1958-01-18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the action taken in both the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States to boost the tariff on copper, can the minister tell the house if proper representations are being made by the Canadian government in order to prevent the imposition of higher tariffs against Canadian copper?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might attempt to answer the question asked by the hon. member, because a similar question was asked of me yesterday by another hon. member, arising out of press reports from Washington to the effect that bills had been introduced in the United States congress seeking the application of tariffs against imports of Canadian copper.
I have made inquiries. I find that bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate by individual members of those bodies. There is no indication, and the government has no reason to suppose, that these bills have been introduced with any approval on the part of the United States administration. Copies of the bills have not yet been received, but it is expected that copies may be available to this government shortly.
The United States tariff is bound at 1.8 cents per pound. At the present time copper enters the United States duty free under United States legislation which expires on June 30 next. In that legislation there is a provision that if the price falls below 24 cents per pound the normal tax of 1.8 cents per pound will be restored. However, press reports indicate that the bills which have been introduced of course go much further.


Armand Dumas: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister not think it might be prudent to get in touch with the government of the United States in order to make sure that no boost in tariffs is made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If there is any reason at all to think these bills will be likely to be advanced in congress, there is no doubt about the type of action the Canadian government will take. Certainly steps will be taken to repeat the views of the Canadian government with regard to this and associated subjects whenever there is any reason at all to do so. I may add that, so far as the legislative position is concerned, much depends upon what action the United States congress itself takes with regard to the trade agreements legislation which will expire on June 30 unless renewed by congress. That matter, in a word, is at the base of many of these problems.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance, in answer to my question respecting the proposed tariff on lead and zinc, said there was no formal protest in writing made to the United States authorities. I want to ask the minister if he would consider making a formal protest in writing to the President of the United States respecting this proposed increase in tariff.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I intended, Mr. Speaker, as soon as there was an opportunity this morning to rise and say that the answer I gave the hon. member yesterday was made without referring to the file, and needs to be amended. I find on checking the file that on July 19,	1957, a message was sent to
Washington, with a formal note attached to it from the Canadian government; and that formal note was presented to the department of state of the United States respecting proposals of the United States administration indicating an increase in the tariff on lead and zinc. I am informed that the note was delivered on July 23, and a formal reply was received from the department of state on August 2.
I take it I may anticipate from my hon. friend a request for the tabling of that note and the reply, and I think I may assure him now that a request will be made in the ordinary way to the United States government looking to the release of both notes for tabling in the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am not so interested in the tabling of the note. What I am interested in is, will the minister make the protest directly to the President of the United States, who is responsible in this matter?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it lies within my power to make a protest directly to the President of the United States. There are established channels for the presentation of communications between governments, but the hon. member may be very sure that the views of the Canadian government have been fully presented to the United States government and will continue to be impressed upon them.
So far as personal communications are concerned, I may say that when Mr. Dulles visited Ottawa last summer this matter was discussed with him, first by the Prime Minister and then by the Prime Minister and two other members of this government. The matter was fully discussed at Washington in early October at the time of the meeting of the continuing committee on Canada-United States trade and economic matters, and the subject has been referred to in subsequent discussions. It was referred to in my talks with Mr. Anderson, the secretary of the treasury, in Paris in December. My hon. friend may be well assured that the views of the Canadian government have been put before the United States authorities repeatedly. They fully understand what deep concern we entertain at the prospect of the imposition of tariffs by the United States against importations of Canadian lead and zinc.
My hon. friend is aware, I am sure, that under the existing agreements under GATT the imposition of such tariffs would constitute a breach of the provisions unless there were renegotiations. I presume that if the United States administration feel that they must proceed with the course that has been suggested, they will be asking for renegotiation with respect to these items. The view of the Canadian government will be firmly held, my friend may be assured.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Finance inform the house whether he thinks the efforts of the Canadian government in this matter will finally meet with success?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish I could give an affirmative answer to my hon. friend. I think in all honesty, in the light of what we have been told, I must content myself with saying that only time will tell.



EFFECT ON CANADA OF PROPOSED EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ZONE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of continued reports of progress in the setting up of the European free trade zone. Would


the minister inform the house what representations have been made to these countries? In what way does the government feel this will affect Canadian trade, particularly with regard to agricultural products? Can the minister say whether any active consideration is being given by the Canadian government to associating Canada in any way with such a free trade zone?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this subject has been under discussion in the house before. We are watching developments in Europe very closely. We are not making any immediate representations. At the conference of NATO held in Geneva toward the end of October we dealt with the subject of the common market that was to be developed in Europe. I made a statement on behalf of the government of Canada concerning our attitude in that regard and our concern with respect to the sale of our agricultural products in Europe. I was assured in the speeches made by the members of the participating nations that due regard would be had to the points that were made in that speech.
At the moment we have no information that Canada's trade will be adversely affected by events transpiring in Europe. In fact, I think in the long run there will be increased trade between Canada and the six nations of Europe.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. My question had rather more to do with the 17-nation free trading area. Would the minister comment on my latter question as to whether Canada has given any consideration to associating our nation in any way with the proposed free trade zone? Have we decided to stay out of it entirely?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that free trade area comprising 17 nations has not advanced to the stage at which any action is necessary on the part of ourselves or anyone else. Certainly we are watching it very closely. Once again, we feel that in so far as we can judge by what we have heard from other nations interested in that area, Canadian interests will not be adversely affected.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON U.K. FREE TRADE PROPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question suggested by the question just put by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Can the minister tell us exactly what the situation is with regard to the British free trade proposal made by the former chancellor of the

exchequer? Can he say if that proposal has been withdrawn? Can he say whether or not the government is still giving consideration to it? I think he will agree that this matter is of such importance that perhaps, in answering, he could give us some details as to the government's position in regard to the matter.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, this matter might perhaps be discussed more fully on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. As has been stated before, no immediate answer was requested by the ministers of the United Kingdom when they were here in Ottawa. The subject matter is open for observation and discussion at any time. 1 notice that my hon. friend's party is shying away from the idea very quickly.


Mr. Marler:: Let us stick to the facts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sticking to the facts, according to what I have been reading in the newspapers.


Mr. Mcllraith:: The minister does not read very well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I read exceptionally well, and unlike the hon. member I understand what I read. If the hon. member wishes to discuss this particular question I think it might well be done on the estimates.



PACIFIC ALLIANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since the minister makes no irresponsible statements and always prepares his speeches as well-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -would the minister assure the house that he is making every effort to conclude an Atlantic pact, which he has advocated for so long, an indirect result of which would be to encourage the sale of British Columbia coal to Japan?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I have never made any speeches in favour of an Atlantic pact. I do not know what the hon. member means.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I meant a Pacific pact.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote out your question for you?


Howard Charles Green: In so far as a Pacific pact is concerned, the hon. member knows that from time to time-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member knows that from time to time I did advocate that there should be a defensive alliance in the Pacific, just as there is in the Atlantic. I have had no reason to change my mind since that time. The question of how these things are to be worked out, of course, is an entirely different matter.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister hope that such an alliance might give encouragement to the sale of our surplus coal in the western provinces to Japan, which is in need of coal and coke?


Howard Charles Green: I wondered what the hon. member was trying to drag in by the tail by his question. I do suggest that this question is a matter for discussion on the estimates.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are there any negotiations in progress between Canada and the Euratom group of nations concerning the export of uranium from Canada to the Euratom countries for peaceful purposes?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, again this subject might very well be discussed under the estimates of trade and commerce, which are scheduled to come up during the course of this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister knows better than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why don't you stick to the facts?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This was announced last night in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: It will not happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look at the smile on the minister's face.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the estimates come up again I have a comprehensive statement to make with regard to uranium and Canada's interests in the sale of that product to the countries in the Euratom organization.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me

Inquiries of the Ministry whether all the correspondence had been tabled in connection with a request which he made originally on January 3 in these words, found at page 2777 of Hansard:
Has the government received any communications since the last conference-
He was referring to the dominion-provincial conference.
-from any of the premiers of the provinces asking for an early resumption of the conference? If so, will the government table the communications and the replies?
On January 11 the Prime Minister tabled all this correspondence. I have had it checked again, and there is no further correspondence which should have been tabled in answer to that request.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Was the minister enunciating government housing policy when he said in Toronto on Thursday night to delegates to the fifteenth annual convention of the housebuilders' association that builders could expect little or no help from the government in the future? More specifically, does this mean that the government will refuse to grant further money for direct lending through N.H.A. if the supply of mortgage money from conventional lenders continues to decline?


Howard Charles Green: In reply to this question I would suggest to the hon. member that it is extremely unwise to believe everything he reads in the papers. The statement he has just read is completely inaccurate in its attempt to report what I said at this convention. I did say, as I said in the house in discussing the bill amending the National Housing Act, that neither this government nor any other government could provide all the money which would be required for home building in Canada. We are hoping that in the year 1958 there will be 140,000 starts. If that objective is reached it will be the largest number of homes that have ever been started in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: In order to do that someone will have to put up approximately $1,400 million at an average mortgage of $10,000 per home. The hon. member, and I think every other member in this house, will appreciate very clearly that it would be impossible for the government to find all that


money. We have business organizations in this country whose whole job is to provide mortgage money; but I would like to assure the hon. member and the house that the present government intends to see that there is just as much home building in Canada as is possible.
We adopted the agency loan plan 18 weeks ago, and as a result of that plan there have been as of January 10, just a week ago yesterday, loans approved amounting to $163,671,734 for a total of 17,137 housing units. All those are units which would never have been built if it had not been for the agency loan plan brought forward by this Conservative government.
In addition, there are loan applications being processed to a total of $20,380,000; that would mean a total as of a week ago of $184,051,734, or nearly 20,000 housing units started under this agency loan plan. Last week, in the middle of winter, there were loans approved, let alone new loan applications coming in, of $4,954,504 for a total of 404 units. There have been 9,560 starts under this agency loan plan up to the end of 1957, which makes the total starts in Canada in 1957 approximately 122,000; yet six months ago, when this government took office, it looked as though housing starts would be far, far below that figure, probably not even up to 100,000. As the hon. member knows, an additional-*


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister has made a very full and complete reply.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask a supplementary question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Evidently the answer was not full enough.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask a supplementary question, and may I preface it by the suggestion that we just have a very short answer. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he could tell us approximately how much remains of the $150 million that we voted quite recently.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer this in a minute-


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should withdraw my question if we are going to have another long answer.


Howard Charles Green: I do submit that I am entitled to answer this question. I know you do not like it.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Save it until Monday.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order has not been raised yet.


George James McIlraith: I ask, Mr. Speaker, to address the chair on a point of order. If I have the floor I shall do so. My point of order is this, that when I asked that the rules should be observed by the minister it surely was not open for him to say, "You do not want this subject debated".


Mr. Harkness:: He did not say that.


George James McIlraith: I am merely asking that the rules be applied to ministers of the crown just as they are applied and applicable to all other members of the House of Commons.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, may I point out that all I said was that hon. members would not like the answer to the question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Wait until Charlotte gets him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wait until you get Charlotte.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who raised the point of order will recall that I stopped the minister in his previous statement, which seemed to me to be going beyond what is permitted in reply to a question and which, I thought, had already answered the matter fully and had been a thorough explanation. His statement had rather the character of one which would be made by a minister on motions.
May I say that the question which has now been asked is capable of a very brief and simple answer, and I ask the minister to govern himself accordingly.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for St.
Antoine-Westmount has asked me what amount of money has been used-


George Carlyle Marler: No; what remains.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it is the same thing. The National Housing Act, before it was amended a few weeks ago, provided $250 million. We increased that amount to $400 million, and as of a date just a few days earlier than January 10-I am not sure of the date at the moment-there had been expended under this agency loan plan $158,716,429. That figure had gone up on January 10 to $163,671,734. In addition, of course, there were loans pending as of January 10 amounting to $20,380,000. That makes a total of approximately $184 million under the agency loan plan.
Inquiries of the Ministry
There had been expended under section 16 of the act, the limited dividend plan, $65,781,538; and there were being processed additional expenditures under that section of $1,326,600. There had been expended for primary industry, that is advanced for housing by private companies, $7,020,451. Then under section 40, in loans to individuals in smaller centres which, of course, have always been made direct through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the amount was $57,615,457.
That makes a total of expenditure and applications being processed of over $310 million, so there would remain approximately $90 million available. And if further money is required to carry out this work, the government will ask parliament to vote it.


George Carlyle Marler: 1 congratulate the minister on his brevity.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Regina City rising to ask a supplementary question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister suggested the newspaper report is false. Would he describe in what particular respect the report of the speech he made in Toronto is false? Was the press provided with a manuscript of his speech? The minister suggested the report is false, but he did not indicate the specific respect in which it is false.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should attempt to cross-examine the minister. He has given him an answer, and it was clear.


Howard Charles Green: I like to be cross-examined on this.


George Carlyle Marler: That is obvious.


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I am afraid of; I am sorry, but I cannot allow that question.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is asking me whether I had a written manuscript which was handed to the press. I think I should be entitled to answer that question. The fact is that I did not. I spoke from notes. I do not believe in reading speeches that are written by my officials, which was the practice followed so frequently by the former government. I spoke from three very short pages of notes; and the report, in so far as it was quoted by

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member-I did not say it was false, I simply said it was inaccurate. I set the record straight today.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have sent this question to the minister but he may not have received it, and in the circumstances might wish to take this as notice.
In view of the expressed desire of the sons of freedom Doukhobors to mass migrate to Russia from Canada, and further in view of the fact that the Russian authorities are very sympathetic toward such mass migration and have announced that they have available three tracts of land, what has the government done to expedite this move?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of this question since I came into the house. All I can do is give an answer similar to the one I gave a few days ago to a similar question. All that the government know about the possibility of the sons of freedom leaving Canada we have gleaned from press reports. The newspaper report I saw said that four of this group had left for the U.S.S.R. We do not know whether that group, in so far as it is referred to in the press reports, will leave Canada; and we have received no proposal and no request in this regard.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. The sons of freedom emissaries have to register with our embassy in Moscow, have they not? I wonder if they have done so. Canadians who go there are expected to report to our embassy at Moscow, I believe. Perhaps that is a question that could be answered at some later date when information is received, but I will put the question on the record.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will accept that as notice.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. As the minister


appears to be in a good mood to make a favourable reply this morning, could he report on the results of the interview that took place on December 17 and 18 last between representatives of the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation and officials of his department? Is he now in a position to state if it is the intention of the government to proceed with the harbour development at Caron point near Bathurst?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that conference was with the deputy minister of public works. The position with regard to the development at Bathurst harbour is that several months ago the government announced that it would go ahead with extensive plans for the Bathurst harbour provided the mining company concerned would put in a smelter at Bathurst.
That is still the position. We are only too anxious to see this development take place at Bathurst, but as yet the company has not been able to make arrangements for the construction of a smelter. As soon as there is a reasonable chance of a smelter being erected there the government will act very quickly to get the harbour in shape to handle the traffic.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I regret I was unable to give him notice of the question, as the press release just came to my attention. Since, according to a press release today, the government of the United States is greatly concerned over the plan so widely publicized by General Mc-Naughton to divert Columbia waters into the Fraser river, would the government advise the house whether it supports the proposed diversion plan?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that any policy of this government will be announced after due consideration by the government. I also made clear to the house on previous occasions that we are studying a whole variety of plans. When a decision is reached on what we are going to recommend or support, it will be made known.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: In the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant in connection with the inquiry into the crash of an aircraft toward the end of August at Issoudun, Quebec. Can the parliamentary assistant inform the house as to what counsel have been appointed in connection with that inquiry?


Mr. A. R. MacDonald (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: The
hon. member did not give notice of this question. May I take it as notice and provide an answer later?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the house leader and the government. It is one in which I am sure all hon. members are greatly interested. Barring any unforeseen accident that may change the plan, has the government any target date in mind for the termination of this session, which was supposed to be a rather emergency one?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What sort of accident did the hon. member have in mind?


Solon Earl Low: I am going to let the hon. member who asked that question answer it himself. There are a great many accidents I could suggest. We should like to know whether the government has some date by which they are aiming to complete this present session?


Howard Charles Green: We had hoped that the session would be completed before the end of 1957. We are now hoping that it will be finished by the end of the present month. Of course, in order to meet that objective we shall be obliged to depend quite largely on the members of my hon. friend's own party and those of the party sitting directly across the floor from him.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to introduce any further legislation during this session?


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position to say for sure, but I would think at the very most there will be not more than one or two other measures, and perhaps not that many.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Major James William Coldwell: It
may be an odd suggestion to make, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the house would get through its business better and more quickly if we reverted to our normal hours of sitting. For example, with committees meeting at ten o'clock in the morning and the house adjourning at ten o'clock at night and sitting continuously all day, day after day, it not only wearies the house but I do not know what it is doing to the ministers. I cannot understand how they are standing up at all under the strain. I think we would probably facilitate the business of the house if we reverted to the original hours.
I know that when we agreed to sit as we are sitting now, and on Saturdays, we thought we were doing that until Christmas only, but it has continued. If the session is greatly prolonged I think it is going to wear everybody out. If there is an election afterward I do not think hon. members will be in fit shape to seek re-election, and that would be too bad for the party in power.


Howard Charles Green: We thought we would have the members of my hon. friend's party worn out long since.


Hazen Robert Argue: What a hope.


Howard Charles Green: However, they seem to be bearing up very well. Certainly the ministers are standing up all right. We do not have to sit up late at night figuring out all these foolish questions.


George Carlyle Marler: All you do is provide foolish answers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister mean that these foolish answers come out spontaneously?


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that if we reverted to the normal hours of sitting this session would end about July 1. Rather than do that we propose to put a notice on the order paper next week providing for sittings on Monday and Tuesday mornings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the staff?


An hon. Member:: What about hon. members?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. My question arises out

Inquiries of the Ministry of the highly commendable dispatch of the government in agreeing to participate in the financial costs of three dams in the province of Ontario, as announced yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is this. Can the minister assure the house that the government will use the same kind of dispatch in announcing that it is prepared to build the South Saskatchewan river dam?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is well aware of the fact that we are carrying on negotiations with the province of Saskatchewan in the hope of reaching an early agreement so the South Saskatchewan river dam may be started without any further delay.


George Carlyle Marler: I thought it was supposed to be started by December 10.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: May
I ask a supplementary question to that asked by the member for Assiniboia a few moments ago, relating to the announcement which I heard myself last night over the radio to the effect that consideration was being given to the building of dams at approximately the source of the Thames river, and in connection with developments along the Ausable river in Ontario.
I think since the original question was answered by the Minister of Agriculture I should address this question to him. Similar work was being carried out at the headwaters of the Assiniboine river, which is partly in Manitoba and partly in Saskatchewan, and also in relation to one or two of the rivers in that area. I would like to know if the works in that area are being proceeded with, as they are works similar to those which are being undertaken in the other areas I have mentioned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know what specific works the right hon. member for Melville has reference to. There are several small dams on which surveys are being carried out in some cases, and in other cases some brushing work is being done in preparation for the building of dams.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am referring to the area up around Kamsack, at the headwaters of the Assiniboine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not recall the situation exactly as far as the Kamsack area is concerned. I do not think anything has got beyond the survey stage as yet.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: May I ask
a question supplementary to that asked of the Minister of Agriculture by the right hon.


member for Melville with regard to flood control dams on the Assiniboine river in the Kamsack area. Would the minister consider giving a report to the house as to what has been done with regard to this matter by the previous government, particularly with regard to making any contracts or firm commitments with respect to the building of these dams?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anything was done in regard to this matter, so far as I recall.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the appointment of Professor Gordon Huson to make a study of old age security in this country and old age and survivors insurance in the United States, and in view of the fact that Mr. Huson has said that this study might take a year, may I ask whether this has any bearing on the action that might be taken with regard to retired civil servants? In other words, will the government take action on this matter at an early date without waiting for Professor Huson's report?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the reference to Professor Huson and his inquiry has any direct bearing upon the question of superannuation allowances for retired civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask the minister whether it is still the intention of the government to take action on that matter at an early date, if not before this session ends then certainly at the beginning of the next one?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have answered the same question from my hon. friend already a number of times at this session. The answer is just the same as the one I have already given him.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question. I notice that the inquiry is to be confined to social security in the United States. Would the government consider expanding that reference to take in the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and so on, where plans of this description have been in effect, I believe, longer than in the United States,

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
plans which are somewhat different but are Mr. Churchill: Yes, I do get the publication quite satisfactory to the people in those and all other hon. members also get it, so countries?	why is the question asked in the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The statement made by the Prime Minister on this subject on Monday indicated, as I recall it without definitely referring now to Hansard on the point, that Professor Huson would be free to make reference to the systems in effect in other countries so far as was necessary for the purpose of the inquiry that he has been asked to undertake. It must be borne in mind, of course, that if that inquiry goes widely afield it will take that much more time.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. I cannot give him any notice of it. I have understood, and I want to know whether it is true, that the government is committed to granting increased pensions to retired civil servants on account of the speech made or the answer given to a question by the Minister of Justice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I must give my hon. friend the same answer I gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This question has been asked a number of times this session, and I think the answer was quite clear on the subject. The situation is unchanged in that respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government's answer is yes, eventually.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY QUOTA SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which I raised a week ago and again yesterday. I presume he has the answer this morning. Is the minister now prepared to give to the house a statement in regard to the grain delivery quota situation in western Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This question was asked
yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I have requested a reply to it from the wheat board, which I hope to have for the hon. member on Monday.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he does not get on his desk a copy of a publication entitled Canadian Wheat Board Statistical Summary, which gives these quotas in great detail once a week?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the hon. minister gets the publication then why is he not able to answer the question, rather than delay day after day by asking his officials?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no delay at all. Referring the matter to the wheat board will bring it completely up to date as of Monday.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hark-ness for the second reading of Bill No. 237, to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCullough.
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at ten o'clock last night I was making a few comments on observations which had been made by hon. members opposite in regard to Bill No. 237. In the main they contained a series of contradictions and pious hopes.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough made a quite amazing statement when he said he was in complete support of this measure because it was going to be an incentive to the farmers of his riding for greater production. That seems rather strange when we are aware that Hansard records over and over again the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that one of the principles embodied in this measure is that it will not be an incentive for increased production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is attempting to put in my mouth words on this subject which I did not say. I said this legislation was of a type which would make it possible to prevent the accumulation of large surpluses, which is quite a different matter than the one he has just mentioned.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The minister is playing with words; and the very fact that he has said over and over again that he has the prerogative of introducing a guaranteed price, either above or below the base price, is a clear indication of what the minister and the government have in mind. So the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has been led down the garden path in this regard, and the most amazing thing is that he is quite prepared to go back to his constituency and lead the parade of his farmers down that path.
3464	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
My advice to him would be that he had better discard the kilt he is so fond of wearing and find some more substantial clothing-


Mr. MacDonald (Anligonish-Guysborough):: May I rise on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Angus Ronald Macdonald: -or on a point of privilege-


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -which will afford him a little more protection when the farmers find out that they have been misled.


Angus Ronald Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are discussing what the member for Antigonish-Guysborough wears when he goes back to his constituency. We are not concerned with that; we are talking about this agricultural support bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no point of order there.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that this is scarcely a point of order. If he wishes to disagree with what is said about his remarks on the bill or to make any correction, the time to do it is when the hon. member who has the floor has finished his speech.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has taken offence at what I have said. I meant no offence; I said it out of sheer kindness to the hon. member. I am just advising him that he would be wise to seek some heavier clothing than the kilt he is so fond of wearing when the farmers start out after him, having found out that they have been misled.


An hon. Member:: He might lose the kilt; he had better wear overalls.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The only other comment I was going to make with regard to what was said by hon. members yesterday was with respect to the comments of the hon. member for Saskatoon. He said he was very happy and proud that the revolving fund now contains $250 million with which the minister could implement this very far-reaching and progressive piece of legislation. The only hitch in that is that the revolving fund does not revolve, and from past experience we know it is not going to revolve.
He then placed considerable emphasis on the advisory committee. He said this is a wonderful committee and it is going to do great things. I would suggest to him that we on this side of the house are not so naive as to fall for that line; because after all, who are these people who are going to be appointed by the minister to constitute this advisory committee of which the hon. member for Saskatoon is so proud? They are the


very people who have been around this house ever since the bill was introduced trying to convince the minister that he should take their advice. Now the minister is saying, "When I set up the committee I am going to put representatives of farm organizations on it and I am going to take their advice as to what to do." These are the same people who have been trying to advise the minister on what he should do now. He has not taken their advice; and I do not think anybody, or any farmer, is going to be impressed very much with that kind of argument.
To use the words of the Minister of Agriculture this bill is a step and a start toward the implementation of a comprehensive agricultural policy. The minister said this was a start. Well, we are on the second start now, and possibly before we finish we will be starting for the third time. If the third start, which I hope we will make, is not any better than the first two starts, I suggest that if the minister has any idea that this is the introduction of a comprehensive agricultural policy he has picked about the worst possible place from which to start.
Our attitude to this revised edition of Bill No. 237 is exactly the same as it was toward the original bill. I am the first to admit that five new amendments have been introduced, but I still maintain that when you multiply zero by five the result is still zero. That is about the best I can say for this new, revised edition.
One amazing thing is that when the minister introduced his revised version of this bill he made it clear over and over again that the bill was not changed in the least, but after he had spoken for a few minutes he came up with the proposition that the government should be commended because they had made changes in the bill at the request of farm organizations and in line with the thinking of those organizations. As a result, we are not sure whether the minister believes the bill is the same or whether he has in fact made changes.
Some of these changes appear, on the surface, as if there is something worth while in them; but having said that the changes have been made in line with the thinking of the farm organizations and that the changes are worth while, the minister attempts to cover up the shortcomings of the bill by spending a good deal of his time comparing it with the old act.
I must say to him that I am still of the opinion that this bill is not as good as the one which is presently on the statute books of this country, because the whole secret of this bill, the whole key to its success, lies in the pricing formula which the government

has seen fit to use. Clause 8 is the key to the whole position, and because there is no parity formula the bill is doomed to failure. There is no guarantee. One thing to which I take great exception is the fact that there is some dishonesty in the way in which this bill is drawn up in regard to clause 8.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the word "dishonesty" is not one which is considered parliamentary if it is brought to bear on any of the hon. members of the house, and it seems to me he is coming close to doing that.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to withdraw. I did not mean it to apply in any disparaging way to the minister, but I say there is an inference in the legislation which is not correct. The minister has told us he is going to establish a base price and that afterwards he is going to take it upon himself to set guaranteed prices either above or below the base price. I am not convinced that the committee he intends to set up will have very much if anything to say about the guaranteed price. So the situation may arise where the consumers of this country will be led to believe that the farmer is getting 110 per cent or 120 per cent of the base price, in consequence of which they will certainly be much concerned. They are going to believe that the farmer is getting 120 per cent of a just price, when actually that price will be below a parity price.
The minister suggested that the Agricultural Prices Support Act was inadequate, and that any price which was set was an ad hoc price, as he put it. I suggest that the bill before us now still administers guaranteed prices in exactly the same way. Any prices fixed under it will be ad hoc prices, for the reason that the present formula is not tied to a parity price or to any formula, so they will have to be fixed of necessity on the basis of a decision by the minister, and that kind of decision is nothing but an ad hoc decision.
The 80 per cent floor with regard to the products the bill does affect is calculated over a 10-year moving average of market prices. The minister did not tell the house that this 80 per cent floor, based on present day prices, is still less than 70 per cent of parity prices. He was very anxious to make it clear that in the 10-year moving average we would get the advantage of four of the best years agriculture has seen in this country for some time. But we are going to lose those four years because of the fact that this is a moving average; we are going to take up a new year and drop one of the old years until, in four years time, we will lose entirely the advantage of those four good years of which the minister is so proud.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as well as other organizations, has done a very comprehensive survey of what is implied in this legislation so far as the 10-year moving average is concerned. It has come up with a series of figures dealing with the nine products covered by the bill to show what is going to happen. Take hogs, for instance. The average price in 1957 for grade B1 hogs was $30.37 at Toronto. The C.F.A., who have been suggesting over the years that the government should adopt its agricultural policy which favours 70 per cent of parity- a policy which has been frowned on over the years by other agricultural organizations- points out that its 70 per cent of parity formula is far ahead of the government's proposed measure; that its price of 70 per cent of parity amounts to $23.51 as against the government's suggested 1958 price of $23.36. Then the organization goes on to say that should the average price in the next 4 years apply as in the last four years, that is $27.93, the minimum guaranteed 10-year average market price for 1962 would be $22.40 compared with the 1958 estimated price of $23.36.
The same is true in the case of butter. The average price in 1957 was 60.6 cents. The C.F.A. proposal is for a price of 50.1 cents. Eighty per cent of the ten-year moving average as presently suggested by the government is 49.6 cents. The C.F.A. goes on to say that if the price of butter in the next four years remains as it has in the last four years, by 1962 the price for butter under this proposition will have dropped to 48.4 cents.
I am not going to go through the whole list of commodities, but there is a similar drop for each. Good steers at Toronto in 1957 averaged $18.95 on the market. Under the C.F.A. proposal $17.62 would be the minimum price, but the minimum price for 1958 under this legislation will be $17.44. The C.F.A. points out that if the price of steers on the market over the next four years remains at about the same level as it has in the last four years then by 1962, according to this moving ten-year scale, the price will have dropped to $15.89.
I am sure the minister will say, "Well, we will introduce our guaranteed price if we think the price does not represent production costs," but of course that price is not calculated in the market price, which is the price on which the ten-year average is computed.
We witnessed an interesting spectacle the other day. Eggs were selling on the market in western Canada for something in the neighbourhood of 28 cents a dozen to producers. I am receiving letters every day
3466	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization from people complaining that they are forced to accept 28.5 cents a dozen for eggs. When the minister was questioned about this he said, "Yes, we are guaranteeing the packer 38 cents and have asked him to pay 30 cents to the producer." However, the packer said it was impossible to operate with an 8 cent margin and make a profit. The minister rose in this house and said, "I have attempted to make an arrangement with the packer." In effect he said to the packer, "You pay the farmer 30 cents, and you and I will work out some arrangement to compensate you for the loss you suggest you have to take over the 8 cents."
Under this measure I suggest there is nothing to stop the processors from driving the price on the market down to the 80 per cent floor, and that is where it is going to go. The minister has told members of this house and the farmers of Canada over and over again that he realizes there is no parity principle involved in the pricing formula he is going to employ, but he says, "You will just have to trust me and the Conservative government. I am going to see to it that the farmer is going to get his cost of production. He is going to get something in the neighbourhood of parity prices, if you will just trust me."
He then spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the only system on this continent that ever attempted to give the farmer a parity price, the United States farm program. How does the minister think the farmer can place any trust in a minister of the government who says, "I am going to give you a parity price," and then spends most of his allotted time running down and discrediting the only government on this continent that ever made a real effort to give the farmer a parity price?
What about this board that is going to be set up to advise the minister in regard to production costs and those commodities that should be supported? On reading the measure very carefully is it the duty of the board to make sure that the prescribed price or the guaranteed price bears a fair relationship-to parity? No; to the base price. That is the function of this board. What products is it going to recommend to the minister for support? Only those products the minister tells the board he thinks should oe supported. In effect the duty of this board is to do what the minister tells it to do, nothing more and nothing less.
I wonder why the minister did not see fit to include western grain in this support measure. Does he think the western wheat, barley and oats producer is now getting a price that bears a fair relationship to his 

cost of production and therefore does not warrant having those products supported? Surely the minister knows as well as I do that the farmer's cost of production has risen by 50 per cent and continues to rise, while the prices for these grain products have fallen by over 21 per cent during the last few years.
When I was home during the Christmas recess I visited the Massey Harris dealer at Tisdale, where I live. He told me that a new model 92 self-propelled combine will sell next year, if anyone is gullible enough to buy one, for $8,000. This is a machine that sold for $3,450 in 1946 when my brothers and I bought one at that price. The minister is going to have to take a close look at the proposition of supporting grain prices in western Canada.
What about soy beans and sugar beets? What is going to happen to the sugar beet grower whose product is already being supported under the Agricultural Prices Support Act? As soon as this measure becomes the law of the land he will be left out in the cold, because the Agricultural Prices Support Act will not operate after the adoption of the measure that is before us.
"A forward price," said the minister, "on the basis of one year." What kind of a forward price is a one-year forward price for the man who is engaged in livestock production? None at all. It is not worth the paper it is written on. I would suggest that the minister should either expand that forward price principle or take it out of the bill altogether, because it is absolutely useless, just as useless as the committee he is going to set up. I would also suggest that clause 5 of the bill relating to this committee should be deleted entirely, unless the minister is prepared to give this committee more power than he proposes to give it at the present time.
If this bill is going to mean anything I suggest that it must have as its fundamental the principle of parity prices. That is the only thing that is going to give the farmer any security on the land. It is not a question of giving the farmer a profit on his operation; that is not envisaged in a parity price. It simply means that there shall be a fair relationship between his cost of production and the price he receives for the commodity he produces.
If the minister is so anxious to have an advisory board composed of representatives of agricultural producers, then I urge that he accept the proposal this group is putting forward and have the agriculture committee of this house meet and invite the farm organizations to come down here and advise the minister as to the kind of legislation which

they would like to have a hand in administering. That is the only fair, reasonable and logical approach to this whole question.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in support of this agricultural bill, No. 237. The amendments recommended by the minister after much deliberation have most certainly improved the bill, which is now sound and comprehensive.
I feel sure our agriculture committee have rendered real service through the part they took in the revision of this bill. The minister is to be commended for his attitude of tolerance and fair consideration to the many suggestions offered by members of our committee. Agriculture was at the crossroads. This fact was recognized by members of our party before we came to power. Because the powers that be in our ranks were aware of this problem, they promised to do something about it. The agricultural industry has placed its confidence in us, and certainly we do not intend to let it down.
Early action was taken to save the turkey and fowl industry. This was a preview of what was to come from an alert and active government. At this time I am going to quote an excerpt from a letter I received last November:
Just in case you haven't been given the latest figures on turkeys, we in Canada are enjoying decent turkey prices since John Diefenbaker took his action on barring American birds. The farm prices here for live turkeys at the farm are about 35 cents to 38 cents per pound whereas in the United States they are only 18 cents to 20 cents at the farm. Chicken broilers are now 20 cents to 201 cents as compared with 16 cents in the U.S.A. So few of the Canadian farmers know of these advantages, which is really a tragedy.
This bill will introduce the first complete relief of distressed conditions the farmers have had in many years. It means that a way of life will be sustained for thousands of people who have been reluctant to leave their farms. Many others will now be able to make a livelihood without going into the towns and cities and taking supplementary work. This latter group are mostly young farmers who, in having to secure such work to bolster their incomes, displaced a group of older workers. The former government ignored the plight of those older citizens who were unable to find employment yet were not old enough to benefit from pensions.
This agricultural bill will certainly relieve this situation, Mr. Speaker. Agriculture accounts for the largest share of the earning power in my constituency. Therefore the assurance of a fair share of the national income will make this bill popular with my people. They may now intelligently plan for the future.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
My riding of Grey North, located on the southern shores of Georgian bay, is ideal for the production of choice apples. Over 3,000 acres are now in production of the select and most popular varieties. The growers have been continually in difficulty in marketing their crops in competition with United States growers on our markets. This bill does not specifically mention apples, Mr. Speaker, but they can be taken care of as a designated commodity under clause 2. I would suggest at this time that if the grade of United States apples coming into Ontario could be raised so that only the better grades could be imported, much of the difficulty now experienced in the marketing of our apples would disappear.
In essence this bill is an example of true democracy, in view of the fact that the minister will select from the ranks of the farmers an advisory board with which he will meet in consultation at least twice a year. Decisions and plans that these men and our Minister of Agriculture may make from time to time regarding this legislation will certainly bring security and stability to the industry. This bill should be supported on general principles.
When the farmers have money our general economy is good. Never in the history of our country were so many of our farm buildings so badly in need of repair and paint. Many of our farmers are struggling with obsolete machinery which should be replaced. Fencing and other improvement programs were almost completely neglected. Financial obligations have been deferred, spreading symptoms of recession to many other lines of business.
On my visits to the agricultural fairs or fall shows in my riding I found many of the officials very discouraged, even to the point of suggesting that the shows be discontinued. I feel that if the shows should cease to carry on a tremendous loss to the farmer's way of life would result. It would be depressing to the young people who have planned since their childhood to stay with the farms. Their calf clubs would suffer, along with the many other branches of agriculture in which the young people annually compete. This is a direct result of the neglect of the agricultural industry by the former administration. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that in no other industry do people work such long hours for so small a reward. This agricultural bill, Mr. Speaker, will restore confidence and buying power in our rural population, and it could be the spark that would rejuvenate this tired and weary industry.
In conclusion I believe, as Abraham Lincoln once said, "The government must not do for
3468	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization the people what the people can do for themselves"; but, Mr. Speaker, the farm people have exploited their best ideas and talent to no avail, and therefore this agricultural bill is the only salvation.


Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on the bill in its original form-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member has already spoken on this bill on second reading, or on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Mountain; therefore he is not eligible to speak on it again.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point is well taken. The hon. member did speak on the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
can speak on the next round.


Edward Blake Huffman: I thought I spoke on the bill itself, but not on the amendment.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: It
must have been some speech; the hon. member can't remember it.


Edward Blake Huffman: I remember it very well because it was a good speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a list supplied me by the Clerk and the hon. member was the first speaker on the amendment after the hon. member for Dauphin. Therefore I must accept it as authoritative.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder whether there is not some misunderstanding. I was here when the hon. gentleman spoke. I may be in error, but I thought he spoke on the bill. I think it was December 20. I believe we ought to check it very carefully.


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask the Clerk to check it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the matter at all. If the hon. member for Essex East will look at Hansard for Friday, December 20, he will see the names of the speakers listed there. He will see that the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough)-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I think that is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -spoke immediately after the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), and then some time after that the hon. member who is now attempting to take the floor spoke.


Murdo William Martin: It is now clear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was the hon. member for Moose Mountain who moved the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. I think all hon. members are now satisfied. I recognize the hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing an amendment to the motion for second reading of this bill. The amendment suggests that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the agriculture committee where it would be given a thorough going over and then redrafted, if necessary, and brought back to the house. We think this is a good procedure. There has been a terrible mix-up in this bill. This is the third bill we have had, and-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is absolutely incorrect. We have had only one bill from the beginning.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Mr. Speaker, the minister is again trying to confuse the issue. He will recall, and I am sure his memory is good, that on the first occasion when this bill was introduced there were only about three copies distributed. I never received a copy of the first bill at all, which was introduced on December 3. Then later, after a great deal of opposition from the Social Credit and C.C.F. parties, another bill was introduced on December 14. In fact two bills were issued on that date, and I have them right here in my hand.


Hazen Robert Argue: A bill and a reprint.


Charles Edward Johnston: A bill and a reprint; and as I say, they are right here. Then the minister-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel it is time these statements which have been made by several members in connection with this matter were stopped. They are incorrect, as I think Your Honour knows. One bill only has been introduced in connection with this matter. There was, as a result of the unanimous consent of the house, a reprint made of this bill. It is not a different bill, it is the same bill. There was one reprint made of it, and that is all. This talk about three bills having been introduced is incorrect.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just a different version.


Mr. Speaker:: Does anyone else wish to address himself to this point of order? I think we should recognize the decision of the house. I believe such statements are, in a sense, a reflection on the decision of the house to permit a reprint of the original bill. There are only two forms of the bill before the house; one is the bill in its first reading form, which the hon. member has in his hand

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
dated December 14, and then there is the Mr. Speaker: I must ask the Minister of reprint which the house permitted by unani- Agriculture, whose voice carries extremely mous consent, which contains the amendments, well, to observe the rules.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think you have explained it quite clearly. There was the first bill which was never distributed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was only one bill.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was on December 3; then there was the bill which was introduced on December 14, and then there was a reprint of that bill. All I am trying to say, in effect, is that the government is now so confused that we now have a third bill before us.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is the only one who is confused.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it there is only one bill before the house, but there are two prints of it; the first one, which the hon. member has, and the second which is headed "Reprint", and which contains the amendments the minister introduced into the bill with the unanimous consent of the house on second reading.


Charles Edward Johnston: There has been such a tremendous amount of confusion over this whole thing that I do not feel we should prolong-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is always confused; that is the trouble.


Charles Edward Johnston: The government seems to be just going around in circles.


Mr. Caron:: I am rising on a point of order. Since the beginning of the debate on this bill the Minister of Agriculture, who will have a right of reply, has been interfering here and there without any right to do so. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to tell him to keep quiet until he has the right of reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I know all hon. members understand they have no right to interrupt. Nevertheless they do so from time to time, and I hope the minister will keep his interruptions within bounds.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might say I have interrupted far less than most hon. members opposite do when one of our members is speaking.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Another point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe, as has been suggested, I should accept the minister's apologies for the haphazard way-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have made no apology and I do not intend to make any. There is no apology needed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Each speaker should rise to his feet.


Charles Edward Johnston: 
James Garfield Gardiner: That has little to do with price.


Charles Edward Johnston: The same remarks would apply, of course, to the province of Alberta. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that over the last ten years agriculture has been rapidly going downhill. When the former minister of agriculture, the right hon. member for Melville, says there is not too much difference between this bill and the old bill, then of course we can assume that there is not a great deal of difference so far as agriculture is concerned between the policy of the Liberal government and the policy of this Conservative government, other than that possibly the Conservative government is driving agriculture down a little faster than the former government.


James Garfield Gardiner: We drove it up all the time.


Charles Edward Johnston: This bill is the one which the minister has stated is going to do so much for agriculture. During the last election campaign it was stated that if the Conservative party were elected they would institute a system of parity prices, and would guarantee agriculture its fair share of the national income. When we examine the bill we find that there is not any place in the bill any formula whatever which will guarantee parity prices, nor is there any formula which will guarantee that agriculture receives its fair share of the national income.
During the election campaign they also said they would increase our markets for agricultural products. As a matter of fact the only thing the present government has done is to make a threat to the United States that they were going to reduce imports from that country by some 15 per cent. This government has not done much to increase agricultural markets. It is results which count. Certainly the government has sent costly missions over to Britain, but no practical results have been forthcoming as yet. It is time we received some results from the activities of those different missions, if they are ever going to amount to anything. That indication has not been forthcoming thus far.


The government introduced the resolution preceding this bill on December 11. It was on that occasion that the Minister of Agriculture himself stated in this house that this bill embodied the policy of the Conservative party. In fact he went so far as to say this, as recorded in Hansard at page 2189 of December 11, 1957:
I think this legislation will do everything we promised we would do so far as our campaign pledges are concerned.
I therefore think I can say that the first bill which was introduced embodied wholly and completely the Conservative policy after the Minister of Agriculture, as he said in this house, had consulted all the backbenchers with regard to the matter; and we never heard any protest from the Conservative members. We have not yet heard any protest in this house by Conservative members against this bill. There have been a great many protests from the Social Credit party, the C.C.F. party and farm organizations all across this country. Certainly they are not satisfied with the results that have been brought forth in this bill. There is still no formula for parity prices. There is still no formula to institute a cost-price relationship. There is nothing whatever to show that farmers are going to get their fair share of the national income.
I now want to refer in general to the bill. I know that at this time I cannot refer to specific sections and deal with those sections minutely or in detail. However, I want to make reference to the general principle of the bill. I want to say at once that there are one or two good points in it, I think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, they are very trivial, but I am trying to give you all the credit I possibly can. There is one section of the bill which sets out the price twelve months in advance, but that is only on six named commodities, together with wheat, oats and barley if those grains are grown in eastern Canada. If they are grown in western Canada no consideration whatever is given them under this bill. When we are instituting an agricultural policy to apply to all the country I do not think such an omission should be made. As to the bills we now have before us, may I say this. I suppose I shall be obliged to call them Bills No. 1 and No. 2. We are not counting the one that was introduced on December 3. I am a bit confused by all the bills.


Mr. Speaker:: It might clarify the matter for the hon. member if I remind him that there is only one bill before the house at

the present time, namely the one which has the heading "reprint". There is no need to refer to the earlier bill.


Charles Edward Johnston: What I was going to say was this, and I am speaking about the principle. There is now a preamble to the bill-and as far as I recall that is one of the two places where there is improvement-where a cost-price relationship is referred to. That was one of the things the Conservatives promised they were going to institute as their policy. It should be remembered that in discussing any legislation which is brought before this house, nothing in a preamble has anything whatever to do with the bill itself. I therefore think we can disregard that reference entirely, because certainly the present government never intended to have anything which is said in the preamble apply to the bill itself or they would have put it in the bill.
There are three things in general which the government is introducing under this agricultural legislation. The first is the base price, the second is the floor price and the third is the prescribed or forward price. If I may, I should like to deal first with the base price. The base price was brought to us first as a three-year moving average, namely the last three years. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this was Conservative policy after complete consideration and in consultation with all the Conservative backbenchers. Hence they all agreed with this three-year policy. No objection was raised in the house, and they said they were proud of the bill.
The three-year moving average was calculated at a time when agricultural prices were beginning to go lower. When the opposition members of this house pointed out how inadequate that would be, and how unsatisfactory it was to the agriculturists of this nation, because of that opposition the government was forced to change this period from three years to ten years.
A while ago I said there were possibly two places that showed some improvement, and this is the second one. When that change from the three-year to the ten-year moving average was made I think the base price would have been slightly better because, of course, in the first years of that ten-year period the prices were fairly good. But as that moving period advances the base price goes down, because there is every indication that the agricultural income is going to continue to fall. If that happens, of course the base price continues to get lower and lower.
We Social Crediters have contended that this period should be fixed so there would be some fair relationship to the cost when we are establishing this base period. The
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Minister of Agriculture says that would be a terrible thing, that it was never government policy. When we read back we will find out whether or not it was government policy; and I wish to refer to remarks made in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Fraser Valley when he referred to the Prime Minister's definition of parity. I think this is worth putting on the record, especially when one remembers that this was a statement made during the election campaign.
Of course I do not want to start a fight between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, but the Prime Minister knew very clearly what a set period was. He knew the advantages to agriculture of having such a period, although the Minister of Agriculture does not think that is so-after the election. Let me read what the Prime Minister said when defining parity:
. 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.
Can you understand that? That is a selected base period, not a moving period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Prime Minister was telling the farm people of this country that they would have a fixed period, a selected period. That was the promise. Then he went on to say:
-a selected base period when prices received by and prices paid by farmers were regarded as in good balance. It has been put this way. If you can sell a truckload of barley and buy with the money received so much food, clothing, buildings materials, fertilizer, farm machinery and other living and other production items as you could in a chosen favourable period in the past-
Let me re-emphasize the Prime Minister's remarks there.
-in a chosen favourable period in the past then your barley is selling at a parity price.
We have heard a lot from the minister as to what is parity. We have heard members of the Conservative party say that you cannot establish parity. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, had no doubts in his mind. He understood what parity was and thought it could be established.


An hon. Member:: The election is over.


Charles Edward Johnston: As the hon. member says, the election is over. I do not think the farmers of this country are going to take this very kindly. I do not think they are going to like the way they are being treated in this regard.
Then we come to the floor price. This is the only place in the bill where there is a formula to establish a floor price. It is to be 80 per cent of the base price; and the base
3472	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization price, ot course, is to be the average for the last 10 years. That is a moving average which goes ahead year by year, and as that base price declines so of course does the floor price, because the floor price is 80 per cent of the base price.
The next important part relates to the prescribed price, and the prescribed price is to be 80 per cent of the base price or higher. This is left entirely to the discretion of the minister. As I indicated when speaking on the resolution, that is a dangerous thing to have in the bill because it can be used for political purposes. Just before an election the minister can decide that he should make the prescribed price 150 per cent of the base price.


John Augustine Macdonald: That might be a good thing for the farmers.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the farmers will appreciate that sort of policy. They would much rather have it written into the bill so they would know what they are going to get year after year. It is a dangerous thing to have in any piece of legislation. This 80 per cent or higher of the base price is only related to the six named commodities, cattle, hogs, sheep, butter, cheese and eggs and the three additional commodities of wheat, oats and barley provided they are raised in eastern Canada. There is no consideration given to these products if they are raised in western Canada.
It is true that the bill does provide for the designated commodities, but the prices for the designated commodities are established at the discretion of the minister and do not necessarily last for a year in advance. They may only exist for six months in advance; they may only exist for three months, or they could be discontinued at any time the minister liked to discontinue them. That principle is unsound, and we do not think it should be left in here.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at one o'clock I was endeavouring to give the government some good advice, pointing out that I thought the bill was falling far short of what the farmers and the country were expecting.
I wish to make another reference to this bill and in particular to clause 7. Clause 7


is the one part of the bill which does make reference to the cost of production and it states:
The board shall from time to time in accordance with this act take such action as is necessary to stabilize the prices of agricultural commodities at their respective prescribed prices, and shall take such action and make such recommendations as are necessary to ensure that the prescribed prices for an agricultural commodity in effect from time to time shall bear a fair relationship to the base price for such commodity.
As that clause stands it is nonsensical, and I am sure the government will bring in an amendment to it. If they do not bring in an amendment, they should. The last sentence: "shall bear a fair relationship to the base price for such commodity" clearly needs amendment. The word "base" is certainly not the one intended, and I suggest to the government that it should be changed to the word "cost". But although this section does refer to cost-price relationship it is only under that part which deals with the duties of the board, and this could in no way affect the price of the products unless the minister himself so decides. Once again this is left to the discretion of the minister. He can do anything he likes, and I do not think that is a good thing.
When I was speaking on the resolution I pointed out that I thought one of the main purposes the government had in mind in bringing in this legislation was to curtail production. In the course of this debate the minister has pointed out that something must be done to handle farm surpluses, and when I made the remarks I did during the resolution stage he said I was completely wrong and that I was misrepresenting him. On that occasion, as I intend to do now, I referred to his remarks on page 2186 of Hansard on the subject. This is what he said:
I have endeavoured in this legislation to provide for the greatest possible degree of flexibility so we will not be saddled-
I want hon. members to note that word "saddled."
-with a program which inevitably acts as an incentive to produce burdensome and unsaleable surpluses.
If that does not mean that the minister has in mind some method of getting rid of these "burdensome and unsaleable surpluses" I should like to know what it does mean. That this was uppermost in the minister's mind is indicated by the fact that on two other occasions in the course of his speech he made reference to the same subject. I am not going to quote these references now because I did so on the resolution stage. The minister went to some lengths to point out that I was entirely wrong.

I wish to quote an article from the Calgary Herald. The Calgary Herald must be considered to be a very worthwhile newspaper, because there is no paper in Canada which is more Conservative. Certainly it would not misrepresent the minister, and if it has done so the minister should get up and say that he has been misrepresented. This is the article which appeared on Thursday, December 31 on the editorial page. It is entitled: "No Cure-all but Good Medicine." Good medicine for the farmers, I guess. The article reads:
The dominion government in general and agriculture minister D. H. Harkness in particular are both to be commended for the political courage displayed in introduction of the Farm Price Stabilization Bill, more details of which were made known here the other day by Mr. Harkness.
So the minister must have gone into it very carefully.
The proposed support prices are so designed that, should a surplus begin to build up, the government will attempt to cut production in the surplus area and, more specifically, will reduce the support price to remove the incentive for growing or producing the particular product of which a surplus is building up.
The next paragraph is a gem, and it states government policy, make no mistake about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a gem too.


Charles Edward Johnston: Isn't it, though. This is the way it reads:
The plan, in other words, makes a sensible appeal to farmers to police themselves: to cut back production on products of which there is, or is likely to be, an obvious surplus. If this fails, the government-in a move which is likely to be unpopular to the farmers and which is thus indicative of the political courage being displayed by the government-will progressively reduce the support price. This, in turn, will remove or reduce the incentive to grow or produce that particular product.
In other words, this is a police bill, and if the farmers do not police themselves the Minister of Agriculture is going to do the policing for them. That is exactly what the Calgary Herald says about it, and I say the same thing. That is what I tried to point out the other day while speaking on the resolution stage, but the minister jumped up and said I had completely misrepresented him. If I was misrepresenting him he could not say the Calgary Herald was doing so. But if I was, then that newspaper must have been doing so too.
Mr. Speaker, it is now acknowledged that the Russians are ahead of us by about 10 years with regard to the production of certain missiles of war, and now they are turning their attention to increasing their production of consumer goods. They hope to surpass us in this field in the course of the next four or five years, those surpluses to
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization be given to needy nations in order to build up public relations and attract a still greater number of nations to the soviet side. What are we doing under this bill? Instead of increasing production of consumer goods at a time when half the world is going to bed hungry every night, instead of increasing the production of consumer goods or instead of giving this surplus to the needy nations in order to relieve world tension the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) brings in a bill which is going to cut back these surpluses which are so greatly needed in other parts of the world today.


An hon. Member:: Shame on him.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, shame. What a sorry outlook for the future.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit party has advocated a two-price system for agriculture, a system which would give in the domestic field a parity price for agricultural products. I will not define parity again because I gave the Prime Minister's definition of that a little while ago. On the export markets we would have to take what is generally known as the world price. That should be supplemented by a price support, a deficiency payment or what we Social Crediters have often described as a price discount. All three terms mean about the same thing. We have advocated this system for years. When you consider the income from the domestic and export markets under such a system agriculturists would then be receiving their fair share of the national income. There is nothing like that in this bill. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) said last evening, there is nothing in this bill which is very different from what was contained in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. If the farmers of this country want a change in agricultural policy and if they want the industry put on a sound basis they will have to look to someone else other than to the Liberals or the Conservatives.


Mr. Irvin Siuder (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am not rising merely with the object of repeating arguments that have already been advanced for or against this bill. I believe this bill contains the germ of a measure that may in the future result in benefits to a great number of farmers. I also am not rising with the purpose of just adding another speech to my record. I understand that that is the strategy of some of the political parties in this house. Hon. members in those splinter groups rise on every possible occasion and speak on. every conceivable subject merely in order to accumulate a formidable list of speeches which they can present to their
3474	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization constituents at election time in the fond hope that their constituents will believe that volume and verbosity can take the place of common sense. I hope that not too many hon. members of this house will follow that practice. Neither is it my intention in speaking at this time to concentrate my criticism on the government which is the practice of the splinter groups because I think the members of the government before June 10 were in the same position as the splinter groups were in that they did not think they would have any more responsibility than the splinter groups would have after the June 10 election.
No one who has been associated with governments for any length of time can fail to realize the difficulties that governments have in attempting to formulate agricultural and other policies that will be acceptable to the people of Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia before legislation can be enacted and become the law of the land. I think all of us will agree that in the past years much progress has been made by the former federal government in formulating policies under those difficult circumstances.
In spite of the criticism of the splinter groups I can assure you that many Canadians have fared very well under the policies formulated by the Liberal government and perhaps they will continue to fare in this fashion if they apply themselves to the task under Conservative policies as long as they last. However, if the Conservative policies last too long they certainly will not work to the benefit of all the people of Canada and particularly the farm population because Conservative policies contain limitations that the policies of the former government did not contain.
We believe that the policies of the former government were correct policies. At the same time we admit that someone else could perhaps evolve better policies and if this could be done we are going to try to assist in putting them into effect because the people of this country, including the farm population, come first in the view of Liberals and the interests and well-being of Canadians are placed ahead of politics. Therefore, we would like to be as helpful as we can in seeing measures put into effect that will work to the benefit of all Canadians.
Hon. members of this house of the Liberal party have endeavoured to apply themselves to a search for effective farm policies. We enacted the Agricultural Prices Support Act which we endeavoured to implement to the best of our ability. Returning to my original premise that we must adopt policies that are in the best interests of Canadians from coast


to coast, I would point out that if we are going to have an effective and permanent farm policy it also must benefit all those engaged in the agricultural industry.
Many hon. members have risen in this house and said that the existing Agricultural Prices Support Act was helpful to the agriculture industry and superior to the proposed bill concerning agricultural stabilization. If that act contains principles that are of value and if there is any merit in the bill before us perhaps the government would give consideration to amalgamating parts of both measures. Instead of concentrating on the bill before us perhaps they would give consideration to bringing in a measure that would incorporate the best features of both the proposed bill and the existing act. The preamble to the existing Agricultural Prices Support Act stated that the farmer was entitled to receive a fair share of the national wealth. Although it may not have been achieved in any particular period nevertheless that was the objective of the act.
The bill before us refers to a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services they buy but makes no specific reference to the entitlement of farmers to receive a fair share of the national income. There is no guarantee of that in the bill before us nor is it stipulated as an objective of the bill. Perhaps we could combine the benefits of both measures in one piece of legislation.
I have observed that some hon. members in criticizing agricultural policies seek to compare the situation in Canada with the situation that obtains in other countries in relation to agriculture. I would suggest that there is no comparison between Canada and any other country. It is difficult to formulate a forward pricing system for Canada if the situation here is to be compared with that which obtains in importing countries.
Canada is capable of becoming the greatest exporting country in the world. We have proven this to be true as far as wheat is concerned and although it is not evident with respect to other farm products it could become so and it should be our ambition to have Canada become the greatest exporting country in the world. To the extent that we export we increase the national wealth of Canada. No matter how self-sufficient a country is there is no guarantee that the national wealth or standard of living will improve but if a country exports its national wealth increases by the value of its exports. Perhaps Canada's present national wealth can be attributed to her export activity. Therefore, I say that we should consider bills,

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
agricultural and otherwise, from the point of view of the situation in Canada.
In the matter of the export of wheat I know of no country that has a situation similar to that of Canada. This bill does not refer to wheat except as it applies to eastern Canada. We export 80 per cent of our wheat and no other country compares with ours.
I think what the government is trying to do is to find a solution without imposing production controls. I think that is the primary objective. Other countries have endeavoured to find a solution and have utilized production controls in their endeavours to assist the farmers or to make it possible for the farmers to have at least a fair share of the national wealth. What we are endeavouring to do is to establish production and give the farmers a fair share of the national wealth on the basis of the farmers being free to conduct their own production as they see fit. We are not recommending acreage control or production control and not too much emphasis has been given to that aspect of the question in the speeches that I have listened to in this House of Commons.
I was just a little surprised at this. I believe some of the farm unions of Canada have agreed that in order to prevent production running wild-as some great leaders of farm organizations have interpreted it-there would have to be some production controls. That would have to be done if an incentive price were established which would bring about a greater production than would be normally considered the annual contribution of the farmers. I was somewhat surprised at farm unions accepting the idea that we should have controls on production. This is contrary to what we hear in the House of Commons. The question is often asked here, so long as there are hungry people in the world why should there be production controls? Perhaps that sounds reasonable and is reasonable. If we are to feed the hungry people of the world and have unlimited production, then those same hungry countries of the world, if we can refer to them as such, will have to change their distribution attitude in regard to their acceptance of the surpluses of other countries and use them to offset their lack of production in their own countries to feed their own people.
I would say that everyone will agree that Canadians are prepared to feed every person on earth, but they are not prepared to have any of that food wasted when it is distributed so that the individuals who need it do not receive it. Distribution in those underprivileged countries will have to be reorganized before we can adapt ourselves to the position that, regardless of anything, we are going to supply all of the people that it is 96698-220
possible to supply with unlimited food and then depend on someone else to compensate us for the production of that food. Everyone has some interest in the production and distribution of this food throughout the world. I have not yet heard any individual or any country say that we can continue in season and out of season to produce something and give it away and still maintain ourselves in a solvent position. To the extent that it can be done of course it should be done.
If our farm unions have accepted the premise that in order to have parity prices for the farmers we must have production controls, if they are prepared to accept that, then it should be advocated on the same basis as it is in other countries where it has been established and the farmers should have the right to vote on it. We have been accepting the proposition of the organized farmers of western Canada and of all Canada. What about the unorganized farmers of this country? I hope I am not misstating the position when I say that the unorganized farmers in this country are perhaps in the majority. Who is speaking for them? They may have the same objective as the organized farmers; yet, I think they are entitled to a voice; not all the people who are working in industry are unionized. Would anyone say that the non-unionized individuals should not have a voice? Do members of parliament not represent, or try to represent, all of the people in their constituencies, organized or not? I think we try to present the point of view of all of the people in this House of Commons and all of them have a right to a voice in their affairs. We accept the voice of the organized farmers because we have no other particular voice to accept but at the same time consideration should be and will be given to the minority view. If the unorganized farmer is in the minority, he still has his rights as a member of that minority.
We are accepting the voice of the organized farmers of Canada and the basis upon which they think farm legislation should be enacted. I note that the 10 points offered by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture suggest to the government how a parity price structure should be enacted. The 10th point reads as follows:
Price supports should not create incentives to production which perpetuates surplus production problems and prevent necessary and desirable production adjustments being made.
To my mind this is the crux of the whole situation. How are you going to establish a parity basis? It certainly is desirable. How are you going to do it and still give consideration to point 10, which I think eliminates
3476	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization much of the argument in favour of establishing what some people advocate? It eliminates it because it all gets back to the question of how you can do the one thing without creating an undesirable situation in endeavouring to accomplish your objective. We have heard about the situation in the United States; we have heard about their parity or lack of it, and what it has done for the farmer-and it has helped the farmer. But they have never had parity in the United States. At the present moment I think they are advocating a reduction of the percentage parity to 65 per cent.
We have never had 100 per cent parity, or anywhere near it, although in some products or some commodities, at one time or another we may have had it. The price support mentioned in this bill is to be the average over a period of 10 years. I have compared the parity price in the United States during the last year, and the highest price was for hogs, and it was 92 per cent of parity. The lowest was for turkeys and barley, which was 61 per cent of parity. That was the situation in the United States and it created a surplus. The average price was 75 per cent of parity. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture point 10 suggests that a basis should be established which will not create production incentives. Where is the balance to be between the two? Farm leaders, and many prominent ones in Saskatchewan, have told us over the years that you cannot have a parity price above 75 per cent of parity. No one has explained to me why we should not have 100 per cent parity.
The farm organizations admit that if you are going to have 100 per cent parity you must have controls. They admit that. The farm people of this country should decide which they want. In my opinion, in a democratic country this decision should be made by a vote such as the farmers in the United States have before parity prices can be obtained on wheat or any other product. The farmers have a vote, and have a right to say whether they shall take parity with reduced production, reduced acreage, or whether they shall take whatever price the market offers on an unlimited production basis. I think that is democracy, and I really think that that should be done in this case.
I do not see how you can establish a ten-year average as the basis when that ten-year average is below the price that should prevail, and then establish a floor price of 80 per cent of that average without allowing the farmers to indicate their wishes in the matter. I do not believe, either, that the


basis of the price structure should be written into the law of the land. I have heard arguments in this house to that effect. Some people say, how can we depend upon the government to accept the recommendations of farm leaders of this country as to what the prices should be because the government may come along in an election year and raise that price. If that is the situation, then that is one of the prices that we pay for democracy.
I believe the government is responsible for conducting the affairs of this country, and is responsible for what happens to the national treasury. I do not believe that any group, whoever they might be, in any class or industry has the right to determine the things that the government itself should determine. I would say if we are going to adopt this measure then the farmers should have a part in it and should be prepared to accept the consequences, without putting the responsibility on any particular government that may have been in power at any given time. I feel, therefore, that we shall have to consider that.
As I mentioned before, many people on this side have been critical of the Conservative platform and critical of the Conservative party's promises before the election. I have explained why I thought the Conservatives were in the same position before June 10 as the splinter groups that are so vociferous in their criticism. Now that the Conservatives have formed the government I think it is the duty of Canadian people to endeavour to assist them. If referring this bill to the agriculture committee is going to be of any value, then of course that should be done.
However, I believe we are in a little different position now than we have been in former sessions of the house. I do not believe anyone will say that we have been deficient in having people advocate to the government or to the committees what should be done in this country. We have had the benefit of the advice of the farm groups in Canada. We have had the benefit of the advice of economists. If the government, in their wisdom, decide that this is the policy to follow, that this is what the farmers of this country want, that this is in the interests of all Canada, and if the government is accepting that responsibility, then I feel it is our duty to pass this bill. We are living in a democracy and elections come along from time to time. I do not believe the people of Canada are apt to be influenced in a way that some people are fearful they will be influenced. I cannot see that any

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
government would have any other objective than to try to do that which might be helpful to as many classes and producers in Canada as possible.
I believe that regardless of what the price structure may be, regardless, for instance, of what the floor price under eggs may be, it is absolutely essential, in order to make any price structure operative, that each one of the provinces accepts its responsibility. Living in Canada as we do, and having accepted our constitution as we have, I think it is impossible to make this price structure operative unless each province accepts its responsibility because the federal government can establish a 38-cent floor price under eggs but who is to guarantee that that floor price will accrue to the producer? The federal government cannot do that unless there is a change in the constitution, but the provincial governments can. I would say that some provincial governments have not been accepting their responsibilities.
I believe the day is coming when the people of this country are going to say, if everything is dependent on the federal government and the provincial governments are only to be distributing agencies for federal government revenue and be in a position where they can criticize to their hearts' content the efforts of the federal government, then what are we doing with provincial governments? I think this floor price structure can be made effective through provincial governments which could guarantee the farmer the floor price that the federal government establishes. There is room, therefore, for great co-operation throughout Canada.
I know of no argument that would be valid for referring this bill to the agriculture committee. Nevertheless, I would suggest that under present circumstances, with governments as they are constituted in Canada and with perhaps an uncertainty in the air about things to come, there may be some reason why the government would like to enact this legislation and present it to the country for its acceptance or rejection. Perhaps that is the way things should be done in our democracy. After all the cabinet and the government are responsible to the people; that is the way it should be. On that basis, I think I can support this bill, in the hope it can be improved and made effective, thereby giving some encouragement to the farmers of this country. The enactment of this legislation may give them hope that within a short time they will be entitled to their fair share of the national wealth.


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in taking a small part in this debate I hope I shall be able to do so without repeating too much of what has been said. There have been many speeches made in this debate, both at the resolution stage and on second reading. I hope, as I say, I shall not repeat too much of what has been said already.
When the minister moved second reading of the bill he made a very full and complete explanation of the measure as well as the amendments he intends to propose. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that many members do not understand yet the full significance of that explanation. So far as the C.C.F. group is concerned, we could hardly expect to satisfy their demands. Some of their remarks could only be defined as bordering on the ridiculous, and they do not warrant rebuttal.
I would just mention one or two remarks made by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson). He referred to the legislation as the biggest load of garbage ever left on the farmer's doorstep. He said that the farmers will continue to starve, but with a little more dignity. If anyone is interested in checking these remarks, they can be found at page 2194 of Hansard for December 11, 1957. I think statements of that type, unless backed up by a negative vote, do more harm than good. If hon. members are really sincere in what they say we will expect them to vote against this bill. We will stand and be judged, however, by the producers themselves and not on the word of those in the house who profess to be speaking on their behalf.
The previous minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), in his speeches has produced figures in order to try to prove that the farmers were better off just prior to June 10 than ever before in history. Grosswise they are handling more money; but in the net picture there is a very different story to be told. The minister can go on and produce all the figures he likes, but it will take more than that to convince farmers that they are better off than they were a few years ago.
Especially remembering the famous cream can dodgers the hon. member for Melville had during his earlier election years, it is rather interesting to note the differences in the prices of some grain products, taking as a basis of comparison those in 1933 and those in 1938. That is a five-year interval. The Conservatives had been in power for three years and the Liberals, after the 1935 election, had also been in power for three years. Hence I think there could be very little criticism of the use of those two years as a basis of comparison.
3478	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization Strangely enough, the price of No. 1 northern wheat, in store Fort William, in 1933 was 68 cents and in 1938 was 61 cents. In the case of No. 1 CW oats, in store Fort William, the price in 1933 was 34 cents and in 1938 it was 29 cents. In the case of barley, No. 3 CW, in store Fort William, the price was 39 cents in 1933 and 36 cents in 1938. In the case of rye, the 1933 figure was 48 cents and the 1938 figure was 41 cents. In the case of flaxseed, the 1933 figure was $1.48 and the 1938 figure was $1.44.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether he could inform the house on what basis the figures are taken, or at what marketing point?


John Alpheus Charlton: I suggested at the start, before I gave any of these figures, that the basis was "in store Fort William". In the case of corn, the 1933 figure was 59 cents and the 1938 figure was 47 cents. It is true-and I will admit it-that the livestock prices were up from those years but in the case of grain -and that is what the former minister used in his 1935 election-they were down.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can take any other two years and it will be different.


John Alpheus Charlton: No; not any other two years. However, I thought that was a fair year to take, namely three years after the Conservative government had been in power and three years after the Liberal government had been in power.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them all here.


John Alpheus Charlton: I assume that the former minister has them all there. He generally has most figures fairly close at hand, and he makes the best use of them for his own purposes.
The hon. member for Melville also stated on more than one occasion during this debate that this stabilization bill does not differ from the price support act or that it is not even as good. To suggest that, Mr. Speaker, is to say that much more good could have been accomplished under the prices support act but "we didn't want to do it". That admission means a good deal, coming as it does from the previous minister.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Villeneuve) made a very good speech last night. I want to add just a word to what he said with regard to cheese producers. On more than one occasion I have used the cheese producers in Ontario as an example of an organization which has tried to do its best for itself, in a self-help program under


the producer marketing board legislation. That organization has not always had the closest co-operation with the previous federal government. In some cases, as mentioned last night by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-and I will not repeat what he said -it would even suggest that there had been straight out and out antagonism toward what they were trying to do.
Last night the hon. member mentioned cheese imports in 1951 and 1952. It is not always our own production that causes the surplus position and causes us so much trouble but rather that which is imported from other countries on top of our own production. I suggest that at that time that was what caused the cheese producers more harm, worry and concern than anything that has happened in some time.
As stated last night by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott, the cheese producers have cost this country only some $150,000 since the inception of that organization, in support in any way that is directly connected with their production. I am not referring to any buildings for cold storage and so on. But in the sale of their product, it has cost this government only some $150,000 in the years it has been operating. Any organization that can accomplish that result and do it themselves is to be commended very highly. Prior to that, however, I think the minister will recall that back in 1947 or 1948-I am not sure of the exact year but he will remember it very well-he lowered the subsidy on cheese producers milk or cheese milk from 10 cents to 8 cents and left it at 10 cents for all the other milk producers. That action had an effect upon the milk producers organizations of this country which it took a considerable number of years to heal. But in the case of these imports, surely Canadians should not be called upon to subsidize producers of another country.
The hon. member for Melville made much of the fact that we had changed this bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we on this side of the house will never take the attitude that we will not change our minds. If the hon. member for Melville and his cabinet colleagues had been willing to listen to those who knew the situation they might well have still been on this side of the house. Even with the last minute flurry of activity the previous government found that they had fiddled too long and their little Rome burned on June 10. It always intrigues me to hear so many who are not farmers tell us how we are supposed to run our business.
The hon. member for Melville also was crying crocodile tears the other day-you could almost hear them falling on the floor- and saying that we had joined with the C.C.F.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
party to defeat Liberalism. I am glad he has given us the assurance that they are not going to try the same thing. He also suggested that we had promised 100 per cent parity. Never at any time in our promises, our platform or policy did we ever suggest 100 per cent parity. We know the position in which the administration in the United States have been placed; and they have only 90 per cent parity, with surpluses beyond the reasonable point, and it is costing them a tremendous amount of money to pay the storage costs alone on those surpluses.
I have no hesitation in saying that the average farmer in Canada today is in practically the same position, netwise, as he was during the 1930's. We are trying now to do what we can to correct the situation but it cannot be done by one stroke of the pen. Although we feel that much can be accomplished under this legislation, we have never suggested that it could cure all of the problems of the agriculture industry. The prices to the producer for food products have not kept pace with wage increases over past years. Proof of that is in the fact that never before in the history of this country would the average industrial hourly wage buy so much food. I think that statement bears repetition-never before in the history of this country would the average industrial hourly wage buy so much too.
In a speech made in Ridgetown apparently on January 15, since the newspaper clipping I have in my hand is headed January 15, Dr. D. N. Huntley of the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph made this statement:
Whereas in Canada it takes only 30 minutes' work to earn enough money to provide an adequate diet for the average town worker, in the United States it takes 24 minutes, in Denmark 42 minutes, in Sweden 54 minutes, in Italy three hours and 12 minutes and in India four hours and 30 minutes.
Therefore the Canadian worker is not spending too much of his income on food.
We have heard quite a bit from the C.C.F. party about the wonderful governments they have in Sweden and Norway. I suggest that those figures show they are paying more in those countries for their food in comparison to what we have to earn for the same purpose in Canada. As I said before, net wise the farmer is nearly as badly off today as he was in the thirties and, after all, it is the net position which counts. He may have a lot of money in his pockets but if it takes him more money to keep going and he has less left over at the end of the year, then he is in a worse position. It is the cost-price squeeze that is catching him at this time.
The percentage of the consumer dollar going to the farmer is considerably reduced. Our government has set up a commission to try to find the details and causes of this
greater spread between the producer and the consumer. The primary producer bears the burden of increased taxation far out of proportion to his income by reason of the fact that he cannot pass on his costs to anyone else. He sells on a free market in most cases and buys on a protected market. During periods of recession and low prices he simply stops any improvement program, repairs old equipment rather than purchasing new and in most cases he is even forced to increase production in order to try to meet these higher costs.
How does this affect the rest of the economy? When one realizes that the average farmer buys between four and five times as much manufactured or processed goods as does the average urban dweller, then the possible effects on the merchant or the manufacturer are obvious. If the farmer across Canada received his fair share of the national income there would be very little unemployment. They are good spenders if and when they have it to spend.
Farmers ordinarily depend partly on increased real estate values for their retirement funds. There is no group of people who have, however, as much faith and hope in the future. That must have been pretty obvious to anyone sitting in the opposition over the last few years when these people would go on taking what they did take from the last government and still keep on voting for them.
History may serve its purpose at times but it is the present and the future to which we as a government are looking. I personally believe that producing marketing boards with a co-operative subsidiary to take surplus production off the market is the answer to most of our marketing problems. To work efficiently, however, these marketing boards must be organized on a national basis. The necessary legislation was provided in this house last year to permit producer marketing boards to operate in the interprovincial and export fields. They were also given the authority by order in council to collect a fee from each producer, commonly known as the equalization fee. There are those who term this an indirect tax.
Call it what you may, it is still the producer's own money and surely he can use it as he wishes. It is only another form of insurance, and there are plenty of precedents for such action. Critics of the producer marketing board legislation did not raise a hue and cry when the employees contributed to unemployment insurance to carry them over periods of unemployment. There was nothing said about a group of farmers getting together to set up a mutual fire insurance company.
3480	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Farmers' organizations generally are to be commended for their reasonable attitudes toward responsibility for surpluses. If this responsibility were divided between the producer and the government the possibility of unmanageable surpluses would be materially lessened. I would now like to quote from the brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture dated December 1957 which says in paragraph 10:
Price supports should not create incentives to production which perpetuate surplus production problems and prevent necessary and desirable production adjustments being made.
That is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In the case of the inter-provincial farm union council No. 3 of their recommendations states as follows:
Further in order to provide basic security to farmers guaranteed by legislation on agricultural commodities, the support market price should be established at levels sufficiently high to assure the consumer paying more than a disaster price, but not so high as to cause the government to accumulate large surpluses.
I would like to say again that I feel both farm organizations are to be commended for their reasonable attitude towards this matter of surplus production. As I mentioned before with respect to producer marketing boards, it will take considerable time and effort for producers across Canada to achieve the degree of organization which is desirable. The bill now before us will assist them in the meantime. At this point I would like to quote from the summary of the report of the royal commission on agricultural and rural life in Saskatchewan which, in conclusion No. 37 says:
A comprehensive agricultural program which gave agriculture bargaining power equal to other groups in the economy would reduce the need for a support price program. If the agricultural program is more limited and full employment and a high level of exports are not maintained, a support program is necessary. A support program would be desirable even if a comprehensive program were in force, although its operation would probably be limited to isolated marketing maladjustments.
And then conclusion 41 says:
Although farmers feel that the basic problem of low and variable farm income can be partly alleviated through lower costs of production, they feel the most fruitful program lies in the field of farm product prices and in finding larger markets for these products. They are not overly concerned about the kind of pricing arrangement, although they suggested forward, support, and parity systems, but would like to see prices which are stable and high enough for the average farmer to earn a decent living.
There was no formula in the floor prices support act; there is in this. No matter what formula you choose, in order that it be a flexible system it has to be a percentage of that formula whether you take a 5-year term, back a few years or whether you take the


10 years we have taken; the prescribed price must be a percentage of the base to keep it flexible. We have that formula. We are taking the 10-year moving average as a base.
There was no advisory committee set up under the last bill, the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Nothing was written into that bill-


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, written into the bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister had an advisory committee, I admit, but it is written into this bill that there shall be a committee. The advisory committee last time was a committee which had been in operation prior to the bill being set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: It had to be appointed under that act after it was on the statute book.


John Alpheus Charlton: 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. The prescribed prices under this bill have been most grossly misrepresented. Never before in this type of legislation has there been any guaranteed price written into a statute. We have in the present bill guaranteed 80 per cent of the average or base price. That is a guarantee that prices shall never go below that even in times of disaster. Such a provision has never been made before, and that is one way in which this bill is different from the last.
The misrepresentation by the C.C.F. group particularly is that this is going to be the price of the farm product, namely, 80 per cent of the base period. That is not going to be the prescribed price. The prescribed price may be anywhere from 80 per cent to 120 or 130 per cent and obviously it will be near, or probably over, 100 per cent during the time mentioned this morning when the good years have been taken off the 10-year average. I am sure the committee will average that up by increasing the percentage when the four good years have been taken off the average price.
The ultimate security provided in the bill is the system of guaranteed prices which I mentioned before. Mr. Speaker, we cannot stop people going out and accentuating the negative. They can do that, if they wish, for their own political purposes. But I suggest the positive is there if people want to see it, and the bill will be of great assistance

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
to the farmers of this country. I believe that the farmers and the farm organizations, generally speaking have not too much criticism of this present bill.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I said before, we will let the producers in this country judge us, not those people in that corner of the house who profess to be speaking for them.
What has been accomplished by this government may give us some idea of the sincerity of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and of the government as a whole in their attitude toward the farmers across Canada. Surely they know what has been done. But I would take a moment or so to point out some of the things which have been brought in. There was a support price introduced for turkeys, and they were listed under the Import-Export Act. Butter oil and skim milk powder were placed under the import-export act. A support price was announced on sugar beets, and advance payments for western grain growers were approved. This surely should indicate the sincerity of the Minister of Agriculture and this government towards all farmers across Canada.
The amendment now before us would virtually kill the bill. It would be time consuming, and since both major farm organizations have been consulted on this measure I can see no good purpose served by further delay.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I have no intention of unduly delaying the house nor do I wish to set myself up as an expert in agriculture. However, even if in certain parts of northwestern Quebec there is nothing but mines, lumber camps, or pioneer settlements, I am convinced that agriculture has a very important role to play there. That is why I feel called upon to state the views of the farmers, not only those of the constituency of Villeneuve, but also those of every area in northwestern Quebec. I do this even though my colleague, the member for Chapleau (Mr. Barbes) will also certainly have occasion to speak on behalf of the same farmers.
Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, I received several representations in the form of resolutions passed by the convention of the Catholic Farmers' Union of Temiscamingue, a federation of which several parishes of my constituency are members.
I do not doubt either that those resolutions meet with the wishes of every farming community in northwestern Quebec. Most of the resolutions passed by this convention, which took place at St. Eugene de Guigues, dealt with matters of topical interest in agriculture and were of interest not only to the farmers of our district but to all farmers in eastern Canada.
Among other things, this convention asked for a 10 cents a pound subsidy for butter, deficiency payments for agricultural products, a permanent federal policy of assistance to grain transport and also a permanent federal policy of agricultural price support. Improved methods for the grading of certain products were also requested.
In this brief which was prepared after the congress and which I believe must have been forwarded to the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) it is interesting to analyse the content of the resolution requesting deficiency payments, since this is directly related to the bill now before the house.
To justify this request for deficiency payments the convention emphasizes the fact that in certain farming areas it is practically impossible to change over from one type of production to another in a short time. There are various reasons for this, depending on the type of production, the type of soil or the matter of marketing.
The convention also pointed out, and with good reason, that, like everybody else, the farmer is entitled to a certain stability of income, which is by no means insured by the sole method now applied, agricultural price support.
The farmer's convention also expressed the belief that the present agricultural price support policy should be supplemented by a system of deficiency payments negotiated at the end of a period where price levels would justify the adoption of such a policy, i.e. in the following circumstances:
1.	When the marketing of some perishable products has to be speeded up to prevent undue losses.
2.	When, in order to insure a better return to the producer, it would be necessary to raise a support price which has already reached its highest possible level, without further increasing an already surplus production.
3.	When it becomes necessary to supplement the inadequate income of producers who marketed their product at a price which
3482	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization remained dangerously low for two consecutive years, or when some factors, such as the incapacity to deliver the product or other particular circumstances, require the implementation of such a policy.
4.	When in certain particular cases, such payments provide a price support-allowing for special consideration to consumer interests-or ensure a steady supply, or solve any other marketing problem.
I believe that the requests embodied in the resolution passed by our farmers at their convention last fall, are justified and sound, and that is why I would like to call the governments attention to their contents today.
As I said a few minutes ago, I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is playing a very important part in western Quebec. I made this statement because we have in our district more than 9,500 organized farms covering over 300,000 acres, and valued at least at 55 million dollars. We have to admit that the industry whose gross product exceeds $11 million a year is certainly a decisive factor in the prosperity and stability of our regional economy.
In northeastern Quebec the dairy industry is the only one in which our farmers are perfectly organized. No wonder farmers try to bank on it for the major part of their income. In fact, dairy production in that area, which amounted to 99 million pounds in 1941 was in excess of 150 million pounds in 1955. As a result, our farmers rely especially on butter production for their main income, because they find it very difficult, nowadays, to engage in livestock production, for distribution facilities are not as good as one might wish. Our farmers have to ship their beef either to Montreal or Toronto, because there are no slaughtering and cold storage facilities in our area. Therefore, they have to rely almost entirely on dairy production and, as stated earlier by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) when speaking to the resolution, the support price of butter, at 58 cents a pound, is not high enough to allow a reasonable profit to our farmers.
I believe that a program of deficiency payments, so that consumers would not have to pay exorbitant prices, would help farmers who want to stay on the farm in producing a commodity which the consumer could afford and which, at the same time, would provide the farmers with a reasonable profit.


That is why I endorse the suggestions made by our farmers who are members of the Union Catholique des Cultivateurs and who met in convention last fall more particularly to acquaint us with their needs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on this subject of farm assistance, I wish once again to draw the attention of hon. members who, from time to time, have chosen to draw comparisons between farming and various other industries. For instance, an hon. member contended that through the Gold Mine Assistance Act the government was appropriating considerable sums of money to help mining. Well, the farmers who are asking for help from the Canadian government at this time are precisely those who take advantage of the Gold Mine Assistance Act. They are the same farmers because if that industry slows down or in wiped out, farmers in northwestern Quebec and northwestern Ontario are going to be the ones to feel it, since their only markets are in those mining areas where not only gold but essential base metals such as copper, lead, zinc and so on, are produced. I therefore believe that appeals to the Canadian government for help to Canadian farmers should not be based on that type of reasoning.
Mr. Speaker, I would also draw the government's attention to the difficulties which some of our farmers are facing in the distribution of their products, more particularly in our area. I may be told that this is a matter coming under provincial jurisdiction, but did not the previous government ask the Senate to set up a special committee to study land use? Would it not be possible to do the same thing? It is not only by enacting legislation such as the one before us today that we can really help the farmers and allow them to enjoy a better share of our national revenue; another way of doing it would be to revise methods which are now outdated.
I do not wish to take any more of the time of the house. I hope therefore that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will study this matter together with the provinces in seeking means to ensure better distribution of agricultural products, thus helping our Canadian farmers. (Text):


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) who has just taken his seat, on the fine speech he just delivered. I think it is a great pity that he

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
did not deliver a speech of that sort when he sat across on the other side of the house. If he and some of the other Liberal members from Quebec who have spoken during this debate had expressed their views in this forceful way while the Liberal government was in office they might still be on the other side of the house. There have been some excellent speeches delivered during this debate and I especially want to congratulate my colleagues from Quebec who sit in this corner of the house for having pointed up the pressing problems which are confronting the farm population of that province.
I think the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) also deserves special mention. His speeches are usually very thoughtful. The one he delivered yesterday should receive very careful consideration by the minister and the cabinet. However, I must make an exception when I come to the speech made by the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). I understand that he is about to give up public life, after having the unusual record of having been elected a great many times over a period of 40 years-


James Garfield Gardiner: You will be out before I am.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -without meeting defeat in his own constituency. I understand he is going to call it a day without meeting defeat in the coming election. I think it is very unfortunate that in one of his last speeches in parliament he made such an unfair reference to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz). I am very proud of the fact that an individual could come to Canada in 1930, unable to speak our language, and could win a place in the Canadian parliament and enjoy the esteem of all his colleagues, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Melville.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I said.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is very unfortunate that the hon. member for Melville made reference to a third member of the family and said, as reported at page 3446 of Hansard:
The article refers to another member of the family to whom I shall not refer in this connection.
I would like to inform the house that the third member of the family the hon. member referred to is not in jail. The third member is a civil servant in Ottawa. She passed her examinations and had already done responsible work while the Liberals were in office 96698-221
and now while the Conservatives are in office. For the hon. member for Melville to break into a discussion of agricultural prices and make reference to this third member-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I had made reference to that my hon. friend would be criticizing me now for having said the daughter had a government job. That is the reason I did not mention it. I knew the member for Mackenzie would be criticizing me if I had.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member wished to throw out an innuendo regarding the third member of the family-


James Garfield Gardiner: No innuendo was intended and there is none in it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad to have that on record. I want to say that I consider it a great privilege to be associated with the hon. member for Springfield, and I am sure that many of us who were born in this country would give a good deal if we could use the English language as forcefully as does the hon. member for Springfield.
I have been interested in the fact that quite a number of the private members on the government side have taken part in this debate. They have been on sound ground when they have said that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is a great improvement over the previous minister. You will not get in trouble anywhere in Canada by making that statement. After the election, when I was asked about the Minister of Agriculture, I admitted very frankly that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had selected the most capable member of the Conservative party for this responsible job but, having said that, I want to make it very clear that I do not think the minister can seriously argue that this legislation is any solution of the crisis which is confronting agriculture.
I am glad that members on the government side have been willing to admit that the farmers of Canada are in a very serious jam. In the last copy of the international federation of agricultural producers News I read a brief note which says that just under 36,000 farmers, or 5 per cent of Canada's farm population, had enough income in 1955 to pay income tax. That struck me as pretty challenging. This publication, which comes from Washington, indicates that five farmers out of 100 in Canada received enough income to pay income taxes during the most prosperous
3484	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization period in Canadian history. In order to check on the correctness of those figures I went to the recent copy of taxation statistics, and I can inform the minister that this is produced under the authority of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). And sure enough, on page 9 I found that there were 35,830 farmers in Canada in 1955, the last year for which the statistics have been compiled, who had made enough money to pay income tax. I compared that with the figures for two years previously, when there were 69,000 who paid income tax. There was a drop from 69,200 two years ago to 35,830. I note that during that period engineers moved from the second position in 1953 to the top. They have increased their income from $10,289 in 1953 to $14,067 in 1955. Lawyers moved from third place at $9,900 in 1953 to $12,243 in 1955. Medical doctors increased their salaries from $11,258 in 1953 to $12,156. While the number of farmers in Canada who received enough to pay income tax went down, their average income also went down from $3,869 to $3,457.
Roughly 15 out of every 100 in Canada are classified as farmers. The percentage has gone down from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. That is a great pity but the trend is there for everyone to see. According to the Minister of National Revenue, 15 per cent of the Canadian people who produce food for this country and for our overseas customers pay only 0.82 per cent of the income taxes in Canada. I do not think any member in any section of the house can rise in his place and say that there is not something wrong with agriculture when in a two-year period the number of farmers paying income tax has dropped from
69,000	to 35,000 and the taxable income has also gone down during that period.
Farther on in this interesting booklet there is a break-down showing the position of the farmers all across Canada. Opposite Newfoundland there is an asterisk which shows that there are fewer than 100. Therefore, they do not give the total. It would be obvious that they would not want to give the names of two or three farmers in a province because it would disclose the amount of income they are getting. If there is any province where there are fewer than 100 they put an asterisk and they include the number of farmers in the whole group. In Prince Edward Island there were 140 farmers; in Nova Scotia, 270; in New Brunswick, 170; and in the province of Quebec-and this is one of the reasons why the Quebec people are so concerned-two years ago they had 750 farmers who had earned enough to pay income tax. The report I have in my hand


gives 500. There has been some improvement in Ontario. The number has gone up from 11,520 to 11,780, but in Manitoba we have a drop from 4,410 to 1,970. In Saskatchewan, where we are feeling the real impact of the loss of markets and the cost-price squeeze, the number dropped from 31,280 to 9,650.


Mr. Pallell:: They have a C.C.F. government there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan is not controlling Canada's export policy; the Saskatchewan government is not responsible for the increase in freight rates, for the profiteering that has been going on in the trans-Canada pipe line and in other organizations that have the blessing of both the Conservatives and the Liberals. In Alberta the number dropped from 17,970 to 8,970; in British Columbia there has been a drop from 2,770 to 2,210. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand any member from a farming constituency anywhere in Canada being prepared to stand up and argue, as the hon. member for Melville used to do, that the farmers never had it so good; that if a farmer is not able to get along well he has no one to blame but himself.	.
The bureau of statistics compiled some information regarding some of the conveniences that are taken for granted nowadays, and classified those conveniences according to farm and non-farm areas. I am taking one of those conveniences, the bathtub. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, I believe defeated a Liberal member, who was here when I came to Ottawa in 1940. The Liberal member of parliament stood up in the house and boasted of the fact that he never had a bathroom in his house. He still took his bath on Saturday night in the old fashioned washtub, just as his father did. The people of that constituency apparently did not appreciate having their spokesman in Ottawa boasting of the fact that he did not have a bathtub and did not want one. Let us consider these statistics on the bathtub. We find that only 56 per cent of all Canadians are able to have a bathtub according to our last statistics. I am going to go from province to province giving the percentages of urban and rural populations having bathtubs:
Province
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia

Urban Rural
per cent	per cent
34	4
68	12
61	15
67	13
77	15
83	25
68	5
52	4
66	8
87	40

Mr. Speaker, I submit that these distressing conditions changed very little during the 22 years the Liberals were in office, and I do not think the Canadian people expect that in six months time these conditions are going to be changed. I want to emphasize that these conditions are getting worse. I happen to represent at least part of 14 rural municipalities in this parliament. The Moose Range municipality is partly in Mackenzie and partly in Prince Albert. I have not a division of the list of people in arrears for taxes according to where they reside, but hon. members will probably be interested in knowing that arrears of taxes in this municipality have gone up from $89,000 five years ago to $306,000 at the end of 1956.
I have a list here of the farmers in the municipality who are in arrears for taxes. This list is posted in the elevators so that the farmers have to make some adjustment on their taxes before they can get any cash from the sale of grain. There are over 800 names on this list. There are 29 farmers who are owing over $1,000; there are 90 who are owing between $500 and $1,000. There are many who are owing $200, $139 and $347. I am sure the Prime Minister considers some of these people as his friends. They gave him very good support on election day. I am sure it is not because these people are dishonest that they are in this position where their arrears of taxes now total over $300,000. It was because of the agricultural policies which were put in force by the previous government that a great many farmers in all parts of Canada were placed in this position. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we cannot let the present government escape the fact that it gave the Canadian people the impression that it had diagnosed the symptoms and prepared a remedy.
The present Prime Minister in opening his campaign in Massey Hall on April 25, 1957, was reported in the press as saying:
We will assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible- and I underline the word "flexible"-price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price-cost relationship. I will go into that on another occasion. It represents in general the viewpoint of organized agriculture across Canada.
He did not say 80 per cent; he said parity. Speaking in Minnedosa, Manitoba on May 16, 1957 as reported in the Toronto Star the Prime Minister said:
The farmer was the forgotten man in Canada and only a Conservative government could restore the prosperity he once enjoyed, Mr. Diefenbaker told more than 1,000 persons last night in this farming community 135 miles west of Winnipeg.
To farmers-whose average family income has dropped from $3,600 to $3,000 since 1951 while the average income across Canada has risen from $4,100 to $4,900-his message was obviously effective.
3485
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
Speaking at Kipling during the campaign on May 17, 1957, the Prime ' Minister is reported as saying:
Speaking at an afternoon rally in the Kipling recreation hall, the Progressive Conservative leader told the 400 persons present that the basic price of $1.40 now paid for wheat was too low, and in light of rising living costs, worth only 50 cents when compared with purchasing power in depression years.
His party, he said in his hour-long address, the only one scheduled in a rural point in Saskatchewan would, if elected, institute a program of price supports for agricultural products with the prices announced in advance after consultation with farmers and agricultural experts. He had, he said, presented resolutions in the House of Commons since 1941 asking for price supports to ensure farmers a fair relationship between prices and costs.
And then, winding up the campaign in his own constituency, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of June 10, 1957, the Prime Minister made further statements on this subject:
At Henribourg and Albertville, his first stops, he chatted with small knots of voters. At Meath Park, a town of strong Ukrainian traditions, he spoke to voters in their native tongue, drawing applause by informing them that under a Liberal administration, they had "lots of potatoes, lots of carrots, lots of wheat, but no money".
He promised them that if a Conservative government is elected he will call a September session of parliament to set up a system of floor prices for agricultural produce based on parity, cash advances for farm-stored grain and a new loan scheme to aid young farmers.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit there is no doubt whatever about the fact that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made it very clear that they knew the farmers were the forgotten people, they had a solution, they were going to have parliament meet in September and introduce the new legislation.
During the debate we have had some discussion as to when this measure was first brought to parliament. I find that it was in Votes and Proceedings on Tuesday, October 29 we first got an indication that something was happening in this sphere. The Minister of Agriculture gave notice of his intention to introduce a resolution in the following words:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodity or commodities as named from time to time by the governor in council, such measure to include: provisions for the establishment of a board and an advisory committee, the appointment of members thereof and employees and the payment of their salaries and expenses: provisions for the payment of administration costs and expenses: provisions establishing a revolving fund in the consolidated revenue fund and authorizing expenditures therefrom for the purposes of the proposed measure not exceeding in the aggregate two hundred and fifty
3486	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
million dollars in addition to the expenditure of the proceeds of sale of agricultural commodities and other revenues derived thereunder; and such further related and consequential provisions as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing system.
That was on Tuesday, October 29. November 29 passed as did December 29. Here we are, nearly three months later, and the minister is saying that we have not time to refer this important question to the agriculture committee, that it will cause further delay. I submit that if the minister, early in November, had accepted the proposal made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) in this amendment, that the bill be passed and referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization, it would have passed this house with little delay because we are confident that the minister and the members of the cabinet could not have stood up to the criticism which would have come from representatives of the farmers from coast to coast. They would have been obliged to bring in something better than the reprint that the minister brought in after he had had the reaction across the country. Even at this stage, if the minister would say, "In view of the fact that members on both sides of the house are disturbed about the present legislation, I will refer it to the committee after it is given second reading", I am sure this debate would end very quickly.
I think the comment made by the hon. member for Melville, that this legislation is not nearly as good as the legislation that was placed on the statute books in 1944 but that the Liberals are going to vote for it, is significant; it is equivalent to saying that they are going to vote for worse legislation and then they are going to go to the country and try to defeat the Conservatives. I submit that that is a negation of the responsibility of members of parliament. If there is any member of parliament who thinks this legislation is worse than that which it is going to replace, he should stand up here and vote according to his convictions.
The figures used by the Prime Minister, when he was out campaigning, with regard to the farm share of the national income were seriously out of date. The Saskatchewan farmer's union in presenting its annual brief to the Saskatchewan government points out that the farm income per person in Saskatchewan has declined from $1,090 in 1956 to a new low of $550 in 1957. When the cost of what the farmer has to buy is continuing to go up and the farmer's net income is going down our farm people are being placed in an impossible squeeze. I have just had

a letter in the mail today from one of my constituents who wrote on January 15. He said this:
First of all, the prices on the farm commodities are rotten. They are worse now than they were a year ago. I remember eggs a year ago were 31-32 cents a dozen. Today the same A large eggs are only 27 cents a dozen. While the price on things the farmer has to buy still mounts.
And he goes on to say that the farm outlook becomes worse and worse. I was a bit disturbed about the comments made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). Believe it or not, he and I were together for more than five weeks and we did not quarrel during all the time we were away. We agreed to leave our differences of opinion at home and to be as congenial as possible. I was at Bombay when the hon. member spoke for Canada when the first shipload of wheat was turned over to the people of Bombay. I was sorry that this afternoon his references implied that our generosity is not being handled properly. I am glad he did not make the comments he made here in parliament two or three years ago when a similar suggestion was up for consideration. However, I think it is unfair to the Canadian people even to throw out the suggestion that the very generous gifts that we have been sending there are not properly handled.
I think it is fairly obvious that India has not been a large importer. They are not able to unload grain as it is unloaded at Fort William, Churchill or Montreal. India does not expect to be an importer. This last year as a result of drought, they have had a reduction of about 25 per cent in their cereal crop, and they appreciate very much the fact that Canada is sending $7 million worth of wheat to prevent starvation. As I recall what the hon. member said in Bombay, he did not say that Canada would be prepared to help them in the future only if they made certain changes in the way in which they did things at home. He spoke as a very generous guest and mentioned the fact that we had large surpluses available. He said that as members of the commonwealth we were anxious to share our prosperity with them. I am sure he will correct me if I am interpreting what he said incorrectly. For him now to suggest that we are going to become a little bit tough, that we are going to ask the people of India to make some basic changes in the way they are doing things before we are going to continue our generosity is something that I think he should not do. I think as members of the commonwealth we must not lose sight of the fact that we are probably the most favoured section in all the commonwealth. Our per capita income is over $1,000 while the per

capita income in India is about $56. It is a little bit more in Ceylon and a little bit less in Pakistan. I think that Canada can afford to take some long-term risks.
I think all hon. members appreciated the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he said we are going to give an additional $15 million worth of wheat and that we are going to sell $35 million worth and give credit for a ten-year period. There was not a dissenting voice that I heard in parliament and I have not seen in the press any comments which suggest that Canada cannot do this. As a matter of fact the Toronto Telegram carried a front page story saying that this is going to provide prosperity from Halifax to Vancouver, that it is going to provide employment for the railways, to be good for the elevators and is going to get some money into the pockets of the farmers.
While I agree with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that Canada cannot hope to solve all the problems of the world, nevertheless while we are spending $5 million a day on our defence program I think we can dispose of some of our surplus products to these other countries. I think we must pay some attention to what is being done in other parts of the world. I think we could dispose of much larger quantities of surplus products in that part of the world if we were prepared to accept local currency and were prepared to give these people a chance to send some of their manufactured goods to Canada. But I think both the present government and the previous government created a great deal of ill-will throughout the world in complaining of what the United States was doing to try to prevent starvation. Instead of complaining about what the United States was doing I think we might have had a look at what the Minister of Trade and Commerce is now suggesting, namely that this year Canada will give away an additional $15 million and move another $35 million on a credit basis.
I think it is significant that Canadian farmers have been going farther and farther in debt under the Liberals and now under the Conservatives while farmers in other countries have been getting real help from their government. In "Agriculture Abroad" for December, which is published under the authority of the minister who is piloting this bill through the house, there is a section on what is being done in the United States. It says that farm incomes are increasing there for the second consecutive peacetime year, the only such increase since 1947. The figure on a per farm basis shows an increase from 1955 to 1956 of 7 per cent; prices received by farmers are 4 per cent above a year ago and the improvements have been
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization achieved primarily in the market and not through price support. Farm assets are at an all time high; exports of farm commodities total $4.7 billion in 1957 and are also at an all time high both from the point of view of quality and value.
There is also quite an interesting section on the soil bank program. In the October issue of this publication it refers to what the Tory government in Great Britain has been doing for the farm people of that country. There have been deficiency payments there and I am sure that when the wheat pool people come back to see the cabinet in order to discuss deficiency payments the minister will have in mind the fact that his own publication draws attention to the fact that deficiency payments in Great Britain have been carried on for some time. Their grain deficiency payments this year were $391 million compared with $74 million in the previous year; wheat subsidies were $50 million, $5 million higher than the previous year. Barley payments were $27 million compared with $24 million in the previous year. Total subsidies in the United Kingdom were $629 million compared with $551 a year ago.
Again in this publication "Agriculture Abroad" also in October, it says that the soil bank program in the United States had a limit beyond which no farmer could draw from the fund, namely $3,000. A great many Canadian farmers would be very glad if the Canadian government would say "If you will not seed any wheat, oats or barley on 100 acres of land we will pay you a maximum of $3,000." In some areas it might be $27 an acre but for 120 acres if you did not seed the government would give you the maximum amount that you could have.
There is a limit also in respect of farm conservation measures in the amount of $5,000. Therefore, when one considers that the whole Canadian economy has been bubbling over with prosperity for large corporations, and that when we were discussing the pipe line bill a couple of years ago the present Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned there were some large fortunes being made and that Mr. McMahon, in one of his oil ventures was able to make something like $5,000 for every dollar he invested; and while our gross national product is at the highest level in Canada's hisory, it is unfortunate as so many members from various parties have indicated, that young and old people are leaving the farm, giving up the good life for which they have been trained to go to the city. In some cases they will join the ranks of the unemployed or they will try to qualify for something before they get any older. In pursuing this policy we are making a
3488	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization great mistake, especially in view of the fact that two out of every three people in the world are hungry. Yet the former and present governments have deliberately pursued policies in Canada preventing Canadian food from being produced and made available to these hungry people.
Our average life expectancy is 70 years of age and it is just half that in India and Pakistan. Yet we are members of the commonwealth; we believe in the common good. We nevertheless are starving our people off the farms saying we do not care whether they starve-we are going to carry out this policy.
A former major general of the Canadian army stated recently that Canada could cut its defence expenditure in half, that for $800 million we could have as good a defence as we now get for double that amount. I am not able to check the accuracy of his statement but I do think the policy which we worked out in this country during the war-that whatever was physically possible somehow must be made financially possible- is a policy which should be worked out now. Two out of every three people in this world are going hungry and a large section of our own brothers and sisters in the commonwealth have never had one good meal. The very limited amount of assistance we have given them has offered them some hope but one must remember that a country like Germany, defeated by us in war, is able to pay its farmers $2.70 per bushel to produce wheat; Italy, a relatively poor country, is able to pay $3.60 to wheat growers; the Netherlands pays $1.92 and Switzerland, $3.73. These countries, as part of their national program, are able to use public funds to ensure that those who till the soil and plant the seeds, who run the risks of weather conditions, should have something like a fair share of the national economy.
I hope the minister will reconsider over the week-end the proposal of the hon. member for Moose Mountain so that he can have firsthand information from the representatives of farm organizations and also from the unorganized farmers who may attend before such a committee and tell us some of the facts of life.
(Translation):


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, if I may as representative for the constituency of Gaspe and a member from the province of Quebec, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for introducing his bill No. 237 entitled "an act to provide for the stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities".


This measure was greeted enthusiastically by all farmers of the province of Quebec as a guarantee for them as far as the price of their products is concerned for the future.
I would not want to hold the attention of this house too long and repeat what has already been said by my colleagues on the advantages of this bill. However, I should like to remind the house that, among farmers of my constituency, there is a class of people which has been too long forsaken and which surely deserves the attention of the house. I am referring to the settlers of my area.
In my constituency, there are many settlements whose population is made up of honest people who perpetuate the contribution made here in this country by our pioneers. These people go on clearing the land, pushing back the forest, increasing the number of farms; I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these agricultural pioneers deserve our consideration. For that reason I am proud to speak on their behalf and to defend their cause. No section of the community has been more neglected than these poor settlers who are meeting with serious difficulties in bringing up their families. Their day's work starts early in the morning and ends late at night.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that these people will get their share of the amounts appropriated under this legislation and I am confident that the government will add pulp-wood to the products specified in the bill. When adding it to this classification, I believe special consideration should be given to the first 25 cords cut in the year because, as you no doubt know, these people have to sell their wood at the ridiculous price of $8 or $9 a cord and to accept the price they are offered because they must support themselves and their families.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, those people are refused the benefits of several beneficent measures passed by this government and even by the former government. It is my duty to point out that farmers who cut pulpwood on their farm-not as much for business purposes as for the purpose of clearing their land, sometimes in the course of the winter have to go and work as woodcutters for certain companies. There are some in my constituency who were employed by the Gaspesia Sulphite Company at Chandler. While they were thus employed they accumulated in their books a certain number of unemployment insurance stamps. They therefore went back to their own farms and proceeded to cut pulpwood in order to clear their

land. This pulpwood was exactly the same type as that which they had been cutting for the company. They sold it to the same company. And yet, as far as cutting wood on their own farms is concerned, they have no right to unemployment insurance stamps, though they had contributed to the unemployment insurance fund when they were cutting wood for the company.
I believe that these people certainly deserve the attention of the house and that it is my duty to acquaint my colleagues with their position.
Mr. Speaker, I will not spend any more time on the subject. I am confident, however, that I will obtain the approval of every hon. member who, like me, takes an interest in this type of settler.


Mr. C. N. Barbes (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I would like to offer a few remarks which I feel will be of some use to the people of Chapleau which I represent in this house and which number more than
41,000	people directly interested in agriculture.
On December 11, 1957, in committee, the house passed a resolution introducing a bill guaranteeing support prices for certain agricultural products. That is Bill No. 237 at present under discussion.
Any product which the government may wish to designate will be supported by the proposed measure. On that score I am certainly of the opinion of the hon. member who spoke before me, the member for Gaspe (Mr. English), who went so far as to request that the settlers from the Gaspe peninsula, and therefore the settlers of any area whatever, should benefit from this measure with regard to pulpwood. However as far as I am concerned, I rather wish to speak only of agriculture. I will therefore continue on that subject.
A board made up of three members and an advisory committee made up of from 6 to 9 members will see to the administration of the act. The funds are available to the government for the benefit of agriculture, and under the former legislation, of course, we already had a $200 million fund available to the Agricultural Prices Support Board.
The government now wants to stabilize to a greater extent the income of our farmers by setting base prices established by calculating the average for the ten previous years.
What the farm population is mostly interested in, in my opinion, is to know whether the cost of production, in relation to income,
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization leaves to the farmers a profit which is sufficient to give more prosperity to the farm.
The government suggests that all farm commodities should come under support prices, except for wheat, oats and barley, which are already covered by some other legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is a large farm population in my area and we had hoped for a bill providing for more equitable prices for those who earn their living in clearing and tilling new land.
On November 8, 1957, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) had suggested to the house that it was urgent to discuss the legislation aimed at improving the agricultural situation. To that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) had replied that we were just trying to get a little bit of publicity.
Personally, on October 29, I expressed in this house my earnest hope to see the passing of legislation specially beneficent to farmers of eastern Canada.
On December 2, 1957, the leader of the government in this house announced the business of the house for the next day and said that item number 116 on the day's order paper under government notices of motions would be taken up.
Nothing has been done during that period and yet, since the 31st of October we had been waiting for an agricultural policy which had been promised for years and which was going to bring prosperity to agriculture as a whole.
Today, our workers cannot find employment as easily as they think they should. Farmers' earnings are inadequate. Instead of finding customers for their goods, merchants are forced to take them back. This goes for farm machinery, trucks and all kinds of vehicles.
In June 1957, voters in such agricultural districts as Abitibi and the Gaspe peninsula were repeatedly told by the Conservatives that they would enjoy greater prosperity under a conservative government. They waited for this to take place, and instead of introducing active measures in 1957 to increase the income of the settlers, the Conservatives left the farmer, the pioneer, to his fate.
Now, on April 8, 1957, the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, spoke in favour of a national conference on agriculture which would be held as soon as he was in power. I quote from page 3263 of Hansard of April 8, 1957. The then leader of the opposition said:
. . . we believe that the time has come when, in the interests of the national welfare of agriculture, a national conference on agriculture should
3490	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization be convened. This would be representative of the federal and provincial governments and of farm organizations with the responsibility of suggesting a general policy for domestic and international trade so as to assure the farmer a fair and proper share of the national income and also permit farmers to have a part in formulating policies for the promotion of the welfare of agriculture.
Then, this fall, in 1957, when the government introduced Bill No. 14 to help western farmers market their grain, the farmers of Chapleau were concerned over the stand of the present Prime Minister and we repeatedly asked for prompt action and immediate steps to help agriculture. We are still sorry to see that the present Conservative government has failed to enact the efficient legislation which it dangled before the eyes of Canadian voters last spring, when Liberals in particular were being blamed, and when tears were being shed over the predicament of farmers whose production costs for hogs were $41 a hundred pounds while the support price was but 23 cents a pound. As can be seen on page 1402 of Hansard, under the new government, imports of pork from the United States for the month of August alone, reached 377,241 lbs., if you please. And when will our farmers in the Abitibi see all those promises materialize that were made to them by the Conservatives? We do not know yet.
Together with the farmers, we could wish for new action, for new developments on the part of this government, at least since October last.
The hon. Prime Minister of today has, without any reservation, advocated collective marketing of farm products. The farmer is squeezed between rising costs and falling prices. When in western Canada, the need of the grain producers was recognized, those people were voted credits, and even advance payments. The Conservatives held out before the people in our constituencies a revision of price supports, as well as quick legislation to help the farmers first to survive and then to reach a decent standard of living. Well, the time has come, and it is only fair that I should be the spokesman of thousands of families in Abitibi and elsewhere.
According to the 1956 census, in Quebec we have 122,617 farms, and we want the government to achieve something to get results, in view of its so bombastic program announced in the spring of 1957. The people from the prairies got ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, in the first two weeks of the session. So we have been seeking action since the end of October, and we should like to have practical measures that would give tangible results.

Our farmers today, not only in Chapleau but in eastern Canada, are receiving less and paying more. In saying this, I am not saying anything new to the government, because the leader of the Conservative party, now Prime Minister, claimed the same thing in April, May and June 1957.
Let the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) delay no longer to correct this unfavourable situation in which the farmer finds himself. What has happened is not so much that selling prices have gone down, but rather that production costs have gone up at least 20 per cent.
The average income of farmers is not equivalent to that of other economic groups in this country. The Conservative party boasted to the electors that they should soon stabilize and balance agriculture. But the farmer, Mr. Speaker, is in no position to wait for such half-measures as investigations, etc. The vice-president of the Catholic Farmers' Union was perfectly right in stating at the annual convention of the Amos federation, held at Macamic, on September 24, 1957, that the fate of agriculture is at this time in the hands of the farmers themselves.
As for us, we cannot overemphasize this point. In view of the interdependence which exists between those who work on the farms and those who are employed in other activities or services, the government must stabilize agriculture to protect the Canadian economy.
For six months now, workers, small business men, salesmen and all the other working people have been affected by the delaying tactics of this government.
The Conservative party has been saying for a long time that it could improve the lot of our farmers. May I recall here that in 1941 the present Prime Minister, then a private member, boasted that he could quickly improve the position of Canadian agriculture. As early as the 23rd of March, 1953 he held that parliament should act immediately and directly, without any recourse to an investigation commission.
In the spring of 1957 the gentleman who is now Prime Minister of this country suggested that measures would be taken immediately and that there had been far too much delay already.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar which was

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
100 cents in 1939 and which is approximately half that figure at this time, according to the price of those products used to figure up the cost of living index, we will understand how it is increasingly urgent to act, because of that fact as well as to make good election promises with regard to family allowances.
In the spring of 1957 the Conservatives claimed that farmers were headed towards economic depression. After the new government which was supposed to devise a cure-all for workers and farmers in particular has been in office for six months things are taking a turn for the worse, at least in my county. Well, is it not normal for us to ask that the wallet which before the general election of 1957 was said to be so full be opened wide for agriculture?
Eastern farmers are now anxious to be placed on the same footing by the right hon. Prime Minister as the prairie grain producers.
In Chapleau, my riding, the Catholic Farmers' Union had an investigation made at the end of last June into the main problems of farmers and on the pattern to be set in the agriculture of our area to insure its survival and expansion.
It has been found once again that agriculture today cannot provide a family with a decent living. In spite of such hard work on land sometimes difficult to farm, the desirable comfort is lacking.
About July 15, 1957, a delegation from Ontario and Quebec was received by the Minister of Agriculture; Mr. J. B. Lemoine, the general president of the U.C.C. made representations on behalf of the farmers and particularly of the dairy industry. One had really the impression that the delegates knew that the new government was more interested in promises than in new and advantageous policies.
What are the new and efficient measures offered by this government?
It has set up a royal commission. Well, Mr. Speaker, the eastern farmers, after seven months of stagnation, are still wondering what improvements are forthcoming to increase their well-being, as has been promised to them.
On the one hand, the farmer must succeed in cutting down his costs for a particular product by the use of new methods. It is a matter of internal economy and farmers are well aware of it.
On the other hand, they require that the government apply a price support policy which will be a stabilizing factor in normal times and a safeguard in periods of emergency. Organized farmers have already expressed their recommendations along those
lines. At their recent conventions, they have asked when the new government which was elected on glowing promises, will implement the safeguard of price support, when it will assist settlers and farmers in areas less favoured by the climate, so that they may enjoy a more attractive and more equitable standard of living.
Order in council 1632, dated December 10, 1957, established a commission. It is a good thing that experts such as Mr. Romeo Martin, president of the co-operative council of Quebec, have been appointed on this advisory committee of the government. But farmers had realized for many years that the present Prime Minister had confidently undertaken that, if he ever became the head of the country, he would at once apply some legislation, that would have to be adopted by Parliament, so that the new government could bring prosperity to farming families. Instead of that, we are to have now a stabilization board replacing the farm prices board. It is merely a change in name.
Having seen with what satisfaction many of our farmers had welcomed the promises made last spring, we were impartially expecting those efficient means that would spread prosperity such as had never been enjoyed in our farming areas. But we are to have only more surveys and, as for the rest of the question, the promises have brought nothing of direct benefit to our farmers. They will have to compete with the western farmers, under a less generous climate, and with regrettably higher transportation costs that are directly reflected in production costs, in view of the high prices asked for anything the farmers want to buy, like oats, for instance, or bran, or mill-feed and so on.
Our markets are often at a great distance, some lands are poorer, the climate does not change. Our people are still waiting for the results of an investigation on price spreads, instead of getting the new legislation that was announced with such great flourish for months and years, and which was to give a new drive to our agriculture.
According to the Conservatives, everything was dull and grey for our farmers before June 10. Everything was to become rose-coloured after the general election.
The Conservatives got the roses and the votes, and it is now up to them to pull out the thorns and to distribute the scented harvest amongst the farmers in the east as well as in the west.
It should be noted that before June, 1957, the Conservative candidates promised higher prices, a golden age to be introduced by them who blamed us for extravagance and overtaxation.
3492	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
I have even heard a roads department engineer, just imagine, urging us to vote for Mr. Diefenbaker who would, immediately after his election, raise the price of hogs from 23 cents to 41 cents a pound. Our friends from Chapleau are still awaiting the promised gift. What does the government intend to do for our less favoured areas such as the Abitibi district, the Gaspe peninsula and the Lake Saint John district where the soil is poorer and the weather more severe and where higher transportation costs add to the burden of the farming people? Nothing new, Mr. Speaker. Through trickery the Conservatives have grabbed a few honours and a few positions, while the farmers are left holding the bag with their conventions, their requests or their resolutions.
So if the new government is incapable of keeping its promises, let it at least bring in one quite urgent measure which was actually mentioned on October 14, on the first day of this present session. To bring help all at once to a whole agricultural area, agreement should be negotiated with the provinces in order to carry out with them a forestry development such as the one I am requesting at this time for the constituency of Chapleau, that is to say the industrial development at Mattagami.
In northwestern Quebec pulpwood is one of the most important agricultural products of this region and a specialized union of the Catholic Farmers' Union is still actively occupied with the marketing of this agricultural product which, in our constituency, is of primary importance.
Mr. Speaker, in the early days of May, 1956 a well-known Montreal newspaper, he Devoir, carried the announcement by the province of Quebec, through its leader, of an 80 or 100 million dollar project concerning the agricultural mining and forestry basin of Mattagami in my constituency. It was the promise of a large industry which was to create an unlimited market for an agricultural product, namely pulpwood, which is sold at a low price at this time while cost of transportation to markets are getting higher. It seems we are still waiting for federal assistance such as was proposed by this government on October 14 last. No concrete results have come out so far of this federal-provincial co-operation, at least as far as Quebec is concerned, and it will soon be two years since this project was announced on the front page of the newspaper referred to.
This is a concrete example of a case where the government could find a new way of helping the farmer of this part of the prov-


ince of Quebec called Abitibi. It would be a new factor of stabilization and sustained prosperity for agriculture because it would effectively solve the lack of employment which means hardship for everyone. The government would thus promote circulation of goods, salaries and markets for natural or processed products of agriculture-as they are called in this bill-and farm commodities would thus have a consumers' market which would be a local factor of price support and a factor of employment and adjustment in a country which needs them.
To achieve progress it is not enough to hold conferences and implement resolutions adopted by an advisory committee. In devising concrete solutions to farm problems, due account should be taken of the interdependence which is said to exist between farmers and other workers.
Under section 2, paragraph 2, of this act, it is proposed that the governor in council will take into consideration production costs and such other factors as he deems relevant. Let me mention here the cost of transportation, as one such factor, also the harsher climate and the transportation costs to distant markets. The production cost is the most significant to my mind, and it will be necessary for the government's advisers to consider local and regional conditions in the various farming districts.
To start out and to make good on our lands, the young settler must take the trouble to clear and enlarge his acreage. The first operations comprise pulpwood production, which is our first farm product.
I therefore wish to draw the attention of the government to the fact that, as far as my district is concerned, there is a very efficient way to help agriculture become more profitable and stable, and it is to associate with agricultural work the development of resources which will take this natural product of our land, pulpwood, and transform it into finished products. This must be done through federal-provincial co-operation. I have stated a very definite case where the provincial government seems to be prepared already to accept the federal aid which should be granted, if we are to go by the suggestions of October 14, 1957, made in this house, for the development of Canada in the district I have the honour to represent. Our farm population is even more considerable than the figure of 41,000 I gave a moment ago, for this is but half of the total population of my constituency; but everyone in my con-

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
stituency is interested in this vital problem, because we are all interdependent and we stick together.
Dealing as we are with the matter of adequate prices for farm products, I suggest that at the same time the government extend its consideration to a factor which is essential to the progress of our agriculture, and that is the combined agricultural and industrial development of our area so as to make sure that our agriculture as a whole will enjoy lasting benefits. At first, in our area, farming land yields pulpwood, our main product. I hope that the government will speed up its action and that it will not be content to repeat its promises which are slow to bear fruit. Farm products, including pulp-wood, should receive the attention of the government. This, in my opinion, is quite an urgent matter. When is this government going to achieve the objective so often referred to both before and after the election, namely put agriculture, generally speaking, in a position to yield to those engaged in it a material reward comparable to the one received by the other economic groups in Canada?
At Mont Tremblant, around September 18, 1957, at the congress of the Canadian producers of agricultural chemical products, the Minister of Agriculture advocated a more intensive use of fertilizers and favoured additional labour and machines. We are in agreement with him on that point, and if the government considers that agriculture is important, it should then help also those areas where farming is more difficult because of the climate or the land; that is what has already been proposed elsewhere in poorer areas of our country.
Under such conditions, farming will remain an important part of our economy and a factor of prosperity in our areas.
At this time agriculture owes its best results to the work of groups like the Catholic Farmers' Union and those professional associations which have brought to the farmers their most important victories. Today the Catholic Farmers' Union, as Mr. Lemoyne has so relevantly expressed it, wants the government to co-operate with its members in order to reorganize the development of agrarian resources and to create self-sustaining economic units.
All that would be very beneficial to our farming industry, and that is what we favour in order to get more vigorous and quick
action in launching industrial developments which will indirectly assist our farmers.


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I
will only speak for ten minutes or so.
At the resolution stage of this bill I offered certain criticism which I believed necessary at the time. I pointed out that the only guarantee provided by the bill was that the price of certain agricultural products could not be less than 80 per cent of the selling price based on the average price for the three preceding years. That was true at that time. However, since that date the formula has been changed and the 80 per cent base will now be established on the ten year average of the selling price. This amendment, I think, is an excellent improvement since this ten year period which will henceforth serve to establish the average includes a few years where the level of the selling price was far above that which it has reached over the three preceding years. This will therefore serve to improve to that extent the base price of 80 per cent.
Nevertheless, there remains the fact that instead of being based on production costs this average is to be based rather on the selling price. We know that for certain years at least a certain number of products were sold under their cost price. It will therefore be understood that this formula will bring the ten year average price to an inadequate level. I will admit that the base price is only a minimum and that it might well be adjusted to the advantage of the farmer by the addition of a certain percentage to the same base price which will become the price prescribed by the present bill. But all this is dependent on the goodwill of the government and on the co-operation of the minister who is entrusted with the administration of the act. At this level, there is admittedly a possibility of serious mistakes in spite of good intentions and in spite of a clause of the bill providing that in establishing a percentage of the base price the governor in council must take cost of production into account.
However, notwithstanding the restrictions I just pointed out, things could go on fairly well as far as the products listed in the bill are concerned. However, those are not the only ones which should be listed and I am wondering how they will go about it when the time comes to designate new products. Of course the governor in council will have this power but he is sometimes hard of hear-
3494	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization ing. And, incidentally, with a view to testing the good intentions of the government and the intelligent ico-operation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), I shall mention again the suggestion made by my colleague the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Chabot), a suggestion which, if I am not mistaken, had already been made on December 20 by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Baskin), as well as by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), and was made again this afternoon by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) and by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Barbes) who spoke just before me. I therefore ask the minister, when in committee, to add two products to the list of those he designated in his bill. I refer to pulpwood and maple syrup sold by farmers. The question was so well dealt with by the hon. members I just mentioned, particularly as regards pulpwood, that there is no need for me to deal with it at any length. As regards maple syrup, I dealt with that quite at length on December 11 last and I would only be repeating, perhaps for the tenth time, what I have already said if I were to deal with that product again. I do wish to point out however that those products, particularly maple syrup, represent two of the most important sources of income, at least for the farmers of Beauce, as this constituency is the most important producer of that product in the whole of Canada.
This price support measure contains nonetheless some prospective dangers which must be prevented at all cost unless we agree to head blindly for possible disaster. There is especially the danger of overproduction to which I myself referred when I spoke on the resolution. It is a trap towards which price parity seems to have led the agricultural economy of our neighbours to the south who now seem belatedly concerned about it.
I believe we must visualize the same situation concerning at least some of the commodities which are now mentioned in this bill, or other products which might be designated later on by the governor in council.
With regard to butter, I see no danger of overproduction. On the contrary, I maintain what I said on December 11 last, namely that our present supply of 33 million pounds is at a dangerously low level which must at all costs be raised for the protection not only of the producer but of the consumer as well. At this point, in fact, big business could to all intents and purposes gain control of that supply and hold it back for a while, thus creating an artificial shortage which would bring the price to a prohibitive level quite


unfair to the consumers, and without the producer getting any profit out of it.
The public still remembers, because it was the victim of this state of affairs, the speculation carried out over the winter of 1951-1952 when butter was being sold at 85 cents and even 90 cents a pound. It seems to me that to set this price at 63 cents, and even at 65 cents at the producer level, would be the best guarantee against a return of these inhuman practices, while doing away with any danger of overproduction.
However, as far as hogs and cattle are concerned, I think on the contrary that there will be danger of overproduction whenever a reasonable price is fixed for the producer. I will not venture to say with any certainty at all what should be the price set for cattle, not having the knowledge nor the information necessary in that regard. However, as far as hogs are concerned, I will say that 26 cents per pound for grade A animals should be a reasonable price which will allow the average producer a small profit. However, without this guarantee I will predict overproduction within twelve months or eighteen months. Does this mean that the remedy would then consist merely in again lowering the price to 23 cents a pound? It would be utterly foolish to do so, because, in that case, the small producer could not stand up and would necessarily lose out to the large cattle raiser who would find a way to protect himself against such difficulties.
I humbly submit that the solution would be the suggestion I made previously, whereby the number of heads the same producer could deliver to the board in a given period would be limited. It should be noted that such a procedure would in no way restrict production. Thus the small producer, who most deserves consideration, would be guaranteed a proper return for his labour. Furthermore, this procedure would discourage the large cattle raiser who does not need this kind of operation to make a living and who shows interest in it only so long as it can make large profits which are necessarily based on a large scale production. I am firmly convinced that such a procedure would eliminate the congestion of the market. And the same procedure could be applied to the cattle raising industry, after a suitable price has been established.
I would apply the same solution to the problem of pulpwood providing, however, the government agrees, which I doubt, to include this commodity among those which are going
JANUARY 18< 1958	3495
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
to be supported. As a matter of fact, in this field there will almost inevitably be overproduction, which will not profit the large buyer and will harm the small producer, not to mention the risks of investing so large an amount of capital in the account of the price support board.
How many cords of pulpwood could each producer deliver to the board each year? It would be foolhardy to venture a figure. The number of cords should be determined after a thorough study of the problem; it could even differ from one section of the country to another. But if we stop to study more particularly the case of this product, we find characteristics which are encountered in no other section, and I wish to mention that large producers of butter, cheese, pork and beef products as well as maple products, do not generally grow the raw material they use; they procure such material from numerous producers who are essential to them and who become therefore their indispensable associates.
In most cases, the situation is reversed as regards pulpwood for in this case there are big producers who, as a general rule, own the raw material used in their mills and could probably, for a certain number of years at least, do without the quantities they buy from small producers, if the price of their products increased too much. In fact, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, for example, in these last few years, less than 25 per cent of the pulpwood used by large mills has been supplied by settlers or farmers.
Without being an expert, I would venture to say that I see a possible remedy to such a dangerous situation even if it does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This remedy could be applied at another level. Most of the great pulpwood companies which own timber land are merely lessees of crown property. Therefore provincial governments could probably prevent permit holders from using crown timber unless they have first bought the wood supplied by farmers and settlers. I am simply submitting this suggestion in the hope that experts, at the provincial level, will study and uphold it if it should prove practical and will reject it if it cannot be implemented.
However, if my suggestion is not practical, a better one will have to be found; otherwise, the board will likely have to go through hours of anxiety in the face of a surplus of timber for which it will be unable to find any buyer.
In any event, in spite of handicaps and difficulties-it is under such conditions, in my view, that the real value of the members of a government can be measured-we must at all cost include now or very soon in this bill farmers' and settlers' pulpwood. It is one of the conditions of the survival of farmers in eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, my statement on Bill 237 has been very incomplete and imperfect. I would be glad however if it helped to improve a bill which is considered as rather important by the farmers of the Beauce area and which I will support with my vote in spite of some rather serious weaknesses.
(Text):


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I can let this bill go through and the present amendment be voted on without saying something. I represent an agricultural constituency which was paid a little bit of attention in the last election by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I feel that I should have something to say about it. I am rather proud of this agricultural constituency which I represent, not only because it can be regarded as an agricultural constituency but also because it is somewhat diversified. As well as the larger portion of it being agricultural-we regard ourselves as a very strategic wheat-growing area-at the same time the area runs right slap up against the boundary of British Columbia and in the foothills of the Rocky mountains is a vast cattle country. In the south toward the east we have sugar beets and in the foothills toward the north we have the Turner valley oil fields. Then to the south and west we have the coal mining industry of the Crows-nest pass. That is a very nice constituency to represent. It is diversified enough for one to apply this study to the various problems which make it interesting.
However, regardless of that nice constituency, I speak on this measure because it has largely a farm population. Having a farm population, most of the small communities are dependent upon the farm income. The small towns that lie in the midst of the wheat-growing area are entirely dependent upon the farm income. In the town in which I live, namely the town Vulcan, there is a population of only about 1,500 but we have 10 double elevators in that community. A great deal of money passes
3496	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization through that town when the income is coming to the farmer. But when the farmer's income drops, the business of that town is affected as are the people. That characterizes the situation in wheat growing communities throughout the entire three prairie provinces.
I will not indulge in repetition. I have my own views as to the present amendment and many speakers in our group are very experienced farmers who know the agricultural business and have studied the problems of the farmer. They know the serious plight of the western farmer at the present time- depressed prices, disparity of prices between what they get for their products and what they have to pay to live and to operate their farms. There are members of our group who have spoken and some who are still going to speak and they know all about these things.
I said at the commencement of my remarks that the Prime Minister paid special attention to my constituency during the election. He came down there and held quite a large meeting in the town of High River. He made special mention of the farmers' problems. Of course, that is good political business, to talk of the problems of the particular constituency which one is visiting. He made particular mention that if his party was elected to power they would surely do something for the farmers. He dealt at great length with his proposals to straighten out the disparity between the income of the farmers in the west and that of people in other industries.
He referred to this matter of parity. He criticized some of our speeches in this group last session when we discussed parity. He indicated we were not altogether justified in asking for 100 per cent parity, but he said: "There is a place for parity in our program; if you elect my government I will get down to Ottawa and see the farmer gets a new deal in this respect." What is this new deal? What is this great promise, this great proposal the present Prime Minister was talking about? Is it the sort of thing we have before us now. If this is the new deal, then it is going to be a sorry disappointment to the farmers of western Canada.
You know there is such a thing as bluff and I think if the farmers are being bluffed at all it is in the assumption that this new bill is going to take care of their problems.
I do not know what the actions of the present government over the past few months, running here and there, doing this and that, calling one conference after another and bringing down certain types of legislation which anyone could bring down if they had the money
[Mr. Hansell.l

to spend, are going to do to help the farmers' problems. It appeared that they were actually going to do something on behalf of the farmers, but I believe we have in Canada today what is perhaps one of the biggest bluffing governments this country has ever seen. That is my impression.
You can talk of parity. Parity in my view is a word which indicates a certain completeness. You either have parity or you do not; one or the other. According to statistics the farm income of this country has dropped by about 10 per cent during the last year. I have with me some notes on this matter which I believe are from the Financial Post although I do not know whether they were quoting from some other publication. They say:
Farm income shows an 8.6 per cent decrease in the first three quarters of 1957.
Of course this government was not in power all that time so their predecessors will have to take some blame for this condition. Most of the decline came from reduced wheat sales. The total income amounted to $638 millions; the cash farm income estimated for nine months of this year-being $1,847 millions-about 3 per cent below that of the previous year. Lower returns from cereals grown was the major factor in the decline.
The point is well taken that throughout 1957 our farm income dropped about 10 per cent. That is serious if you do a little bit of comparing. If a man has a job, for instance, and he gets a salary of say $200 a month-not much of a salary these days, but it is only an imaginary figure-and he finds when he picks up his cheque one month that he is 10 per cent short, or $20 short, he is going to feel that something surely is wrong somewhere. That is the picture with respect to farm income over the last year.
We had reason to expect the farmers of the west were going to receive a better deal than they are in fact receiving under this measure. This measure is very disappointing, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) knows it. I might say we have nothing against him personally, he is a fellow Albertan and we have always had the highest regard for him. We were pleased that he was appointed Minister of Agriculture but I must say again that the farmers of western Canada expected much more than this when the Conservative government was returned on June 10. Since the election even some of my own supporters, sincere farming people, have come to me and said "It is true that Mr. Diefenbaker is a western man. Do you think we will get a new deal?" They began to talk about him as the golden-haired farm boy. He was from the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
west and the western farmer was going to receive a better deal. That was the impression of the people and in fact the candidates for election in western Canada pointed out quite proudly how the Diefenbaker government, if elected, would assure the western farmer having a new deal. Is this it; is this the best they can come up with?
We ask the Minister of Agriculture this question: is this the best the government can do to solve the problems of the western farmers? Surely we have the right to expect something better. It is all right for our people in the west on the prairies to wonder whether we are going to get a better deal from this Prime Minister who is from the west, but we are wondering whether or not he has his ear tuned to the east. We do not like to think of things in terms of distinguishing between east and west, but you cannot sit in this house as long as some of us have been sitting here without knowing that the east very often think they are subsidizing the west, and we out in the west, when we stop to think of how much the farmer has to pay for those things he has to buy, mostly from the east, and when we recognize that we pay freight charges for manufactured goods going west and at the same time pay freight rates on our own products going east, think that the east is bleeding the west. But the east may think that they are subsidizing the west. We do not want to emphasize that, but we sometimes have to wonder, when legislation of this kind is brought in, whether or not this golden-haired boy from the prairies is turning his ear and listening to the east.
I have a clipping here from the Financial Post which quotes various newspapers throughout the country and this is what it says:
Price dictating farm marketing boards are stirring up consumer resistance, warns the Sudbury Star which adds: The taxpayer and consumer in Canada is getting a little tired of financing agriculture as a state-supported industry.
What do you think of that? When the Prime Minister reads something of this kind I wonder what his reactions are. It is one thing to think that a man is running a government and that because this man is from a particular section of the country he is going to look after that section of the country, but the general feeling out west was: when he gets into power he will find his greatest support comes from Ontario, and he will have to listen to Ontario. That is the general impression many from out there hold. We are wondering, when he promises with great hopes that he is going to help to solve the farm problem and then comes to us with a
bill of this kind, whether the assumption is correct that he does have his ear turned to the east.
I really rose to speak for a few minutes on this amendment. I might say that when this was in its resolution stage one of the first speakers to suggest that it go to a committee was our colleague in this corner of the house, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), when on December 11 he urged that this matter be sent to the agriculture committee of the house where it could be reviewed and where farm groups, and even any which might oppose it, could study the facts and the figures so that the agricultural committee could come back with the report and, if it was a bill, with their amendments. Now we have a chance to vote on whether this bill should go to the agriculture committee. I am supporting such an amendment because I believe that is the place where it should go and where it should have a complete overhaul, where all sorts of witnesses could be heard and where witnesses, if they wanted to be heard, could make application. Farm organizations throughout the country could do just that thing, and lay it on the line. Let us see what the farmers think of this.
The minister may get up and say: "We know what the farmers think of this, they have seen the Prime Minister." It is one thing to see the Prime Minister in his home over a cup of tea, and talk in a friendly way and say what fine fellows we are and all that; we will do our best for you. They go away feeling they have been entertained, and that the Prime Minister is a very fine man. Of course, nobody doubts that the Prime Minister is a very fine gentleman; they don't come any better as men go. But that is not what we are discussing. We say this should go to the agriculture committee where it could be studied carefully from every angle by all those affected by it, that is, by the farmers of this country both east and west, whether they are in one type of farming or in another; whether they are wheat growers or cattle growers; whether they grow strawberries or turkeys or whatever it may be; or whether they raise eggs. I was going to say "whether they lay eggs" but I will not say that. The point is that the bill should be examined by those organizations, and when it is considered in committee those organizations should have an opportunity to present their arguments, and it goes down on the record.
So I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to give us one good reason why he feels he cannot send this bill to committee. We like to do our duty. When this
3498	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization was first presented I must confess I felt: let us not talk on this, let us put it through and we will go to the country and say: "Now, you farmers, that is what you got; that is what they gave you," and then let the farmers speak in a voice that this government would understand. That is all right. We could have done that.
On the other hand we felt we had a duty to perform. We felt we should offer our suggestions, and during this debate many good suggestions have been made. We believe that the proper place in which suggestions should be made would be in the agriculture committee where the farm organizations could come and make those suggestions themselves. When it comes to a scrutiny of the bill by the people who are in the industry, what does the minister do? He says: "We are offering you this as the best thing we can do." And when it comes to close examination, he scoots, he runs for cover. The tall timbers, that is where he is taking off to now. What has he got to be frightened of, I should like to know?


An hon. Member:: The farmers.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend over here says: "The farmers." He certainly must be frightened of something. The only argument I can think of for not sending this to committee is that it might be delayed a bit. That is no argument. I would rather have the thing delayed a few weeks and have the farmers get what they want than have a weak type of bill such as we have now that does not satisfy anybody. I ask again: what is the minister frightened of?


Irvin William Studer: He is frightened of the hon. member for Macleod.


Charles Edward Johnston: You were one of his best supporters this afternoon.


Irvin William Studer: If there is anything good in it, we are for it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Where is the good in this?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is so much like your own, you had to be for it.


Ernest George Hansell: I am very glad to know the relative positions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and myself and to learn that he is afraid of me. I must say that I am not afraid of him.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I will hold your coat.


Irvin William Studer: Little David.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister does not have to be frightened of me but I suspect he is afraid to refer this bill to the committee on agriculture because there is a fault in the


bill that will be exposed and it will not work out to the advantage of his government. He must be frightened of referring it to the committee; otherwise, if he really wanted to do something for the farmers, he would say, "We will refer it to the committee where the farmers can examine it and make recommendations, where the discussion could be placed on the record and exposed to all hon. members of parliament," but he has not seen fit to do that.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Who are you?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. gentleman has been in the house considerably longer than I have but I wonder if he could tell me how long he thinks it would take the agriculture committee to dispose of the bill in the manner he is suggesting?


Hazen Robert Argue: About a week; three sittings a day for a week.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know how long it would take, but suppose it were to take a week, or two weeks or three weeks or even a month-


Mr. Broome:: Or a year.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers have been waiting for this thing for 22 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have been waiting for something better than this.


Ernest George Hansell: -the government has been in office for seven months now and I think the farmers could wait another few weeks. The farmers would not mind waiting at all if they could get something better.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why not give them $25 a month?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has been changed to $20 a year.


Mr. Brooks:: Great promisers.


Ernest George Hansell: It is nice to know that the former minister of agriculture is now proposing something that we first proposed 25 years ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: And forgot about when you got in.


Ernest George Hansell: The only thing is that if they were given $25 a month the two old line parties would tax it all back again and so there would not be very much use in doing it. However, I am not going to answer that question at all.


Irvin William Studer: You do not have an answer.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to answer because I would be out of order. Indeed, I would be out of order if I were to speak along the lines I would like to speak.


Hazen Robert Argue: Go ahead.


Ernest George Hansell: The subject I am referring to is the monetary aspect of our price structure.


James Garfield Gardiner: Everybody else has covered that topic, you might just as well speak about it.


Ernest George Hansell: If we launched into that discussion we would soon have a lively debate because we would indicate that neither of the two big parties in this country have any answer to this discrepancy of prices because- and in saying this I am expressing a deep conviction I hold which I have reached as a result of the observations I have made- those in the positions of highest responsibility in the government of this country in the past and at the present know nothing about monetary policy. However, I cannot launch into a discussion on that subject and I see that Mr. Speaker has his hands on his knees as though he is going to get up and call me to order.
Since the minister is now sitting in his seat, having returned from the tall timber, I wonder if he will tell us exactly why he is frightened to have this measure go before the agricultural committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not frightened.


Mr. Schulz:: Yes you are.


Ernest George Hansell: Why is it that he does not want the bill to go before that committee?


Hazen Robert Argue: He is frightened because he does not control the committee and the bill might return with some good amendments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already explained my position.


Ernest George Hansell: What the minister has told us does not satisfy us and that is why we are going to vote for the amendment to send the bill to the committee where it could have a thorough overhauling. With those words, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat but I will still declare that the Minister of Agriculture who represents the agricultural policy of the present government is frightened to have this bill go before the farmers and have appear on the record what they really think about it.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on this bill for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities. Since my remarks are going to be brief I should like to speak particularly in the interests of the fresh fruit and vegetable growers in the province of Ontario.
I have given the bill a great deal of study and have discussed its principal features with a great many farm people. I found that those farm people look upon this bill with confidence that it will provide a sound framework for a much improved farm produce marketing system.
There are two things about the bill which the farmers like in particular. First, it will bring the government closer to the problem of marketing farm produce which is extremely important. Secondly, the advisory board composed of representatives from the agricultural industry as set out in the bill should be able to keep the government well informed on farm problems in general.
The provisions in the bill to provide a constant floor price of 80 per cent average cost over a ten-year period is very sound in my opinion. This will give the farmer a firm foundation price from which to start and will leave him responsible to produce what he can sell in a competitive way at fair prices and in accordance with the supply and demand of Canada's domestic market and the export market.
A higher floor price, as suggested by some hon. members, could bring about surpluses and overproduction which are not desirable. The Canadian farmer wishes to retain his spirit of free enterprise and not become a collective farmer completely under the control of the government. However, there is some other assistance required by specialized farming groups and we must not overlook certain tariff adjustments requested by the fresh fruit and vegetable growers.
In Lincoln county which I represent fresh fruit and vegetables are the main farm produce and form a very important part of the economy of the Niagara peninsula. Fresh fruit and vegetables are not named commodities in the bill but can be included as designated commodities and have a floor price provided, if required, and such a request will probably be made. It is the opinion of the fresh fruit and vegetable growers that since their products are highly perishable their markets must also be protected with seasonal tariffs and anti-dumping duties.
Fresh fruit and vegetable farming in Ontario is a highly specialized type of farming. Three factors must be right: soil conditions, climate and lots of sunshine. We have them in Lincoln county. We have the rich sandy loam, a mild winter climate and lots of summer sunshine. Niagara peninsula is often referred to as the banana belt. Well all has not been well in the banana belt during the past 10 years, the farmers do not have any trouble growing fine fruits and vegetables but they have experienced much
3500	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization trouble in disposing of them. The government has spent many thousands of dollars in experimental stations. Research work done in those experimental stations has been of tremendous value to the fruit and vegetable farmer. New varieties of fruit and vegetables have been discovered and new methods have been found to counteract bugs, grubs and blight, but the marketing of those fine fruits and vegetables has been sadly neglected by the federal government. The Ontario market for fruit and vegetables has been in a constantly depressed condition because of the importation of surplus crops from the United States at distress prices.
The loss of the United Kingdom market for canned fruit and vegetables has been a great blow to the fruit and vegetable growing industry. Every year we have seen more and more of the best fruit farms in the Niagara peninsula subdivided into small holdings and house-building subdivisions. This is not being done because fruit farming is being squeezed out by industry, as we read so often in the newspapers, but because fruit farming in the past 10 years has been too much of a gamble and the farmer has been constantly threatened with being unable to sell his crop. Markets have been too uncertain, and year after year part of the crop has gone to waste on the ground, and that is no lie.
The big problem the Ontario fruit and vegetable farmer has had to contend with is the dumping of surplus crops from the United States on the Canadian markets. The crop season in the United States is from six weeks to 12 weeks ahead of ours. Should there be a surplus crop of any particular fruit or vegetable in the United States, that surplus is dumped on the Canadian market before our crop is ripe and at a cut-rate price. This condition has happened every year for the past 10 years. Some times it is asparagus, strawberries, cherries or peaches. Every year some crop market is ruined by the dumping.
The Niagara fresh fruit and vegetables farmer does not want high tariffs. The farmer does not need high tariffs. He can hold his own under fair marketing conditions. The farmers are asking for a seasonal tariff. This has been on the statute books for many years. It has been asked for continually but has been given only in small measure from six weeks to nine weeks, which is quite ineffective. To be effective it must be for 14 weeks, which is recognized as the crop season for most fruit and vegetables in the province of Ontario. Dumping duties have also been on the statute books for many years. The application of those dumping duties has


also been asked for on many occasions when dumping was particularly bad.
Last June there was a bumper crop of strawberries in the United States. Carloads of them were rolling into Ontario before our crop was ripe, and they were sold on the Canadian market at distressed prices. Dumping duties were again asked for and for the first time in 22 years the Liberal government took steps to put them into effect. The Ontario fresh strawberry crop was protected. However, the irony of it all, as far as the former government was concerned, was that the act did not become effective until two days after the election and I got the credit for it.
It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Do you wish me to continue? I am pretty near the end of my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Has the hon.
member permission to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Smith: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rea): Has the
Minister of Public Works anything to say about Monday, or is that all settled?
George Carlyle Marler: This is the first time I have ever heard the question put by the Chair. Perhaps I will repeat the question. Will the house leader indicate what business we will be taking up on Monday?
Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: I guess the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount was fast asleep. The business on Monday will be a supply motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister peer into the future and tell us what the business will be on Wednesday, if we are still here?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; under present conditions that is a long way ahead.


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

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

Mr. Pickersgill: How many names were added to Indian band lists by the registrar pursuant to section 7 of the present act since it came into force?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1,025.

Monday, January 20, 1958