 per cent. Last year when there was an extended debate on this question and a multitude of figures were produced to prove to the government the farmers from coast to coast felt keenly that on the average their returns had become badly out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation, the former minister of agriculture had this to say, and I will quote from page 3346 of Hansard, of April 9, 1957:
The products of people working in industry are sold to farmers. Therefore I am not going to criticize the fact that income from industry is 96698-230i
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization high in this country at the present time. I am going to say only that all of the conditions existing in this country at the present time make it natural that the income from industry should he high. If the farmer does not get back a full share of that income this year that is no reason why he should not get a very considerable part of it over the next 10 years. Everyone who looks into the situation, including the Gordon commission, says we are going to have prosperous conditions ahead; we are going to have more and more development of industry; we are going to have more people going in to the back sections of our country and digging up the mineral wealth of those areas and bringing it into the settled areas to be developed. So long as that continues we shall have continued fairly good conditions among the farmers of this country.
If I remember correctly, he castigated us for making such a bad picture of agriculture that the young men of Canada would not go into farming. Will the farmers of Canada have to wait another ten years in order that they may get a fair share of the national income? No, Mr. Speaker. On June 10 last year they registered a protest against the Liberal government for their indifference to the plight of the farmer. Last spring the farmers of Canada were definitely neglected when the budget came down. In spite of all the briefs presented by farm organizations, and in spite of all the pleas and requests by hon. members on all sides of the house that something should be done, the only reference made to agriculture by Mr. Harris in his budget speech is found on page 2214 of Hansard of March 14, 1957, and which reads as follows:
Farmers also shared In this general Improvement. Better than average grain crops and greater sales and deliveries have increased western cash income. Elsewhere the decline in prices has been halted and there has been some improvement in the prices of a number of farm products. If nature is kind and markets remain as good in 1957, per capita farm incomes could equal, or surpass, the all time record of 1951.
Probably this budget was brought down after that famous report we saw the other day. At any rate, very little was done for the farmers in that budget of 1957. In fact, Hon. Mr. Harris, who is not with us now, in one of the postmortems after the election of June 10 of last year admitted that his defeat, as well as that of many of the other members of the former Liberal government, was due to the fact that they did not have a more realistic program for the farmers of Canada.
People have been educated that they should expect to get cheap food. They do not complain about a rise in the cost of cars, television sets or appliances for homes. But let the price of milk, butter, eggs, poultry or any other agricultural products increase and there is a terrific protest.
No part of our economy can continue to live at a high rate and another live in depressed circumstances. The great wealth of
3638	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization our country lies in the top six inches of the soil. If those who make a living from the top six inches do not get a fair return for their labours, then it is not too long before other segments of our economy suffer.
Even though my riding as I have indicated already in my speech, is one of the best agricultural districts in Canada, as I drive up and down the highways and byways what do I find? I find that practically every farmer could spend a great deal of money, not just in buying new machinery, not just in making his home more modern but in ordinary maintenance such as fences, improving and repairing barns and buildings and in repairs to his machinery; but in many cases these have been neglected simply because the farmer in the last few years could not see his way clear to do the necessary repairs.
For years we in the opposition party told the Liberal government that if they did not take more interest in and give more assistance to agriculture the depressed condition of that industry would have a serious effect on the economy of our entire country.
We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the increase in unemployment brought on mainly because many of our people have not had the funds with which to buy the products of our industry. Had a program such as is indicated in this bill been negotiated several years ago the farmers of our country would today be enjoying the prosperity that had been prevalent in every other section of our economy. There would not have been so many farmers leaving the farms, there would not be so many farms for sale today and there would not be so many farmers displacing other people and taking jobs in industry to get the ready cash to keep up their interest payments and taxes.
As regards the criticism that has been levelled at this legislation by the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties in this house that this legislation should contain some fixed formula for setting the prices of agricultural commodities, this bill was presented after many months of consideration of all the factors involved by our government which felt that a flexible program was better than a fixed formula. We have had many indications from those who have used these formulae that they are not satisfactory, and I should like to quote from the Searle Grain report of Wednesday, January 8, under the heading: "Rigid Price Support Formulas- What Others have Found" indicating some conclusions reached in the United Kingdom:
In the United Kingdom during 1956, the ministry of agriculture, working closely with the main farm organization in that country, reviewed the whole matter of long-term assurances for the agricultural


industry with a view to seeing where they could be made more effective than those which had been provided for in the agriculture act of 1947. Several of the more important conclusions reached were as follows: namely, that it would be necessary to continue the annual review determinations on broadly the previous lines in order that account be taken of numerous changing factors, many of which varied from year to year as did their relative importance. Particularly interesting was the conclusion that the possibility of adjusting guaranteed prices in accordance with a set formula which provided for these variable factors was not considered feasible. The main difficulty in trying to construct a formula for these purposes was that if it were to take into account the many relevant factors it would become too complex to be readily understood or to be operated satisfactorily. Furthermore, it was stated, some of the factors such as those relating to the market could not be put into figures: and even where figures were available they were not considered to be sufficiently firm to stand up to the strain of use in a formula.
Further on in the same article a reference is made to the United States experience, and I quote:
Closer to home, in the United States, there has been growing uneasiness about the farm program in general and the parity price support system in particular. Here, confirming the oft expressed views of the secretary of agriculture, the largest United States farm organization, the American farm bureau federation, recently left no doubt whatever that, in the opinion of that body, the present system has been found wanting and that a new approach is required. While no detailed plan for setting support levels was adopted, the bureau declared that these levels should not be based on "arbitrary formulas" neither should levels of support be automatically increased when supplies had been reduced. Of particular interest was a proposal, that the support level might be set at 90 per cent of the preceding 3-year average market price of each type of crop, it being assumed that market prices would seek their own level, with government supports geared to stay 10 per cent below the average of the previous three years. This plan, it will be noted, is almost identical with that being introduced by the Canadian government at the present time, although as a result of strong representations, the term used for averaging prices is now likely to be extended from 3 to 10 years. It should also be noted that if this American farm bureau proposal were to be adopted it would automatically eliminate parity as a fair yardstick for pegging the level at which the United States supports farm prices and it would bring to an end the high subsidies that have encouraged over-production. These views, of course, represent a very definite change of thought on the part of a large number of American farmers and they have resulted from a long and disappointing experience with rigid parity support prices.
It might also be interresting to note just what it costs the United States with regard to this type of program. An article entitled "Price Supports and Elder Benson" appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 2, 1958, in which the writer says:
Ezra Taft Benson, a Mormon elder, became United States secretary of agriculture about five

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
years ago, In 1952 the United States department of agriculture had 63,000 full-time employees and an annual budget of $1.1 billion.
The article goes on to say:
In 1957, the USDA had 15,000 more full-time employees than in 1952, besides some 90,000 parttime employees in farm-program committees. The 1957 budget was $5 billion-more than the total expenditures for health, welfare and education. The department has $9 billion tied up in price support loans and inventories. Charges for storage are a cozy item-a little over $11 a second on a 24-hour basis including Sundays and holidays. Among other activities the department has been paying farmers to take land out of production and to plough under crops already growing.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been amended after considerable discussion, which indicates that the minister is ready and willing to make the measure acceptable to the agricultural industry in Canada. Therefore, I do feel that the legislation which has been introduced is sound, logical and flexible, and that no good purpose will be served by sending it to the committee on agriculture and colonization where only the factors already discussed could be introduced.
I feel also that though this legislation cannot be expected to alleviate conditions which have been allowed to drift to such a low level through the indifference and lack of planning on the part of the Liberal government over the last number of years, it will do more for the farming economy directly, and for the entire economy of our country indirectly, than any other legislation that has been brought before this house for many years.
(Translation):


Mr. J. A. Landry (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I am being consistent when I rise in this house to speak on this bill to establish guaranteed support prices for agricultural products. On October 18 last, when I made my maiden speech, during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I offered a few brief remarks on agricultural support prices, especially with regard to maple syrup and hogs. I am convinced that I am expressing in this connection the feelings of the great majority of my constituents, these matters being of vital concern to my constituency which is basically agricultural.
The present bill seems to me to provide a particularly striking example of the techniques which the Conservatives have developed and applied in order to escape the responsibilities with which they are saddled following the loud promises they made during the last campaign and which they have not
even started to implement. Though their words were certainly tempting, they now find themselves quite at a loss to follow them up with deeds.
Canadian farmers heard the Conservatives deliver a scathing denunciation of the terribly depressed state of the agricultural economy of this country. They also heard them undertake to find the solution to their difficulties and to bring about the rehabilitation of the industry. We had every right to expect, Mr. Speaker, that this rehabilitation would be brought about by this particular bill.
Such is far from being the case. Not content with uncalled for delays-we had a right to expect that a bill of such scope, one designed to remedy an extremely urgent situation, would be presented at the very beginning of the session-the minister (Mr. Harkness) comes to us at this late hour with a suggestion which offers nothing new, no remedy to give new strength to the agricultural economy of this country. I find it hard to understand why the minister kept us so long in suspense, until the eve of the Christmas adjournment, to offer us this hardly disguised copy of the Agricultural Prices Support Act introduced by the former minister of agriculture under the previous Liberal administration.
After studying this bill, I wondered for quite a while how it improved the situation so strongly deplored by the Conservatives. Under the former act, the prices support board advised the government after consulting an advisory committee which included members of the Canadian federation of agriculture. The results were good if we consider, for instance, the question of butter, the support price of which was set at 58 cents a pound and caused the deputy minister of agriculture in my province to state that this measure had saved agriculture in Quebec, This, of course was a big disappointment to Union Nationale supporters who firmly believed that the provincial agricultural credit act was the sole mainstay of farmers in the province of Quebec.
My conservative predecessor, who represented the constituency of Dorchester from 1953 to 1957, had even seen fit to speak in favour of this Liberal measure when on January 31, 1955, he urged that it be kept in force.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, if we come back to the example of butter I just mentioned, what extra guarantee does this bill offer to Canadian farmers, especially to those of my
3640	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization constituency? I ask the minister, specially on behalf of my constituents, if he honestly believes that, under this new bill, the support price of butter will be raised. I would be very much surprised because the bill which the government has contrived does not offer any additional protection to the Canadian farmer. To be sure, the party in power has shown some ingenuity in its efforts to devise a formula which has the appearance of being scientific but which in reality is quite superficial.
The machinery for establishing the support price is unnecessarily complicated. It works in two stages: first of all, after various changes and amendments, it establishes a base price representing the average selling price of the product over the last ten years. Then, the percentage of the base price is established at the discretion of the stabilization board. This means, Mr. Speaker, that the board is free to set a higher price on some commodities, and a lower percentage on some others. And lastly, the board will try to set a standard which will determine the final price support. It will seek a common denominator, that is to say a fair and reasonable relation between cost price and the price to the consumer. With regard to the first stage, it is my opinion that we should have gone by the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which proposed that the base price be established in relation with the cost price of the commodities over a given period. Several of the previous speakers mentioned that, during the last few years some agricultural products had been sold at a loss and that the market price is therefore not a true indication of the cost price of these products.
This complex machinery, newly introduced into legislation which had been clear and simple, is meant as window-dressing. It allows our friends opposite to make believe they are improving the existing legislation when actually they are only making it more difficult. So, once again, the Conservatives, attempting to prove they are improving a situation, are borrowing the substance of the Liberal policy.
Without labouring the point, I wish to underline a so-called change in this bill, from the act of 1944. The bill would have the minister appoint an advisory committee whereas, under the 1944 act, the appointment of one or more advisory committees was under the jurisdiction of the board. The change proposed by this bill is ill-advised because, in my humble opinion, it would be better


if the appointment of such a committee was not left to the government but to the board itself, so as to give committee members a free hand and enable them to weigh their own views if not against at least in the light of government policy. As it is, an advisory committee formed at the recommendation or decision of the minister might sometimes feel hampered in its action and somewhat reluctant to act against the wishes of the minister.
This bill seeks to introduce a further change from the existing act. It is a change which, this time, is not only useless but dangerous and bad. In this regard I join with other hon. members in this house who expressed concern about the shortness of the period of twelve months provided for the advance announcement of the price level. Like those hon. members, I believe that, particularly in the case of butter, the producer should be able to rely long in advance, on a definite price because, otherwise, he cannot adequately organize his production on a long term basis.
The increase of $50 million in the revolving fund for the implementation of the system set up by this bill is another amendment, Mr. Speaker, which is worth mentioning. There again, in my humble opinion, is another tactic which ties in with the one I referred to a moment ago and which allows the Conservative party to dodge its promises. This $50 million increase will remain untouched, at least under this hill; we know, in fact, that the remainder of the $200 million in the revolving fund used for the implementation of the act of 1944 was already quite considerable since only about $72 million were used in the last 13 years. We know too that much of this outlay was on account of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. Indeed, the system of agricultural prices support is reported to have cost less than 12 per cent of the $200 million revolving fund, in the last 13 years. Now, either this increase of the revolving fund to $250 million is quite useless and superfluous, or the Conservative government is now expecting a depression in the agricultural industry. In either case we are dealing with a government which does not know how to discharge its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, having analysed the bill with its useless, ineffective or altogether bad changes from the existing legislation, I am concerned over the bitter disappointment

and deep disillusion which will no doubt be felt by the farmers of my constituency whose ears are still ringing with the loud promises made to them by Conservative party speakers in the last electoral campaign. They had thought that the coming into power of the Conservative government would spell the salvation of our agricultural economy.
Whereas Liberal policy in national defence, foreign affairs, public works, postal services, the secretary of state department, citizenship and immigration etc., remains unchanged and continues to govern the conduct of the temporary incumbents of those various portfolios, we have in this bill incontrovertible proof that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has adopted the same attitude as his colleagues in the cabinet by proclaiming the efficiency of Liberal agricultural policy.
I do not know whether by introducing his bill just before Christmas the Minister of Agriculture believed he was making a generous gift to the farmers of Canada, but he did show though, that to be a good Santa Claus you still have to wear a red coat.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I repeat that the Conservatives are trying to perfect a technique whereby they will appear to be keeping the promises they made to the electors of this country. They are making a show of measures which will bring no improvement whatever to the present economic situation and which are a cruel letdown to people who were entertaining high hopes after hearing Conservative campaign speeches.
With all due respect to my hon. friends opposite, I must add that the policy which has been followed so far with regard to agriculture is on a par with that which has been followed in other departments. The people of Canada had expected a substantial reduction in income tax, but we saw how the baby budget betrayed their hopes. Whereas the people had considered as a possibility if not the entire removal at least a 50 per cent reduction in the excise tax on cars, the actual reduction from 10 to 7-| per cent has shattered this legitimate expectation. While the people had counted on the recent federal provincial conference for further progress in fiscal adjustments, the recent meeting of premiers called by the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker) has replaced these confident expectations with a wave of uncertainty and anxiety. Finally, people had thought that a Conservative government would solve the great problem of agriculture. How disappointed they will be when they find that this bill,
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization a tacit recognition of the beneficence of Liberal policy, is the sole answer to the cries of alarm raised by Conservative speakers throughout the country. What a bitter disappointment to the people in my constituency of Dorchester who had looked for dazzling progress and who will soon revert to the status quo.
This bill could have provided more adequately for the maple syrup industry, a major one in my constituency, by setting a support price of 28 cents a pound, as I advocated in my initial speech in this house. Far from it, no specific mention of maple syrup is made in the bill and maple syrup is not included among the agricultural products which will benefit from the minimum of 80 per cent of the base price. The omission of maple syrup from the preferred treatment accorded the products listed in clause 1 is a great disappointment to the farmers of the constituency of Dorchester and this bill in general is a great disappointment to the farmers of Canada as a whole.
I had hoped that the minister would show much more imagination in the introduction of this bill and would have given consideration to the thousands of farmers of my province who derive their living from the pulpwood cutting industry. In my humble opinion, he should have devised the necessary formula to allow these farmers, whose farm income is not sufficient, to find appropriate markets for their pulpwood, or a remedy for the falling prices which have been plaguing our farmers these last few months.
I did not wish to set myself as an expert in the discussion of this legislation, but this Bill No. 237 has caused every hon. member, I suppose, whatever his party affiliations, to think of that fantastic anomaly which exists in the world at the present time.
I should perhaps call it the gigantic tragedy which is unfolding in the world. While here, in Canada, the uneasiness arises from a glut of agricultural products, so that we do not know where to sell our wheat, and our farmers cannot find markets for their crops, is it not painful to see that, in some other parts of the world, there are millions and millions of human beings like us who suffer from hunger and would be only too glad to pick up the crumbs of our surpluses? Is it not sad to think that two out of three people in the world are going hungry while here at home we are embarrassed with surpluses? Is it not sadder still to think that
3642	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization our greatest enemy, communists, are gradually infiltrating the countries of those hungry people by offering them food while we show little interest or almost indifference before such a spectacle.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, without putting the blame on anybody, to hope that some day nations as favoured as ours will realize that it would be far better to feed those peoples with our own products than to have to spend millions if not billions, later on, to defend ourselves against them.
I express that wish because I believe that in this way we could kill three birds with one stone. First, we would practise in our Canadian policies the great law of Christian charity; secondly, we would be guaranteed against communism, the foremost enemy of our civilization and, third, we would solve the serious agricultural problem in this country.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, all the trumpets sounded on this bill but I want to take a few minutes to play my little parliamentary piccolo on behalf of the fruitgrowers of British Columbia and the farmers I have the honour to represent. This is a very important measure, Mr. Speaker. I wish to say I have listened to the speeches in this debate with great care and, in addition to that, I have done some reading and have had several discussions with my colleagues, and that sort of thing, because this is a measure that is of great importance. What is done with respect to this bill will have a very serious effect upon the direction of this type of legislation in the early years ahead.
As I understand it, the minister has done three things. He introduced the first bill in glowing terms as an ideal measure to guarantee prices and to meet the promises of his party and the expectations of the farmers of Canada. Then, secondly, as a result of protests in this house and protests from the farmer organizations, the minister re-introduced an amended bill. Thirdly, he spent a great deal of time giving explanations to the house in an effort to make the implicit explicit.
I say to him, Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of my father who whenever he was going to take action on me would say to me, "Now, Bertie, my boy, this is the time to make the implicit explicit." From that time on I suffered a painful posterior pastime. I trust the analogy will not be true so far as this bill is concerned when the members opposing it have finished expressing their views in full in this house.


However, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the debate in the house and the continued protests from farmers organizations outside-I understand there is not a single major farm organization which has endorsed this bill in its entirety-indicate there is a continuing deficit between the government's promises and the government's performance so far as this bill is concerned. To some extent I sympathize with the minister. I know he is a most well meaning person, but he is working under very difficult circumstances. First of all, the government lacks an over-all economic policy, which is a very great lack. Regardless of the minister's amendments to the bill, the gap between the Prime Minister's assurances and performance is wide. Therefore it is impossible for the minister to take this piece of policy and fit it into a jigsaw puzzle of an unplanned policy.
The lack of that policy has been evidenced throughout the session by what I would call the tidbit legislation that has been introduced so far without announcing an over-all economic policy. We have given an extra cup of tea at every meal to the old age pensioners and a couple of extra buns at meals to certain veterans, and we have extended seasonal benefits which will benefit some people in Canada during these difficult times. They are all to the good. We supported them. However, this legislation and the other have been introduced in an atmosphere lacking entirely an over-all economic policy, as I mentioned before, unrelated to any plan, and so far as I can see, lacking any continuing definite purpose, or policy.
We in this group, Mr. Speaker, believe that legislation should be related to an overall national plan which provides for continuous co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and between representatives of producers, of labour, of industry and of governments. I have great faith in that approach to the difficult questions that face us at this time and will face us in the future, and I do not for one minute underestimate the complexities of the economic situation in a modern industrial society.
If this government had an over-all economic policy related to a national political policy we would have planned production, planned marketing and planned prices legislation related to that policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that while farmers during the last year or so have suffered from declining prices and returns, the transportation companies, brokers, wholesalers and all those who market the farmer's products are still taking their normal cut out

of the farmer's production. Their percentages are guaranteed by practice, by habit and by the very nature of the system under which we exist. The farmer gets what is left.
Having made these few general remarks, and I must say that the minister looks very bored indeed, I want to say a few words about the position of the fruit growers. I now refer to certain figures that are the result of a survey made of 153 fruit farms in the Okanagan. I know it is very difficult to get accurate figures with respect to agriculture and the returns from agriculture because under present circumstances farms can be very small indeed and still they are taken into the total.
But I think this was a very fair survey. It was made in 1949 during prosperous times and covered 153 fruit farms in the Okanagan. I am doing this to indicate the position of the fruit farmer in the present circumstances. The average acreage of fruit farms in the Okanagan is 24.4 acres. The average investment is $27,000 and average annual receipts are $7,883. This is for 1949, in prosperous times. Average current expenses are $4,843. In that connection I want to quote from a bulletin which I have been reading most carefully, and which was published by the Department of Agriculture in January, 1952. It is entitled, "A Study of Apple Production in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia, 1949", a very prosperous period indeed. On page 12 I find the following under the heading "Financial Summary":
The average difference between total farm receipts and total farm expenses on all farms studied was $2,550. This figure called "farm income" is the amount the operator received for his work on the farm and interest on invested capital. In order to obtain the figure representing return to the operator for his labour, interest at 4 per cent was deducted from the farm income leaving an average "labour income" of $1,448. In addition to labour income, the farmer receives for his labour and management the use of the farm house and products raised and consumed on the farm. These items are called "perquisites" and, when added to labour income, give the measure known as operator's "labour earnings". The operator's labour earnings represent the total returns to the operator for his labour and management after all cash and non-cash expenses are deducted. The average value of perquisites for the 153 farms surveyed was $668, which, added to the labour income, gave labour earnings amounting to $2,116 per farm.
That, Mr. Speaker, was during the peak period when conditions were considered reasonably satisfactory so far as the fruit growing industry of British Columbia is concerned. Since that period there has been an almost constant decline in the net returns to the fruit growing operator in that province and to such an extent that in recent years they have become very interested indeed in the question 96698-231
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization of price supports. I notice in the agenda of the convention of the British Columbia fruit growers association a resolution dealing with price supports. If I remember correctly this is the first time that such a resolution has been placed on the convention agenda of that organization because owing to the nature of the industry and the arrangements for marketing they have been somewhat hesitant with regard to the principle of price support. However, owing to the serious situation with which the growers are faced they are giving consideration to this question. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the federal government recognizes the dire necessity of price support for agriculture and is reported to have set up funds for that purpose, and whereas due to the large crop in 1957 growers* returns to date indicate that 1957 prices may drop to the disastrous level of 1955, when the average price per box of apples to the grower was 72 cents, and other fruit prices were down in proportion.
Therefore be it resolved by this 1958 B.C.F.G.A. convention that the government be urged to place a floor price under fruit which will cover the cost of production or establish a scheme similar to that in operation in New Zealand and thus enable the farmer and his family to stay on the land, the packing houses of the valley to be kept busy, prevent workers being drawn into the larger cities to swell the lists of unemployed.
From my experience in the fruit growing industry in British Columbia that is clear evidence to me that they realize they are facing a very difficult situation. In order to know how serious that situation has become I am going to read briefly from an application for support under the Agriculture Prices Support Act made last year by representatives of the British Columbia fruit growers association. This is what they said in part in the application:
Whereas the government, through the Department of Agriculture and after due consideration, approved a request for assistance for the apple growers in British Columbia to supplement returns received for their 1950 apple crop:
And whereas prior to payment of $1,200,000 provided by way of special grant or assistance, the British Columbia apple growers sustained a loss of 39 cents per box, based on packing and cold storage costs as they existed at that time and on orchard production costs as determined by Dean Clement of the University of British Columbia:
And whereas returns for the 1955 crop paid to the packing houses averaged only $2.0165 per box which, after deducting the existing packing storage and growing costs, estimated to be $2.50, represents a loss to growers of .4835 cents per box, or a loss substantially greater than that sustained in 1950;
The British Columbia fruit growers association therefore begs to submit the following statement in support of a request that the federal government consider and approve a minimum payment to the industry of 25 cents per box on the 1955 apple crop, calculated to offset at least partially the substantial losses suffered by the growers.
3644	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
That is an indication of their position in 1955 and they are in a very serious position today. I want to make one other brief quotation from this well drafted application for assistance. This will inform hon. members how very litle assistance B.C. growers have received throughout the years. On page 5 of the application I find the following:
Total asistance to the British Columbia fruit industry over the period 1941 to 1954 inclusive has amounted to $3,622,807.17. During the same period a total of 84,359,621 boxes have been produced. The amount of assistance rendered this industry by the government during this period has amounted, therefore, to .0429 cents per bushel.
In effect a bushel is a box of apples. We pack them in boxes but the figures are usually expressed in terms of bushels.
Transportation costs of perishable products continue to rise resulting in higher delivered costs and very often in lower returns to the growers. The industry has made its submission to all sittings of the board of transport commissioners vigorously opposing the continued request for increased freight tariffs.
Cost of production, including packing, storing and orchard costs, continue to soar as both orchard and packing house wages increase and as cost of various materials spirals. While no recent surveys have been made showing actual costs as they existed in 1955, it is submitted that a figure of $2.50 as compared to the 1950 costs of $2.10 is not only reasonable but probably very conservative.
Growers are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain suitable labour, particularly in the light of British Columbia's rapidly expanding industrial economy and in order to compete in the labour field are being forced to meet the current wage rates existing in other types of industry.
Mr. Speaker, that shows the serious position of the fruit growing industry at this time. What about the 1957 crop? I am speaking now of the fruit growing industry of Canada as a whole. According to the latest information I have received Ontario produced 2,400,000 bushels, and about 70 per cent of that production was unsold at the middle of December. The fruit growers of Ontario are complaining about serious competition from low-grade apples from the United States. I have made inquiries and I find that fruit which comes within the terms of the regulations under the present legislation cannot be stopped by the government and it is sold at a lower price to the disadvantage of the fruit growers of Ontario. I trust this government will do something to remedy that situation.
So far as Quebec is concerned, I am informed they produced 2,500,000 bushels, but received a very low price, generally speaking. So far this year there is about 50 per cent of the crop sold. In so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, the production in 1957 amounted to 2,500,000 bushels, and they are suffering severely from United States competition. There is at the present time an anticipated


surplus of about 200,000 boxes for which no foreseeable markets are obtainable.
What about British Columbia? Last year, 1957, British Columbia produced 6,783,000 boxes and there is an anticipated surplus of somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 boxes. When we use this term "anticipated surplus", we mean there is no foreseeable market at the present time, after making arrangements for the normal markets. The growers of British Columbia are very progressive. They have done everything possible to improve the quality of their fruit. I believe I can say without any hesitation that they have one of the finest fruit-marketing organizations in the world. It is an efficient, total marketing operation, so far as the fruit industry is concerned.
What are they doing at the present time? They are exploring to the full the continental market that might be yet available. They have had representatives in Britain quite recently seeking from the British government or the appropriate authority the allocation of dollars for the purchase of more British Columbia apples.
The fruit industry has somewhat different problems, of course, from the other branches of agriculture, owing to the complexities that surround the marketing of fruit products in general. The industry experiences considerable difficulty in that respect in international markets. It has difficulty, too, with currency problems because it is shipping considerable of the surplus to sterling countries. Then, it sometimes meets the opposition of national farm organizations in the various countries to which they are shipping their fruit. The governments of those countries naturally have to respond to the wishes of national farm organizations. Then, there are particular problems with respect to storage, handling, transportation and things of that sort. It is not possible to take apples and store them as you would wheat from year to year or to transport them in the same way under all weather conditions and circumstances. If you do that, it has to be done at uneconomic costs.
These very complex marketing arrangements for fruit in Canada have developed to a great extent over recent years. There is a great deal of co-operation now between the fruit organizations of all the provinces of Canada. They are, generally speaking, coordinating their actions through the Canadian horticultural council. I want to say that organization has done excellent work. If you knew some of the difficulties that arose in past years because each province was operating, both in internal and external markets, somewhat on its own, then you would realize how the fruit growers of this country are now working together and doing all they can

to improve their own circumstances and to market their own products, their efforts based on excellent local marketing organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to this bill which suggests that the measure be sent to the agriculture committee. To me this is a very important matter. There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about it in the country, and X think to some extent in this house. X feel that this is such an important matter that the time it will take to have this bill sent to the agriculture committee would be well spent. The representatives of the various farm organizations would then have an opportunity to appear before the committee and present their views; to give evidence to the committee and to answer questions.
As I said before, in my opinion there is no solution without legislation which makes arrangements for planning for production, planning for markets and planning for the price structure. In this connection, I have heard it mentioned on several occasions today that certain farm organizations are quite favourable to this legislation. I think it is correct to say that some farm organizations have expressed support for certain aspects of this legislation. I think it is correct to say that all of them believe it does not provide for parity prices as promised by the present government previous to the last election. In performance it falls short of what the government promised. We have heard what the national organizations' recommendations on the subject are, but I like to find out what the farmer on the farm thinks about it. Sometimes even national representatives can get somewhat divorced from the rank and file. I like to know what the farmer thinks in meetings of his local organizations. I went to some trouble to find out what was happening amongst the farmers themselves, and I had this information sent to me.
I understand the representatives of the local farmers' union in Northumberland county, Ontario, had a big meeting recently to which they invited the member for the constituency, and questioned him about this legislation. While the member informed the people he thought the legislation was satisfactory, they expressed a different opinion, I am told, and unanimously. I am going to read the resolution that was passed at the conclusion of the meeting, after the address by the Conservative member for Northumberland (Mr. Thompson), and after listening to his contention that the bill was satisfactory. This is a resolution of a group of local farmers in Northumberland county in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, where they are not inclined to move as quickly as we are in the west;
3645
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization where they ponder and are very cautious in their criticism, cautious in their approach to problems. This is what this local organization of farmers had to say when indicating their attitude towards this legislation:
Whereas the Progressive Conservative party, in its election manifesto, promised:
To maintain a flexible price support program to ensure an adequate parity price based on fair cost-price relationship;
To assure a maximum stability of income to Canadian farmers;
A fair share of the national income;
To restore agriculture to its rightful position;
And whereas the Progressive Conservative government has completely repudiated its election campaign to provide farmers with parity prices;
Therefore be it resolved that the Northumberland county farmers' union strongly urge defeat of Bill 237 unless it is revised to create a fair relationship between farm prices and production costs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am getting some applause from the government side of the house. Am I really affecting the slow-moving Conservatives of Ontario? If so, I am delighted. We in this group recognize the difficulties the minister is facing and the complexities of this question and the whole economic problem. We realize that production must be in the national interest. However, we say that this bill lacks a formula. It lacks a basic period being established for parity prices. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has suggested the 1925-29 five-year period as a normal period in which farmers costs and prices were in a proper relationship to one another. That may be correct. There may be other periods that can be determined as being satisfactory. However, there should be a base period in which costs and prices are at a normal relationship.
We in our group believe that the first thing to do is to establish a formula and to establish the parity price principle in this bill, something for which the farmers have been looking for for many years. Then once we have that, and after we have established a sound parity base, we can go into regulations in respect of production and limitations the form of which will come from experience in the operation of the measure and through consultation with the farmers' organizations. On the basis of sound legislation to start with, we can amend it and make it sound so far as the total economy is concerned, and fair to all the Canadian people.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I urge the minister to give consideration to the representations made in this house for the bill to be sent to the agriculture committee for further study. If he wants to do anything for the farmers in the meantime in
3846	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization order to assist them, I am sure he can do it under the present legislation. We in this group urge that this bill be sent to the agriculture committee in order that it may be thoroughly studied. Let us bring in the farmers. Let us exhibit a spirit of co-operation to that extent. Let us make sure that we know that we are passing legislation that will best serve the farmers and that, in the end, we shall have a satisfactory act in which parity prices are established to the satisfaction of all concerned and one which provides a foundation for subsequent amending legislation which no doubt will be required as a result of experience and consultation with those who are most seriously concerned, namely the farmers of Canada.


Mr. C. A. Milligan (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up a great deal of time. A great deal has been said in connection with this bill. I do not think there is any advantage in repeating what has already been said. However, I want to make a few remarks in connection with this farm legislation. In my former remarks at the resolution stage I strongly urged the passing of this bill in order that we might have it before us and be able to speak more intelligently with regard to its application to agriculture. After reading Hansard and listening to the speeches which have been made during the last few days I am wondering whether that has happened.
There has been considerable criticism of this bill by members of the opposition. Instead of speaking more intelligently there seems to be, according to my way of thinking, a tendency to disrupt and mislead with regard to the application of this legislation as it applies to the industry, thus completely confusing the agricultural people. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the farmers union meeting and the resolution that came from that meeting opposing this legislation. That is very close to my riding. I know quite a few of the people who belong to farmers' unions in that riding. During the past few weeks I have had a number of meetings with the federation of agriculture and the farmers' union. I have attended the farmers' union meeting in the county of Prince Edward, at which there were some 150 farmers present, and every one of them was very much in favour of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Adam Milligan: But not until after I had explained how the legislation would apply to these people and their particular products. They had been misinformed and they were


using some of the things that have been going out from this house to disrupt this legislation.
When he was speaking this afternoon the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) said that he would not agree to the repeal of the Agricultural Prices Support Act by this new legislation. I am sorry he is not in the house. I should like to ask him whether he at any time has ever suggested to the former government that they use the application of section 2 of the act. I want to read from section 9, subsection 2 of the act which states:
-to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
As a farmer myself I have never seen that section applied in the former legislation that we had. Had it been applied, we would not be asking for a new act today.
There was considerable criticism of the bill when it was brought in in the first place and I am pleased to see the amendments which have been made. I think great credit should go to our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for making those amendments. This action shows the type of minister we have. It shows that he is willing to accept suggestions which he thinks would be in the best interests of the agriculture industry. We therefore have the amendments which have been placed in the reprint of this legislation. Although it does not change the meaning of this legislation to any great extent, it sets out more specifically what is provided and gives much greater guidance to those who are going to be in an advisory position in recommending the level of guaranteed prices.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Adam Milligan: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the adjournment, the amendment to this bill will give greater guidance to the advisory board. I wish to say that I am well aware that this bill may not be a complete solution by any means to all the problems of agriculture. Those of us who are engaged in the agricultural industry have enough good judgment and commonsense to know that no one piece of legislation can correct the inefficiency of the agricultural policy of the former government. Amendments to this bill will be needed from time to time as the application of this legislation is applied to the

different commodities but I am sure that this bill will give agriculture the reasonable security to which it is justly entitled.
Those of us who are engaged in agriculture have a certain responsibility of our own regarding productivity, quality, and marketing methods of which most people engaged in agriculture are becoming more aware. Agriculture today does not want full control of the industry to be in the hands of any government. What it does want is government protection against the agricultural products of other countries flooding our market when we can produce similar products in this country. There is a surplus of food flooding the markets of this country today. Agriculture in Canada is willing to meet competition from any country in the world under conditions similar to those which exist here.
It is my opinion that the ten year moving average is a more satisfactory period on which to calculate our base price, than the average of the last three years. Those years have been low net income years for agriculture, and because of this fact they should not be used as a basis on which to start. The 10-year period will give a better average of prices, for in that period there are four average income years and therefore the base price will be a more realistic measure of the actual value of the product. There may be a tendency for this base price to decrease rather than increase, and it will therefore result in a higher percentage having to be used for the setting of the guaranteed price which is provided for in this legislation.
I am sure that people engaged in agriculture will be well satisfied with this 10-year moving average as a basis on which to arrive at a base price for agricultural products.
The second feature is the fact that a definite formula is included in the legislation of 80 per cent of the base price to arrive at a floor price. This is one of the weaknesses of the former agriculture price support legislation. No one, except the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner)-I often wondered if he knew-could explain at what level, and how, floor prices were arrived at. The result was that floor prices in every case were placed at such a low level that they gave absolutely no security to the agricultural industry. They meant bankruptcy to many farmers.
The most important part of this present legislation is the guaranteed price which will be set as a percentage of the base price, and which will, therefore, bear a fair relationship to the cost of production-this price which guarantees the farmer at the beginning of
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the crop year that he will not receive less than this price for his product through the balance of the year.
This is the kind of security agriculture has never enjoyed. It has always been at the mercy of the other interests-the packing companies, the processors, chain stores and all others that wished to take advantage of a difficult situation for their own personal gain, always using that very effective weapon, a surplus, to justify the lower market prices, regardless of the fact that at the same time, the costs of producing the particular product had continued to rise.
May I just give the house an example. The price of hogs dropped to its lowest level for some time in mid-December of this year, as much as $2 in one day. Was this drop immediately applied to the consumer, I wonder. The reason for this decrease in price was a small surplus. Chain stores were not buying loins and hams; they were selling more poultry.
The farmers at that time needed money for Christmas shopping; others had taxes to finish paying before the end of the year. It is a well known fact that a great many farmers had made their plans months ahead to market certain products at a particular time so they were obliged to go to market regardless of price fluctuations. This, of course resulted in a loss of income, which at that particular time is drastic. How many people in other walks of life would be willing to have their salaries reduced, particularly at that time of year.
Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that people in agriculture are complaining. If this situation occurred in any other business or industry there would be strikes, and riots, and the whole country would suffer. This is only one of the reasons that a guaranteed price for agricultural products was long overdue. This illustration applies to a great many other products.
A most important feature of this legislation is the nine man advisory board consisting of representatives of farm organizations and farm groups to advise the board and the minister in setting the level of the prescribed price. I have listened to hon. members talking about the floor price, about the base price, about parity and about differential payments, but I am wondering if all the objections they have raised are not met by the appointment of this board. Surely we have confidence enough in the people who are to be put on this board. They are active farmers. And surely we have confidence that they will know about levels of prices, and be able to advise the government as to the level at which the prices of the various
3648	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization products should be set. We do not know whether or not the prices will be at parity or above, but it is left to these experienced people to say what the prices should be. This to me is very essential and I feel that we shall have no worry about the parity price because in my opinion it is being well looked after.
We listened with much interest to the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) emphasizing the fact that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act his government was not faced with embarrassing surpluses such as our friends in the United States were. This is quite true. By not implementing the provisions contained in the act the income of many farmers was reduced to the extent that they went out of business. Others reduced their production and then when the product was in short supply the law of supply and demand forced the price up again. Those of us who stayed in business made a bit of money until we were faced with a surplus again.
I want to give the house one example of the support that agriculture received under the former legislation. I shall place on the record figures indicating the loss suffered by the agricultural prices support board over a three year period. I am using these figures because they are the only figures that apply to the products the farmer is selling. In 1954 it cost the government $3 million, in 1955 it cost the government $6 million, and in 1956 it cost the government $4 million.
We have listened to much criticism of the United States program.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think that the most important thing in connection with the support, for example, is the amount the farmer gets-hogs have been between four and eleven cents higher in Canada all throughout the period of the last two years than they were in the United States-the idea of supports of this kind is not simply the cost to the government; it is the result on the farmer's income.


Clarence Adam Milligan: Yes, that is quite true. The price of hogs has been considerably higher in Canada than in the United States and I think a lot of credit for that goes to those who have put their hogs on the open market where there is competition in the buying of those hogs. It certainly has raised the price of hogs. Another thing in our favour is that we have not had any great surplus that has depressed the price.
I am a farmer myself and my income comes completely from agriculture and therefore I think I can speak with some authority


as to the experience of agriculture in the past years. The best years that those of us engaged in livestock production had in agriculture during the former administration was when we were taking advantage of the situation in the United States, selling our beef and our dairy products in that country and reducing the volume in our own markets which consequently forced our prices up. The hon. member for Melville was taking all the credit for those increases in the income of agriculture during those years.
There has been considerable criticism of this legislation; that it didn't contain a fixed formula. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture recommended a fixed formula be written into legislation. As we take a look at the United States program over the years I am wondering whether or not it has worked out too well. With this nine-member board I feel it is not necessary to have a fixed formula because these people will be well qualified to recommend the formula which will be used. It should be a fluctuating formula that will change from time to time and the agriculturist will be in a better position to gauge his operation under such a formula.
I remember travelling from western Canada to the United States in 1948 with a chap who was taking advantage of the price support program they had in that country. He had 15,000 acres under wheat, land that had never been broken before. He had seen an opportunity to make a sound investment under which he could receive good interest on his invested money and therefore he was not interested in over-production but rather in making some money for himself. That was true in a great many cases. A lot of the surplus that came from the United States did not come from the actual producing farmers but from those people who engaged in agriculture strictly as an investment. That is one thing we want to overcome, if we can, with this particular legislation.
We also have heard a great deal about the inefficiency of the farmer particularly from those that have little sympathy for us and who are looking for cheap food. No one group has increased production per capita in our economy as have the people engaged in agriculture. It is true, we are not all alike. Each one of us has different opportunities to run our business and each has varying aptitudes and whether it be farming or any other occupation each runs his business as he sees fit. The apparent inefficiency may be caused by a lack of capital, difficulty in securing sufficient land in order to operate more efficiently. The farmer may encounter any number of problems. That is why the returns from individual farm operations differ quite widely.

It is by no means a lack of managerial ability which is to blame for a less successful venture. In many cases it is quite the opposite. No one will question that. As in any other business, those farmers who are measured by the highest standards are perhaps not the most efficient managers.
Mr. Speaker, there exists quite a misconception of the definition of an efficient farmer which is held by many people in other walks of life. You know the type of farm to which I am referring; those well-kept homes, all of the most modern equipment desired and the finest of stock. They are, in many cases, show places, a city home in the country for some very successful business executive to retreat to from his busy office life in the city. Those are the farms along the highways, and you have all seen them, that most people other than farmers have in mind when they refer to the successful, efficient farmer. The farms on the back concessions, the owners of which have no city business to augment their earnings and who earn their living by the sweat of their brow and without whom we could not live, they are the ones who are being called inefficient farmers. The thought that there is no room for other than large scale, highly efficient and highly mechanized farms in our economy is too ridiculous to contemplate.
Numerous small farmers, while they are not satisfied with the rewards they receive, prefer farming to anything else and are perfectly content to stick with it providing they can secure a reasonable living from the land. They see little opportunity to enlarge their operations but that does not worry them nearly as much as do the rising prices of the commodities they buy and the falling level of prices for many of the products they sell. They may not be as efficient as they would like to be but they are not too concerned about that either. Farming is a way of life. Life is made up of apparent inconsistencies and that is the reason why the human desire to cling to farming in the face of difficulties is something that cannot be explained in terms of dollars and cents and, to my way of thinking, this is very desirable.
This legislation does not mean a much higher cost in the price of food to the consumer. It will have the effect of levelling prices. The consumers of Canada are prepared to pay a reasonable price for food. The brief presented to the cabinet some time ago by the Canadian Congress of Labour is evidence of how labour feels toward conditions in agriculture. At page 7 of the brief we find the following:
We are alarmed by the drastic fall in farm income. This is bad for the farm people, most of whom are far from rich, and who still make up
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization one-sixth of the Canadian population. It is bad for the economy generally, which is still heavily dependent on exports, of which farm products make up about one-quarter. It is also bad for Canadian workers, for whose products a prosperous agriculture would provide a substantial market. This is particularly true of the agricultural implement industry, which remains in a very depressed condition, with employment only about two-thirds of what it was in 1949. Canadian labour will fully support anything the government can do to restore the purchasing power of Canadian farmers.
I feel that most consumers who are labouring people are a bit concerned about the situation in which the agricultural industry has been placed. I think one of the ways by which we might restore the economic position in this country and put many men back to work and improve the agricultural situation is by enacting the bill we have before us at the present time. Many of our farmers are supplementing their income by working in industry. I think I am safe in saying that in those areas which are close to industry 50 per cent of our agricultural people are working in industry. They are taking jobs away from people who should have them and who cannot work on the farm.
If the farming people were not working in those industries many more jobs would be provided the people who are justly entitled to them. This agriculture legislation will put more money in the farmers' hands and it would certainly increase the buying power of agriculture. The machinery companies would begin to operate longer hours. There would be improvements to farm buildings in the way of painting and so forth. Plumbing facilities and all the other things that we need on our farms today would be installed. We only have to drive through the country, I do not care which province, to see farm buildings in dilapidated condition and machinery that is worn out. The farmer has not the money to replace these things. The result is that many people are out of work because the buying power of the farmer has been cut down to such an extent that he is unable to make those purchases.
Between 1941 and 1956 the farm price of milk produced for fluid sales increased 131 per cent, and for the manufacture of butter only 76 per cent. The average wages paid workers in the dairy industry increased 162 per cent. Reflecting on the ability of Canadians to buy more food for one hour's work than was possible five years ago is the fact that an extra quart of milk, half a pound of butter and half a pound of cheese can now be purchased for one hour's earnings, more than was the case during the earlier period. In short, today one hour's pay will buy just over seven quarts of milk, two and one-half pounds of butter and slightly over two pounds of cheese. Between 1941 and 1956 consumer
3650	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization expenditure on all foods increased by 140 per cent, and consumer purchasing power increased by 236 per cent.
Today the farmer's share of the consumer's dollar, according to the figures prepared by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, are as follows: butter, 77 per cent; beef, 57 per cent; pork, 51 per cent; potatoes, 41 per cent; canned peaches, 24 per cent.
This legislation is not the complete answer to all the problems of agriculture-I said that in the beginning of my remarks-but at least it gives for the first time a strong base on which to build. There are other things that have to be taken into consideration in the agricultural program as well. We must have export markets. It is impossible for agriculture to produce just the amount of food we consume in Canada. If we import food we are then in a worse position than if we have a small surplus. Therefore, we must have export markets. I know it is difficult to obtain these markets because of the cost of production in this country; every effort should be explored to restore our markets for agricultural products in the British Isles.
I remember that in 1953 we lost our bacon and cheese contracts in Great Britain. I was in London with the dairy commissioner of the province of Ontario on some other business. While we were there we made some contacts with different people to see if we could place some orders for cheese and get a market for cheese in Great Britain. We were alarmed to find out that the British people were a bit concerned at that time because we did not have any market in Great Britain. They felt that if we did not soon get back in that market the British people would lose their taste for our good Canadian cheddar cheese and bacon. After the commissioner had spent some time with the British minister of food he came back with a contract with Britain for 10 million pounds of cheese. Our federal government could not get any contracts at that time but through the cheese producers association we were able to get that cheese out of this country. That relieved the situation, but it was only a short time after that that large quantities of cheese were shipped into this country from New Zealand. That certainly put us in a very awkward position again.
I quite agree with the former speaker who said something about the fruit and vegetable industry of this country. Few people realize the importance of this industry. Most of us think that it is just a small business that does not amount to very much. But it amounts to big business in Canada today. It is one of the industries we must protect. The increase in population over the past few years


has meant nothing to the industry as the market has been completely absorbed by imports. That increase in population is taken care of by surpluses from the United States. Mr. Robinson, president of the fruit and vegetable association at a meeting here some time ago with some members in connection with this particular industry ended his talk to them by saying that in every case the Americans had doubled the protection against our products going into their country. It is a very important industry to this country at this time. We may refer to it as a secondary industry but we should protect this industry which is so important to our Canadian economy and we should keep it for Canadians.
Last night an hon. member on the other side said something about protection. I am not talking about complete protection, but I think we have to look after those particular industries for our people. We could wipe every vegetable and fruit-growing farm in Canada off the map and there would not be any shortage of those particular products for the Canadian people. I do not think that is what we want to do. Therefore, we must protect this industry for our people in Canada.
We have large surpluses of grain in western Canada which we must move. Although we have sold a considerable quantity of wheat this year, we are still going to have a surplus in that area. If we can encourage some of our farmers in concentrated areas to get into some line of farming other than livestock and dairy products it would relieve the situation for other areas more adapted to this kind of production. We are going to have a problem in agriculture as long as we have a terrific surplus of wheat in western Canada.
Some of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon devoted their speeches entirely to western grain. I think this legislation involves an agricultural policy for all of Canada, not just western Canada, and I hope we will all realize that the problem of agriculture is an all Canadian problem and not just a grain problem in the west.
I should like to say something with respect to producer marketing boards. We have set up a number of producer marketing boards in Ontario which have functioned very well. One that has recently been set up and is doing a very good job for the farmers is the Ontario hog producers co-operative marketing board. Assembly points have been established where the farmer's hogs are put on the open market and are sold to the highest bidder, with competition setting the price of the particular product. We hope to do that in the case of many other products but it is just impossible for any marketing

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
board or any other group to control the fair market value of a product if we find ourselves with surpluses, and no place to dispose of it.
I cannot support the amendment that has been moved because I feel that this legislation is important. Having in mind the discussion and criticism there has been in the house, in my opinion it would be simply useless to send the bill to the committee. It would only delay the passing of the legislation for some time, and if we are all concerned about the agricultural problem we will get the legislation through as fast as we can so that it may be implemented. I want to quote from an article written by Mr. Walter Harvey, professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario, who had this to say of this legislation:
The proposal to establish price supports based on the average price of the product over a period of years is statesmanship of a high order. The P.C.'s might well contend that it is the first attempt to deal with the farm problem on a basis of principle that has ever been made on this continent.
I think this legislation is the finest piece of legislation in the interests of agriculture that has ever been introduced in the house and I would hope that it would be passed and applied to the industry as quickly as possible.


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as I was assured this afternoon that an opportunity would be given me to take part in the debate tonight, by way of carrying out a fancy of mine I inquired from the other side of the house who would be their next speaker. In doing so I said that I was going to use the other official language of the house and I was asked if it would be possible for me to speak slowly and in a mild way.


Mr. Walker:: En frangais.


Mr. Maliais:: I said I would do so keeping the reserve of my strength for the very near future in view of certain press reports I read this afternoon.
(Translation):


David James Walker: We are delighted.


Lauréat Maltais: It is not without reason, Mr. Speaker, that many Canadian farmers are questioning the efficiency of the bill introduced in this house by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and entitled "An Act to provide for the Stabilization of the Prices of Agricultural Commodities". It seems that this bill has stirred no general enthusiasm in the country. I would go so far as to say that it has failed to arouse enthusiasm
in the province of Quebec, or even among the Conservatives, since Conservative members for Quebec constituencies seem committed to a conspiracy of silence.
I realize that federal legislation must provide for the whole country and that it is practically impossible to modify its implementation according to different areas. On the other hand, after the last election campaign and particularly after the right hon. Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) solemn promises to give farmers a legislation guaranteeing parity prices, we would have thought that the government would have jumped at this chance to break new ground in agricultural legislation and to take a more definite, bolder and more aggressive bid to restore the confidence of the Canadian farmers.
However, it may be that the Minister of Agriculture, member of a government seven months in power, has realized the possible dangers of venturing into unbeaten tracks, as was done by his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). He may have found it safer to stick to the principle on which the agricultural legislation of the Liberal government was already based.
It looks as if the government no longer feels able to deliver the goods which it so boldly displayed during the last election campaign, by its rash promises.
After hearing the statement of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that this bill was not acceptable to the western provinces, and because I already had doubts about the benefits Quebec might reap from this legislation, it seems to me more than ever that this bill will be of little benefit to Quebec farmers. Speaking for those among them whom I have the honour to represent, I feel that it will not appreciably change the pattern of farming in my riding.
Since, according to standing orders, I have to speak on the principle of this bill, might I be excused, Mr. Speaker, if, in order to reach my objective sooner, I try to give a brief outline of the history of farming in Quebec and, more particularly in my own riding, as well as of the legislation which has been of assistance to our farmers.
Several years ago farming in my riding had somewhat the character of a family enterprise. Decisions with regard to the farm- I am referring to conditions as they were several years ago-were taken by the head of the household, who was also the owner. Farming was done by his sons and daughters.
3652	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization In other words, the workers were recruited within the family, that is to say, the farmer's own family made up the working crew. All of the family's needs came out of the farm. It was not specialized production: everything needed for shelter and clothing came out of the soil. The slight savings that could be made out of farming were spent on primary schooling for the children. This type of family farming went on generation after generation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this family characteristic of our Quebec farming has changed over the years, as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the farmers themselves, of the farm owner or of any level of government.
Because of extensive industrialization, and a degree of mechanization to which farmers found it especially difficult to adapt themselves in a constituency such as the one I have the honour to represent, for reasons of topography or of climate, the farmers of my constituency have been unable to keep up with the rapid modernization achieved in other areas of this country. Failing the advantages of mechanization, they could not compete on the international or on the domestic market for the sale of their products. From generation to generation those farms were parcelled out because, as sons and daughters spent part of their life on the father's farm, they were bound to inherit part of it as a just reward.
It would seem that this parcelling out of the farms, this mechanization, and this competition on foreign and domestic markets have modified family life on our farms.
New problems have arisen which affect the general farming to which our farmer had been accustomed. The specialization which has taken place over the last ten years has created a particular problem for him. The marketing of his products has become a very complex and even embarrassing problem. As a result, there has been an innovation in the field of marketing farm products.
We saw then the implementation of legislation which provided for a system of grading of agricultural products which is now recognized throughout this country. Subsequently we witnessed the setting up of agricultural co-operatives, a very important stage in the orderly marketing of agricultural products. Their aim was to turn back to the producers the greater part of the money which the consumer hands over for the products involved.
[Mr. Maltais.l

Through a co-operative system the farmers are freely associated to share the difficulties and advantages of marketing. Naturally, the traditional individual sale was retained under this system which did not meet with the success which had been expected. Such success as was attained was relative. Far too many of our farmers remained outside the co-operatives. It was then that we witnessed the implementation of legislation concerning control and marketing of certain products in a given district through a marketing board.
This legislation, generally speaking, has the following characteristics. First of all it provides for the marketing of the products through co-operative selling agencies. Second, it provides for the setting up of mandatory marketing boards with a view to negotiating with groups who buy the products for processing or resale. It also provides for the setting up of mandatory marketing boards so as to direct the sale of a product and to negotiate the price. Naturally, under this legislation, requests can be put to the various governments calling for the setting up of a marketing board.
This type of legislation has been brought about by the farmers themselves who had no wish to see their plans brought to nought by a minority who found some advantage in remaining outside the co-operative when the majority of them had decided to co-operate in marketing their products in a given way. Every province at the present time, Mr. Speaker, has legislation of this type on its statute books, except Newfoundland I believe. Quebec adopted two years ago, I believe, legislation which provides for this type of marketing.
Because of the fact that this legislation has only recently been implemented-it is only a few years old-results are as yet limited. As a matter of fact any progress in a particular area being dependent upon the implementation of this legislation implies planning and control of a type which our farmers have difficulty in accepting.
However, in 1946, if I am not mistaken, under a Liberal administration, a new formula making farm legislation more universal and stable in character was proposed. That was the Agricultural Prices Support Act which implemented the principle of the participation of the farmer in the prosperity of this country. That was, I believe, the first practical formula set in this country for farm legislation.
When I look at this bill and when I read the comments in the press of this country, after listening to those who have spoken

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
before me in this debate, I wonder if this bill is not a mere plagiary of a bill which the Liberal government passed in 1946.
At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I had hoped that a Conservative government could do something new for agriculture. I would not venture to come back to the same topic for, following his boldness and plagiarism, the Minister of Agriculture could have gone at least a little farther by granting deficiency payments to farmers. Why did he not do so?
Why did the Minister of Agriculture simply copy the legislation on support prices? Why did he not copy the bill we enacted in 1952 and which guaranteed to the Canadian farmers, provided they were organized as a homogeneous group in a given area, a minimum price for any commodity? It is true that this floor price was based on the average sale price of the three preceding years but since the minister was bent on copying, he could have substituted the words "production cost" to "sale price." At least he could have resorted to some kind of a window-dressing which would have saved face for the Prime Minister who went around the country before June 10, and promised the Canadian farmers a legislation which would guarantee parity prices for agricultural commodities. At least, he would have had something to show.
But what does this Bill No. 237 contain? The bill enacted by the Liberal government was based on the average price of the last three years while this bill is based on the average price of the last ten years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not understand it. (Text):


Lauréat Maltais: I wish you would make your remarks in the other official language so I could understand them.
(Translation):


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
member allow me a question?
Why all those objections? Don't you intend to vote with the government?


Lauréat Maltais: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I am glad to hear. Since I do not hear the voice of Quebec within the Conservative party, I am glad to hear someone who, at least, is interrupting the voice of Quebec. I will be voting for the principle of this legislation, as I wholeheartedly voted with the Liberals, when we adopted the price support bill. For the same reason, I will vote today for this measure and, even if it is but a carbon copy of the previous one, I feel that I must support it. It is at least a beginning.
(Text):
Since you are asking me this question...


David James Walker: In French please.


Lauréat Maltais: Yes, I will carry on in French.
(Translation):
Since you ask me that question, although I fully realize that Bill No. 237 adds no cash benefits to those provided by the legislation which we are being asked to repeal, and even if Bill 237 seems to confer new powers upon the minister-powers which he already had under the price support act, owing to its flexibility-I will vote for this legislation.
But then, why did you not go further? Were you afraid of new trails such as those which you opened up in international trade lest you had to renege on your promises?


David James Walker: Be serious.


Lauréat Maltais: I like that smile, Mr. Speaker. It may be the last I am going to see on their faces.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that after this bill has been in force for some time, it will tend to keep farm prices pegged to a floor price.
Again large concerns and organizations will take advantage of this legislation to specialize in a particular type of commodity, as was done with poultry in the Montreal area, or in mass production by people who never were farmers, whose knowledge of farming is limited to what they have seen occasionaly along country highways. Yes, such people will take advantage of this legislation and set up powerful organizations specializing in a given field and, as a result of mass production, sell their products at ridiculous prices to the unquestioned detriment of farmers.
Other remedies could have been used. Since the Conservative party had made such formal promises to the whole country, we would have expected the Minister of Agriculture, who was so often critical when he was sitting on this side of the house, to jump at the chance to introduce certain amendments designed for the farmer's protection.
Why did the Minister of Agriculture not ask his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to bring tangible assistance to the farmers of the province of Quebec where it is practically impossible today for the average farmer to live on the income from his farm and where he must abandon the farm to work elsewhere as a lumberman, labourer or carpenter to make both ends meet.
3654	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Why did the Minister of Agriculture not ask the Minister of Labour to extend unemployment insurance to farmers so that they may enjoy these benefits as much as their fellow Canadians employed in other fields.
Why did the Minister of Agriculture not have a change made in the Income Tax Act, a legislation conceived by a Liberal administration many years ago and which is now part of our fiscal structure. Why did the minister not ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to amend the Income Tax Act, which, in its present form, is morally inacceptable to the Quebec farmer, since it does not respect the family organization which we find on our farms?
Why did the Minister of Agriculture not enlarge the scope of the act, about which a minister whom I would not call the greatest in Canada, and whom I certainly did not help to get elected, the premier of Quebec has stated that we had at Ottawa a farm loan act "which did not loan", a statement which I feel is largely correct? The Minister of Agriculture had opportunity to enlarge the scope of this legislation in order to help our farmers out of their present depressed financial situation, by making fuller use of it. He had every opportunity to improve their lot.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What did the Liberals do?


Lauréat Maltais: The minister asks what the Liberal party has done.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It did nothing.


Lauréat Maltais: Under the terms of reference conferred upon you on June 10, you have the responsibility of correcting what you do not believe to be right. What are you waiting for to do so?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is still the same thing: nothing from the Liberal party.


Lauréat Maltais: Are you waiting for another election so as to conceal your weakness? It is high time, Mr. Speaker, to consider the farming issue as something else than a political football.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Arsenault:: It has never been anything of the kind.


Lauréat Maltais: I am pleased to hear the grumblings of the hon. member for Bona-venture. However, they are not of the kind we have heard before from that quarter. In fact, having asked the Prime Minister (Mr. 

Diefenbaker) for a pulp mill in his county, he did not get what he wanted. He has good cause to grumble.
I am sorry, because I said I would keep my energy for another occasion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are going a little more slowly now.


Lauréat Maltais: Mr. Minister, could you tell me which segment of the labour force of this country, from the professional man to the skilled worker, from the tradesman to the manual labourer, would be content at this time to see the government fix its income at 80 per cent of what it has been over the last ten years? There is not one single member of this house who would accept such legislation with regard to his own remuneration. And that is the work of the Conservative party.
The member for Bonaventure can shake his head, but I would much prefer hearing his contribution to this debate instead of merely looking at him shaking his head. What this country-of which we are proud, Mr. Speaker -needs is a farmer's code, an agricultural code which would consolidate all existing legislation. I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture to call together all the various provincial ministers of agriculture in Ottawa so that once and for all an inventory of the agricultural situation in this country may be carried out, so that there may be an end to such piecemeal legislation and to this policy of discrimination whereby some groups of farmers in one area of the country are given advantages which are refused to others.
The time has come for the Minister of Agriculture to realize that the Canadian farmer is about to lose confidence in those who hold public office. It is time we had leaders strong enough to put the tiller hard over in order to provide farmers with a policy which not only will help them and renew their confidence but will provide them with the material assistance they need, a policy which will also help them plan their production so that they may share with their fellow Canadians, as was said this morning in this house, some of this prosperity.
The situation is much more alarming since the Conservative party took office but all should at least share equally in the income of the Canadian nation.


Mr. English:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Roland Léo English: -to the statement made by the hon. member for Charlevoix, who said-
(Text):


Mr. Habel:: The hon. member is not asking a question, he wants to make a correction.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a correction, I will hear him.
(Translation) :


Roland Léo English: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member during his speech.


Auguste Maltais: It is very nice of you.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has stated that the Conservative members from the province of Quebec had not taken part in the debate on the bill now before the house and that therefore they are not interested in it. If the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) had been in the house last Saturday, he would know that I participated in this debate.
If he makes his speech without any information, how can the electors of the constituency of Charlevoix-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Maltais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I did not say that the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) had not taken part in this discussion. I simply expressed the wish-
(Text):
I did not say that the hon. member did not speak during the debate. All I said was that his voice was not loud enough to be understood.


Mr. Breton:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we had simultaneous translation in this house there would be much less confusion than there was tonight.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, obviously one cannot be expected to match the display of vigour of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) and possibly, too, one might not be able to stir up the house to the same extent. Recently a certain Canadian newspaper, referring editorially to the official opposition in this house, that is, to the Liberal opposition, indicated that they had displayed during this present session an excessive fear of an election, and its performance, so that editorial stated, has been pathetic, inept, and in some cases, ridiculous.
I refer to that at this moment because of something which was said by a member of the official opposition this morning. When the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) was speaking, during at least at one
stage of his speech I could hardly believe my ears. It is known, of course, that the hon. gentleman was not speaking for the official opposition, but this is just one more indication that we have of the ineptitude, let us say, of the official opposition; its pathetic weakness not only in connection with consideration of thjs measure but also the ridiculousness of its attitude toward most issues. This morning the hon. member for Meadow Lake said, if I heard him correctly, that he would support this measure-Bill No. 237-in order that it might pass; in order that in turn the Canadian farmer might turn against the government, rise, as it were, in wrathful indignation and smite the government down. To me that is fantastic reasoning. Surely if the hon. member feels as he seemed to feel about the measure he should show that he has the courage of his convictions and oppose it. The position he took this morning was in my opinion in complete contradiction to the position taken by his leader last night when, in reply to a question, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) indicated that if they were given an issue they would certainly oppose it even if it meant defeating the government. I am almost inclined to believe on the basis of what I have heard not only today but on previous days that if someone in one of the smaller opposition parties, or in the government, were to move a motion indicating that the government itself was not competent, et cetera, the official opposition would squirm out of voting for that motion on some such pretext as those we have heard in recent days.
Speaking in the House of Commons on Friday last, January 17, my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) said that mass meetings, lobbies and threatened marches had been the result of this legislation-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you use your own speech?


Frederick Davis Shaw: If the hon. member who made that remark is here long enough he will, perhaps, learn. The hon. member who interjected may have been the same hon. member -I do not know-who has been stirring them up. Mr. Speaker, if I had been answering that question I would say unequivocally that the government has been stirring them up. And one of the major actions which has resulted in their being stirred up is this Bill No. 237. Possibly I, with a few others, may be in a rather unique position as far as this stirring up is concerned-


An hon. Member:: It is certainly unique.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have very limited contributions to make.
3G5S	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization I have just heard another one. Between November 7 and December 24 I was out of Canada. During my absence the resolution which preceded this bill was brought down and discussed. Then the bill itself was brought down and during the course of discussion was amended. Following that, I believe on December 21, the house adjourned for the Christmas recess. Almost immediately after my arrival at my home on December 24 I was besieged by farmers who came to speak to me about this bill. Some were speaking only for themselves as individuals and others were speaking possibly for themselves as individuals but were also officials in local farm organizations. They immediately started asking me certain questions about Bill No. 237.
I was in a very happy position at that time because I had never even heard about Bill No. 237. Having been out of the country, I had not seen the resolution and I had not the slightest idea as to what the bill contained. I did not even know the title of it. Therefore I was in the very fortunate position of being able to say to the farmers, "Obviously you do not like it; tell me why". I made notations of their complaints. Certainly it was not a case of stirring them up at all.
Later when I returned to Ottawa on January 3 I examined the bill for the first time and read all the debate relative to it and I found that there was ample justification for their complaints, the main one being, of course, that the formula which had been faithfully promised by Conservative candidates did not appear anywhere in Bill No. 237.
I have been amazed when I have contrasted the observations made by Conservative members in this house while they were in the official opposition with respect to parity and what we have been hearing in this house today from government members concerning this subject. It seems repetitious for one to refer again to the comments that have been referred to so often but, after all, at times it does seem absolutely necessary.
I noted that when the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking on Friday he took us back once again to certain amendments which were moved by Conservative members while they were in opposition. He referred us, for example, to March 12, 1956, on which occasion, as recorded at page 2024 of Hansard, the then private hon. member for Prince Albert, our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), moved an amendment to a motion in the following words:
[Mr. Shaw.J

-"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship".
Those words "parity of prices" stand out so large, Mr. Speaker, that probably even I could read them if I were to remove my glasses. The words used by the Prime Minister on that occasion were "parity of prices". There was never a suggestion on the part of any Conservative member when he was in the opposition that he did not understand the meaning of the word "parity". There was no suggestion on the part of any Conservative on the opposition side of the house at that time that when he spoke of parity he meant 70, 80 or 90 per cent of parity; he talked of parity and nothing else.
Today we found one of the ministers of this government referring to the question of parity in a rather interesting and unsual way. He said, in effect, that an arbitrary 100 per cent of parity was a fantastic assertion. In fact, he created the impression, in my mind at least, that he considered it ridiculous because he went on to say that it does not stand analysis. In addition he also said-perhaps not in these words because I do not have his exact words before me-that it insults one's intelligence. Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that we are hearing these things only now? Why in the course of the speeches made before the last election by Conservative candidates did not these same persons stand before their audiences, and especially farm audiences, and say, "Well, after all, the word 'parity' sounds good. Maybe it is good. I will try to find out something about it and if I find it is good I promise I will do something about it."
But no, that is not what they said. I appeared upon more than one platform with my Conservative opponent during the last election campaign and addressed meetings the bulk of which were sponsored by local branches of the farmers' union of Alberta and he, like all the other Conservative candidates was a most agreeable individual. In fact, he was so agreeable that I am prepared to believe that if the farm organizations had asked him to demonstrate that he could stand on his head he probably would have been agreeable to the suggestion.
I recall very well that we were asked certain questions. Do you believe in parity? If you were elected would you press for parity? And the answer in every case was yes; but, of course, we must remember this, that there is now ample evidence to demonstrate that just about every Conservative candidate in the country had his own private version of what

the Conservative party stood for as far as agriculture was concerned. We had that demonstrated in this house, for instance, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was asked what he was prepared to do with respect to the acceptance of foreign currency as partial payment for Canadian agricultural products. The minister in as many words asserted that we have not been asked to accept foreign currency and the policy of the government would certainly seem opposed to the very idea. I mention that because of the fact that my friend the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) upon one occasion at least during the course of his speech was challenged by the minister who said that his party never did promise that. What the party as such may have promised I am not prepared to say, but it is a fact that every Conservative candidate I have heard speak in my part of the country pledged that if elected, even if he were in the opposition, he would fight for the acceptance of foreign currency as partial payment at least for Canadian farm products sold abroad. As has already been pointed out, even in the House of Commons certain members of the Conservative party including the Prime Minister have gone on record on the floor of this chamber as having supported our amendments which called for that particular policy.
A little earlier I referred to the observations made this afternoon by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) who read from certain publications. His purpose was to demonstrate to the house that farm organizations across this country have endorsed Bill No. 237. He read from a publication known as the Rural Co-operator. I have in front of me the very editorial he was reading. I watched carefully as he read several paragraphs and I was hopeful-in fact at one stage I was very close to asking him- that he would also read paragraphs 10 and 12. He did not. Therefore, I shall read paragraph 10, which reads as follows:
A support price may be set at any point that will ensure a steady supply of a particular commodity and also permit the efficient farmer to make a living, provided it is above 80 per cent of the average price in the previous 10 years. According to the provisions of the bill the cost of goods and services the farmer has to buy will be taken into consideration in setting a support price. But the price will be set by order in council on the recommendation of the prices support board after the prices support board has consulted the advisory board of farmers for which the bill provides. The price will not be set on the basis of a known and established formula as recommended by the C.F.A.
Paragraph 12 reads as follows:
I feel that we should thank the government for giving the farmers support legislation. But I think the bill would have been much more acceptable to farmers if some formula had been included as a guide for establishing price supports that would
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization provide a fair relationship between farm prices and the cost of goods and services the farmer has to buy. Then it would be possible to discuss and negotiate support prices in the light of an agreed measure of the farmers' position in the economy.
I would suggest that these two paragraphs probably would lead most to conclude that while Gordon Greer, the Ontario federation of agriculture president, was, in that editorial, expressing a degree of appreciation for the fact that the government was endeavouring in its own way to do something, the bill itself actually falls considerably short of what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is asking for, and certainly it is a known fact that the other Canadian farm organizations feel exactly the same way toward it.
I find that farmers in my area take the strongest possible exception to the fact that this formula is missing from the bill. Possibly during the course of the discussion the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) might indicate to us whether Bill No. 237 does fall completely within the pattern of his own personal thinking. Probably the minister should indicate to us whether he does feel sincerely and conscientiously that we can line this bill up alongside of his own many declarations in the House of Commons since 1945 and whether the two do not conflict violently. Maybe he will be quite successful in doing that.
Then, I would ask him to take the speeches of the present Prime Minister of Canada since 1940-I believe I have heard most of them-and place this bill alongside of his declarations and see whether or not there is violent conflict between the two. There is absolutely no doubt in any farmer's mind that the party which now forms the government of Canada did during the election campaign give an absolute assurance to the Canadian farmers that under a Conservative government they would be provided with a fair share of the national income. This bill cannot, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, provide that assurance.
Secondly, I should like to point out that there is not a farmer in this country who has forgotten that less than a year ago the Conservative party pledged equity to the farmers of this country. It is my absolute conviction, Mr. Speaker, that no such assurance can be given under the provisions of Bill No. 237.
I have already stated, and it has been pointed out many times, that over the years, and more particularly during the last election campaign, the Conservative party promised the Canadian people adequate parity. I can recall during the election campaign picking out that word "adequate" even at farm forums where all candidates appeared. I pressed myself to try to find out what the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization word "adequate" meant in relation to parity, to see what is was and who would define it, if and when the Conservative party ever formed the government of Canada.
I think I know now what the official definition of "adequate" is if considered in Conservative language. Certainly it does, as far as I am concerned, create a contradiction when placed alongside the word "parity". I repeat that there was never an indication in this house during all the past years by Conservative speakers that parity meant anything else but parity. This bill does not-let us not kid ourselves into thinking that it does- provide parity and the Canadian farmers, by their demonstrations, today have clearly indicated that they too do not accept it as something which will provide real parity.
The Canadian farmers were promised by the Conservative candidates that if they were elected in sufficient numbers to form the government of Canada there would be established for agriculture a fair cost-price relationship. Again I say this bill cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, guarantee a fair cost-price relationship for agriculture. Possibly it does on certain items, but certainly wherever items are excluded it is utterly and completely impossible for that situation to be established.
Finally, the Canadian farmers were assured that the Conservatives, if elected, would guarantee to correct social inequity as applied to the farmer and the inferior economic position in which agriculture had been allowed to fall. Well, Mr. Speaker, cash advances did not do that. Cash advances, as a temporary sort of remedial measure, were supported by us. In the circumstances it was necessary. It certainly has not done anything to guarantee that situation.
Once again I suggest to the house that if it is the minister's conclusion that this bill can or will provide social equity and place the farmers in a proper position in our economy, I would almost have to accuse him of being inebriated. I am absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the position taken by the government with respect to the amendment which asks that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. How often in the past 18 years I have sat over there in the house when the Conservatives were also sitting over there and heard them damn the government of the day for not making more use of the committees of the house. Here would have been an admirable opportunity to demonstrate that they believed what they declared when they were over there. All this eyewash about it holding up the bill unnecessarily, and it is nothing but eyewash, does not impress me very much. This bill, the previous bill and

the resolution preceding the legislation have been before the House of Commons for how long? Well, a couple of months.


An hon. Member:: Two and a half months.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, more than two months. Had the minister himself announced to the house that he would take the initiative in asking that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee, we would have been able to say two things, first, that at least he was doing what he advocated when he was a private member of the house and, second, that he was taking the proper course of action. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the bill had been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization there is every possibility that it would have been given third reading and passed by the house long before this.


An hon. Member:: With amendments.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, even With amendments which we would expect to be brought in at some stage. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the government has actually changed its whole attitude towards house committees. There is another thing that has happened that makes me wonder. The present Prime Minister, when a private member of the house, spoke of what he called the deplorable condition of agriculture. Believe me, I would not want any new Conservative member of the house to think that any language that any of us might use about agriculture would be exaggerated because the Prime Minister could think of the most brilliant words, phrases and clauses in describing the deplorable condition of agriculture and do so better than anybody else in the house. Of course, conditions now are not unlike what they were then and there is not too much prospect of them being different. With respect to the matter of the licking taken by Canadian farmers because of the spread between what the farmers get for what they produce and what the consumers pay the present Prime Minister said on March 12, 1956, as found at page 2021 of Hansard:
I think it will be agreed generally, for certainly it is the view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm union organization of Canada and other farm organizations, that in every province the farmer today is caught in a ruthless and unrelenting squeeze between falling prices of farm products and rising costs of production. I am not in any way advancing an argument of depression when I say that the squeeze is of such a nature that, unless action is taken to meet it, it will, unless curbed, lead inevitably to bankruptcy of Canada's outstanding industry. That trend applies equally to the apple and the potato grower, the field crop producer, the dairy farmer, the livestock producer and the wheat farmer.
I read that for one specific reason. How short it makes Bill No. 237 fall of what

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
it should be in order to meet the very conditions which he described. I now have the passage to which I wish to refer with relation to the matter of committees. I repeat once again that I have seen considerable evidence that as far as the committees of the house are concerned there is great danger of our being treated in exactly the same way as we were treated by the previous government. With respect to this matter the Prime Minister had this to say in the house on March 12, 1956, as found on page 2026 of Hansard:
Next I mentioned in general the widespread disparity between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer. That disparity, that spread, deserves to be investigated. Many hon. members in this house want work to do. They would like to perform a worth-while work but have been denied the opportunity of making the contribution which their ability and training would permit. I would like to see the agricultural committee, when it is set up, undertake to make a preliminary investigation into those spreads. Then if after hearing evidence the agricultural committee finds it is circumscribed to such an extent as to be unable to come to a definite finding on the question which exercises the thinking of farmers all across the country today, I should like to see a royal commission appointed in order to investigate this spread and ensure a greater degree of equity to agriculture in assuring that the farmer would receive the largest possible percentage of the price ultimately paid by the consumer.
I am not forgetting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact that a royal commission has been set up but this is what I am wondering about. In the light of that declaration why was the agricultural committee completely ignored and completely bypassed. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to put those members to work whom he seemed to feel did not have enough to do. I do not know who they are. I have been here quite a long time and I have always felt that I had a little bit more to do than I could handle. In any event, this suggests to me that unless we are extremely careful we will find that the committees of the house may well become almost useless to the House of Commons.
I do not intend to proceed further. Frankly, I had not intended to take quite this long although I did not promise anyone that I would not. I indicated a moment ago that it is not a matter of stirring up the farmers as far as members of parliament are concerned. The bill has stirred them up. The Minister of Agriculture is an Albertan, a very fine qualification in itself, but personally I feel that he has had to engage in a great deal of compromise in respect to the bill. In fact, I do not think he would have brought in the first draft and then moved to change it if he had been able to follow his own
wishes. If it had not been for certain difficulties, which maybe I only imagine, I am sure he would have brought in the present bill first, and I am still satisfied in my own mind that if the minister had had a reasonably free hand in drafting the bill we would have had a different bill and that the formula would have been in it.
I sometimes pass whatever idle moments I have by looking at the Conservative ranks and wondering which members it might have been who might have stood in his way. I think the Canadian farmer deserves something better and I am still hopeful that before the bill goes through we will have something better. My main reason for taking part in the debate is that I am still hopeful that as long as the bill has not been passed it will be amended and improved.
(Translation) :


Nérée Arsenault: I am
rising, Mr. Speaker, not only to take up the childish challenge of my friend the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), but in order to fulfil my duty as representative of the Canadian people in this house by defending our farmers. My hon. friend from Charlevoix will learn in due course and at his expense that it is not always good to deny the responsibilities of a political past.
I shall right now, state my admiration for our government which is introducing such important and necessary legislation for the economic survival of our country.
(Text):


Auguste Maltais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I understand there is a rule of this house that a member is not allowed to read from a text. Who wrote the text?


Mr. Speaker:: All hon. members, I think, are familiar with that rule, and I ask the member not to read his speech.
(Translation):


Nérée Arsenault: I do not have to analyse the bill as its contents fully explain its purpose, but I want to dwell on the main idea behind this legislation. It is the sincere desire of our government to restore a proper relationship between the rural population and the industrial population of our country. That is why I now want to refer to a few figures which will emphasize the need to consider, especially in this study, the human factor. This bill could just as well have been entitled: "Stabilization of the farming class".
The efforts made in the past by the preceding governments in an attempt to reach the same solution indicate the importance of the
3660	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization problem, but those same people who were responsible did not carry their inquiry far enough, and the enforcement of the solutions they advocated was ineffective.
Their last effort in this direction was the setting up of a Senate committee to investigate agriculture. There again they have failed in their task.
At the beginning of June, 1957, a member of this committee stated that it was high time to remedy the depressed condition of agriculture in eastern Canada. He then calculated that the average annual income per farmer in that part of the country was only $750 and suggested that four or five farmers or settlers be replaced by a single farmer. Solutions of this type caused our predecessors to further accelerate the movement of our farmers away from the land. Under their administration our rural population has decreased at a fantastic rate. They have brought about a national unbalance in our labour force, which in turn has brought about the economic situation with which we found ourselves faced when we took over.
Let us have a look at the 1941 statistics, when the Liberals were in power. Farmers then made up 27 per cent of our population, whereas, ten years later, in 1951, that proportion had gone down to 20 per cent. In 1956-and this is still under the former government-statistics show that only 17 per cent of our people have remained on the farm. This movement of our farmers away from the land and into industrial centres must be ended forthwith and the legislation under consideration at this time is such as to remedy this situation. It will allow the farmers to find on their farm the income necessary to the subsistence of their families and to the education of their children. To put it briefly, it will allow them to live normal lives and to benefit from modern advantages just as much as their fellow citizens in industry.
This bill will be of great assistance to the farmers of Canada, and more particularly to those of the constituency of Bonaventure which I represent in this house. At a time where the whole of Canada enjoyed relative prosperity, between 1945 and 1955, the people of my constituency only enjoyed part of the advantages of the economic boom brought about by circumstances.
If I may at this point, I should like to single out of this period the middle year, 1950, and to quote figures on the average income per farm of my constituency for that

year. The average income per farm in 1950 amounted to $812.47 of which 26 per cent was derived from the forest products of the farm and 74 per cent from food products.
Because this farm prices support legislation was neglected, and because farms had the disadvantage of being remote from the consumer market, the low level of farm income held my people in hardship until they finally had to give up farming after years of moral suffering in the face of an ever uncertain fate. This bill will help remedy the situation wherever it is still possible because, alas, far too many of our farmers have already left their farm.
The figures I have just quoted give an indication of the significance of wood products in the agricultural economy of my people. The same holds true for the whole of the province of Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada. That is why, in the future, this lumber production by farmers will be considered as farm product and will benefit from the advantages extended to other farm products.
The importance of forest products in the economy of our country is great and, to demonstrate it, I would like at this point to make an analysis of the national value of farm produced forest products. In 1956, Canadian farmers supplied 2 million cords of pulpwood to the paper market and this crop provided the federal treasury with some $30 million by way of direct taxes, while providing industry with capital of approximately $110 million.
Labour employed in pulpwood processing plants earn more than $100 million annually. Now other figures will show the importance of farm forest products in the field of our national exports. In 1954, Canada's exports were valued at about $3,800 million. The forest products of Canada make up the large part of 37 per cent, or about $1,400 million; out of this amount, the forest products from our farms contributed about $160 million. That is why our government, conscious of its responsibilities, considers such production at its true value and is extending to it the same benefits enjoyed by our other farm products while providing for an adequate classification of that commodity so that the paper companies may be interested in using that raw material in their mills.
During the discussion on this bill, some hon. members have mentioned the control which this legislation could bring to bear on support prices in order to regulate the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
increase or decrease in the production of certain commodities. It is absolutely normal that such an indirect control should guide our population, and the freedom of our farmers will not be affected if their efforts are guided towards the adaptation of their production to the consumers' demand. Such a control will make it more easy to prevent a new exodus of our rural population to our industrial centres since this desertion of our farms is a consequence of an ill-planned production.
The bill now before the house has another important aspect which, as it is implemented, will demonstrate its efficiency. In order to come closer to farming communities, our industries will in the future leave the large urban centres. Indirectly, when the royal commission on price spreads will have provided us with figures indicating the reasons for these spreads, we will be in a better position to judge the extent of this decentralization.
Before concluding, I would like to mention the speech made this afternoon by the member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry). To begin with, he asked that maple syrup be included in the bill. This is a useless request since this product is already included among all those farm products to be known as designated products. I also admired the assurance of this Liberal member in his comments on Bill 237. However, he ended his speech by saying his remarks were pusillanimous and that he was not giving himself out as an expert on those matters. I therefore wonder on which principle of responsibility this hon. member is going to base his right to vote in this house, and explain to his fellow-citizens that he is protecting their rights. After admitting himself the weakness of his remarks he, moreover, showed that he had not even understood the bill before him. May I stress here the assertion he made in his speech with regard to the price support for butter. When he himself refers to a price of 58 to 65 cents a pound, he does not seem to realize that he is dooming the dairy farmer of his country to work on his farm for an average of $15 a week. In this he imitated his colleague the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) who before him, had stressed that dairy farming was the main source of revenue for the country people of northwestern Quebec. This industry cannot even keep on the land the rural population which has settled in that district during the past 30 years. The lack of foresight of these hon. members prevented them from understanding the position described to the farmers in their own county.
In commenting on this position, they would have realized that farming had kept on- though haltingly-and only thanks to the revenue the farmers got from their wooded lots. There was then and there is now an exodus of settlers and farmers from these areas just as soon as their acres are cleared of the lumber which provided them with a living.
I hope that these few remarks will enlighten those who would be tempted to vote against this bill.
Once more I would like to stress the confidence I have in this legislation. Provided it is administered properly-which is a certainty with the Conservatives-this bill will be the salvation of our farmers.


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the most agricultural constituency of the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, I think it is appropriate for me to make some remarks on the second reading of Bill No. 237 entitled "An Act to provide for the Stabilization of the Prices of Agricultural Commodities".
First, allow me to point out that I have found in this bill much more phraseology than anything new, and I am convinced that the farmers of my constituency who will read it will use, to qualify it, the same phrase used by an old author: "A deluge of words over a desert of ideas".
The present Conservative government, aware of the unfortunate experience undergone by the United States as a result of their policy with regard to agricultural prices and, furthermore, anxious to save its face, following the carload of fantastic and irresponsible promises made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the last electoral campaign preceding the June 10 election, now wishes to give Canadian farmers the impression that it wants to adopt radical steps in their favour. An examination of the bill in the light of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which it purports to abolish, and of the general agricultural situation in eastern Canada and in the Province of Quebec in particular, is therefore imperative at this stage, and that is what I wish to do, taking also into account the agricultural situation in the constituency of Roberval which I represent.
The preamble of this bill is rather bombastic and is along the lines of the terms of the act, generally. For lack of anything better, our farmers will have to thrive on words.
3662	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization This is really characteristic of what they got in the past from Conservative governments, from the Bennett regime right up to the one who has now been in control of the province of Quebec, under a borrowed name, for fourteen years.
The legislation introduced by the previous Liberal government contained the expression "support prices". The one now offered by the present Conservative government contains the expression "guaranteed prices". Since support prices were the equivalent of guaranteed prices, I do not see much difference from the act which is to be repealed, except that support prices took into account production costs at the producer level, i.e. the cost to the farmer himself, whereas the guaranteed price which the present Conservative government intends to bring in will be based on a formula representing a moving average over a ten-year period. The new board will set the base price for a given agricultural commodity by calculating the average price on representative markets, for example, Montreal and Toronto, for the ten years just preceding that of the fixing of the guaranteed base price. The guaranteed price of any particular commodity for the 12 following months will be a percentage of this base price. Under this legislation, the government does not therefore intend to calculate the guaranteed price by taking into account what the farmer has to pay in 1958 to buy a product on the market, but merely to arrive at an average of the price paid for that particular product on the main markets of this country over the last ten years. In this way, it will be guaranteeing not the average price which, more often than not, hardly allows the farmer to live, but only 80 per cent of that average.
This seems to me an implicit admission on the part of the government of its inability to solve the problems of agriculture, and it is a sure sign that agricultural prices will take a further drop below a level which, in the view of the farmer, is already inadequate. Never has a government announced with such unconcern and resignation the advent of the era of lean-fleshed kine in agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Villeneuve (Roberval) the debate was adjourned.

(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate. When it has been concluded we will take up the estimates of citizenship and immigration, finance and national revenue.


Lionel Chevrier: Will those departments be taken up in the same order on Friday and Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I would think so. However, there might have to be some variation in the order of the second and third. We plan to take citizenship and immigration first.


Lionel Chevrier: It would be extremely useful if the house leader could give some indication of what the business is on Monday and Tuesday because of certain commitments that members on this side of the house have made.


Howard Charles Green: Monday and Tuesday are set aside for legislation under the rules, Mr. Speaker. The house should be ready to take up any of the items which are on the order paper or, in case other legislation is brought down in the meantime, it might also be taken.


Lionel Chevrier: There was some indication that Saturday might be devoted to labour. Has there been any change in that suggestion?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know who gave that indication. I did not do so.


Lionel Chevrier: I had heard it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister a question arising out of his reference to other legislation? Are there to be other items of legislation introduced at this session? If so, could some indication as to what they are be given either tonight or tomorrow on the orders of the day?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give that information at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I intimated a day or two ago that there might be one or two further measures to put on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 23, 1958