1958-01-25

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGE IN FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister I should like to table copies of telegrams dispatched by the Prime Minister yesterday to the premiers of the 10 provinces on the matter of dominion-provincial fiscal relations. Perhaps in view of the interest of the house in this subject, Mr. Speaker, I might read the text of the telegram:
Government had hoped to reconvene dominion-provincial conference this month but protracted session of parliament has made this impossible. Government realizes that all provincial treasurers are preparing budgets for fiscal year commencing April first and require to know immediately what if any additional fiscal payments they may expect to receive from dominion government during the fiscal year. Therefore as an interim measure only and to assist provinces in meeting immediate problem of preparing budgets and to aid in providing employment through provinces and municipalities the government will ask parliament immediately to approve increase from 10 to 13 per cent in the standard individual income tax in compensation payable to provinces under federal provincial tax arrangements act. The estimated cost to federal treasury is over sixty-two million dollars. This is interim measure pending reconvening of dominion-provincial conference to seek fiscal settlements.
I also report in keeping with decision at November conference that agreement has been reached among four Atlantic provinces on formula for division of Atlantic adjustment grant. Bill to be introduced will provide that in each of next four fiscal years commencing April first dominion government will pay Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland seven and one half million dollars each and Prince Edward Island two and one half million dollars.
Government of Canada hopes this additional assistance aggregating eighty-seven million dollars in fiscal year commencing April first will be useful in helping provinces and municipalities to meet unemployment and other problems.
John G. Diefenbaker
Hon. members will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that there appears in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday a resolution preceding the introduction of the measure that is referred to in the Prime Minister's telegram. I think hon. members would probably wish me to indicate how the sum of money that is mentioned in the telegram will be divided among the 10 provinces in the fiscal year commencing April 1 next. The figures are as follows, sir.


Mr. Pickersgill:: May I ask the minister a question for information? Are these figures just for the general fiscal payment, not including the Atlantic grants?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall indicate both figures in the case of the Atlantic provinces, and the aggregate, Mr. Speaker. In so far as Newfoundland is concerned, the Atlantic adjustment grant is $7.5 million, and from the other source $1,595 million for a total of $9,095,000. For Prince Edward Island the Atlantic adjustment grant is $2.5 million; from the other source, $370,000, for a total of $2,870,000. For Nova Scotia the Atlantic adjustment grant is $7.5 million and from the other source $2,627,000, for a total of $10,127,000. For New Brunswick the Atlantic adjustment grant is $7.5 million and from the other source $2,111 million, for a total of $9,611,000; to Quebec, $17,780,000; to Ontario, $21,316,000; to Manitoba, $3,219,000; to Saskatchewan, $3,290,000; to Alberta, $4,335,000; to British Columbia, $5,563,000, for an estimated total of $87,206,000.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Would the Minister of Finance mind repeating the formula which is the basis for the $62 million which is referred to in the telegram? There was so much coughing that I did not hear it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It contemplates the raising from 10 per cent to 13 per cent of the standard individual income tax in the compensation payable-


William Moore Benidickson: The same rate that is referred to in the resolution respecting the Atlantic provinces that is on the order paper?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. I noted from the telegram that was read, and I have also noted from the resolution in Votes and Proceedings, that the Atlantic adjustment grants are to be paid for four years but that the other change is just for the one coming fiscal year. The minister said that this arrangement was on an interim basis. Does he mean that it is interim in the sense that arrangements to be made for future years are yet to be negotiated at a federal-provincial conference, or can there be further negotiations with respect to the amount to be paid by the federal treasury to the provinces in the 1958-59 fiscal year?

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have not put any limitation on what may come out of the dominion-provincial conference, whenever it may be reconvened, with respect to the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1958, or any later fiscal year. We are faced with a situation in which the provincial treasurers in all the provinces are preparing their budgets now. It has not been possible, as we had hoped it would be, to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference in January. Therefore as an interim measure, and an interim measure only, we are asking parliament immediately to make available this additional sum of money for the forthcoming fiscal year. Then when there is opportunity it is the intention of the government to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference with a view, as indicated in the letter, to seeking fiscal settlements. This was put forward, of course, without prejudice to the freedom that the dominion-provincial conference will undoubtedly have to discuss the whole area of fiscal settlements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister one other question. Will there be any other reply by letter to Premier Campbell of Manitoba with respect to the letter he wrote the Prime Minister on December 18, in which he discussed the whole question of the relationship between changes for all the provinces and special grants for the Atlantic provinces, or will further discussion of Premier Campbell's suggestions be left until the federal-provincial conference is reconvened?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had better not speak too positively without refreshing my memory on the contents of Premier Campbell's letter, but I think it will be clear that the course of action proposed by the government as indicated in the telegram is a fairly complete course of action with regard to the immediate situation. Broader questions can best be considered when the dominion-provincial conference reconvenes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will that be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend could answer some questions I should like to ask him and his associates, it would be a great deal easier to answer questions like that. Obviously a great deal depends upon the willingness of this house to address itself to the essential business of the house and to expedite what needs to be done. We had hoped, as I indicated, that the dominion-provincial conference could have been reconvened this month, taut the progress in the house has been so slow and there has been so much discussion of two or three

measures that it has been impossible to take up the reconvening of the conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was there any suggestion during the election campaign last year that the date of the federal-provincial conference hinged on the length of the parliamentary session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we might return to these matters on the orders of the day. Is there anything else?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had a question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if his statement means that this proposition now put to the provinces is on a take it or leave it basis?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nothing could be further from the intentions of this government than ever to follow the former government's practice of adopting a stiff-necked take it or leave it attitude toward the provinces.


Mr. Tucker:: Actions speak louder than
words.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We demonstrated very
clearly, to the satisfaction of all the provincial premiers and those who accompanied them, at the conference which met here in the last week of November, that we were there to discuss common problems with them, as Canadians around a common table, and that is the spirit in which the present course of action has been prepared by the government. This has been carried out with due consideration of the fact that the provincial treasurers are at this moment faced with the problem of preparing their budgets, and that it is extremely difficult for them to proceed with those tasks until they know something of what they might expect to receive in this forthcoming fiscal year. Under these present circumstances we did not feel that it was fair to leave the matter in the air until-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without discussing it any further-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the dominion-provincial conference could be convened. I have made it clear that there is nothing final about the measure with respect to the benefits for all 10 provinces. It is an interim measure, and the purpose in reconvening the dominion-provincial conference will be to seek final fiscal settlements.


Mr. Sfuari (Charloiie):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: II members are rising to ask questions on this statement, would they kindly defer them until we come to the question period.

On the orders of the day:


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that he explains the failure to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference on the sittings of the house, has he overlooked the fact that many and perhaps the majority of federal-provincial conferences on fiscal matters since the war have been held while the house was sitting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if the statement of the hon. gentleman will bear examination. I doubt if he will find that dominion-provincial conferences have ever been held at times when the house was sitting morning, afternoon and night and all day Saturday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the minister's boast earlier this morning that the conference in November was such a success, and in view of the fact that the house was sitting at that time, does he not think it would be a good idea to reconvene it while the house is still sitting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the answer I gave to the last question should be enough to satisfy even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In November the hours of sitting were not nearly so rigorous as they have been since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who
changed them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They were brought into effect by decision of the whole house, with no objection so far as I am aware from any party in the house.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Antoine-Wesi-mount):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. From the telegram the minister read when we were on motions in connection with increased payments to the provinces, are we to infer that this will put an end to the double taxation of corporation profits and of personal income such as exists in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot say anything about whatever action the provinces may take. In the measure proposed by this government there is nothing that increases federal taxation by one copper. This is a measure for further distribution as between the dominion and provincial governments of the revenues from what are commonly called joint fields of taxation. I know my hon. friend does not 96698-2401
Dominion-Provincial Relations need to be told the effect of the increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the standard individual income tax which is included under the act in calculating the compensation to be paid to the provinces. The figures I announced this morning and the resolution preceding the bill carry forward the principle of equalization as now contained in the legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
it not under the tax rental section rather than under the equalization section of the act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I dealt with both points.


George Carlyle Marler: May I take it that there has been no discussion between the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Quebec as to the elimination of double taxation, despite the fact that there seems to be a substantial increase in the payments which the federal government is making to those two provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been no discussion with the provinces as to what action they may choose to take with regard to their own legislation. When we are on the resolution this matter can be more amply dealt with. There will be legislation which there will not be time to introduce at this session but which will be introduced at the next following session dealing with the effect of this legislation on the deduction from federal income tax.


George Carlyle Marler: From the minister's answer may I infer that it was not intended that any such provision would be contained in the bill to be based on the resolution to which he has just referred?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The resolution being one contemplating the introduction of a bill to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act, the resolution cannot go outside the ambit of that act. But whatever amendments are required with respect to the Income Tax Act, it will be the intention of the government to introduce at the next session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the resolution to which he has referred this morning seems to be in two distinct parts- one raising to 13 per cent the 10 per cent in the act already on the statute books and the other providing for the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants-could he say whether the government intends to bring in one or two bills as a result of the proposed resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government is to bring in one bill to amend the present act. In other words, the act deals broadly with the question of dominion-provincial fiscal relations, and there is
3798	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations no reason for detaching the provision to be made by way of Atlantic provinces adjustment grants apart from the other provisions of the act for sharing between the dominion and provincial governments revenues from joint fields of taxation.
The difference between the two forms of assistance is that in the case of the $25 million to be provided by way of Atlantic adjustment grants, that is on a firm and continuing basis for the next four years, until the expiry of the present period covered by that statute. It is in no sense an interim measure; it follows from the decision that was taken at the dominion-provincial conference last November when there was general agreement on the part of the governments there represented that there should be an adjustment grant of this nature, and the matter was left to the governments principally concerned to arrive at a formula for the division of whatever sum the dominion government might provide for that purpose.
That agreement was arrived at in conferences among representatives of the four Atlantic provinces and the federal government; there was complete agreement on the formula of dividing the grant 30 per cent to Nova Scotia, 30 per cent to New Brunswick, 30 per cent to Newfoundland and 10 per cent to Prince Edward Island.
The dominion government has now proposed, therefore, that $25 million be made available for distribution on that agreed basis during each of the four fiscal years commencing April 1, 1958.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance, arising out of his statement that there was general agreement at the November conference on the matter of special adjustment grants for the Atlantic provinces.
Is it not true that, in the case of at least two of the provincial governments, that agreement was on the condition that these adjustment grants were made in the context of a formula applicable to the whole of Canada? In other words, has there been any discussion with Premier Campbell of Manitoba and Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan as to the nature of the general agreement to which the minister referred?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if the hon.
member who has asked the question, which seems to involve pretty broad discussion of this matter, would defer it, it is likely that this matter will be discussed early next week. There have already been quite a .number of questions asked on this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: would be quite happy if the Minister of Finance would take this as notice for Monday's debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there is a debate on Monday.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hospital construction grant was originally established in 1948 as a five year program to provide financial assistance to alleviate the immediate bed shortage, estimated at that time at approximately 40,000 beds. It was then indicated that if the grant attained its goal during the above mentioned period it would be reviewed and possibly reduced to one half.
As the number of beds constructed during the first five year period exceeded the originally estimated shortage, the grant was reduced to one half the original amount, that is from approximately $13 million a year to $6.5 million a year. Experience proved that the reduced amount of the grant was insufficient to take care of construction which was submitted during the current or second five year period. It was, therefore, announced that the hospital construction grant would be extended for a further period of five years after March 31, 1958.
The unprecedented growth in population, the changing pattern and utilization of hospitals-due in part to the extension of hospitalization prepayment plans-the steady increase in the costs of hospital construction, the increased emphasis given to planning at all levels for the construction of necessary additional hospital facilities in Canada by the passing of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and the urging of the Canadian Hospital Association and of others, have led this government to consider an immediate revision of the terms and conditions of the hospital construction grant.
With the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, this grant which began in 1948 provided for federal assistance to the provinces of over $13,400,000 annually on a matching basis with the provinces, whereby federal assistance could be considered on the basis of formal submissions of projects in amounts of up to $1,000 per acute hospital bed, $1,500 per chronic bed, including mental and tuberculosis, and $1,000 for every three newborn nursery bassinets, which could be considered as one adult bed equivalent.

Five years later it was noted that although the original estimate of a requirement of
40,000	additional beds in Canada had been exceeded, only approximately half the annual allocation of moneys under the grant was required at that time, and for each of the ensuing five years to March 31, 1958, the total allocation of moneys for this grant was halved to about $6,700,000.
I wish now to announce that beginning as of January 1, 1958, the provinces may submit projects or amendments to current projects under the expanded terms of the hospital construction grant, whereby the costs of construction of additional hospital facilities occurring on or after January 1, 1958, will receive consideration for federal assistance on the basis of the following enlargements and alterations in terms of the grant:
Assistance to the construction of acute beds will be increased from the present $1,000 to $2,000 per bed.
Assistance to the construction of chronic beds will be increased from the present $1,500 to $2,000 per bed.
Assistance to the construction of nurses' residence beds will be increased from $500 to $750 per bed; internes' quarters in hospitals will receive consideration at the same level as assistance for nurses' residence beds.
Assistance toward the construction of bed equivalents, such as every three newborn nursery bassinets and every 300 square feet of floor area devoted to community health services, whether constructed as part of a hospital or not, will be increased from the present $1,000 to $2,000 per bed equivalent.
Finally, and a new departure in this field, major renovations and alterations to existing hospital beds or bed-equivalent facilities will be considered for assistance within the terms of the grant.
In order to reassure the provinces, municipalities, local hospital boards and organizations responsible for the long-term planning and carrying out of the construction of necessary and adequate hospital facilities, which in most cases require at least two to five years to complete for each hospital, it will be government policy to continue this grant on at least the above terms for the next five fiscal years, beginning April 1, 1958. It is also our intention to add a final supplementary estimate dealing with the hospital construction grant for the fiscal year 1957-58 in order to meet any additional claims on behalf of the cost of construction of hospitals during the period January 1, 1958 to March 31, 1958.
It is hoped that this enlargement of federal assistance to the provinces toward the capital
Health and Welfare
costs of the construction of hospital facilities within the terms of the hospital construction grant will have a salutary effect not only on the stimulation and construction of necessary, well-planned hospital facilities but also on the early implementation of agreements with the provinces under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Moreover, the government feels that making these additional funds. available now will prove of value in stimulating new construction which can be expected to help alleviate unemployment which may exist in localities where this type of construction should be undertaken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was our privilege in this group some 10 years ago to welcome the announcement made by Mr. King of the health grants program which was inaugurated at that time. In the same vein we now welcome these improvements in the program which have been announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We hope these improvements, together with the prospect of early implementation of the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, will be two further steps along the road toward an adequate over-all health insurance program for the Canadian people. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we welcome most wholeheartedly these further steps, and the minister knows that from this corner of the house there will continue to be insistence that we keep moving in this direction.
There are one or two questions I would like to ask the minister. Can he indicate the total amount in dollars to be spent on hospital beds and equivalent items as a result of these increases per bed? Also, can he say whether the percentage increase being provided by the federal government as to its share is equal to the percentage increase in the total cost of constructing hospital beds?
I have one other question. In view of the reference the minister made to the provision for assisting hospital beds in the case of mental and tubercular patients, is the government now considering including mental and tubercular cases within the four corners of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?
These questions do not detract from the welcome we extend to the minister's statement, but we would like to have an indication of what further steps may be taken in this direction.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can recall the full details of all the questions, but to take the last one first I may say that the government's position has

Health and Welfare
not changed from what it was when I last answered this question. In other words no decision has been finally reached. As to the cost, I cannot at the moment give an exact figure, but I do know that it is estimated that it will run into some millions of dollars in 1958-59.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other question was as to whether or not the percentage increase provided by the government equals the increase in the total cost.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not have those figures before me, but my recollection is that the percentage increase in the grant is slightly more than the increased cost of construction since the inception of the plan back in 1948.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know what percentage the federal grant will now be of the total cost of constructing hospital beds?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot give the hon. member that figure at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise at this time and say that we on this side of the house welcome very much the decision of the government to expand and extend the grants as established in 1948. During the tenure of office of the late Mr. Mackenzie King this legislation was introduced in the house, and it has been of tremendous benefit to provinces and to hospitals all across Canada. I am sure the decision of the government to now implement this decision by way of increase will be of great assistance, and we welcome it here.
I would like to add that where the government has seen fit to follow the path laid down by the previous administration, we on this side of the house will co-operate-


Mr. Winch:: You turned me down for four consecutive years on the same proposal.


Lionel Chevrier: -and we will continue to do so in similar instances. That is why I am happy to say that I welcome the decision and the announcement made by the minister.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a supplementary question arising out of his announcement respecting hospital grants. Can the minister inform the house if the additional grants will apply to hospitals now under construction?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to that portion which is under way subsequent to January 1, 1958.


On the orders of the day:


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask two supplementary questions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to his most welcome announcement. Did the government consider the effect of their new announcement in that it removes the preference or the encouragement that was being given under the old grants to the building of chronic hospitals, in that grants now are equal as between acute and chronic hospitals? The other question is this. Has any consideration been given to compensating the two progressive provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan whose taxpayers have now already saddled themselves with debentures to pay for their vastly extended hospital program?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. Consideration was given to this fact that $1,500 had been provided toward the construction of chronic beds. At the time the grant was brought in it was felt that there was a real need for that type of bed. However, the experience in the past has been that it did not stimulate interest in construction of these chronic beds to the extent which had been intended. As a consequence, both chronic and ordinary active beds are now being treated in the same way at $2,000 per bed. All I can say in answer to the second part of the hon. member's question is that this new plan comes into operation as of January 1, 1958.


Erhart Regier: I have a supplementary question. Was any consideration given to the fact that in two provinces at least the acute bed shortage has been largely overcome, and that our urgent need now is for the building of convalescent and chronic hospitals? However, the government announcement gives us no encouragement to embark upon that program as opposed to the other sort of bed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There has been an increase announced as of today to take effect from January 1, 1958, which is available to all provinces of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Mackenzie asked the Prime Minister to tell the house what additional legislation would be laid before parliament at this session. The reply is that there are two remaining measures, both of which are set out in Votes and Proceedings which has been issued this morning.

The first is the resolution preceding the measure which will deal with dominion-provincial fiscal relations, and the second is an amendment to the Indian Act. It is hoped it will be possible to arrange among the parties that discussion at the committee stage of the resolution dealing with dominion-provincial fiscal relations can commence on Monday, though hon. members will realize that this would require agreement because otherwise it could not be considered until Tuesday.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to thank the house leader. I wonder whether he could now take the house into his confidence and give some indication of when he expects we will wind up the business of this session.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am still hopeful that we can finish by the end of the month.


Lionel Chevrier: May I
ask the house leader if it is the intention of the government to proceed with all the legislation on the order paper?


Howard Charles Green: There are one or two measures that will not be proceeded with. For example, the bill on the order paper dealing with an amendment to the Criminal Code respecting the slaughtering of animals will not, as has been announced, be carried any farther at this session. The bill providing for the addition of certain judges will not be proceeded with. As to the measure respecting the Dominion Succession Duty Act, it will only be carried through the resolution stage and the bill introduced so it can be available for study by the different organizations interested between the end of the present session and the commencement of the next.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it from the minister's statement that all the other items on the order paper will be proceeded with.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I would hope so.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, whereas the leader of the house has changed his mind and is not asking us to meet on Tuesday morning, I wish to thank him on behalf of the House of Commons bowling league; and I would ask him to come out on Tuesday at 12:15 p.m. and see the value of being able to shoot straight.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Finance. His colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) has indicated this morning policies which seem to call for additional
Inquiries of the Ministry expenditures in the current year. Can the minister say when further supplementary estimates are to be introduced?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; gladly. It is our hope to table the further supplementary estimates in the house next week. We have been working very hard on them. I hope they will be available for tabling not later than the middle of the week. I point out, of course, that the measure that the government is asking to bring in, and which is referred to in the telegram, applies to the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1958.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; there has been a misunderstanding between the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount and myself. I thought his particular application was with reference to the proposed amendment to the dominion-provincial tax arrangements act; I now find his question was about the provision of increased federal assistance announced this morning by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the purpose of hospital construction.
There will be an item in the further supplementary estimates in this respect covering this short period between January 1 and March 31, 1958. The bulk of the program, of course, will be in the following fiscal year.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader a question. Will the government be asking next week for interim supply?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22 the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway asked me whether my attention had been directed to an advertisement appearing in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
Rooms. Furnished apartments for approximately 60 American men coming into this area to work on natural gas, until approximately June 1, 1958.
I undertook to look into the matter in order to see if there was anything I should report to the hon. member. I find that the admission of these men is part of a program in Montreal to convert equipment and appliances from the type which use artificial gas to the type which can use natural gas. The company involved is the Quebec Consumers Company, a subcontractor for the Quebec Natural Gas Corporation. This corporation has 250,000 consumers whose appliances must be changed.
3802	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
I understand that the admission of a comparatively small number of United States specialists has been arranged and approved by the officers of the national employment service on the basis that in order to get this work done on what is described as a crash program basis these specialists had to be obtained, and could not be obtained in Canada. Without going into too much detail, I am informed that the changeover when commenced must be completed just as quickly and as expertly as possible; that a whole area must be done at once; that every appliance in that area which is to use natural gas must be changed over, and that you cannot have any omissions or very serious consequences would follow. There were just not enough experts available in Canada to ensure that this conversion job could be done both safely and yet as quickly as is necessary.
I am informed that it should also be borne in mind that the introduction of these United States technicians does make it possible to employ some 700 Canadians now working on this project. I am also informed by my colleague the Minister of Labour that his office is keeping a close watch on the situation to make sure that men are not brought into Canada under the guise of experts and technicians to fill jobs which could be filled by Canadians.


Mr. Alex B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question which should really be directed to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, following what has been said by the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the widespread conversion programs of this kind going on in the cities of Canada, would it not be possible for the national employment service to arrange for training in order that we may have the kind of technicians that are being imported in the case referred to by the minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will have to take that question as notice on behalf of my colleague who will provide the hon. member with a reply on Monday or Tuesday.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: May
I ask whether the national employment service has checked the labour market in Toronto to see whether men are available for this type of work? I believe very large conversion programs have been carried on in other major cities-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My colleague the Minister of Labour will have to speak on that authoritatively, but when I discussed it with him he
[Mr. Fulton.)

assured me his offices across Canada are keeping watch on the situation to make certain that the men who are brought in are only and genuinely in the categories of skilled tradesmen not available in Canada. However, I will bring the question to his attention and if it requires further amplification he will do so on Monday.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I notified him earlier that I was going to ask it. In view of Canada's need to discover cheaper and more abundant sources of power in certain regions if we hope to continue our economic development, would the minister tell the house what part, if any, we are playing in the development of energy by a machine known as the zero energy thermonuclear assembly, more commonly referred to as ZETA?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member very kindly gave me notice of this question. We are not doing anything at our atomic research establishment at Chalk River along the lines of this particular investigation. One of the reasons that is not being done is that it would represent a duplication of effort, and the practice over the years has been for our Canadian scientists working in this field of thermonuclear development to co-operate very closely with scientists in Great Britain and the United States.
There has been a constant exchange of scientists between this country and the United Kingdom over the last three years. British scientists have been working at Chalk River and Canadian scientists have been working at Harwell in the United Kingdom, and at present we are represented there. The development of fusion is a long-range development and a very costly one. We are being kept informed constantly as to the advances that are being made in this particular field. Of course if the time comes when we should participate more actively, naturally that will be done, but for the moment we are not doing anything of this nature in Canada.
I might say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this amazing development in the United Kingdom demonstrates the extent of scientific achievement in the western world, and as I mentioned in the house a few days ago during another debate underlines the value

of quality in scientific effort and should relieve our fears with regard to the question of quantity.


Frederick George Hahn: May I ask a supplementary question. Do we share in a financial way in responsibility for the undertaking at Harwell?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. Our financial commitment, which is large, is being expended at the research enterprise at Chalk River. We are not making any contribution to this particular experiment at Harwell. Incidentally, for those who are interested-and I am sure everyone is-this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail contains a good summary of this development issued by Sir John Cockcroft, director of the United Kingdom atomic research establishment at Harwell.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is based on the answer he gave to a question that was submitted by the hon. member for Peterborough and a supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Yorkton, in which the minister was asked if the lowest tender would be accepted for the $1,500,000 worth of flour that is to be a gift by the Canadian government. The minister replied that the lowest tender is accepted but he tries, and this would seem reasonable, to divide the amount amongst the different companies.
I should like to ask the minister whether, knowing that they will be given a proportion of the total amount required regardless of the price they submit, this would not encourage the several millers to get together before submitting a tender?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is always that possibility, of course. Nobody could have been more co-operative in dealing with the gift of flour which we made before Christmas to Ceylon. I was talking just yesterday to representatives of the flour milling companies in Canada, and they agreed that there should be an equitable distribution of the order for the gift of flour rather than having it go to just one firm.
Now, they also will be quite co-operative on the question of submitting tenders. I am quite sure we will have no difficulty whatever along that line. The flour milling people are more than pleased with the gift to these needy people, and the assistance this gives to the flour milling industry in this country.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the minister if it is not true that co-operation on bidding is an offence under the combines act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page Stuart Garson.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that is a proper question. It is really asking for an opinion.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I should like to ask the minister whether or not steps have been taken to ensure that United States flour is not substituted for Canadian flour in these shipments, as was done a few years ago. A few years ago there were shipments of Canadian flour going to our export trade, and because some United States flour had the same brand name as Canadian flour, United States flour was used to make up part of some shipments. It was a practice into which I believe the previous minister of trade and commerce had to look, and I should like to know whether the present minister is going to see that such practice is not permitted on this occasion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: By all means.


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. He has indicated that in discussion with the milling companies he has endeavoured to have an equitable distribution as among the companies. I wonder if these discussions continue, in view of the unemployment situation which is rather general throughout the country, whether he would also attempt to see that within the companies themselves there would be an equitable distribution amongst their mills across the country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth -
Clare): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the rapidly declining number of dry cargo ships operating under Canadian registry, will the minister do everything possible to see that the shipments of flour to the Middle East, purchased by the Canadian people, will be carried in Canadian registered and Canadian manned vessels?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If possible.


Mr. Kirk:: If it is possible, I am sure it will be. Will he also bear in mind that Nova Scotian ships, manned by Nova Scotians, now form the major part of Canada's dry cargo merchant fleet still in operation and should be given an opportunity to carry a share of this Canadian flour?
3804	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will take this under Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
advisement and do what is possible under and Commerce):	The practice of the
the circumstances.	Canadian wheat board, Mr. Speaker, has
been to announce the sales when they have OLD AGE SECURITY	been completed and the wheat is being
professor huson-inquiry as to remunera- shipped out of the country. We expect to tion to be paid	sell a Quantity of wheat to Israel.
On the orders of the day:


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of press reports that Professor Huson was to receive $35,000 a year, could the minister tell the house what settlement was made with Professor Huson for his two weeks' work, and also what salary Professor Clark is to receive?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question had better be put on the order paper. It is asking for statistical information.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the necessity for easing further the tight money policy, has the government given consideration to the need for easier credit and a reduction in the prevailing bank interest rate? I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I have added the word "further" after the word "easing" in the copy of the question which I sent to the minister as notice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice of his question. I did notice that the word "further" was very properly added to his question. The answer to his question is yes, the government has taken steps toward easing the former policy, easing credit and lowering interest rates in Canada during the last six months, and hopes to see this beneficial trend continue.


NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE TO ISRAEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which, as will be seen, is entirely devoid of partisan motives. I failed to send him notice because I have knowledge of his encyclopaedic mind, Is a sale of wheat being negotiated by the wheat board with the state of Israel? If so, can the minister inform the house of the details?
[Mr. Kirk.)


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swiff Curreni-Maple Creek):: I should like to inquire if it is the intention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to recommend the appointment of a transport controller to work in conjunction with the wheat board to facilitate the equalization of grain deliveries at all points in western Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The whole question relating to the shipment of grain is under study. I will take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER FROM PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate): I wonder whether I could ask the Acting Prime Minister a question which he may think now is only of historical interest. Has he been able to find a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia, or any other correspondence relating to the recent lamented federal-provincial conference that has not yet been tabled?
Howard Charles Green: We have asked the premier of Nova Scotia whether he has any objection to tabling the correspondence. My hon. friend is really much more impressive when he is dealing with the Wesleyville post office which he neglected to get for his own constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister, and it is this. Is there a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia which up to now the government has not admitted? Is there any other correspondence that has not been tabled?


Howard Charles Green: The curiosity of the hon. member will be satisfied, I am sure, when these documents are tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are others, then?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  F. G. J. Kahn@New Westminster: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I regret that I did not send him notice of it. However, the question is of such a nature that he possibly does not require it. In view of the extraordinary and unrealistic statement made by General A. G. L. McNaughton before the external affairs committee with regard to the possibilities of fish and power on the Fraser river, would the minister consider calling as a witness before the committee a director of the international sockeye salmon commission and representatives of those interested in the fishing industry from British Columbia to hear their viewpoint regarding the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question about the proceedings of the committee. My information is that the committee has not yet reported. Is that correct?


Mr. Smith (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then that question should not be asked until the report has been made.



LACHINE SECTION, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER- APPLICATION BY QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister now say, or could he tell us on Monday if he does not know at this time, whether or not a formal application has been made by the government of the province of Quebec for the development of power in the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence river?


Howard Charles Green: I have heard of no such application being made, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. Because of the strikes on the pipe lines and because of the difficulties in getting welders, Fort William has set up a welding school. I would like to know if any other 96698-241J
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization places in Canada have been following the progressive experiments introduced in Fort William and, if so, with what success?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the absence of the minister and his parliamentary assistant I will take this question as notice along with the other questions which have been raised, and bring them to the attention of my colleague for an answer.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 237, to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities-Mr. Harkness- Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: When we rose the committee was discussing clause 2 of Bill No. 237 and the amendment thereto. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. McCullough:: Mr. Chairman, last evening, as you have just stated, we were discussing clause 2 of the agricultural stabilization bill. I would point out to the committee that this is the operative section of the bill and is therefore quite important.
We were discussing in particular an amendment moved on behalf of the minister to change the words which appear in the bill, "have regard to" to the words "be guided by". These words of course were in clause 2, subclause 2. The minister had stated to the committee that his law officers had advised him that the words "be guided by" are stronger than the words "have regard to".
Of course hon. members who have been in this house for some years will recall, as I do, that we have had some experience with "have regard" clauses in previous agreements. I refer particularly to the British wheat agreement. In that agreement the farmers thought they were going to get some consideration in the final settlement of the four year wheat agreement with Great Britain. However, when that settlement was finally decided upon, the western farmers did not receive what they thought had been decided.
In other words, they understood they would receive compensation because their wheat was selling under that agreement at much less than the world price. Some authorities estimated that the loss to the western farmers due to that agreement and the fact that the "have regard" clause was not adhered to amounted to between $400 million and $500 million.
3806	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
However, I want to say that in my opinion neither the words "have regard to" nor "be guided by" are strong enough. I believe if this is to be a bill to give any assurance of a guarantee to farmers we should have something more substantial than a pious direction that regard should be paid to the average cost of production. A little later on I intend to move an amendment, but at this time I am going to ask the minister to make an explanation to the committee. It is proposed in clause 2 of the bill that the governor in council-
. . . shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of the commodity, and such other factors as the governor in council considers to be relevant.
My question is this. Do I understand that the government is now going to set up the necessary personnel so they may at all times be in possession of the figures showing the average cost of production? If so, can the minister tell the committee that we, as members of parliament, will have in our hands copies of such reports, either from this board or from the committee or from the minister's officials, so we may be able to know the average cost of production prevailing during any period or in any year, on the basis of which we could give consideration to whether or not the governor in council was in fact being guided by the estimated cost of production?


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite obvious that it would be difficult to do anything along the lines the hon. member has indicated. What is proposed, and what I think would be done in connection with this matter, is that the information which exists as the result of certain surveys which have been carried on to determine what the average cost of production was in different areas for certain commodities would be made use of; and the advisory committee and the stabilization board, on the basis of the information available from those sources and on the basis of information available from the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, would come to a decision on what was the average cost of production.


Edward George McCullough: I do not think the minister has given the committee the information I wanted, Mr. Chairman. He has stated that we would get this information from figures which are available. I think it is extremely difficult to get any authoritative figures with regard to an average cost of production. I should like the minister, if he can, to be more specific and say whose authority and whose figures the governor in council would accept in having regard to, or being guided by, in determining the


estimated average cost of production and setting these base support prices.
I think this is extremely important. Costs of production will vary all over the country. What type of farming will be used as a point of reference? Will it be the big corporation farm? Will it be the family farm, or will it be the smaller unit? At the present time our smaller farmers are going out of business in tens of thousands, and that is no exaggeration. Thousands of people are leaving the farms, and I should like to have some specific information from the government as to the means by which figures relating to the average cost of production are to be secured.
We in this group have said we think it is possible to get such figures. We think it is quite possible to find what is the cost of production, and from that to determine what is parity. I do not think the minister has given us any information. Is this to be done off the cuff? Is he going to proceed on the basis of some statistics compiled by the dominion bureau and by the universities, cr is the government itself going to determine these prices?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can add anything to what I have said about the methods envisaged in arriving at this figure. The figure will vary from time to time; the cost of production in 1957, for example, would not be the cost of production in 1958. In other words you cannot set up an economic study for every commodity in Canada and determine what the cost of production was and then keep using that figure. It is going to vary very considerably, as hon. members will realize. For this reason the thing can only be done somewhat along the lines I have already indicated.


Edward George McCullough: I do not want to belabour this point, but that is exactly what I said; cost of production will change from time to time due to the varying costs the farmer incurs in the course of his production. I should like to know from which sources the minister is going to obtain his information. I realize at once that you cannot have a rigid cost figure when farmers' costs are changing from month to month and from year to year- whenever, for instance, there is an increase in the cost of farm machinery. This year, for example, a self-propelled combine, a No. 92 Massey, is retailing in western Canada for $8,000. Two or three years ago you could have bought the same combine for $6,000, and in 1945 it cost $4,000. The minister does not need to tell hon. members of this committee that production costs are going to change.

If the minister intends to use this type of formula, and if there is anything substantial in this statement that the governor in council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of any commodity in setting the base price, then surely the minister must have in mind some method which will ensure at least a degree of authority in the figures he uses, in fairness to farmers.


Mr. Gardiner:: May I ask the minister a question supplementary to the one which has just been asked. I had thought to bring this matter up on the section having to do with the board, but since it has come up now it would probably be better to deal with it at this time.
The publication which deals with special legislation, Federal Agricultural Assistance Programs, Canada, 1945-1956, has this to say in the first paragraph of the second page:
This act-
Meaning the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.
-received royal assent on August 15, 1944 and an amendment in 1950 made it continuous from April 1, 1950. An agricultural prices support board was set up under the act to endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture, and to endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from 'other occupations. The next order in council was passed on April 5, 1946, approximately two years later. The board received operating powers by the proclamation of section 9 of the act.
In other words, when the act was put through all of it except section 9 was declared immediately, but section 9 was not declared until two years later. The reason was that in the meantime this board was to study the very matters about which the hon. member for Moose Mountain is now talking and consider all the representations that were made from time to time. My question is this. Is that not still the intention with regard to the present board, or is it something different?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated the intention is to secure all the information we can secure in regard to what the cost of production is for any particular commodity under which it seems desirable to put a support price, a guaranteed annual price.


James Garfield Gardiner: That will be one of the
duties of the board?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; and the matter of finally determining that cost would be a question for discussion between the advisory committee and the board, on which they would come to a decision and recommend what would be the average cost of production.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two questions of the Minister of
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Agriculture relating to subclause (a) (ii) of clause 2. Are there any indications now as to what designated agricultural products might be included under this clause? Further, what about fruits and vegetables?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member can see that under that subclause any agricultural product produced in Canada can be designated and given a guaranteed annual support price. As far as stating what particular commodities those might be is concerned, I would not like to enter the realm of prophecy at the moment. However, at the present time we have under price support sugar beets, which would be one of these designated commodities, dried skim milk which would be another, and turkeys and fowl which would be two others.


Mr. Hardie:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question concerning clause 2, subclause (a) (i). I was wondering how he would define sheep. Would that be live sheep, the wool of sheep or mutton?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of course the purpose is to support the price of live sheep, and that may be done in various ways. It could be done by deficiency payments or by purchase, as in the case of supporting the price of hogs at the present time, and so forth. It is possible to do this, we will say, by supporting the price of good lambs. That might be the particular type of sheep for which the support price would be prescribed and put into effect which would keep up the price of sheep generally.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Could wool come under subclause (ii)?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It could come under (ii), yes.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: We have in Canada mink ranchers or farmers and fox ranchers or farmers and-


An hon. Member:: Caribou?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Not just now, Rudolph; I will deal with them later. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that every trapper is a farmer. He traps in his area just as a farmer works his land and a fruit grower works his trees. He takes off a certain amount of crop each year and leaves the breeding stock to take care of his needs for the next year. If sheep and the wool of sheep are to come under this bill, then I feel that a fur-bearing animal should also come under its provisions. I would therefore move an amendment in the following words:
That after the word "sheep" in subclause (a) (i) of clause 2, the words "and fur-bearing animals" be added.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I explained yesterday, Mr. Chairman, these named commodities are only nine out of a number of commodities
3808	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization ranging between 150 and 200 which are produced in Canada. They are the ones which constitute the bulk of agricultural production, and are included for that reason. Ranch-bred mink and fox and so forth can be supported under the provisions of subclause (a) (ii) of clause 2, and as a matter of fact ranch-bred fox and mink have been assisted through the provisions of the Co-operative Marketing Act; but as far as adding the words "furbearing animals" to these named commodities is concerned, the proposal just does not make good sense.
In addition I would point out that the amendment is out of order, Mr. Chairman, on the same ground on which the amendment moved yesterday was out of order, in that it involves the imposition of extra taxes, and a private member cannot move an amendment to that effect.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions on this clause. In the first subclause does the support price apply only to top grades? If this is the case, it occurs to me that there will be a tendency to lower the grade in order to get away from the support price. For instance, it would be a rather easy thing in the case of hogs to grade them A or B rather than A-l to escape the support price, and the same thing could be true in the grading of eggs. The grading could become much more strict than it is today, and that would offset any advantages the bill might have. That is my first question, and I will wait for the minister to answer it before I present my other question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, I moved an amendment which the Minister of Agriculture said was out of order. I have not yet heard from the Chair as to whether or not my amendment is in order.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Rea): I may tell the hon. member that the Chair does not have a copy of the amendment, and there is already an amendment before us.


Walter Adam Tucker: We could not hear what the chairman said.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, is there not an amendment already before the committee?


Charles Edward Rea: I mentioned that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River, the method of support which has generally been used has been to designate a certain grade or quality, and to support that grade at a certain level. In the case of hogs it is grade B-l. These hogs are graded by government graders.

The hon. member expressed the fear that if one particular grade were supported the product would be graded below that grade to ensure that the farmer would not receive as much for his product as he might otherwise receive. Since there is government grading with respect to a considerable number of these products I am inclined to feel that his fear is groundless. With the dozens of different grades of cattle that exist it would be extremely expensive administratively to try to set a support price for each of those grades, and many people would be required to administer the scheme. You accomplish the same purpose by setting a support price at a certain level, we will say for good steers. The relationship that normally exists between different grades because of market conditions and other considerations would be maintained because the support price would tend to keep up the prices on other cattle.


Edward George McCullough: I am afraid I must disagree with what the Minister of Agriculture has just said on this point, namely that if support prices are placed on the top grades of the various farm commodities you then have some real assurance that the other grades will remain somewhere in line so far as price is concerned. I must take exception to that, because I have recently received quite a number of letters from people in my constituency who say just the opposite.
I refer particularly to the grading of eggs. Those of us who have been interested in this matter over the years on behalf of the farmers have found that when you have a support price for grade A large eggs of 38 cents, that support price is not carried through to the other grades. The argument made to me by farmers who deliver eggs is that if a reasonable number of the top grades of eggs and other farm products were supported in a relative way, then we would get away from some of our farm products being undergraded and therefore underpriced.
I think I can say with a good deal of assurance, so far as cattle going to the stockyards are concerned, that if there was a support price under good steers, if the minister wanted to take the second grade, then I am sure he would find that a large number of the steers would at times be graded either as stockers or as feeders. Therefore I think the point raised by the hon. member who just spoke is a good one, and I would ask the minister to give consideration to it; because the farmers have not been satisfied with just having a support price under the top grade.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask the
minister another question. Do I take it from what the minister has said that the support

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
price will not necessarily be on the top grade? I see he is nodding his head in agreement. That would mean that rather than the support price being applied to choice steers it might be applied to a lower grade. Who decides what the spread shall be between the different grades? Is that a provincial or federal responsibility? It makes a great difference what the spread is. If the support price is set with respect to grade A large eggs, let us say, then who is going to be responsible for maintaining the spread? It might be that a greater spread would exist, and therefore there would be few grade A large eggs and more of the other grades in order to avoid the support price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite possible, of course, for a support price to be put into effect for more than one grade in the case of any particular commodity, but in most cases it is not necessary to do that and, as I said before, it increases the administrative cost considerably. As far as cattle are concerned, I think the base price would be determined on the level of good steers rather than choice steers because there is a larger volume of trade in good steers.
As to the question of spreads, they are set by the market in respect of most of these commodities. As I think the hon. member for Bow River knows, on the Calgary livestock exchange cattle are now sold by auction and the price any particular bunch of cattle brings depends on what the bidders are willing to pay for them, to a large extent. One bidder may think they are choice steers and another man may think they are not good enough to be choice steers. Therefore there would be some considerable difference in the bids each would make on the cattle.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the passing of this clause, but I also have a question I should like to place before the minister in order to obtain a specific reply. First I want to join with hon. members on both sides of the house who have asked that pulpwood be named as one of the commodities to be included in the bill. In dealing with this problem yesterday the minister suggested that action could be taken much more properly by provincial governments, as they grant the various licences and leases to the companies than by the dominion government.
In most cases the companies cutting on crown land are pulp mill owners and they cut the pulp for themselves, but what most members who have spoken on the question are mainly interested in is the sale of pulp-wood cut from forest land or lots privately owned by individual farmers. In many cases this is one of their main sources of
ready cash with which to pay municipal taxes and meet other urgent obligations. In my constituency at the present time farmers are getting $8 to $9 a cord for pulpwood at the roadside, and we know that at such prices it is impossible for them even to meet their expenses.
I would appreciate it if the minister would be more specific and explain why he is opposed to the inclusion of pulpwood as one of the commodities to be covered by the bill, or can he assure us that pulpwood could be included under subparagraph (ii) of clause 2, "any other natural or processed product of agriculture designated by the governor in council."


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Clause 2 provides for support prices being established for any agricultural commodity which is accepted by the governor in council on the advice of the committee and of the board as one which should be supported.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, to deal further with the matter raised by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Moose Mountain, may I say that I had some representations made to me regarding the same problem, involving the effect of price support upon different grades as the system was in operation under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. In this connection I should like to refer the minister to a letter written by Ewen Gillis to A. H. Turner, chairman of the agricultural prices support board, dated September 29, 1957. Mr. Gillis is the secretary of the poultry section of the farmers' union of British Columbia, and in his letter he had this to say in part:
Incidentally I have learned that the dominion government purchased grade A fowl only. The other grades had to be sold by the processors where a market was available. In many cases the producers were paid from 5 to 10 cents for a dressed fowl. Not all the fowl were bought at this price by the packer.
The important part is as follows:
For years many producers have been receiving grade A for over 90 per cent of the fowl. Under the implemented price supports schedule reports indicate only 10 to 30 per cent of the flock qualify for grade A.
There does seem to be a tremendous .discrepancy here in that when you sell on the free market 90 per cent qualify as grade A, and the moment you come under the price support legislation it immediately drops to 10 to 30 per cent. Before I proceed further, and possibly I should have begun my remarks by saying this, I wish to compliment the minister on the attitude the government took in accepting our representations regarding the problem that west coast turkey raisers had late last year and taking
3810	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization action on it. However, here is another phase into which an examination should be made. I am not completely satisfied with the answer the minister gave the hon. member for Bow River, and I should like to get his views on this particular question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I might say that fowl, of course, are graded by government graders. They have no axe to grind by not grading properly. In fact their duty is to grade it properly, and if it is found that they are not grading properly they are likely to be in trouble. I am informed that the percentage of fowl which grade A generally speaking across the country runs upwards of 70 per cent.


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to labour the point concerning the variation in price for different grades in different commodities and how those prices affect the floor price or how the floor price establishes the basis for other grades in any commodity. However, I thought you might be interested in the last egg receipt we received at our farm.
This is a statement from the Swift Current cooperative creamery association dated January 10, just about 10 days ago. The statement lists grade A extra large at 28 cents, that is to the producers, and A large is exactly the same price, 28 cents. There is no variation there. Then grade A medium, which is the next size, is shown at 23 cents and grade B is shown at 21 cents. The statement covers a small lot of 60 dozen eggs which we brought into town at that time. It would appear that there is not sufficient distinction, or that the support price established does not guarantee that the prices for the various grades will follow proportionately. There is no variation in price on this statement between grade A extra large and grade A large, and then there is a 5 cent drop to grade A medium, which is the common size in commerce throughout the country.
I thought perhaps we should give some consideration to that and perhaps establish floor prices for the various grades of a commodity rather than for just the top grades, especially for a commodity like eggs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know there has been some difficulty so far as eggs are concerned, more so than any other commodity which has been under price support. This results from the fact that there are quite a number of grades and there is quite a variation in price between these grades. I have found it a difficult matter to handle satisfactorily. I hope we will be able to do somewhat better on it and put an end to some of these complaints. It seems to me that probably the only way in


which that could be done would be by changing the system to some form of deficiency payment, and that would involve some increase in administration costs. Whether or not it would be worth while doing that I do not know as yet, but I am having the whole matter looked into.


Mr. Bryce:: When I spoke at the resolution stage I drew the attention of the minister to the trouble he was going to have in connection with grading because we have so many different grading systems. In so far as hogs are concerned, for example, they are graded by a government grader and we expect to get a square deal. When we send our live cattle to market the packer grades them, and what may be a No. 1 on Monday morning can be a No. 3 on Wednesday. If this stabilization bill is going to be a success and do something for the farmer, as I hope it will, something will have to be done about the grading.
I believe the minister said a few minutes ago that most of the cattle are sold by auction. I can tell you that so far as a lot of farmers are concerned today the auction ring in Canada is a joke. I recall that some time ago the hon. member for Melville was speaking at Carmen about a trip he made to Glasgow. I heard him talking about how the cattle are graded and sold there, and the farmer gets a square deal. I do not want to go into the question of grading all over again. If the minister will look up Hansard he will see what I said.
Something will have to be done about it. If I send steers to market or my neighbour sends steers to market, the only way we can get a government grade on them is to have them killed and dressed. The thinking of the average farmer today is that he wants to sell cattle on the hoof. When he sells them on the hoof the grade varies from one day to the next, and it is the packer who grades them. The farmer is not getting the square deal you are setting out to give him.


Frederick George Hahn: Possibly I should have read from this letter to draw this matter to the attention of the minister. It reads:
Many processors as well as myself are confused concerning the objective of grade A standards. Some of the processors were stupid enough to state that the dominion government has two standards for grade A. One standard for the domestic market and another for the export market. This sounds like double talk. I have spent most of my life in the field of analytical chemistry. Explanations of this character do not make sense to me.
I wonder if the minister would comment on this assertion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Two grade A's do not exist;
there is only one grade A.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is one other remark I want to make in regard to this clause. It seems to me it is possibly the most important clause in the bill. One of the things we in this group have been stressing all through this debate is that the farmer should be given a cost-price relationship. I immediately recognize the difficulties that exist in establishing the cost of producing an article. I believe I am right when I say that an advisory committee will be established under the provisions of this bill and will be able to make recommendations to the board and to the minister with reference to the cost-price relationship.
It seems to me that since this is the most important factor contained in the bill, some sort of formula should be adopted. When one communicates with the dominion bureau of statistics to find out what the cost of producing an article is, one finds they have not got that information. It seems to me that since this is so important there will have to be a system of records kept by the dominion bureau of statistics or some other competent body by means of which we can arrive at what would be considered a fair cost-price relationship. I wonder if the government would consider publishing each year a statement which would give the relevant facts in regard to the establishment of a cost price.
The advisory committee is going to make recommendations in regard to this, I suppose to the advisory board, which will make recommendations to the minister, and it will depend on his judgment what the decision will be because he has the ultimate authority. He must make his decision before anything becomes effective under this bill. Surely when the advisory committee makes its recommendations to the board and the board makes its recommendations to the minister, the minister has to draw a conclusion and make a decision, and at that time there must be some definite formula upon which the minister makes his decision. I think it would be quite inconceivable that when these three organizations meet with the minister, he is going to sit there calmly, hear what the advisory committee says, then what the board says, and then come to the conclusion, "Oh, well, the cost of raising a bushel of wheat I guess should be somewhere around about- oh-I think the minister told the house a few years ago 45 cents a bushel"-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Forty cents.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: I think that figure was given by the hon. member for Melville years ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it was not. It was given by Mr. Hope.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Then is he going to scratch the other side of his head and say, "Oh, I guess the cost of production has risen a little bit; the farmers have to pay a little bit more for a combine and a little bit more for labour, so the cost of raising a bushel of wheat now probably is about 55 cents or 60 cents"? I do not think that would be a proper way. The minister must come to this conclusion and he must have some guide on which to base his judgment. When this fact is considered, will it not be possible that the minister will make public the facts on which he is basing his cost price so the farmers in the country and the members of this committee will know exactly what that cost was for that year?
I recognize immediately that the costs are going to vary from time to time. The minister is going to take that fact into consideration when he makes his decision year after year. But this is an important part of the operation of this bill. The whole functioning of the bill depends upon the minister's discretion. That is a tremendous responsibility to put upon the minister. I think the members of the house and the farm organizations across the country have a right to expect that when the minister makes these decisions with regard to costs, they are going to be based on factual evidence.
It seems to me that when the minister is in a position to make his final decision and does make that decision, he must have some formula in black and white upon which to base his judgment. I do not think it is asking too much that the minister at that time-not before, but when he is in a position to make his decision-make that formula available so everyone will know what it is, and the farmers themselves will know whether or not that cost has a fair relationship.


Irvin William Studer: I wonder whether it would be in order to make this suggestion in connection with the cost of producing commodities. I think the department has a ready-made organization in existence for determining such costs in connection with all commodities. I refer to the experimental farm system all across Canada. There is no province I know of in which they are not established, except perhaps Newfoundland. They have their costs established on various commodities.
Just as an illustration, in 1956 the average cost of producing wheat on summer fallow at 10 illustrative station farms amounted to $23.22 per acre. This is indicative as an illustration of their consideration of costs and could be held to be reliable; and I think they are. That pertains to all farm commodities at least to some extent, because one or other station is specializing in or producing
3812	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization almost every commodity. I think we have an established basis from which to begin and which can be used to determine what the costs are in establishing your floor price or your other costs.


Mr. Schulz:: I should just like to point out that while last night before the house adjourned I stated that this amendment does not change the picture, this morning it looks even more the same. The minister, after being asked from every corner to set up an authority that would measure the production costs of the various products in order that we may have something by which to be guided, or that the minister might have something by which to be guided, simply says, "We don't want anything by which to be guided". What does this amendment mean now? It states that the governor in council shall be guided. By what? Have we anything by which he shall be guided?


An hon. Member:: Read.


Jacob Schulz: I do not understand the situation, but I guess I will get used to it slowly. It seems that we shall have to get along in this country as in a gambling joint, without organization and planning. Every time over the last few years when I have tried to get the production costs of a commodity I have had to go to the United States, because there is in existence there such an authority which figures out the different costs. We have never had such a thing here. But now that we have an act which says the governor in council or the minister shall be guided by the cost of production, surely it is time that we set up something of this kind. If we do not do it, unfortunately it will be found that I was right and that this act does not mean anything, even if it is passed.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: No, Mr. Chairman. May we call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Before the lunch hour, Mr. Chairman, and before the passing of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, there was considerable discussion on the factor of cost of production. I believe this has been the focal point in


the whole debate on the agricultural stabilization bill. There have been requests from farm organizations, members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups and from members of all political parties for the application of a cost-price formula to the bill which will ensure the farmer a fair return. It has been pointed out that during the past ten years there has been a cost increase to the farmers of 50 per cent, whereas in the case of the western farmer there has been a decline of 21 per cent in the prices they have received during the same period. It is therefore evident that this cost-price relationship is, as I say, one of the focal points of the argument and the term cost of production becomes very important.
I feel convinced that the term "cost of production" in the bill as it was originally introduced by the Minister of Agriculture was one which caused much concern to members of this group. That was also expressed in a press statement of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture issued on December 15, 1957, as follows:
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.
It is apparent that the criticism stems from the failure of the Minister of Agriculture in initially drafting the bill to include a clause relating the cost of production to the price received, and I think it is very significant that, as a result of complaints lodged by the Canadian Federation of, Agriculture, the interprovincial farm union council and also voiced by members of this house, that all the amendments to the bill were introduced on December 14. The term "cost of production" was placed in the bill in two instances. In the preamble we have the term "cost of goods and services" and in clause 2, subsection (2), we have introduced the term "cost of production". It is significant, then, to follow this one step further and note that this term was placed in the bill and that the interprovincial farm union council made a representation with respect to the agricultural stabilization bill, Bill No. 237, on January 7, including the following submission:
The beard shall establish support prices for commodities by determining the cost of production of any commodity on a regional basis and such price will be the guaranteed price for such commodity for a prescribed period.
Here again we have the term "cost of production". I am firmly convinced it will be one of the deciding factors with respect to the beneficial results of this bill.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The minister proposes to make further amendments which will include the term "cost of production". I think if we review the record of speeches made on this subject we will find this term appearing with extreme regularity, in fact I notice that in replying to a question before the lunch hour, the minister himself used it three times in a very short paragraph. It will, I believe, appear at least once in each sentence, and the minister has made use of this term on several other occasions. We noticed also that the Prime Minister used the term "cost of production" yesterday and that it was also used by the hon. member for Bow River this morning. All hon. members have used it and all hon. members will recognize the importance of the term because it is used by farm leaders and farm organizations throughout the country.
Clause 2 of this same bill to which we are referring states that the governor in council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production. There again we have this same term appearing in the bill before us and it appears in a further clause dealing with requests that there should be a relationship to the cost of production.
I might ask the committee just what does this term "cost of production" mean? Does it apply to the cost of the land or to the cost of the fuel the farmer must use to produce his commodities? Does it allow him a reasonable profit? Is it related to a specified period? Are we referring to cost of production for a specific commodity and applying that to all farmers?
If I might be allowed to quote the Prime Minister once again, when he was speaking on the Agricultural Prices Support Act on July 29, 1944, he had this to say as reported at page 5600 of Hansard:
But if this bill is to be anything more than the promise of a hope, there must be something in it to show that the prices farmers are to receive will assure them of reasonable costs plus a fair return.
Here again we have that same factor coming forward-cost of production. It is most necessary that this be clarified for the benefit of the members of this house and without elaborating on it any further I am going to move an amendment, an amendment which will place the definition of cost of production among the definitions in this bill. I am certain this amendment cannot be ruled out of order on the ground that additional expenditure will be involved. I think in all probability the minister will accept the amendment as correcting an oversight which has been made in the further amendments he has introduced and that it will be readily recognized that in the first
draft of the bill the term "cost of production" was not involved. It was introduced into the bill in the amendments which the Minister of Agriculture made at a later date, and it therefore becomes necessary to define in the bill this term, giving guidance to those who will later be called upon to administer the act.
I might say at the outset that I think it is very difficult to define cost of production, but I have had the good fortune of having a university education in agricultural economics. I have also been associated with the subject and have discussed the matter with my colleagues who have also had this training, together with men in technical agriculture. We have concluded that the definition of cost of production should be as I will now state and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson):
That subclause (1) of clause 2 of BUI 237 be amended by Inserting therein immediately after subparagraph (c) the following new subparagraph:
"(d) 'cost of production' means the cost of all goods and services necessary to the production of the commodity and shall include a fair return for investment and labour;"
and by relettering subparagraphs (d) and (e) as subparagraphs (e) and (f).
It is apparent, as one analyses the definition which I am requesting be placed in the interpretation clause of this bill, that we are providing the farmers with a price which will meet their costs of goods and services used in the production of a certain commodity and will give them a fair return after their investment and cost of labour. This is a very reasonable definition and one for which I am certain members of the civil service staff, members of the government and others will be extremely grateful in their administration of this bill. As a result I am more than certain the farmers across Canada will be grateful if this amendment is accepted and approved by the minister or by the house, as the case may be.
I think I should point out that the majority of members are of the legal profession and it should not be necessary for me to convince them of the desirability of having this term defined in the agricultural stabilization bill. Those of us who are practical farmers will certainly support it in the terms used by the Prime Minister when he was speaking in 1944 and when he used the expression "if the bill is going to be something more than a promise of a hope".
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by asking the minister to accept this amendment, which I am certain is in order and which will follow up the principle we have been trying to emphasize in our discussion of this bill, that is, to improve it and
3814	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization make it a better bill for the farmers across Canada. The minister himself has said he does not expect that this measure is complete in every detail, and his remarks were reiterated by the Prime Minister when he spoke yesterday. I am suggesting that by making this amendment now we will be saving hon. members of this house and farmers across Canada some difficulties which no doubt they will experience on some future occasion through lack of this definition.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I see no
necessity for this amendment. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that it is merely an attempt on the part of the hon. member and his friends who are supporting it to try to tie the hands of the advisory committee and the board with regard to their determination of what the average cost of production is for any particular commodity. I cannot see that it would add anything to the value of the bill, and therefore I would oppose it.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: We in
this group are quite happy to support this amendment because we feel that cost of production should be defined in this bill. Other items are defined. The base price is defined, the board is defined, and so on, and since cost of production is the key around which the whole bill is likely to revolve we can see no reason at all why there should be no definition of what is meant by cost of production in the act.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, the point the minister made a moment ago in criticizing the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley is precisely the point we are trying to make. There should be some clear definition of what the minister means and of what is involved in the expression "cost of production". The definition given is certainly a logical one, and it could not be interpreted in any other way. The point I should like to make is that when the minister makes a statement that he is prepared to consider or take into account cost of production he is, in effect, doing something which seems to me almost impossible to carry out. I say that as one who has some knowledge of the United States program with regard to cost of production. That is why we in this group have been very critical of any kind of program directed toward helping the agricultural industry which is based on the theory of supply and demand. We have advocated parity prices for the very reason that under such a system you can take cost of production into consideration.
Does the minister mean he is going to say to every producer of wheat, for instance- when wheat is taken under this scheme; and this example applies to other products too- that we are going to consider that every
[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) .1

farmer who grows wheat should receive his cost of production? If he does he will never sell that idea to the consumers of this country, because it is completely unrealistic.
I should like to give the committee a concrete example. I grow wheat in what is called the Carrot valley of northern Saskatchewan. From an economic view the operation is completely inefficient. My hon. friend from Kindersley can and does produce the highest quality of wheat grown anywhere in the world, and he carries on that operation more efficiently than, possibly, could be done in any other part of Canada. My costs of production are way out of line compared with his, and if you are going to say to me; we are going to subsidize you; we are going to penalize the consumers of this country and the taxpayers of this country to the extent that we are going to give you your cost of production, then I say that the whole proposition is completely unrealistic.
What has been done in the United States to overcome this problem? They have approached it in this way. There are certain designated areas; a wheat belt, a corn belt, a cotton belt, a soya bean belt, a tobacco belt and so forth, and within these narrow areas they set the price so that an economical producer can receive a payment which will give him his cost of production. Anyone outside these areas is free to grow any product he likes, but he must take his chance, because his cost of production is likely to be higher and, therefore, he must make up his own mind as to the economic feasibility of growing the crop.
I say to the minister that he is going out on a limb if he is going to make it clear to the farmers of Canada that regardless of where they live they are going to get their cost of production. I do not think it is reasonable, and I do not think it is realistic. In the area of the United States that is designated as a wheat belt there is set up a great catalogue of items which are considered as being part of the farmers' cost of production, that is, the things he buys which go into his operation. Every three months these items are reviewed, and if the cost of them has changed, the changes are included in the calculation of the cost of production and are related to the price the farmer gets. That is one of the reasons we have advocated parity prices rather than a price based on the theory of supply and demand.
A little later on I may have the opportunity of saying something further in this regard, but at the moment I think the amendment which has been moved is a logical amendment. We should certainly like to have the minister clarify his views on this matter and state

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
more clearly what the terms of reference to the committee will be in setting up this formula embodying cost of production.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Kindersley has said, I am sure it is an oversight that this particular provision was not included. When Bill No. 237 was first prepared there was no preamble. Now, as the preamble in the reprinted copy, we read:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy. . .
Since the minister has decided that it is important that this preamble be included, I think it is logical that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley should be accepted without further argument. Yesterday the minister suggested that people in this corner had heaped abuse on the Minister of Agriculture. I tried to rise at the time to deny that. I want to say now that I have always said that I consider the present Prime Minister selected the most suitable member of the Conservative party for this important post. Having said that, however, I hope I am not prevented from criticizing this legislation. I admit very frankly that the Minister of Agriculture took over a department that had been run on the rocks for 20 years and he had to assume command of a situation wherein the Canadian farmers in all provinces had been getting a raw deal while farmers in other countries of the world had been receiving generous assistance.
I was quite disappointed that the minister last night saw fit to raise a point of order and refused to consider including wheat, oats and barley from the prairie provinces. It will not be possible to give the prairie farmers anything approaching a square deal as long as the minister is not prepared to accept that amendment.
According to the Wheat Review of January 6, 1958, it is stated that in the three prairie provinces there were 895 farmers on a one-bushel quota, 887 on a two-bushel quota and 256 on a three-bushel quota. There is no hon. member from any prairie constituency who will argue that even the farmers who are on a three-bushel quota-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. There is no question but that the hon. member should not be going back to a general discussion with regard to quotas now that we are dealing with this particular clause and amendment. His remarks are completely irrelevant to the clause before us.


Charles Edward Rea: The point raised by the Minister of Agriculture is very well taken. I hope the hon. member will confine himself more closely to this clause and this amendment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I was merely trying to show that the prairie farmers are going to be left out in the cold under this legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not proceeding with it. I am merely suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that no member of parliament from a rural constituency in western Canada will go back and meet his farmer constituents and say, "I stood up in the House of Commons and voted against an amendment to ask that this be guaranteed so the cost of production will mean the cost of the goods and services necessary to the production of the commodity and shall include a fair return for investment and labour." I think it is significant that there was a slaughter of Liberal members of parliament from Manitoba on June 10 last. During this debate the Conservative members for the constituencies of Lisgar, Provencher, Portage la Prairie, Brandon South, Churchill and Marquette have been silently sitting it out on second reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it any wonder? They want to get it through.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: These hon. gentlemen rode into parliament last June to fill the vacancies created as the result of the failure of the Liberal members-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must again ask the hon. member to come back to this clause and this amendment. I would point out that we are not discussing the elections act. I must ask the hon. member once again to apply himself to the subject before the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that we want to hear from some hon. members on the government side of the house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and you will hear from them.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that we should hear some argument from the government side of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not hearing any from you.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources made an unfortunate interjection the other day regarding the Saskatchewan farmers going to California.
3816	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Douglas Scott Harkness: Once more, Mr. Chairman, it is out of order for the hon. member to refer to what was said several days ago. We are now on a particular amendment and if the hon. member cannot confine his remarks to the amendment he should not be allowed to have the floor.


Charles Edward Rea: I will have to request the hon. member once more to confine his remarks within this clause and the amendment or I shall have to ask him to take his seat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that a discussion of the cost of production means the cost of goods and services. I think it is most unfair for a government member to suggest that the expense of going to California is one which a western farmer would ask to be included before this legislation is passed. I am protesting against a cabinet minister throwing in a suggestion of this sort.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: That is all nonsense.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am arguing that the cost of production means the cost of goods and services necessary to the production of the commodity and should include a fair return for investment and labour. I submit that hon. members should be willing to include this principle in this measure.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley is a most reasonable one. I believe it points up what I said before lunch. Here we have written into the bill that the governor in council in setting a prescribed price is asked to be guided by the estimated average cost of production of that commodity. I submit that in all reasonableness we should have written into the bill some idea about what the government is going to consider the average cost of production to be. So far all we have had from the minister and hon. members of the Conservative party has been the slurred suggestion that hon. members in this group are seeking to be political and attempting to delay the passage of this bill. As soon as the minister gets on his feet and assures us that he has a formula that he will be prepared to place before this committee so we can have some assurance that when the governor in council is going to be guided by the estimated cost of production he will have an indication which will at least give the efficient farmer a reasonable cost of production we will-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I again rise on a point of order. What the hon. member


is saying is an exact repetition of what he said on this subject this morning and I believe he is transgressing the rules of the house by being completely repetitive and using the very words he used previously when discussing this subject.


Walter Adam Tucker: Closure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I submit that the hon. member is repeating what he said when we dealt with this question this morning.


Walter Adam Tucker: You did not talk like that last session.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question before the committee is not one of a formula or anything of the sort. We are discussing the amendment on which I have already expressed the opinion that its inclusion is unnecessary.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, the minister is, of course, quite confused. He has been in a state of total confusion since he first introduced this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Edward George McCullough: Certainly he is confused when he said that the governor in council is going to be guided by the estimated cost of production of any specific commodity if the minister is not prepared to accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley. The amendment seeks to amend the bill so we will know what the government considers the average cost of production to be.
Rather than repeat what I said this morning I want to make some further arguments as to why that should be written into the bill. I would point out to hon. members of the committee that we have no assurance that the prescribed price will meet the general average cost of production of farmers throughout Canada as the bill now stands.
I have in my hand a copy of a report issued by the Searle Grain Company Limited which contains an article entitled "Farmers' Costs of Production". The article says in part:
The latest dominion bureau of statistics index number of commodities and services used by prairie farmers (the farmers' cost of living and production) stands at 240.5 (1935-39 equals 100). In other words it now costs prairie farmers $2.40 to buy what one dollar would buy in 1935-39. This means, therefore, that the $1.40 initial wheat payment is worth only 58.2 cents in 1935-39 value of money, basis 1 Northern Fort William, or at the average country elevator point it is worth approximately 50.5 cents a bushel.
The same thing could be said about livestock products; the same thing could be said about eggs. What we are trying to find out is how the government is going to be able to establish the average cost of production. I

want to make some suggestions to the minister. I think we probably have the facilities in this country to establish what we would consider the average cost of production. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has indicated that in the United States they have formulas and that they have arrived at those formulas by going into designated areas where it is feasible and scientific to produce various agricultural commodities. I think the same thing could be done in Canada.
The minister said on an earlier occasion that there is authority in the bill to prevent anyone from participating excessively under price supports. I am sure all members in this group agree with that. What we want to do is to protect the family unit farm. We do not want to protect uneconomic farms. But today, Mr. Chairman-we had the same situation for a number of years under the former Liberal government-we have not got the average cost of production. The former minister of agriculture is sitting in his seat and I say that he and his government were completely dis-:redited in the minds of the farmers of western Canada so far as price supports under the Agricultural Prices Support Act were concerned. The objective of that legislation was stated to be to endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture and to endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
We are fighting today to try to get the bill amended for the very reason that the western farmer has not had a fair relationship and the Agricultural Prices Support Act has not functioned to provide supports for the farmer. We want to know what we are talking about. We want to have some assurance that the farmers will not have to rely upon political moves on the part of the government involv-ng price supports at certain times in order :o obtain some degree of justice.
I may say that we in this group do not want >ur farmers to be mollycoddled because we io not believe in it, but the farmer has to jo out and buy certain things in order to be able to produce. He has to buy them from nollycoddled industries in this country operat-ng under high tariff, protectionist policies and ;he farmer has to pay for the protection they [DOT]eceive. Along with other people in this lountry the farmers are probably paying ipproximately $400 million in order to pro-;ect many of these industries. In earlier days t used to be said by other governments that hese infant industries had to be protected in >rder that they might be able to survive but oday some of these industries have become luge monopolies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order!
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Edward George McCullough: I am speaking about the cost of production. The Minister of Agriculture always wants to interject. What I am trying to point out is that the people on the land are faced with these factors.


An hon. Member:: That is untrue and you know it.


Edward George McCullough: But here we have members opposite doing nothing but chortling and trying to interfere with what I have to say. Unless a principle is written into the bill by which we will know what the average cost of production is going to be and by which the farmers in general can be guided we will have an empty bill. There is no guarantee. It may be that the minister will be able to put adequate supports under farm commodities but there is no guarantee. There is simply no guarantee. The bill is as open-ended as the former legislation, and here we on this side of the house are spending days trying to get better legislation and at the same time actually trying to help the government.
I point out that we are doing so seriously and that if the government would accept some of our recommendations I am sure they would get the credit throughout the country. Instead, they are just trying to hurl insults at us and saying that we are not trying to do anything that will help our farmers. In my opinion this legislation could more properly be termed a bankruptcy act for agriculture rather than a bill which does anything for the farmers. What does it mean? It means that unless we can attach some meaning to the average cost of production, if the prescribed price is going to be estimated-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I really must insist that the hon. member stay within the terms of the amendment now under discussion and the terms of clause 2 of the bill. He is giving a second reading speech again at this point and that is absolutely and distinctly out of order. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that general speeches of this sort are not repeated at this stage.


Charles Edward Rea: I should like to say to the hon. member that I have been listening very carefully to what he has been saying. It is true that he keeps bringing in the words "cost of production" periodically but I feel that he has wandered a little bit and therefore I would ask him to please come back and keep as close as he can to clause 2.


Edward George McCullough: I have been attempting to do that. I shall try to conform strictly with what you have said. We are, of course, discussing clause 2 of the bill and the whole principle of the bill is involved in that

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization clause. I think I have made my point quite clear. In moving this amendment the hon. member for Kindersley is just trying to get the government to accept an amendment which will give us some assurance and some definition of what will be the average cost of production. I think I have made my point and I hope that the government will see fit to accept the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, after having listened to the last two speakers I have come to the conclusion that they do not want to get the amendment passed at all and I say that for very good reasons. The chief one is that each of them has been defeated by this party on at least one occasion. They happen to be here at the moment and they seem to be more interested in hammering the Liberal party and more particularly the former minister of agriculture.


Jacob Schulz: He surely deserves it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are quite prepared to listen to arguments of this kind, knowing how little they mean coming from where they come, but at the same time when they are trying to make it appear to the people of Saskatchewan that they want to get a certain amendment included in the legislation and when it is clear that the only way they can get it there is with the support of the Liberal party, why do they spend half their time when they are on their feet abusing this party? I should like to suggest to them that if they would let the matter come to a vote they would probably get along better than by talking.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he planning to support the insertion of this definition of cost of production in the definitions in the bill?


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Chairman, there are two separate parts of clause 2 where the government is committed to be guided by the cost of production. Under the first one it is the governor in council and under the second it is the board. Therefore why should we not establish in the bill what is meant by the cost of production so that the farmers will have something by which to be guided. I believe this is the reason we are trying to insert this clause, in order to have an explanation of what cost of production is, so that these people in authority, who are supposed to be guided by it, will have an idea where they are going. I cannot see why the government should oppose it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
is a matter of satisfaction to learn that the hon. member for Melville is considering the desirability of the amendment that has been

proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley.
I rise to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider his attitude towards this amendment. If when he rose after it was moved by the hon. member for Kindersley he had said that he did not quite agree with its terms; that perhaps some other definition of the cost of production would be better, that would have been a reasonable proposition. In fact, even yet, if he does not like the exact wording that my colleague has suggested and would like to propose some other wording, although I have not consulted my colleague on this point I am sure he would be glad to change his amendment or even withdraw it to let the minister have one of his colleagues introduce an amendment defining the cost of production.
But I do appeal to him, if I can get to him through that newspaper he is reading, to consider the position in which he is now placed.
I have compared carefully the original print of Bill No. 237 and the reprint. I have also taken note of the further amendments that are still to be made by the government. There was no reference to the cost of production in any of the sections in the original print. When all the government's amendments have been incorporated in the bill there will be three references to cost of production; one in the preamble, one in clause 2 and one in clause 7. I suggest that if the Minister of Agriculture does not feel the force of our argument that a definition should be there he would be well advised to check with those sitting around him who are lawyers. There is the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Finance and down here there is the Minister of Justice, the chief lawyer in the country. I am sure that if he would talk with them they would make it clear to him that it is desirable, in a piece of legislation that uses certain terms, to have it clear as to what those terms mean. That is what definition sections are for.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture, therefore, to reconsider his attitude. We will not be disappointed if he proposes some change in the wording from that suggested by my colleague the member for Kindersley. I think the minister will be very sorry if he loses this opportunity and lets this bill go through without a definition of the cost of production being written into it. I am sure that many of us feel this is one of the most important amendments that needs to be made to this bill. Many of us feel that if it is going to achieve the laudable purposes that were given to us yesterday by the Prime Minister there has to be some meaning put into it, and this is the place for that amendment to be written into the bill.

I am not going to move any amendment or motion tor postponing discussion, or anything that might call for a snap vote, so you need not worry about getting the boys in from behind the curtain. I would suggest, however, that the clause might be allowed to stand so that the minister could consult with the members of the cabinet who are lawyers, as to whether or not something of this kind should be accepted. I appeal to the minister on the basis of what he has done himself, namely that he has brought the term "cost of production" into the bill and that now is the time to put in a definition. I appeal to him on the basis of the desirability of having legislation complete in itself. Since it is now clear, once we get over the little political infighting that goes on, that the hon. member for Melville agrees that this should be done, perhaps we could reach unanimity that a definition of cost of production should somehow be written into this bill.
Amendment (Mr. Johnson, Kindersley) negatived: Yeas, 34; nays, 44.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is all the applause for?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: This morning, I inadvertently moved an amendment while the minister's amendment was before the committee. I shall not, therefore, go into my reasons for moving this amendment now, but I shall simply move my amendment in order to save the time of the committee. I move:
That Bill No. 237 be amended by adding the words "all fur-bearing animals", after the word ''sheep" in section 2 (a) paragraph (i) of the bill.


Charles Edward Rea: Since the minister has given a very broad interpretation to the meaning of the words in clause 2, I feel that this amendment is meaningless and therefore I rule it out of order.
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Edward George McCullough: I rise at this time to continue the discussion of this very important section of the bill. It is my intention to move a further amendment. I move:
That subclause (2) of clause 2, of Bill 237 be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"provided that in no case shall the percentage fixed by the governor in council be less than the estimated average cost of production of the commodity."
Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to the minister and to all members of the house just as forcibly as I can to accept this amendment. I do not intend to repeat the statements by the Prime Minister which I put on record yesterday. He of course had gone on record many times in stating that he and the
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Conservative party are in favour of the farmer receiving a fair share of the national income. He and his party have gone on record from time to time, both in the house and in their convention, and in many speeches made by hon. members of the Conservative party, that the farmer, the man toiling on the land, should have not only the cost of production but also a decent standard of living.
This amendment simply asks that in no case shall the farmer be obliged to sell his products below a price which will give him the cost of production. I am sure that from the very fact that those of us coming from many parts of this great dominion of Canada have had various experiences, our attitudes in the house, of course,-while in most cases they are sincere-are different simply because of our experiences. I happen to be a farmer and I happen to have a close association with the people who work on the land. That is why I have taken this opportunity during this debate to fight with every bit of my resources to try to get this bill to mean something to the people on the land.
As I said before, we do not want anything special done for our farm people that we would not want done for the rest of our people. We are just simply saying that we feel that the farmers over the years under the former government, simply because they did not have an adequate price for their farm products, have had to leave the farms, and that policy has continued. I want to say to the hon. members that we are thinking of the tens of thousands of farmers leaving the land. Statistics will bear me out on this matter; this is not a wild figure; it is proved by the government's own figures. We cannot think of these people leaving their farms merely as statistics. These people are human beings. These are people who fought in the last war to win freedom for democracy and to win the kind of things we have in this country and of which we are proud. They are the people, many times, who have come back and tried to follow agriculture as a vocation. I want to mention some of these people because, rather than talk in pure statistical terms, I think it is sometimes important that we consider some of these questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order. My hon. friend has introduced an amendment and is proceeding to discuss it. In my respectful submission the amendment is clearly out of order on two grounds, either one of them fatal to the amendment.
In the first place, we are not dealing with a section that has not already been the subject of an amendment adopted by the committee. Earlier the committee adopted an amendment of this very clause by changing
3820	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization in line 12 the words: "have regard to" to "be guided by", which words are followed by the words "the estimated average cost of production of the commodity".
If my hon. friend had thought that his amendment had any relevance he should have introduced it as an amendment to that amendment. The house has now passed on this expression appearing in subclause (2) "shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of the commodity". My friend is now proposing to come along and insert words which are, in my submission to you Mr. Chairman, quite at variance with what the committee has already decided in that regard.
The other ground upon which the amendment is clearly out of order is that in some cases this amendment, if it were adopted, could increase the burden upon the treasury. In some cases the effect of the amendment, if it were in order, might be to raise the amount, and in some cases not. But the fact is that in some cases this amendment might have the effect of increasing the burden upon the treasury, and therefore it is not within the power of any hon. member in the house, apart from a minister, to move it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the two points of order raised by the Minister of Finance I should like to say a brief word. The first point of order was that the amendment which my colleague now proposes should have been moved as a subamendment to the amendment moved yesterday by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that if my colleague had done that my friend the Minister of Finance would have been on his feet saying that it was not a proper subamendment, that it was a different matter and that it should wait until that amendment had been dealt with.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would still have been out of order on the second ground.


Stanley Howard Knowles: will deal with that matter in a moment. With regard to the first point, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the amendment moved by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys called for a change of certain words in line 12 on page 2 of the bill. The amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Moose Mountain provides for the addition of certain words at the end of line 14 on page 2 of the bill. These words that are now proposed by my colleague are not words that could have been attached to or substituted for the words suggested yesterday by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. These words constitute a different amendment to the same


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
has made it clear that the bill as drafted envisages prices that will provide to producers in some instances something less thar the cost of production. If my hon. friend's argument is correct on the point of order then he had better suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that the bill should be amended to achieve the things that the governmen) says the bill is designed to bring about.
On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, ) submit that the Minister of Finance is of) on both counts. This amendment would no1 have been proper as a subamendment tc yesterday's amendment. This is a separate proposition. As to increased expenditure, ) submit that is covered by the ceiling in the bill and that it is also covered by the fad that we are told in the preamble that the purpose of this bill is to enable producers to get at least their cost of production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order, Mr Chairman, may I say this as far as the contention made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat is concerned, namely thal the $250 million provided in the bill sets the limit and therefore that this does not affecl the amount which conceivably could be spent. That argument is absolutely wrong because the $250 million is a revolving func and it has no relationship really to the amount which might be spent to support anj particular commodity.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I submit to you that when the government moved an amendment indicating that this board would be guided by the estimated average cost of production of a commodity the impression gained from the explanation by the Prime Minister was that this was going to be the governing factor, that is to say, the cost of production. Furthermore, the minister himself in speaking on the bill indicated that that was the main factor-the estimated cost of production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not a point of order, Mr. Chairman-it is an argument.


Walter Adam Tucker: The argument was made by the Minister of Finance that this would increase the burden upon the treasury and I certainly understood from the explanation of the Prime Minister and the minister that the introduction of these words "guided by" meant that they would get at least their cost of production. All that is asked in this amendment is that that be made clear in the bill itself; in other words, the expressed intention of the government should be put in the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I must once again protest about the hon. member getting up and saying he is speaking on a point of order when he is not coming anywhere near a point of order but is only making a general argument.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, the argument made by the Minister of Finance was that this would increase the burden on the treasury, and I am saying that this was pointed out by people speaking on the bill, including members of the government and even the Prime Minister and the minister himself, that this was going to guarantee to the farmer his cost of production. All that is asked for is that this should be placed in the bill, but they now say that putting this plainly in the bill would increase the burden on the treasury, which means that they are admitting that the bill before us does not cover the farmer's cost of production.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am speaking on my point of order and I am surprised that the hon. members opposite, who were the ones who were crying out for freedom of speech in the last parliament and insisting that members have the right to speak-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The member is talking on a point of order and I would ask him to keep to that subject.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am speaking on the point of order. It was said this would increase the
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization burden on the treasury, and I am pointing out that the explanation of the bill was to the effect that this would ensure that the farmer got his cost of production. We are simply asking that this intention be put in clear words in the bill and I am surprised that hon. members opposite should object to doing what was stated in clear words by their leader and by the minister himself, because if they did not intend this to be the purpose of the bill they should not have said it was.
Seme hon. Members: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Did you never hear the word "flexible"?


Charles Edward Rea: The chair is now ready to make a ruling. The amendment before us moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain is as follows:
That subelause (2) of clause 2 of Bill 237 be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"provided that in no case shall the percentage fixed by the governor in council be less than the estimated average cost of production of the commodity.''
I feel that the method of arriving at the percentage has already been agreed upon, as shown in clause 2, and I refer hon. members to the 8th edition of May at page 554, where in paragraph 3 it says:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.
So I rule, the committee having decided this, this amendment out of order. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Edward George McCullough: I would like to say that I believe the cat is right out of the bag now. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he joined the Minister of Agriculture in what he had said that afternoon that in a desire to achieve for the farmer a fair share of the national income they wanted at the same time to assure that if a major crash should take place there would be at least an emergency bottom beyond which prices would not fall in this country.
If there is any validity in what the Minister of Finance has now stated and if the governor in council is going to be guided by the average cost of production and we are going to have prices fixed which are going to be less than his cost of production, surely we now have three people admitting-firstly the Minister of Agriculture, in stating that this might very well increase the costs under the bill; secondly the Minister of Finance, rising on a point of order and saying it might be the same thing and now the decision of
3822	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the chair,-that this will have no such effect. I can only say this is a bleak bill, that it is empty and that it is a bankruptcy bill tor the farmer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not propose to have my words distorted completely out of any resemblance to what I said, as the hon. member has just attempted to do. Everything the hon. member has said is not only misdirected but is completely out of order. He has tried to open up again what was decided by the committee on the former admendment. The committee has already decided in the light of the amendments they have adopted to clause 2 that in prescribing the percentage of the base price of an agricultural commodity under the relevant paragraphs the governor in council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of that commodity.
What the hon. member is trying to do is to go back and rake that all up and discuss it all over again. The government has made it quite clear that it does wish, and that the proper interpretation of the clause is, that in arriving at the percentage of the base price of an agricultural commodity the governor in council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of that commodity. The committee has made that decision and that subject is no longer open to discussion in this committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 2 is still under debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Clause 2 is still under debate but the prescription as to the method of arriving at the percentage of the base price is no longer open to discussion because the committee has reached its decision on that point and the amendment has been adopted. All that is being accomplished here is more and more waste of time and the continual violation of the proper rules of debate in the house.


An hon. Member:: That is funny, coming from you.


Walter Adam Tucker: The minister recalls that I asked him yesterday to consider putting what is in the preamble-where it has no binding effect-at the end of subsection (2) of the clause in, that is, words indicating that it is the obligation of the board in prescribing prices to ensure that the farmers receive a fair share of the national income. I realized from the attitude taken by the minister yesterday, and I realize now from the attitude taken in regard to the amendment which has just been ruled out of order, that there would be no use in my making that motion, but I did ask the minister if he would not consider overnight making it quite clear and putting


in the operative part of the bill that the purpose of this bill and the directions to this board are to set prices that would ensure the farmers getting a fair share of the national income. When that was in the act which is being repealed I cannot understand why the government is not willing to put it in the operative part of this bill, in other words, clauses 2 and 7.
I did not put the minister on the spot by moving an amendment or anything; I asked him to consider putting it in the operative section of the bill. I should like to ask him if he has considered this, and, if he has decided against it-and I hope he has not- whether he would explain why.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The whole purpose and spirit of this bill, as indicated in the preamble and in each of the clauses, is to establish guaranteed yearly prices which will give a fair return to the farmer, and I can see no advantage to be gained by writing this particular phrase into some other clause of the bill.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put one question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he considered lengthening the list of commodities which may be supported in order to give this support plan more national coverage, and so as to include the fur farmers and trappers. I think their mode of living is as depressed as that of people who farm under regular farming conditions. I wonder if the minister would consider supporting farmers in those lines of endeavour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think that for some unknown reason the hon. member has failed to appreciate what I have said time after time, namely that any agricultural commodity can be supported under this bill. You could not make it any wider than that.


John Hornby Harrison: I quite understand that, but I wondered whether the occupation of fur farmer was considered a farming operation by the minister, because if he did not place such an interpretation upon it, it would not be covered.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I dealt with this very subject in reply to questions and to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie River this morning.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Before this clause carries I should like to take a moment or two to express my disappointment, and I am sure the disappointment of farm organizations all over Canada, at the refusal of the government to make this bill really operative. The refusal to put into the bill definition of cost of production will make the act meaningless because

it will not even guarantee to the farmers that the fair price will meet their cost of production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order. Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with this matter.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The Minister of Agriculture says we have dealt with this matter, but I am certain that in the years to come much more will be heard of it, because it will be shown that by refusing to improve the measure by following the suggestions that the farm organizations have made the bill has been deprived of its value.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Board established.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to clause 3, subclause 1, in which it is stated:
There shall be a corporation to be known as the "agricultural stabilization board" consisting of three members appointed by the governor in council.
Is it possible that these three members could be appointed and could come from one province of the dominion, or is it the intention to make the appointment of the members on the geographical basis, or on some basis which would be truly representative of the various provinces of Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as far as the stabilization board is concerned, it will be the chief administrative group carrying into effect the provisions of this act, and therefore the people appointed to that board must be appointed primarily from the point of view of their ability as administrators and the background of experience they have along those lines so that they may be capable of carrying out the purposes of this bill satisfactorily.
Perhaps hon. members do not realize that this really involves a big commercial operation. The agricultural prices support board which has existed for the past 11 years, as was pointed out by the right hon. member for Melville, has bought and sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of agricultural products. The stabilization board to be set up under this bill will, I expect, buy and sell a very greatly increased volume of agricultural commodities. Therefore the members of the board must, essentially, be businessmen and capable of carrying on what amounts to being quite a big commercial enterprise as far as one phase of their operations are concerned. In consequence, they must be secured primarily with that qualification in mind, as people who are capable of satisfactorily administering what amounts to a big business.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
On clause 5-Advisory committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it has been indicated that there is an amendment to be moved in clause 5. The amendment is that subclause (2) of clause 5 be amended by inserting immediately after the word "shall" in line 17, on page 3, the words "meet at least twice a year and shall".
The purpose of this amendment is to meet requests which have been made by farm organizations that it should be made absolutely clear in the bill that this board shall meet regularly. One of the views which were expressed was that the board, or the advisory committee which had been provided for under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, had not met regularly. It ordinarily met once a year, or sometimes twice a year for two days. It was a board composed of the deputy ministers of agriculture of the various provinces together with some representatives of the various farm organizations. The request was for an assurance in the bill that this board would meet regularly in order to advise on the commodities which should be put under guaranteed yearly price support, and the level of that support. I will ask my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to move this amendment.


Mr. Nowlan:: I move, Mr. Chairman:
That subclause (2) of clause 5 be amended by Inserting immediately after the word "shall" in line 17, on page 3, the words "meet at least twice a year and shall".


James Garfield Gardiner: I am in support of the amendment. I simply want to say that I do not recall there was any year in which the advisory committee met less than twice, and there were occasions on which it met three or four times a year. But I have no objection to this, and I would expect that the board would meet at least twice a year. Perhaps the procedure which was followed previously might have been a little different. We met whenever the advisory committee suggested to us that we should meet, and there were occasions when we called for a meeting when it had not made that suggestion. I am quite satisfied we met the conditions provided in this bill by the amendment.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, subclause (2) of clause 5 reads in part:
The advisory committee . . . shall advise the minister and the board with respect to such matters relating to the stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities under this act as are referred to it by the minister or the board.
I am just wondering how the minister squares that with his statement of a moment ago that this committee would act under the advisement of agricultural organizations. He
3824	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization made that statement a moment ago, and I should like to have some clarification with regard to it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member is not talking about the amendment. I wonder if we might have the amendment carried. I would then deal with the hon. member's question.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the question just asked I have said on several occasions at various stages when this bill was under discussion that the way in which it was envisaged this advisory committee would work was that they would be called in and, to begin with, would advise on what commodities they thought should be put under price support and needed price support at that particular time or needed the guaranteed annual price put under them. They would also give advice in regard to the level at which the support price should be established. I am assured by the law officers of the crown who drafted the wording of this provision that they consider this the most appropriate way to carry into operation the idea that I expressed to them.


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Chairman, the minister just said that this committee would meet and advise him as to what commodities they thought should be supported and at what level the support should be established but as the bill now stands they can only advise him on such products as are referred to them by the minister and therefore the initiative has to come from the minister. He must refer something to the committee even before they can discuss it or advise him on it. I am in favour of the amendment that was passed providing for the committee to meet twice a year but even though they meet twice a year they are powerless and can do nothing on their own initiative. They must wait until the minister refers a question to them. I believe that this is completely inconsistent with the policy we have followed up until now. If the committee is to mean anything and if anything of value is to come from their meeting twice a year as now provided for they should be empowered to suggest to the minister what commodities they feel should be supported and at what level the commodities should be supported and not wait for the minister to refer something to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, probably I was out of order on second reading when I raised this question but I do want to raise it again at this time when I am in order in so doing. I have found it a little difficult to understand why the last part of subclause 2 of clause 5 reads as it does.


-relating to the stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities under this act as are referred to it by the minister or the board.
The advisory committee which we had before was quite free at all times to bring up matters that they thought should be discussed when they were meeting with us. I cannot see any disadvantage in that and I have just been wondering why the minister has not adopted the same plan in this bill. As it stands it leaves itself open to the kind of attack that has just been made by the hon. member for Springfield to the effect that only those matters which are referred to it by the minister or by the board can be advised upon. I would think it would be better to leave it as wide as it was under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the advisory committee established under this bill is not the type of committee which the hon. member for Melville called together when he was minister of agriculture which, as I say, consisted chiefly of the deputy ministers of agriculture of the various provinces. They constituted the biggest group in that committee and its purpose was a continuation of a wartime committee which had existed, the function of which was to give advice on general agricultural questions. The present committee is for the specific purpose of advising what commodities should be put under guaranteed yearly prices or given price support and the levels of that support.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, nothing under the Agricultural Prices Support Act or under the regulations required that deputy ministers be on the committee at all. I may say that the first suggestion of forming a committee was made by farm organizations and particularly the federation of agriculture. The chairman of the board was always the president of the federation of agriculture no matter who that might have been. It is true that it was the same man for all the years and therefore it has been Mr. Hannam all the way through but at the time it was set up the regulation which was put out was to the effect that there would be someone there to represent the various farm organizations and that there would also be representatives of the provincial departments of agriculture. In the first appointments that were made perhaps half or not quite that many of the provincial departments of agriculture named persons other than the deputy. They were not members of the staff of the provincial departments in all cases and quite often they were members of provincial farm organizations. It may have been that at some times and perhaps for most of the time they actually sent their deputies but they were free to appoint even a farm representative. I think

he total number rose to 19. I am under the mpression that it was the highest number ve had at any time and this was after New-oundland entered confederation which irought in another representative from that irovince.
I agree that there has been some change n the situation and I do not think it has been or the better. It was announced early in he session that the conference that was ilways held in the first week of December vas not being continued. Of course the idvisory committee had some relationship to he fact that that conference met from time o time and it would not be possible with he numbers who are now provided to have epresented so many farm organizations or irovincial departments of agriculture on this ommittee if it is going to consist of nine nstead of 19 members-.
I feel that I should point out it was never he intention that the provincial departments if agriculture should have their deputies epresented here and no one else. I also subnit that it is sometimes a good thing to have epresentation from the provincial depart-nents of agriculture because in agriculture nore than in any other field there is over-apping as a result of our constitution which ilaces the responsibility with both. I would ather think it weakens the position of agriculture not to have this sort of representation.
would not say there should be a stipulation n this bill to the effect that they must be epresented but when the minister is giving onsideration to any appointments that might >e made I would hope he would not lose sight if the fact that the provincial departments if agriculture must have a considerable part o play in the administration of an act such is is foreshadowed by this bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the main con-ideration here is one I have pointed out >efore. The committee which is provided for n this bill is a totally different committee rom the one which met under the nominal iUthority of the Agricultural Prices Support tct which was constituted, as the hon. mem->er for Melville has just said, of a majority if deputy ministers of agriculture from the irovincial departments or farm represent-itives. This committee is for the purpose if giving general advice on agricultural natters to the federal Minister of Agriculture.
have had some discussions with various leople in regard to the question of whether ir not the committee would be continued in he form in which it existed. I have no ntention of doing away entirely with that type if committee which I think perhaps one night have inferred from what the hon. nember for Melville said. The same is true vith respect to the annual dominion-provincial
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization conference on agriculture. It is not my purpose to do away with it completely. It was not held this year because the majority of people who normally attend thought there had been a great many recent conferences with regard to agriculture and the need for it did not exist this year. As a matter of fact some of them stated that even if it were held they did not think they would attend because of the fact they had been to Ottawa two or three times already to meet the new government, the new Minister of Agriculture and so forth. That was essentially the reason why it was not held this year.
We have reached no decision up to the present time of doing away with the holding of that annual conference. What I have in mind on the advice of many of the people who attend is to change the form of it to some extent and probably to tie in the meetings of that conference with the meetings of what was essentially this advisory committee which, as I say nominally was called together under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and in this way save people the trouble of coming to Ottawa twice.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the minister has included clause 5 making provision for an advisory committee, I think he should be prepared to accept an amendment such as has been proposed by the hon. member for Springfield and the right hon. member for Melville. The clause now reads:
(1)	The minister shall appoint an advisory committee, consisting of a chairman and at least six, but not more than nine, other members, composed of farmers and representatives of farm organizations.
There is no question about that.
(2)	The advisory committee established under subsection (1) shall meet at least twice a year and shall advise the minister and the board with respect to such matters relating to the stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities under this act as are referred to it by the minister or the board.
If the minister decides not to refer anything to the advisory committee it has nothing to do. Therefore I should like to move the following amendment:
That subclause (2) of clause 5, as amended, be amended by deleting the word "such" from line 18, and also by inserting a period after the word "act" in line 19 and by deleting all the words from this point to the end of the said subclause.
If the clause were amended in that way it would then read:
The advisory committee established under subsection (1) shall meet at least twice a year and shall advise the minister and the board with respect to matters relating to the stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities under this act.
3826	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The minister is not obliged to accept such advice but if there is to be an advisory-committee I think the committee should have the authority to offer to the board or the minister whatever advice the committee may think fit.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to say something along the same line before the minister answers. I understood the minister to say a few moments ago when replying to the right hon. member for Melville that the purpose of the advisory committee was to advise the government on agricultural problems generally. I think probably the intention is that the advisory committee shall be free at any time to give the minister such advice as they think he should receive but having in mind the way the clause is worded I am inclined to disagree with the minister because he is limiting the functions of the committee. If the clause is carried as it stands the committee will only be permitted to advise the minister on such subjects as are referred to it by the minister or the board. For instance, if the advisory committee decided that woodpulp should come under the legislation and was of the opinion after consulting people in different parts of the country that woodpulp should be given consideration, the advisory committee could not so advise the minister or the board because that subject had not been referred to them first by the minister or the board.
It seems to me the minister is defeating the very purpose he has indicated as the reason for setting up the committee and I believe some consideration should be given by the minister to making a change. I do not have an amendment prepared, but it seems to me it is quite clear that the committee can only make recommendations to the minister of the board on subjects specifically referred to it by the minister or the board. It is just not the case under the wording of the clause that the committee has freedom to make recommendations or discuss matters with the minister as the members of the committee see fit. I suggest that the minister give consideration to changing the wording of the clause so as to give the committee the power to do those things which he said a moment ago it could do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I outlined earlier what the purpose of the advisory committee is and how it is envisaged it will work. The drafting authorities in the Department of Justice drafted the clause in this way and advised that this was an adequate and proper way for the matter to be expressed. Therefore I do not feel inclined to start shifting it around and make some


sort of change when it is difficult for me to know what the effects might be.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is the fact that for a long time it has more or less been my business to listen but my hearing is pretty good. A few minutes ago, and I am not going to say from where it came, a remark did reach my ears. I can understand why some people might have fears on that basis. The farmers, of course, are pretty well organized across the country and there are a great many such organizations. Perhaps some people might feel that the things that would be discussed in a committee of this kind might find their way out into the open and be the subject of rather general discussion as the result of which difficulties might arise. I simply want to say that the committee set up during wartime, as suggested by the minister, and afterwards made a continuing committee when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was first passed, was composed right from the beginning of 16 individuals and the number reached as high as 19. In the committee there was a general understanding on a very similar basis to the understanding there is in council. Cabinet members who attend council meetings and discuss questions express all kinds of opinions when the discussion starts but the only opinion that counts and the only one that comes out of such council meetings is the final decision and all agree to it.
The committee was established much on that basis. The members were not paid officials of the government of the day. Our officials always sat in for the purpose of giving them any information they desired, but in all the years that the committee was in operation I never heard of one single thing said in the committee being repeated outside to the press or spread throughout the country in any other way indicating that so and so said so and so about anything.
They sat and discussed these matters on the understanding they were discussing them behind closed doors in the same way a meeting of council is held. We discussed all kinds of questions, some of them with a political turn to them and some of them purely business matters. We discussed such matters as what was going to happen to a price of a commodity if we did so and so.
I repeat that not even once did I ever hear of anything getting out of that committee that affected the results of any action that might have been taken. I just want to say I think the same situation will hold true if the committee is set up properly. I am not thinking so much of the individuals. I have found them all to be very honourable.

They came there and, no matter what their views might be, when they left they never expressed any opinion outside in opposition to anyone who was associated with the meeting. I simply wanted to say that.


Mr. Siefura:: There is another matter that I feel should be looked at. As a farmer myself it is something that strikes a little bit of fear in my heart. At one stage of the bill we heard from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. As recorded on page 3480 of Hansard for January 18, 1958, he had this to say:
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, 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.
Perhaps I misinterpreted those words, but as a farmer who is interested in farm problems I am concerned about them. If the farm representatives make suggestions to the government which are accepted, then I will agree that these representatives would be equally responsible with the government. However, if the government did not follow the suggestions of these representatives, and at the same time blamed them and said they should resign, I feel that is not giving the advisory committee the break for which the farm people have been asking from time to time. I know the minister did not speak about this matter, but perhaps he could clarify this statement.


Edward George McCullough: I had hoped the minister would not have risen so quickly to his feet to say he would not be inclined to accept this amendment. I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie and to say I think it is a reasonable one. I believe the amendment would assist the minister in having an advisory committee which would have some knowledge of the things which are of importance to recommend to the board. If the minister really desires a committee of representative farmers and farm organizations to give useful information to the board for the setting of support prices, I suggest that by leaving the wording of section 2 of clause 5 as it is in the bill he is defeating his own purpose. The committee will have no terms of reference except on those matters which are referred by the minister. The minister is placing the committee in a very difficult position and making it difficult for them to give the assistance which is needed. I hope therefore, Mr. Chairman, the minister will reconsider 96698

3827
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization his statement. I do not think he was too adamant. I hope he will be prepared to get one of his colleagues to move this amendment because I think it is a fair and reasonable one.


Jacob Schulz: When the Prime Minister was speaking yesterday he criticized us for prolonging this debate perhaps even to the point where this legislation will not go through in this session. At the same time he admitted that some useful suggestions were coming out of the discussion. I think this amendment is a very useful suggestion. I hope the minister will accept it. I was listening very carefully to the minister's explanation, and he made two points. First, he said that this committee will be different. We agree with that, and we appreciate it. The next point was that this committee cannot give general advice if these words are not taken out. It can only give advice on those products and on such matters as are referred to them by the minister or the board. I hope the minister will take those words out.
Amendment (Mr. Nicholson) negatived: Yeas, 30; nays, 45.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Action to stabilize prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is an amendment to be moved to clause 7. It is as follows:
That subclause (1) of clause 7 be amended by striking out the words "base price for" in lines 42 and 43, on page 3, and substituting therefor the words "cost of production of".
The purpose of this amendment is to make it certain that the board, in setting prices, will take into full consideration the cost of production and relate it to the price prescribed for any commodity rather than the base price for such commodity. This is one of the amendments which was requested by the interprovincial farm unions. I am quite happy to change the words "base price for" to "cost of production of", so it will be abundantly clear that is the determining factor to be kept in mind in setting the prescribed support price for any commodity. I would ask my colleague the Minister of National Revenue to move that amendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: I so move.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think the
Minister of Agriculture must have had something to do with the drafting of the Conservative agricultural program which was used during the last election campaign because they seem to have been able to have put words into it which could not be defined. The minister is asking the house to put in the term "cost of production". What do they
3828	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization mean? On a previous occasion I asked for the definition of that term to be placed in the act so that hon. members would know what the term "cost of production" meant. I am certain that the farm organizations would recommend to the minister that the term "cost of production" be defined.
I think we have an amazing situation where the minister is putting into the act a term which he admitted is very important -and which I agree is very important-but which he refuses to define in the definition clause. Failing that, I think I will ask the minister to give to me and to members of the farm organizations his definition of the term "cost of production" so that we shall at least have some common ground to start with. Can the minister give the definition of "cost of production"?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We had a long discussion previously with regard to this term "cost of production". I would point out to the hon. member that by the very nature of things there cannot be any precise definition of that term. As to the way in which this thing will work, may I say this. I think he is a practical farmer. I think he knows something about these things. As an example of how the thing might work, I could cite what happened with regard to putting a support price under sugar beets. The sugar beet producers associations came here from Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. It happened that the Ontario sugar beet producers association had worked out a considerable number of figures as far as their cost of production was concerned. The producers from the other three areas did not have any figures along that line. However, the Ontario sugar beet producers had a set of figures which they had prepared by getting the cost from a considerable number of sugar beet farmers on different sized acreages. As a result they arrived at an average cost of production as far as they were concerned. That was the factor that we took into consideration in fixing the support price for sugar beets.
Actually they gave me this information more or less confidentially. I do not want to say what they said their average cost of production was. However, I will say this. The people in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, said that their cost of production was considerably greater than the cost of production of the producers in Ontario because of the higher cost of freight on the things which they had to buy, such as machinery and so forth which they used. They maintained also they had a higher cost for labour, although I think that this contention was disputed by the people down


here. But in any event, they maintained that their cost of production was higher. Hence what we did was to take a price which struck a fairly good average, seeing that this was to be a price which was going to apply equally all over the country and not be different in one part of the country from what it was in another. That is the way the thing will work out in practice. I do not think there will be any undue difficulty about it. But as I say, you cannot write into the act a precise definition of "cost of production" and how it is going to be arrived at because it will differ from commodity to commodity.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think we are making a good deal of headway here, Mr. Chairman. The minister has stated that there are regional costs of production. That is something that hon. members will readily recognize. I wonder whether he could give us an indication of some of the factors which will be considered in the cost of production. He will have to have those in mind because he will have to analyse the figures that various groups bring in to him when they are requesting a price to be set. Will he be including in his cost of production the goods and services used by farmers in the production of a commodity?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Naturally; the cost of the goods and the services that the farmer uses; the cost of gasoline he uses to run his tractor, the cost of labour that he has to use *-that is particularly true as far as sugar beets are concerned

in putting in the crop, in weeding it and taking it off. These are things which enter into his cost of production; certainly.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: And also a return on his investment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: In other words the cost of production would mean the cost of goods and services necessary to the production of the commodity and shall include a fair return for his investment and labour. That is what the minister stated is included and that would appear to be a satisfactory definition, would it not?


Walter Adam Tucker: Section 7 is the section that gives the board its statutory directions under the law. I submit to the minister that this is the place where the objective that he put into the preamble should have been placed. I suggest that he should consider having as the objective of the board that in setting prices, they should set them with a view that the prescribed prices should bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of the commodity but also that they should be high

enough at all times to ensure that the farmers receive a fair share of the national income.
In the speech from the throne it was set out that this bill was going to be brought in in order to achieve that objective. When the bill was brought in it contained nothing about it. That fact was brought to the attention of the government by hon. members on this side of the house and other hon. members in other parts of the house, namely that what was set out as the objective of the bill in the speech from the throne was not actually in the bill and that the bill proposed to repeal an act of parliament which did, in the operative part of the section-and I refer to section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act-provide that in setting prices they should set prices which would in effect ensure farmers receiving a fair share of the national income. When the government left that provision out of this bill altogether it certainly indicated that they were trying to get away from that statutory obligation of any board set up to stabilize farm prices.
Then when they decided to do something about it, instead of putting it into an operative section like section 7 here, which would have imposed a statutory obligation on the board, they put it in the recital which is just what you might call a pious aspiration. I therefore say to the minister that if he wants to carry out what they held out in the election campaign, what they put in the speech from the throne and what they now profess to acquiesce in by putting it in the preamble, I suggest that they now carry out the section in an effective way so that the farmers have as much protection as they have under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and write in this direction that, in setting these prices, they shall be set high enough to ensure that the farmers receive a fair share of the national income.
I am not moving an amendment, Mr. Chairman, because, from what has happened here this afternoon with regard to other amendments which were moved I know very well that the minister will be able to raise the objection that any such amendment might increase the charge on the treasury. Hence I know there is no use in my moving one. But I urge the minister to carry out what was set out in the speech from the throne, in their campaign speeches and what they are purporting to do by putting this in the preamble and insert it in section 7.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I have said during the course of this discussion on the clauses of the bill and as I said several times previously on second reading and at the resolution stage, I consider that this bill is perfectly adequate as it stands to carry into effect all of our 96698-242}
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization campaign promises in connection with support prices for agricultural products. I, therefore, as I told the hon. member earlier, see no necessity for writing those words into the bill again.


John Hornby Harrison: With regard to the amendment which has been moved, I should like to ask the minister this question. In the final analysis does it not come down to an interpretation by the minister as to what the cost of production shall be? I think that is what it amounts to. I think the minister and the government itself will have to take cognizance of what the cost of production is, and it will be on their interpretation of that cost of production which will determine the benefit, if any, that is received by the farmer. I think that is the portent of the whole bill-that the final decision on any benefits to farmers must rest with the minister and with the government. If I am wrong I would like the minister to tell me so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I move an amendment which I hope, even in the atmosphere in this committee this afternoon, the minister will accept.
That clause 7, subclause (1) be amended by striking out the word "recommandations" and substituting the word "recommendations".
I realize this is only a typographical error but I know that on previous occasions when we have allowed a bill to go through which contained typographical errors their honours in the other place have had to send it back to us.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry that I did not catch this misspelling before, and I am quite happy to accept the amendment and change the clause accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was afraid that the minister would rise on a point of order that it would cost a little something to have the linotype operator reset that one line in the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that the correction is unnecessary because it would be done automatically in the reprint.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 8-Establishment of base price.
James Alexander Smith: We in
this group have always strongly argued that support prices should be related to some period of years when the prices of agricultural products and the costs were in approximate equivalence one to the other. Several such basic periods have been suggested; the years 1925 to 1929 have been used for several years now by the Canadian Federation of
3830	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Agriculture and the administrators of the agricultural prices support board use the period 1943, 1944 and 1945 as their base years. The period 1948 to 1957 is also a stable period of years and it is close to being as effective as the other two periods I have mentioned.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has pointed out that this basic period using the 80 per cent average as proposed in this bill would establish prices which are slightly below their 70 per cent of the parity for such items as hogs, butter, eggs and cheese.
The present Prime Minister, in speaking in this house on March 12, 1956, is recorded at page 2021 of Hansard as having said with respect to the best period of years:
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today. Not charity but parity. When one looks at the general price relationship one begins to realize how far in recent years that desirable end has been departed from. As far as parity is concerned, it must be related to a basic period-
I wish to repeat, Mr. Chairman:
-it must be related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.
During the course of the same speech the Prime Minister gave a definition of parity in the following words:
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.
In view of this, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville:
That section 8, subsection (2) be amended in lines 3 and 4 by striking out the following words: ''the ten years immediately preceding the year in which the base price is established" and substituting the words "the ten year period between 1948 to 1957, all years inclusive."
I would point out that section 8, subsection (2) as amended would read as follows:
The base price for an agricultural commodity shall be the average price at representative markets as determined by the board for the ten year period 1948 to 1957, all years inclusive.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


James Alexander Smith: Would the Chairman kindly put my amendment to the house before it is spoken to?


Charles Edward Rea: It has not
yet been decided whether the amendment is in order, and I was wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture had any comments to make.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was going to point out that in my opinion this amendment is out of order on two grounds: Firstly, it is contrary to the general principle of the bill, which is to provide a system of flexible price supports for agricultural products. This amendment is intended to put a rigid formula into the bill by deciding on a fixed base period, which of course is one of the main features of a rigid formula. We would then be tied to a particular base period and it would not matter how much conditions might change, what technological advances might be made or what changes there might be in export markets, general levels or anything else. Secondly, this is out of order because it could have the effect of increasing the charge on the public treasury. On those two grounds I would ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.


Charles Edward Rea: I would like to draw attention to the explanatory notes where it says:
The board will establish the base price for a commodity by calculating the average price at representative markets for the ten years immediately preceding the year in which the base price is establsihed.
The house approved that, in principle, on second reading and therefore this amendment would be contrary to the general principle of the bill and I rule it out of order. Shall clause 8 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Duration of action to stabilize prices.
James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to raise a question upon which I think the minister and I are now agreed. Yesterday I made a statement that on three occasions there was a two year period for butter and I think the minister was under the impression that there were only two such occasions. I would just like to ask him whether I was not correct?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. member for Melville was quite correct. There were three of those periods rather than two, as I had in mind. I was incorrect in my statement and I would like to apologize to the right hon. member.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not have to.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, clause 9, subclause 1 contains a very interesting feature, namely the security feature which it embodies, or the forward pricing feature. Both

the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Halton speaking yesterday characterized this one-year forward price as the vehicle by which a long-term planning on the part of agriculturists could be carried out. In agricultural circles both in this country and in many other parts of the world two concepts are used in arriving at a pricing formula for agricultural products. The first is the concept of parity. I do not want to be called out of order, Mr. Chairman, because I am going to refer to this only very briefly in order to lay the foundation for the case I am going to make. One concept is parity which, I am the first to agree, involves certain production restrictions. I do not think anybody will deny that this would be the logical outcome of such a policy. Not a curtailment of production-I want to make that clear

but a curtailment of certain aspects of production. And it envisages possible subsidies.
The other concept is an agricultural price formula based on the concept of supply and demand. That, of course, is the principle embodied in the bill which is before the committee this afternoon. One of the strange things is that in recognizing and attempting to introduce a pricing formula, a program involving the theory and the concept of supply and demand, the minister and his government have not accepted the principle of forward pricing which is the key to this concept and principle which has been advocated by all those who have implemented or brought into existence an agricultural policy based on the concept of supply and demand. In effect this one-year forward price is not a forward price at all, and an agricultural program based on a forward price of one year is doomed to failure. It is with this aspect of clause 9 that I wish to deal, rather briefly.
What does a forward price propose to do? Its purpose is to iron out the fluctuations in price over a production cycle. That is the purpose, and that is the anchor which might make for successful operation, even though the present formula is based on supply and demand which is the market price. Why is it advisable that these fluctuations in price should be eliminated?
The losses and the hardship to prairie farmers due to price instability are impossible to calculate, but they are great. Long term production planning is practically impossible in view of the lack of long term price assurance. Consequently, farmers, in an attempt to guess the market, are in-and-outers and this increases the wide fluctuations in price. Let us take the case of cattle as an example.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
When prices are low and breeding stock is becoming scarce the market prospects look attractive. Farmers begin to purchase and breed livestock. By so doing they absorb stock which would otherwise have gone to market. Packers, in closer touch with the market and employing the staff skilled in analysing trends, increase their purchases of storable meats. The supply of available stock is further decreased. Prices rise rapidly, but the farmer has little available for sale. He is himself a buyer. By the time he has completed his breeding program and his stock is ready for market many others have done the same thing and have reached approximately the same point. The packers, by drawing on supplies built up during the period of low prices, purchase to a minimum. Farmers are not purchasing breeding stock because their needs in this line are filled.
The result is an immediate supply far exceeding immediate demand and prices take a drastic drop. The farmer is caught. He cannot hold off the market because his product deteriorates. Production is not economical in many instances and the breeding stock goes to swell the supply of killing animals. Many farmers who should never have been in the livestock business, for economic reasons, have been attracted by the later very high prices. For them, retention of a livestock production program at low prices would be business suicide. Their herd goes, lock, stock and barrel. Prices are depressed far below a level which will even show a net return to the most efficient producers, and they remain low for a much longer period than they remained at the peak. Not only have many farmers bred stock just before the slump but many continue to breed for some time after in the hope that the recession is an abnormality which will be short lived.
However, the forward price carefully administered can closely reach a certain objective and may lead to results far superior to so-called competition as presently practiced. Provision must be made for a lower price if the supply cannot be absorbed. That is the point the minister stressed the other day. When he is about to set the prescribed price he is going to have to take into consideration the demand on the market, and if the demand is great, it is logical to suggest he will raise the prescribed price above the preceding 10-year average to encourage production; but if the demand is less than the supply, conversely, he would lower the prescribed or guaranteed price below the last 10-year average in order to discourage production. That is, in essence,

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization a true forward price. But you cannot do it on a 12-month period. You must do it on the basis of a production cycle.
It is well established what is involved in a production cycle. You cannot say you will make an investment in livestock just because you know that 12 months hence the price is going to be what it is today. You have to know five years ahead, and the production cycle is accepted in agricultural colleges throughout the country as being five years for livestock. It simply means that you must know what the price will be of the progeny of an animal five years hence. Thus a realistic forward price for cattle must be over the entire production cycle for five years. That does not mean the minister will have to wait five years to set the price. The price will be set each and every year, but when a man invests in livestock in 1958 he is going to know that in 1963 he will receive the price that prevailed at the time he went into the business. We will say for argument's sake it is 20 cents a pound. Now, if in 1959 the minister believes that demand has outstripped supply he could raise the price to 21 cents a pound in that year. In 1960 if the minister thinks that supply is greater than demand he could drop it to 19 cents.
The point I am trying to make is that the man who invests in livestock must know at the end of one production cycle, namely five years, that he is going to get a guaranteed or prescribed price equal to the price that prevailed when he first went into the business. I suggest in all seriousness that this program based on supply and demand which completely ignores the key to this proposition, which is a forward price base of one production cycle, is doomed to failure and because of that, Mr. Chairman, I would move seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley the following amendment:
That subclause (1) of clause 9 of Bill No. 237 be amended by deleting all the words after the word "board," in line 18 to the end of the subclause, and by substituting therefor the following words:
"and shall continue thereafter for a period of one production cycle in the case of all named and designated commodities, or for such other additional period as the governor in council prescribes."
One further word, Mr. Chairman. The argument I have made is not simply that I do not believe a farm program can realistically accomplish what of necessity has to be accomplished by using the pricing principle of supply and demand. I believe that never in history has demand ever exceeded supply. It is simply a question of distribution. That is the problem we should be trying to solve rather than worrying about demand. We have land, labour and

capital almost continuously producing grain which should be producing livestock. At certain periods we have land, labour and capital producing livestock which should be otherwise engaged. And always we have labour and capital producing agricultural products which would be much more effectively employed in the production of secondary products for consumption by society. It is our duty as custodians of the agricultural industry to institute the necessary steps to adjust these allocations to as high a standard as we can reach and I honestly believe that we cannot do this with this measure which we will pass in a few minutes. I also believe that only by the application of the principle of a parity price properly administered can we hope to reach that very desirable goal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to maintain that this amendment is out of order; I do not know whether it is. In any event I wish to say a few words in connection with it. It is a provision which is so completely vague and impractical that we just could not consider it. The amendment reads:
-"and shall continue thereafter for a period of one production cycle in the case of all named and designated commodities-"
What is the production cycle for cheese which is one of the named commodities? What is the production cycle for eggs? The hon. member said that the production cycle for livestock is five years. As a matter of fact the production cycle differs for every type of livestock. There are no two kinds of livestock for which the production cycle is the same. I think, therefore, the amendment is completely indefinite, impractical and is the sort of thing which if you attempted to write it into a piece of legislation would only serve to put you into endless trouble. It could serve no good purpose whatever.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, may I say just a few words. What the minister has said about production cycles is absolutely correct, there are variations. But may I point out to him that there is a production cycle for all the commodities he has named. Certainly the minister does not expect me or any hon. member in this house including himself to attempt to figure out what is the production cycle for these various commodities. There are any number of people in this country who are fully qualified to do this. It has been well known for many years that there are production cycles. This principle has been laid down and we do not have to tax our ingenuity at this time in any effort to define a production cycle for

each of these commodities. I suggest to the minister that his argument does not carry-very much weight with me.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to speak in support of the amendment which my colleague has moved. I am of the opinion that the minister has overlooked the main objective in moving this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the stabilization of agricultural commodities and unless we as farmers can obtain some reasonable assurance of what the price is going to be in the future we are unable to regulate our current production to it. That is one of the complaints hon. members in this group brought forward at the second reading stage of this bill. As a farmer who has a fairly substantial livestock enterprise I am in the position right now of being uncertain whether to expand or contract my livestock operations. If we are going to give all the farmers of Canada some assistance it would appear that we will have to give them a guaranteed base on their production cycle.
Certainly the minister was right when he said that the cycle is different for each of these commodities. I am glad that he recognized that because it is not recognized in the bill. It is explicitly stated in the bill as 12 months whether it happens to be cattle, hogs, poultry, soybeans or what have you. The bill limits it to 12 months in the case of all commodities. The minister is one who appreciates flexibility. Over and over again he has requested hon. members to give consideration to the principle of flexibility which I maintain the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort is attempting to instil in the bill by letting us have a production cycle for each commodity. I further maintain that the members of the agricultural staffs in our experimental farms, the Department of Agriculture and the economics division of this department could very easily define what is a production cycle. Surely it is just as easy to define a production cycle as it is to define the cost of production. I request hon. members to give serious consideration to supporting my colleague's amendment with a view to stabilizing agriculture in Canada.


Charles Edward Rea: I should like to point out to the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort and the hon. member for Kindersley that once again we come back to the principle of the bill which refers specifically to the fact that a ten-year period average shall be taken for a price which will stay in effect for 12 months. This amendment would certainly have the effect of changing the principle of the bill and therefore I do not see how the Chair can do other than rule the amendment out of order.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Mr. Schulz: Mr. Chairman, I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister several times and now that we have arrived at this clause of the bill I am going to try it once more.
We have been told that support prices placed under commodities will be in effect for a period of 12 months. I have always maintained that the bill does not provide for that and the proof is right in the third last line of subclause 1 of clause 9 where I find these words:
... in the case of a designated commodity, for such other period as the governor in council prescribed.
That means that the period could also be less than 12 months. It says "for such other period''. What period? It could be six months, three months or eighteen months. I am not going to submit an amendment but I suggest that the word "other" in line 20 should be struck out and that the word "additional" or "longer" should be substituted therefor.
Then it will be consistent with the preamble. The 12 month period will then apply to all named products or designated products. If this is not done it will only apply to named products which will be revised every 12 months. The word "or" is the key, "or, in the case of a designated commodity, for such other period". I suggest to the minister that we should strike out the word "or" and put in "additional" or "longer".


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Springfield demonstrated when we were dealing with the cash advance legislation that he is not able to understand these clauses properly. The clause definitely provides for prices to be set 12 months in advance for any commodity, either named or designated. The provision "for such other period as the governor in council prescribes" in the case of a designated commodity is there for the specific purpose which the right hon. member for Melville mentioned when speaking on this matter some time ago. It is to take care of those cases where a price has not been set and something happens such as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which we had. You can then put a support price in effect. Perhaps that price would not be an appropriate one to be in effect for 12 months thereafter. When you came to the regular period for the setting of the guaranteed yearly prices a year in advance you would probably want to change that price. That is why that provision is there.
If an emergency of any kind arises you can establish a support price which would be good for three or four months, two months, five months, six months, whatever period it was necessary to cover until you came to the
3834	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization normal time which, as I have said several times before, would be the January to March period when the yearly guaranteed prices would be set. That is the purpose of having that clause there. You have to have something along that line to deal with emergencies which may arise. Otherwise you would be in the position that you could not deal with them.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly the point I had in mind yesterday when I raised the question. I was not certain that this clause was in the bill at that time but I looked it up afterwards and found that it was there. It must be there in order to deal with such cases as the blowing off of 85 per cent of the apple crop in Nova Scotia, for example. That was something that could not be foretold. Maybe it only took three months to handle it or it may have only taken three or four weeks, but you have to have the authority to do that kind of thing. I quite agree with the minister that it must be there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: suggest that the minister said something quite unnecessary when he remarked that the hon. member for Springfield did not understand this clause. I suggest that the member for Springfield understood the clause quite clearly when he said that under the wording it is possible in the case of designated commodities to have prices set for a period less than 12 months. It was precisely to correct that situation that the member made his suggestion. He understood it very well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On that point, on several occasions the hon. member for Springfield has said that the legislation did not provide for setting guaranteed yearly prices which would be good for 12 months. He has said that on several occasions and he repeated it a few moments ago. The legislation does provide for that, as I have pointed out, and that is why I made the statement.


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be good enough to tell me where it provides a period of 12 months for designated commodities?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can do is to ask the hon. member to read clause 9, subclause 1, again and he will see that that is provided for. I think there is no question in connection with the matter at all.


Edward George McCullough: I want to agree entirely with the hon. member for Springfield and I am in complete agreement with the right hon. member for Melville when he says that you have to have such a provision in the bill to take care of such emergencies. I could be wrong, but if I understood the hon. member 

for Springfield correctly he was perfectly right. When you have an emergency such as the right hon. member for Melville suggested where apples are blown off the trees in a certain section of the country you may have to make use of this provision of the bill in order to initiate an emergency program to support the product. In the last part of the clause it says "for such other period as the governor in council prescribes" and that has relationship to the mandatory clauses under the bill. Therefore I say the hon. member for Springfield is perfectly right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Powers.
Frank Claus Christian: I should like to ask a question on clause 10. Under this clause the board may do certain things as set forth in the clause. Where you have a growers' marketing agency representing growers, under clause 10 will the agency be obliged to sell any agricultural products at the prescribed price or will the matter of any sale or purchase be on a voluntary and not a compulsory basis? In other words, the matter comes down to this. If there is a growers' marketing agency representing producers, can that agency keep itself free from the application of this legislation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no idea in the world under this clause of making anything compulsory so far as producers' organizations are concerned. This clause provides for the methods by which the price of any commodity may be supported. The first method is by the purchase of the commodity by the agricultural prices support board. The second method is by making a deficiency payment to the producers in order to make up the difference between the market price at which they sold and the prescribed price. The third method is any other means which the govern-nor in council may authorize in order to accomplish that purpose. One of the means envisaged there is the making of a flat payment. As an example, take the instance which the right hon. member for Melville mentioned when the apples were all blown off the trees in Nova Scotia. In a case of that sort the crop has not been marketed and about the only way you can handle it is to make a flat payment. That is what clause 10 makes provision for. There is no compulsion on any individual or any farmers' marketing organization contained in the clause in any way whatsoever.


Frank Claus Christian: I should like to thank the Minister of Agriculture for his answer. The clause has been clarified to my satisfaction. Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive agreed to.

On clause 15-Successor to agricultural prices support board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister a question under clause 15 or more particularly under subclause 2 of clause 15? Is it the intention of the minister that the employees of the agricultural prices support board will be carried over as employees of the agricultural stabilization board?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, by and large.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There will be no loss of any civil service rights involved in the transition?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, that is why these provisions are in here, to protect civil servants who may be employees of the agricultural prices support board at the present time in all their civil service rights, pensions and so forth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Commencement.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the minister in a position to say when it is intended to issue the proclamation referred to in this clause? In other words, when is the act to come into force?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is intended to issue it just as soon as we can get the advisory committee and the board appointed, and all the necessary information gathered which will be necessary in order to determine the base price and so on. Of course, it will be after it goes through the other place too.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Does the minister have any idea how long it will take to carry out the various procedures he has outlined? He must have some idea how long it will take.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not in a position to give a definite time. I can assure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that it will be done with all possible speed. We intend to put this measure into operation just as rapidly as we can.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been delayed three weeks by the C.C.F.


An hon. Member:: We got 10 amendments out of it.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to ask if the beets that are now under the old act will automatically be turned over on the same arrangement as we have now? Will they come under this 80 per cent of something?
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Douglas Scott Harkness: Clause 15 (1) provides that this agricultural stabilization board will be the successor to the agricultural prices support board and that all the property, rights, obligations-one of the obligations is support price so far as beets are concerned-and liabilities of the agricultural stabilization board on and from that day.


William Scottie Bryce: Does that apply to sugar beets, butter and what is the other one?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is quite a large number. There are butter, eggs, sugar beets, hogs and dry skim milk.


William Scottie Bryce: Does honey come under the act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, honey is not under price support at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Repeal.
James Garfield Gardiner: I want to say a word on clause 17. Naturally, we would have liked to have seen the Agricultural Prices Support Act amended instead of having it repealed. I believe the same results could have been obtained that way. I simply want to state that we were not in favour of repealing the act. Now this bill is about to be passed, I suppose the one has to be substituted for the other. That is the only way it can be done.


Charles Edward Johnston: Before clause 17 carries, I wish to say a word. This clause makes it clear that the old Agricultural Prices Support Act is to be repealed, and therefore there would be nothing to take the place of that act until after this bill has been passed. Of course, it is going to be passed anyway, and the old act will be repealed.
Throughout this whole debate we have advocated a certain thing we thought should be put into the bill. We were insistent that a cost-price relationship should be established. There has been some effort in this bill to incorporate that, and although the bill does not go as far as we want to go, with the amendments that have been brought in by the government-I must say at the insistence of the opposition-I think there has been a little bit of improvement. As I say, we have opposed the measure and tried to improve it as much as we could. I think, as a result of the effective opposition from the Social Credit and C.C.F. parties there has been some improvement in it. For these reasons we will support the bill.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I should like to make one or two comments in the same connection. I feel it is rather important, when we come to the point of repealing an act which has been in force for 13 years and
3836	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization replacing it by another bill, that we be absolutely certain in our own minds that the bill we are introducing as a replacement will meet the requirements and needs of the Canadian people. Many of us have an appreciation of the old Agricultural Prices Support Act during the years of the Liberal administration, and we became very distrustful of phrases appearing in acts which sound very hopeful or which, in the words of the Prime Minister, give promise of a hope.
We have taken a challenging stand on this legislation in the hope that we could improve it so it would be the best possible bill to present to the Canadian people. We discussed the measure at the resolution stage, and as has been pointed out nine amendments were introduced. I think the other amendments which were introduced at this stage would have made the bill an even better bill. I think it is of importance that, once this bill has been proclaimed, consideration should be given to the recommendations made by members in this chamber, and that every factor of the farmers' cost of production be taken into consideration. That is the best the bill will do. We wanted to have some factors written into it which would be of a more binding nature than those in the old Agricultural Prices Support Act and which would, in fact, guarantee the farmer a fair share of the national income, thus meeting his cost of production. We hoped that something like that would be written into the bill. I feel that we can hope for the best.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On the preamble.
Douglas Scott Harkness: There is an amendment which we propose to the preamble. It reads as follows:
That the preamble be amended by Inserting immediately alter the word "buy" in line 6, on page 1, the words "thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income".
That is what we have had in mind in introducing this legislation, and in spite of all that has been said here to the contrary I feel the legislation is completely capable of accomplishing that purpose. I am quite sure that once the legislation has been put into effect the farmers of this country will find that it will materially improve their position. I certainly have every hope and trust that the act will be successful in giving the farmers a considerably improved share of the national income and, from that point of view, will satisfy their justifiable demands.


George Clyde Nowlan: I move the amendment.


Edward George McCullough: As we draw to the end
of the debate on this bill I should like to say that it has been a disappointment to me,


and I am sure to many farmers at least who would have hoped that we could have written into this legislation the principle of parity prices for farm products. I commend the amendment which the minister has now moved to the preamble of this bill and which says that the intent of the bill will be to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income. After our struggle, and the fact that we have been somewhat influential in getting numerous amendments to the bill-


Harold Edward Winch: Nine of them.


Edward George McCullough: -nine of them, the
hon. member says-I can only say that I think it rests with the government to determine what is a fair share of the national income. I certainly do not feel that the farmer should receive less than his cost of production and a decent amount left over with which to provide himself and his family with a decent standard of living. To get guarantees put into the bill in order to achieve that objective is something we have failed to do. I can therefore only say that it has been a great disappointment to me that the government, in bringing in what they have already stated is one of the broad pieces of legislation by which they hope to provide the farmer with a fair share of the national income, have failed to provide any guarantee. I do not think that in this bill we have any guarantee. The matter must rest with the will of the government. I hope that they will so administer the act that it will bring some benefit to our farm people.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just wanted to say a word with regard to this amendment, following up some of the remarks that have been made within the last few moments with regard to the old legislation. I had understood the minister to say, when he first introduced the bill -and I still think it is his opinion-that this measure could not by any stretch of the imagination be taken to be one which would accomplish all that is expected. I was just wondering whether it would not be better to say that this is to help to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income. If it is not put in those terms I am afraid it will not be very many months until some of our friends down at the other end of the chamber will be saying that we led them to expect altogether too much. I think the measure can be utilized toward that end. But I am sure we all agree that we do not expect that the farmers are going to get a complete balance of the situation which exists with regard to the national income as a result merely of the passing of this act.


James Alexander Smith: Before this preamble passes I should like to say that we are happy to see that a small move is

being made towards providing the farmers of Canada with their fair share of the national income. For years this group has argued that this should be the end towards which this parliament should move. This is the first time we have seen the objective given any effective recognition in the form of legislation. We are happy about that fact. I should like to say this. I think it must be admitted that not only should the opposition groups within this house receive credit for the changes that have been made but the farm organizations across Canada should be given a little bit of credit for having made a gain towards their ultimate objective within the last few years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct question to the Minister of National Revenue who has proposed the amendment that is now before the committee. I am putting this question to him not only because he moved the amendment but because he is a distinguished member of the bar with considerable experience in court. Can he tell us how a preamble would stand up in court, particularly if there happened to be any conflict between the words of the amendment to the preamble which he has just now moved and the operative sections of the act? In other words, would he give us his assessment as to the practical and legal value of a preamble?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think Mr. Speaker has ruled on several occasions that this is not the place in which to give legal opinions. I do not think I am in a position to give one at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The lack of an answer is noted.


Walter Adam Tucker: In view of what has been said by some of the members opposite, and particularly by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, namely that this is the first time that there has been put into legislation anything which recognizes the right of the farmers to a fair share of the national income, I should again like to draw his attention to section 9 subsection (2) of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. This provision is not in any preamble but is in an effective part of the act which was binding on the board set up, as a statutory obligation whereas something in a preamble is not binding. As every person who has had anything to do with the interpretation of statutes knows very well, the preamble just expresses a hope whereas a statutory enactment in a section of an act is binding upon those administering it. For the benefit of the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, who said that this is the first time that anything like this has been enacted, I would read him again the section of the Agricultural Prices Support 96698-2434
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Act which embodies this provision. As I pointed out previously, that act was hailed by the president of the federation of agriculture of that time as the most forward looking legislation that had been enacted for many years. I will read this section.


An hon. Member:: Did it work?


Walter Adam Tucker: It was something which was laid down to be aimed at, and to the extent that it v/as found possible, on the advice of the various farm organizations, it was the constant aim to attain this objective as was required by an act of parliament. Now we are repealing it. I for one think that the present bill is not as good as the Agricultural Prices Support Act for protecting the farmers of this country, and particularly the farmers I represent. I will read this section again:
(2) 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, that was the objective laid down for this board, namely that it should strive to secure a fair relationship which meant a fair share of the national income. This, I point out, was part of the act which was binding upon the board. In contrast, what we are now putting into the preamble is not binding upon the board set up by the proposed bill.


James Alexander Smith: There are just one or two other comments I wish to make. When I made the statement that I felt there was some improvement to be hoped for from this new bill over the situation prevailing under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, I was not necessarily saying that I was expecting to get too much from this bill in the way of assistance for the farmers of Canada. When I said that I was looking forward to a greater amount of assistance than was received under the old Agricultural Prices Support Act what I had in mind was this. I felt there was a possibility that the farmers of Canada would be reimbursed from the federal treasury over the next period of years to an amount somewhat greater than 15 cents per person per year. The cost to the people of Canada was approximately 15 cents per person per year for the Agricultural Prices Support Act which is about to be repealed. In those years of assistance it has cost the people of Canada approximately 15 cents per person per year. That is not a terrific amount. Certainly it is not enough to justify one in rising and asserting that any act has done a whole lot for the
3838	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization farmers of western Canada or Canada as a whole. I am not prepared to retract any statement which I made previously.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This proposed amendment is alleged to give the farmers a fair share of the national income and to be of assistance to the agricultural industry, but I suggest that since it fails to take into account wheat, oats and barley grown in the prairie provinces it will be quite impossible for this amendment to have any meaning, for western grain farmers. I made reference earlier to the large percentage of the total wheat grown in Canada which comes from the prairie provinces and the latest report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce produced in December with respect to wheat points out that farm marketings of that commodity dropped from 26 million bushels as the average of 1955 to 1956 to 11 million bushels for the present year in the province of Manitoba; in Saskatchewan there has been a drop from 111 million to 67 million bushels and in Alberta from 53 million bushels to 24 million. In the minister's own "Coarse Grains Quarterly" he points out that of the wheat grown in Canada, totalling 573 million bushels, 551 million bushels are grown in the prairie provinces. With respect to oats out of a total of 524 million bushels, we grow 400 million and of the total barley grown, amounting to 269 million bushels, we produce 262 million bushels in the prairie provinces.
It will therefore be seen that it is quite impossible for this proposed amendment to have any meaning when the government refuses so stubbornly to accept responsibility for the farmers in that large area.
I very much resent the suggestion that we have been asking for something unreasonable. The latest figures for France I have seen indicate that the French grain board paid out between $1.40 and $1.48 per bushel on all the wheat that they sent into the export market; the government of the United States is spending around $1 a bushel for every bushel they give away or which they sell in the markets. With our competitors subsidizing this operation to such an extent, while our Canadian farmers are left in the position where the government plans on selling only six bushels per acre this next year and refuses to give a support price, it will be quite impossible for our farmers to receive a fair share of the national income.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I would like to ask a question of the minister, but before doing so would say that I am personally disappointed and I feel sure that most farmers, especially those in western Canada, will also be disappointed at the outcome of this legislation. I am sure


it will, as far as western grain producers are concerned, mean a continuance of rural poverty in Canada.
The farmer is still going to be put through the wringer, so to speak, and I am sure that the introduction and passage of this kind of legislation will make farmers much less responsive when they come to Ottawa to request from this government certain considerations.
A short while ago the minister suggested that we had taken three weeks in which to debate this bill, and I regret that we should need to spend that amount of time in debating an agricultural bill. I believe there was a solution to remedy the situation and to obviate the necessity for this long and tedious debate. Might I suggest that we are going to have to change our thinking when devising farm programs. A much more realistic approach to this question, in my opinion, would be to ask the representatives of all the farm organizations of Canada to evolve a farm program. I think it would be advisable for any government to recognize the fact. I do not think there is a section of society more responsible or cautious than are the farmers. They have never come down here to ask for the moon; they have been very, very responsible people, and I think it would have been wise had the government said to these people, "You come to Ottawa and we will provide you with the railway committee room and all the necessary staff, all the brains and technicians at our disposal, and you can sit there until you hammer out a farm program. Then you will go back to the country and you will defend it."


Charles Edward Rea: I hope the hon. member realizes that it was decided not to send the bill to committee, and he is out of order in making his reference. We are on the amendment to the preamble.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I do not think this bill is much different from the old Agricultural Prices Support Act on two counts; first of all, the producers are not being supported-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: What I would like to ask the minister is, will he be able to enforce the regulations under this legislation any more effectively than the former government was able to enforce the regulations under the old act, in that floor prices will be paid to the producers?


Irvin William Studer: I would like to ask a question of the minister as follows: With the passing of this bill am I right in assuming that it does not preclude the possibility of another

bill being presented to provide deficiency payments to the grain growers of western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have said several times during the course of this debate that we do not handle those products in this bill because of the advice of the heads of the three western wheat pools and other persons who are thoroughly familiar with their handling. For reasons I have given before, which I do not think I should repeat, anything which is done as far as western wheat, oats and barley are concerned, will be done through and under the wheat board.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
61. Departmental administration, $604,729.
Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the subject of Chinese immigration and Japanese immigration which is, of course, of particular concern to the province of British Columbia but is of interest to some extent to the whole country.
I was very glad to see that some concession was made in this respect by an order in council now published in the Canada Gazette. That order in council does, as I read it, allow landed immigrants of Chinese origin to make application today to bring in their relatives as set out in the regulations. They do not have to be citizens any longer. I think that is a step in the right direction, and in asking that consideration, be given to further concessions at this time I should like to say at once that I do not think they should be treated as a political matter. For that reason I am not going to look through Hansard of bygone days to find quotations from hon. members formerly on the opposition side saying what they would do if they came into office. I am only asking that reasonable consideration should be shown.
Unfortunately, we have to face the fact that discrimination still plays a part in our immigration policies. I have nothing against countries of the Middle East-Turkey, Lebanon or Egypt-but I regret that citizens whose origin is in those countries have greater rights so far as bringing their relatives to
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Canada and uniting their families in Canada are concerned than have our Canadian citizens of Japanese and Chinese origin. It seems to me, with all respect, that we are overlooking the great contribution which is being made by our Canadians of Japanese and Chinese origin. The Chinese community in particular has a background of service to the development of Canada which very few people can rival. These people came over here in the early days of the gold rush in 1858 to pan gold in the Fraser and Thompson rivers of British Columbia. They came as Chinese coolie labour in large numbers to help push the C.P.R. through the Rocky mountains and down to the coast, and many of them lost their lives in trying to cut out tunnels and railway lines through the Fraser river valley and elsewhere. They have been a very law-abiding people; they have been a very self-supporting people, and it does seem to me that when we are considering concessions we should consider trying to remove the difference which exists between the privileges accorded to these people and those accorded to Canadians from, let us say, the Middle East or Central America.
These regulations are technical things and I am not going into them in detail. They are set out in the immigration regulations section 20, subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (c) provides very clearly that Canadians who have come from the Middle East and countries of North, Central and South America, have the right to bring in a very wide range of relatives-not just sons, husbands and wives, but brothers and sisters, grandchildren, parents and so on. There is no restriction imposed on these people to the effect that they must bring in only children under 21 years of age.
When you turn to subsection (d) which applies, as I understand it to Chinese Canadians, Japanese Canadians and others, you will find that they are restricted. The only children who can come to Canada must be under 21 years of age, and there is still the provision that such minor children must be accompanied on that trip by either a father or a mother. And in the case of parents of citizens of Chinese or Japanese origin, they may only enter, I believe, if a father is over 65 and a mother is over 60.
All these matters should be adjusted, I say, in all seriousness in a non-partisan way by further concessions along the lines that were made in the order in council of December 20.
I think we have to look at the background in terms of the world situation. Many Chinese Canadians are, of course, living in Hong Kong at the present time. We were
3340	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration told in the very excellent brief presented some time ago to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on behalf of the Chinese benevolent association of Vancouver by Mr. Wong Foon Sien that the population of Hong Kong has gone up by two million since 1948. That number was raised from 800,000 to 2,800,000, a surely staggering increase when you consider that even then you had a small, crowded island. I think we have to consider the plight of these people because it is one which affects many who have fled from communist China to Hong Kong and who have been trying to keep going in the face of high living costs in Hong Kong.
We have to consider their plight, and I think we should also consider whether it would not be to our advantage to bring to Canada some of these qualified professional, technical and skilled people who are among the refugees now in Hong Kong. There may be doctors there who for reasons of their own did not choose to live on mainland China and who, if permitted to enter Canada, would be able to make a useful contribution. Nevertheless, because they are not covered under the terms of section 20(d) by being related to a Chinese citizen resident here at the present time they would not be permitted to come here.
Frankly, I think we have reached the point where we should consider, in addition to permitting relatives to come in under certain conditions, the admission of a regular quota over and above that number. I think we allow 150 to come from India, and similar numbers from Pakistan and Ceylon. In addition to the relatives admitted, I should like to see some quota established for Chinese immigrants in order that some of the very best people who wish to do so-people such as doctors, whom I have mentioned-might be able to come to this country from Hong Kong.
Nobody is suggesting that there should be a flood of immigration from the Orient into Canada, particularly during a time of unemployment such as the present, but I do think we should go some distance towards removing discrimination from our immigration policy, though we may never remove it completely; the link we have with British subjects and European races is probably too strong for that. But some concessions along the lines I have mentioned could, I think, be made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter of Chinese immigration. I rise now because I should like to place on record a short statement with regard to the order in council passed on December 20 to which he has
IMr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway).]

referred because, on the basis of correspondence which I have seen, there appears to have been some misunderstanding as to the effect of that order. I had considered making a statement in this house immediately the order was passed and, again, immediately we reconvened for the Christmas recess.
I was hopeful at the time that my estimates would be up the next day or the day after and I felt that was the appropriate time to do it. Then when the estimates were up the other week I thought I would first listen to hon. members who made general comments and then include the report of this order in council in my reply. I now find that the result has been that time has gone on and news of the regulation got out with certain misunderstandings and I think I should make the statement at this time.
The immigration regulations made by order in council P.C. 1954-1351 of September 17, 1954, as amended, restricted immigration of citizens of Asia to the husband, the wife, or the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the father where he is over 65 years of age, or the mother where she is over 60 years of age of a Canadian citizen residing in Canada who has applied for and is in a position to receive and care for any such person. This restriction has been resented by various national groups, particularly the east Indian and Chinese, on the ground that immigrants from those countries are obliged to wait until they can acquire Canadian citizenship, a period of at least five years after landing in Canada, before they can bring forward their close relatives; whereas immigrants from other countries may bring their families as soon as they are in a position to provide satisfactory settlement arrangements.
It is considered that the restriction has caused hardship in some cases, particularly when a married man comes forward in advance of his dependants, with a view to establishing himself firmly in employment and providing a home for his family before moving them. In many cases the immigrant is ready to bring his family within a year or so after arrival and yet cannot bring them forward until five years have elapsed or in other words until such time as he becomes a citizen which may be even longer and the prolonged separation then imposes both financial and psychological handicaps. Hardship also occurs in the case of elderly parents whose children in Canada desire to receive and care for them if their movement is delayed until the son or daughter in Canada acquires Canadian citizenship.
As the reunion of families is a vital factor in the satisfactory and permanent establishment of immigrants in Canada, it was decided

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
to remove the restriction in regulation 20 (d) and regulation 21 that the applicant must be a Canadian citizen.
Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that perhaps the committee would not want me to read the detail of the amendments and changes. Perhaps I should just put this on Hansard.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the
minister unanimous consent of the committee to place this information on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The immigration regulations have been amended as follows:
P.C. 1957-1675 of December 20,	1957, revokes
paragraph (d) of section 20 and substitutes the following therefor:
a person who is a citizen of a country other than a country referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) or in section 21, if such person is the husband, the wife or the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the father where he is over 65 years of age, or the mother where she is over 60 years of age, of a Canadian citizen or of a person legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence who is residing in Canada and who has applied for and is in a position to receive and care for any such person, but no such child shall be landed in Canada unless his father or his mother, as the case may be, is landed in Canada concurrently with him.
P.C. 1958-7 of January 2, 1958, revokes section 21 of the immigration regulations and substitutes the following therefor:
The government of Canada having entered into an agreement with the government of India, the government of Pakistan and the goverment of Ceylon, with respect to the admission to Canada of 300, 100 and 50 persons annually from such countries, respectively, the landing in Canada of persons from any such country, is notwithstanding section 20, limited accordingly to such numbers of persons respectively, and in addition to the husband, the wife or the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the father where he is over 65 years of age or the mother where she is over 60 years of age, of a Canadian citizen or of a person legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence who is residing in Canada and who has applied for and is in a position to receive and care for any such person.
January 7, 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I was not paying quite as much attention to the minister as I should have been. I understand the only change is that the restriction on these classes of persons is removed and it applies to all immigrants once they are able to look after their relatives. I may say that I think this is a very good change and indeed it was one, as I think the minister knows, I was considering recommending at the end of my tenure of office.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should perhaps point out that it applies to all those who are admitted for permanent landing and who have made satisfactory settlement arrangements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, quite. It naturally would not apply to visitors.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise at this time and speak with regard to several matters relating to citizenship and immigration and Indian affairs. First of all, however, I want to say that since I have come to Ottawa I have enjoyed excellent co-operation from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I had the pleasure of reading the annual report of the department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957. On many occasions we are inclined only to give credit to the minister of a department and I have much pleasure in doing that at this time but it seems to me that we should go further than that and give credit to the officials and other persons who have been responsible for the compilation of the various annual reports and other documents which we peruse from time to time.
I would like to know the attitude or position of the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke in connection with the matter of compulsory citizenship. Is it the opinion of the minister that after a reasonable period of residence on the part of a person who has come to Canada he should make an application for citizenship in this country?
I have had the pleasure of examining some of the figures relating to the matter of Canadian immigration. During the year 1955 there were 109,946 persons of various nationalities who came to Canada. In 1956 there was an increase to 164,857. It would appear that from January 1 to September 30, 1957, some 244,266 persons came to Canada. I would personally estimate that for the full year 1957 there were approximately 300,000 immigrants.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point I should give the hon. member and the committee the official figure for the last report dated December 1957. The official figure is 282,164 immigrants for the year 1957.


Frank Claus Christian: Thank you. Mr. Chairman,
may I please call it six o'clock and be allowed to continue with my remarks on the next occasion when these estimates are before us?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business of the house will be for Monday?

Business of the House Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, it has now been agreed between the parties that it will be possible to go on with the resolution preceding the bill dealing with dominion-provincial fiscal relations so that will be the first order of business. Then we will take item No. 5 on today's order paper, the bill dealing with the taxation agreement between Canada and Australia. We will then take item No. 11 on today's order paper, the resolution preceding a new estate tax act, and then No. 3 on today's order paper, second reading of an act to provide for annual vacations with pay. If those all go through we would then take the other
measures on the order paper but I do not know in what order.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire about
Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: On Tuesday we will take second reading of the dominion-provincial fiscal relations measure and the Indian Act will be available on that day. We would hope to clean up the outstanding legislation.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 27, 1958