1960-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48
Mr. Argue:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan since January 1, 1958, regarding the curtailment of uranium contracts and the problems arising therefrom.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and provincial or municipal governments and any organization, since January 1, 1957 regarding the establishment of a bank or other agency by the federal government to make loans available to Canadian municipalities and/or provincial governments.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservations concerning the consent of the other governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of any correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces with respect to any new proposals for the distribution of university grants.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservations respecting the consent of the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any agency thereof, and officers of any labour organization, since September 27, 1959, regarding regulations 172 and 173 under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and protesting the effect they have in determining payment of unemployment insurance.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the Russian trade agreement which was about to be renewed a year or so ago is now about to be renewed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The negotiations are still proceeding, Mr. Speaker. I am hopeful that they will be concluded very soon. I have had to give that answer two or three times already this session, but that is the situation as it stands at the moment.



CANADA-AUSTRALIA  REPORTED SECRET EXCHANGE OF LETTERS RESPECTING QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether there was a secret exchange of letters between Canada and Australia following the signing of a trade agreement between our two countries, wherein Canada is said to have given Australia assurance that she will impose neither quotas nor bans on Australian products even if they cause harm to our farmers, as reported in this week's issue of the Financial Post?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have seen the article in the Financial Post. During the course of negotiations leading to the recently signed trade agreement between Canada and Australia a number of letters were exchanged between the two delegations on various detailed matters relating to the agreement and the trade between the two countries.

Inquiries of the Ministry One of these letters concerned the use by Canada and Australia of quantitative restrictions on imports.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Will this exchange of letters be tabled?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking for the tabling of those letters it will have to be done under the usual arrangement between government and government.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister seek to obtain that approval before the treaty is discussed in this house, when the minister asks for ratification?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will the minister comment on the report in the Financial Post of February 20 that a United States Senate committee is pressing plans to prevent the Canadair CL-44 from winning any substantial share of the estimated $600 million air freighter market in the United States? Can the minister say whether, because of the Canada-United States defence production sharing agreement, United States orders for the CL-44 can be obtained?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the first part of the question relates to matters entirely outside the jurisdiction of the minister, but the second part is acceptable.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly having a lot of interest shown in this matter, and in my reply I wish to state that I was asked the same question by the hon. member for Laurier, with respect to the passage of this bill in Washington. Officials from Canadair were in Washington all last week, and a team is there now getting information from United States authorities on this bill. I am not able to make a full report just now, but as soon as I get an additional report, which I am expecting this afternoon, I will be only too happy to report to the house.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY    OMISSION OF NAME OF FORMER DIRECTOR AT OPENING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a report in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday last concerning the opening of the new national gallery building. Based on that report, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it was a matter of deliberate policy by the government that the name of Mr. Jarvis, the former director of the gallery, who had the responsibility for so much of the work leading up to the opening of the new building, was not mentioned although that of his predecessor was; or was it merely an extraordinary circumstance?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, it was neither intentional nor an extraordinary circumstance.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether he received an alleged memorandum or letter signed by the gallery staff complaining of this circumstance?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: Has the Prime Minister received, as seems to be implied in this story, a resignation either from the chairman of the board of trustees or the director, arising out of the circumstances?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: It seems like a lapsus
linguae.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister anything further to report on the situation arising out of the decision he announced in the house last week, that the contract for stage 3 of the lakehead terminal contract was being cancelled?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Nothing further to report, Mr. Speaker, except that we are having trouble cancelling it. They became aware of our intention owing to the intervention of the hon. member for Port Arthur, and they are

doing their best to see that the contract is not cancelled. We are still in the midst of legal negotiations.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question arises out of a question which I placed on the order paper and the reply which is recorded at page 1277 of Hansard. Will the minister explain to the house why the information as to the number or loan applications to the industrial development bank last year is not available?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will put his question on the order paper I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Mr. Benidickson:: It is the reply he is talking about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At page 1277 the answer is given that the information asked for by the hon. member is not available. That was the answer to the question he put on the order paper.


Mr.   Carier@: My question now is, would the Minister of Finance explain why it is not available?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can surmise that the statistics are not compiled, and certainly are not available as yet in the form in which the hon. gentleman sought them.



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1959&quot;- SUGGESTED VARIANCE WITH BUDGET FORECAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Finance if it is correct that the Economic Outlook for 1959 gave a forecast greatly at variance with the forecast in the minister's budget, and if that is the reason it is being kept secret? If not, what is the reason?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that I am sure I do not know the answer to the first part of this question in three parts. But I can say this to the hon. member, that if the forecast he speaks of in some report does not agree with the forecast that was made in the budget, then to that extent the former forecast perhaps was lacking in the accuracy that he will find and I am sure will commend in the budget forecast.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Did I understand the minister to say that this document was so well hidden that he has not yet seen it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question relates to a matter on which the house took a decision last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct, sir.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Marlin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received a letter from Mr. G. B. Huehn, secretary manager of the Manitoba automotive trades association, Winnipeg, which alleges that air force personnel at Rivers, Manitoba are opening a service station on government property to sell automotive and petroleum products to the general public? If so, would the minister care to comment on this allegation?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question. I got in touch with my staff both at national defence headquarters and here immediately before coming into the house, and no such letter has been received in my office.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question which was asked last week by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, who asked if the frigate H.M.C.S. New Waterford had been scheduled for a refit at Point Edward naval base. The answer is in the negative. This ship was allocated to the Saint John Dry Dock Company at East Saint John, New Brunswick, by the maritime commission on December 22, 1959, and a contract has been let by the Department of Defence Production. However, the Canadian government ship Sackville, will be arriving at Point Edward for refit on March 14.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could indicate to the house when he might be bringing down his budget for the forthcoming year.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend that I can satisfy completely the legitimate interest and curiosity of my hon. friend. Perhaps I can do so in part at any rate by telling him that it will not be brought down this month.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister comment on a statement by Mr. Emile Boudreau, representative of the United Steelworkers of America, reported in La Frontiere on February 18, that the unemployment insurance commission in Rouyn, Quebec is disqualifying unemployed workers from drawing unemployment insurance without grounds, thus forcing workers to accept work in the woods at substandard wages, sometimes lower than the unemployment insurance rate; and that the commission refuses to co-operate with the representatives of organized labour in the area even to the extent of refusing to give any information to union representatives who have interceded on behalf of the unemployed?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention in the early part of last week by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, and I received notice of this question from the hon. member for Assiniboia last Friday morning. However, I had already asked the commission to make a report on this matter.
They have reported to me on this situation as follows. Some 192 vacancies for bush-workers were received at the Rouyn local office of the unemployment insurance commission since November 25, 1959. The rate of pay offered was from $6 to $7.50 per cord, depending on cut, depth of snow, etc., which is the prevailing rate in the area. Of 650 persons referred, 580 failed to apply and disqualification has been imposed on some 125 claimants. Appeals have been made against disqualification in 18 cases, four of which have been heard by the board of referees. In three of these the insurance officer's decision was maintained. The remainder of the appeals will be heard in the next two weeks.
In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, I may say that co-operation with representatives of organized labour has at no time been refused. Information contained on one individual claimant's file has been denied, specifically in one case which is at present under investigation for suspected misrepresentation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question of the minister for clarification. Does the unemployment insurance commission make available information on the file of certain claimants to a union representative who intercedes with the claimant's written, signed approval?


Michael Starr: That is right, sir. It has been the policy of the unemployment insurance commission to co-operate with labour unions in this respect, and in this instance permission was refused because of this charge of misrepresentation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether, in view of the fact that the tests for the Lacrosse missile seem to have been satisfactory, the government is now placing a firm order for this equipment. If so, will it be of a type to utilize nuclear warheads?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have not yet received a full analysis of the tests that were carried out at Churchill, so we are not at the present time in a position to make any firm recommendations or place a firm order.



MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST TO MAKE CORRESPONDENCE PUBLIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to answer the question I asked on a couple of occasions last week, as to the consent of the government to the tabling of correspondence respecting flood control in the Red river valley?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. gentleman has a motion on the order paper now for copies of the correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba regarding the flood control program in the Red river valley. He already has that motion. The answer, however, to the first part of the question is that we have received a request; and to the second part of the question as to whether permission has been given, the answer is not yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that permission has not been given by the federal government?


John George Diefenbaker: Not as yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



FAILURE TO PROVIDE FAIR SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME TO FARMERS

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on this the first supply motion of this session one has, of course, some difficulty in deciding what should be the subject of discussion; because after about three years since this government laid the foundations of its program we find so much swallowing of promises, so much of inconsistency, so many things that were promised but that have not been carried out, that there is great scope indeed for a discussion such as that for which a supply motion affords the opportunity.
I looked up the other day the foundation speech made by the Prime Minister when, as new leader of his party, he appeared for the first time in an election campaign and announced the things that his government, if elected, would put before the people of Canada. I want to be fair to the Prime Minister; I do not want to be charged with any personal attack. I have therefore taken a report of his first meeting in Massey hall, Toronto, in April of 1957 as reported by a favourable newspaper, namely the Toronto Telegram. In order to substantiate some of my first remarks I think just a few quotations from this report will indicate the difficulty of which I spoke, namely as to which of the serious, unfulfilled pledges should be discussed in the first debate in connection with a supply motion.
These are some of the things the Toronto Telegram of April 26, 1957 reported in this launching of the program of the government that now reigns in this country. The report states that "with a biting attack on government tax snoopers" the leader of the Conservative party opened his speech on that occasion. It goes on to say this:
The first skirmish of the Progressive Conservative leader's gruelling campaign rocked staid old Massey hall as bands blared, bagpipes shrieked, pretty girls paraded-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: The quotation continues:
-and delegates from every Ontario riding-
Including Premier Frost.
-roared support for their leader.
1297
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
One of the items states:
Overtaxation has killed enterprise.
Another states:
It is time ... to take the unrepentant tax-masters at Ottawa off the backs of the Canadian people.
What has happened? Tax rates in this country increased as a result of a change in government. Another item states:
Parliament is subservient today with a Liberal majority ... but it is certainly not ornamental.
We now have here this massive majority supporting the Prime Minister and we see nothing with two notable exceptions-the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) and the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne)-but yes-men. He went on to say on this particular occasion:
The concentration of overwhelming power in the hands of the cabinet has disciplined its majority into abject servility-
What do we see today? We see no criticism with respect to the serious problems of this country in connection with unemployment, farm difficulties and other matters of this kind.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


William Moore Benidickson: Members in this massive majority are certainly not rising to their feet and indicating that they have any quarrel with the lack of proper policies to provide the obvious and necessary programs that are required in this country.
This is another indication, I assume, that everybody in this massive majority is satisfied. Here is another indication of the disappointment which is now felt almost three years later with respect to these promises which were made. The right hon. gentleman indicated with respect to immigration that Canada must populate or perish. What a laugh we get when we see the results achieved by the new government in that respect.
I say there is great variety of opportunity for presenting a motion for debate today. But I was interested more than anything else in the statement which was made at that time in holding out a promise to the electorate of this country in the field of agriculture. Again, with respect to the report of the present Prime Minister's first meeting in the campaign of 1957, I wish to take an account presented by a newspaper which is favourable to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Toronto Globe and Mail, which said that in opening his campaign in a speech in Massey hall, to which I have referred:
For farmers he pledged a fair share of the national income through a flexible price support program to ensure adequate parity between farm prices and costs.
We have reason now to see why the Prime Minister emphasized the flexibility of this policy. I suggest to the house that we
1298	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers are now finding with respect to agriculture a policy which is just as flexible and just as slippery as one of the major products with which we concern ourselves; butter. The vision which was conjured up by the Prime Minister of this new utopia for Canadian farmers under the Conservative party is certainly fading before their eyes, and those far-away fields to which they were beckoned have certainly turned out to be less green than when they marked their crosses on the ballot in favour of this government. In other words the farmers have really had a harsh awakening, and they now see that they are farther from the promised land than ever before.
The Prime Minister, in the first parliament which he led as prime minister, expressed tremendous hopes as to the results which will flow from the new stabilization act. He claimed that this act would revolutionize farm life, and to quote his own words in connection with that bill I refer to page 3764 of Hansard for June 24, 1958, when he said:
This bill represents the most forward step ever taken by this parliament to meet the situation facing Canadian farmers.
What are the farmers saying about the lack of support for some of their prices at the present time? I refer to statements such as were contained only last week in the representations made to this government by the interprovincial farm union council, when they said that the disparity between farm prices and costs in Canada has continued to widen. The brief stated:
The disparity between farm prices and costs in Canada has continued to widen. The October, 1959, national index for prices of farm products stood at 235.9 and represented a decline of 6.1 points from the 1958 annual average of 242. The composite national index for. commodities and services used by farmers for August, 1959, stood at 272, up 14.5 points.
The November, 1959 issue of the Current Review predicts that the trend toward increased farming costs is expected to continue into 1960 while farm income will remain stable or perhaps decline, resulting in declines for both realized farm net income and farm net income in 1960.
This fact, of course, has been presented to the house already by the Leader of the Opposition in a most effective way. We have already had some discussion about net farm income versus gross income in 1959. The figures with respect to net income which the Minister of Agriculture indicated on January 25 might be available in two weeks' time are not yet available, but a new report has come out with respect to cash income from the sale of farm products, and that report has established what the Leader of the Opposition suggested would be the case, namely that this income was less in 1959 than in 1958.


When we refer to the basic policy presented to the Canadian voters, and particularly to the Canadian farmers, by the present administration we note three things, according to the statement I quoted. There was an assurance to farmers of a fair share of the national income; there was a promise of adequate parity; and there was a promise of a fair price-cost relationship. All this was to be achieved by means of a flexible price support program. In addition, in the same speech, the Prime Minister indicated that under a new administration we would increase our wheat sales and our share of the wheat sales in the export market. The right hon. gentleman indicated that a new government would talk up to the United States in connection with agricultural competition, particularly with respect to the disposal of grain. We heard about all these things prior to the 1958 election.
During the 1957-58 sesssion, as I have indicated, we got a bill which was alleged to present a new utopia to the Canadian farmer. What were the essential points of this bill which were talked about in the ensuing election campaign? In the first place, it was said that the bill would bring, for the first time, forward prices. I think when we consider the predicament of the egg and hog producers today we certainly realize that they have no means of knowing what their forward prices are going to be with respect to those products. Indeed, they may have to wait perhaps for a year for some very intricate calculations to be made before they can determine where they stand.
The other point which was mentioned particularly by the Prime Minister when he spoke in that debate was that farmers would possess, in anticipation, a knowledge of what the prices would be. I refer to what the right hon. gentleman said as reported at page 3765 of Hansard 1957-58:
-the farmer may know in anticipation each year what he is going to receive.
Emphasis was further laid upon the fact that the opposition at that time was misrepresenting the value of this bill. It was alleged that while with respect to certain products there was a guarantee of 80 per cent of the average price for the past 10 years, this really was not what in the main would prove to be the value of the bill. It was indicated that there were two prices, of course, but in the main the farmer would find that he was getting not the guaranteed price but instead a price that had relation to his cost of production, something relating to his costs in connection with the cost-price squeeze.

I wonder what the producers of eggs and hogs have to say with respect to the pricing that has recently been established in that area. I recall to the attention of the house the words of the Minister of Agriculture as reported at page 2396 of Hansard of December 14, 1957:
Perhaps I could put it this way so the hon. member would understand it better. There are two types of support provided for at two different levels altogether.
At page 3740 of Hansard of January 24, 1958 the Minister of Agriculture repeated that statement and said:
As I have pointed out time after time, that is the absolute minimum guarantee In this bill in order to ensure what we might call a certain amount of ultimate security as far as the farmer is concerned.
In effect he said that there was the absolute minimum guarantee, but the ultimate security for the farmer would not in most cases be that particular minimum price. The Prime Minister, with his usual eloquence, put the matter in an even more favourable light for the electorate when, as reported at page 3765 of Hansard of January 24, 1958 he said:
The objective is to give the farmers a fair share of the national income: in the fixation of the prices, regard will be had to the cost of production in so far as the basic price is concerned, which is a price which I might call an emergency price-
He said there would be an emergency price but that it would seldom operate. He went on in that same speech to say that in isolated cases it may transpire that the legislation has some shortcomings. I think it gives a considerable amount of amusement to a number of people today when they see this proviso was put in the Prime Minister's speech, the qualification that the program might have some shortcomings. Today shortcomings may be exceeding the advantages which were so highly paraded at that time.
In other words, this bill had clear and precise language. A fair share of the national income was to be provided to farmers and there was to be adequate parity.
What is the current situation after the two elections to which I have made reference? We have a new scheme with respect to support or aid to the producers of hogs and eggs. Nobody has described the inadequacy of that measure better than an hon. member of the government party, the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Nasserden) who speaking in this house on January 28, 1960, as reported at page 470 of Hansard, said:
Several months ago the government announced sweeping changes in the support price structure for eggs and hogs. These changes have caused a great deal of anxiety among farmers- 79951-0-82J
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
The hon. gentleman certainly spoke the truth. He went on to say:
If I understand this program correctly, it is the most retrograde step that could be taken from an already established position. Moreover, the arguments used are unworthy of an informed ministry.
There are a great number of supporters of the present government from farm constituencies. Instead of apologizing for the actions of the government as they now do I suggest that like the hon. member for Ros-thern they should express their dissatisfaction with this poor program. Instead of being champions of the farm communities they devote their energies to defending the poor agricultural policies of this government.
As I have suggested, this program is in direct contradiction to the main purposes contained in the preamble of the bill that was introduced by the new government. Indeed, it is a complete repudiation of what this government said it would do in this field with respect to agriculture. There is in this program a complete repudiation with respect to farm prices. Does anybody know in anticipation with respect to eggs and hogs what they may receive in the next twelve months, or since these new policies became effective? On the contrary, we have retroactive pricing. That is the result of the uncertainties of the altered regulations that have recently been provided. Speaking in this house on April 10, 1959, as reported at page 2581 of Hansard, the Minister of Agriculture said:
We will pay the farmer the difference between what he gets in the market place and the price support announced.
Today anybody who is dealing in these products knows that this certainly is not the result in practice of the proposed deficiency payments for those two products.
Before the election we had certain policies announced by this government about mandatory and disaster levels of payments, but after the election what is the result? We are not getting a price related to the cost of production. On the contrary, we are getting simply the mandatory or emergency price. Using the phrase of the Prime Minister when he commended this legislation to the house, what is the external or domestic emergency that justifies this repudiation of a policy which was so well advertised across the country?
There is no certainty at all-and this is what is causing the difficulty today-that even this price that was advertised as the mandatory price will be received by the farmer. The market price, in other words, plus the amount of the deficiency payment, for a great
1300	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers number of farmers-perhaps the majority of farmers-will in no way equal the amount of the mandatory payment that is referred to based on a national average.
Before the elections the egg and hog producers of Canada were led to believe that they would receive a price that was related to the cost of production. Indeed, I sat in the house at the time and I recall that there was a specific amendment to clause 7 of the bill to ensure that the words "cost of production" would be substituted for "basic price", thus ensuring that this would be the guiding rule for the advisory board. That, of course, has not been the result. With respect to eggs there is at least only a three-month wait to find out with any certainty what the payment might be but, with respect to hogs, a year.
If after a year and the averaging of the results over four quarters it turns out that there has perhaps been an overpayment, what then is going to be the predicament of the producer? Thus what certainty is there in this particular legislation with respect to forward prices? In other words this deficiency payment proposal, particularly with respect to these two products, not only violates the spirit of the legislation that was introduced with such fanfare but indeed, I believe, violates the letter.
Even the Minister of Agriculture indicated to this house last year that he had some grave misgivings as to whether or not the statute as it existed really did permit him, with respect to these products, to carry out his proposals. He, of course, went to the Department of Justice. I have no doubt he indicated what he hoped to do. He received a legal opinion from a friendly advocate that he could do it. But the mere fact that he admitted in this house that he had grave misgivings as to whether the law permitted him to do this certainly indicates that there has been a very great departure from the spirit and the intent of the legislation as it was presented to this house, and as it was presented to the electorate in 1958.
I should like to indicate to the house what farm organizations think about this legislation. You do not necessarily need to hear only what political critics of the present government have to say, but farm organizations whose policies and criticisms I have read condemn this particular legislation in the most wholehearted way. This is what the interprovincial farm union has to say:
Surely the existence of small stocks cannot justify the complete demoralization-
[Mr. Benidickson.l

Listen to that language:
-of the egg market in Canada. Stability of prices will be impossible to establish under such circumstances.
This farm organization advocates the implementation of a minimum floor price below which the market price could not drop during this transitional period, at which point the agricultural stabilization board would purchase surplus stocks. In other words abandonment of offer to purchase is condemned out of hand by this organization.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture policy was presented to the government recently. They equally condemned the new policies with respect to both eggs and hogs. The resolution passed at the recent national convention with respect to both products reads in this way:
That the Canadian government be asked to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act by removing hogs and eggs from mandatory support, or alternatively by lowering the permissible level of mandatory support, so that oiler to purchase support prices for them may be set at a suitable level.
Here is another comment from a very fair-minded agricultural journal. I refer to the Country Guide in the issue of February, 1960: '
Why is Mr. Harkness not convincing in defending deficiency payments on eggs and hogs? Well in our judgment he continues to avoid the main issues. To put it bluntly, the deficiency payment method which has been employed unduly regiments the producers of eggs and hogs. It creates uncertainty and chaos in the market for these products instead of stability.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this policy is not going to help the consumer, and it certainly is demoralizing the producer at the present time. I suggest that at the end of the year we shall likely find that the poor consumer, because of the chaos that has been created, will have to pay exceedingly high prices for eggs; and I further suggest that the producer without means, not the speculative farmer but the small producer, has had to unload at those panic prices and he will not be able to benefit from the higher prices that will prevail. In other words, we have chaos; we have the very opposite of stability. This administration owes to the farmers of this country a much better explanation as to the reasons for this policy than has been provided so far.
I have indicated that one of the members on the government side has advanced perhaps the most effective criticism that has been given so far with respect to the mess we are in as a result of these policies. But we find that a provincial government very friendly to this administration, namely the government of the province of Manitoba, through its minister of agriculture, last week when

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
he was trying to pass his estimates in the Manitoba legislature, indicated that this legislation was terrible. He said that he had conveyed his views to the federal government. I suggest that when members of the administration refer to this subject in this debate they should table the correspondence they have had with the province of Manitoba, which will indicate that this is not a political hullabaloo; this is a feeling that is felt throughout the country. The situation is so serious that even political friends of the administration have to speak out and indicate what a mess has been created.
This is the situation with respect to these two products, but the other thing that is concerning the country is whether or not there is to be a substantial extension of this policy to other commodities. I think that is the natural anxiety of the farmer. This anxiety was expressed by the hon. member for Rosthern. At page 470 of Hansard of this session he indicated his alarm. He said he had presented himself to the electorate on a policy quite different from this, and was elected. He felt that this new policy was inconsistent with the presentation of agricultural policy by the Prime Minister. This is what is of great concern. There is every reason to inquire whether or not there is an intention to depart completely from this offer to purchase system.
I was amazed the other day to hear the Minister of Agriculture say, after all the background that I have indicated to this house, that this offer to purchase system was the policy of the Liberals and not the policy of this new administration. I say that the Conservative administration gave no indication whatever when introducing the stabilization bill, or in the subsequent election in 1958 or at any time since, that they had a lack of faith in this policy of offer to purchase under suitable circumstances.
As a matter of fact I re-read the other day the annual statement that was made-as he does regularly-by the Minister of Agriculture to the federal-provincial conference in the fall of 1958. He spoke with great happiness and pride about the lack of surpluses that existed at that time. There was not the slightest suggestion that the basic policy that had been talked about in the House of Commons when the stabilization bill was introduced was, as the minister now says, bad Liberal policy and was to be thrown out. If it has proven unsatisfactory it is as the result of price decisions taken by the new administration, contrary to the advice of farm organizations, particularly with respect to these two products, eggs and hogs. It has been established that they did set what they were
warned not to do, namely incentive prices. It was not the system that was at fault, it was the decisions made by this government. Instead of correcting the situation by methods other than this very radical one, they have created complete chaos in this country with respect to the production of both eggs and hogs.
The Minister of Agriculture certainly uttered true words when, in the present session, he said "our policy has been reversed." I refer to page 276 of Hansard of this session. Reversed? The policy has indeed been repudiated. I suggest to the government that they review, as I did, the debate of 1957-58 in connection with this much heralded stabilization bill. I ask whether any member of the government during that very long debate suggested that they had this lack of faith in the offer to purchase plan.
Did they at that time say that this method of providing some price stability in connection with agricultural products was likely to be a failure? I find that the only reference in that debate to the utilization of deficiency payments or alternatively to support by purchase that had been in effect for eggs and hogs was when Mr. Quelch, as found at page 2398 of Hansard of December 14, 1957, referred in a very innocent way to some remarks of the minister and said:
He never explained just how those deficiency payments are going to be made.
That was one of the several types of support to which the minister had referred. The only comment by the minister in that long debate was made at that time, and all I can find that is pertinent to the matter is this short sentence from the Minister of Agriculture.
"That would depend entirely on the commodity."
If that is all the attention that was given to the deficiency payment plan by the Minister of Agriculture at that time it seems to me it is an amazing thing that he would get up during the debate this session and say the existing policy was the policy of the Liberals; that they were never in favour of that kind of policy; that it has proven a failure, and that they would abandon it. I think the farming community wants to know with respect to what other products it is also the intention to abandon long time policy. When, including last session, has there ever been from the government a criticism of the offer to purchase system, and what other products are now likely to be abandoned?
We also heard a great deal, as I have indicated, from the government prior to coming to power about what they would do with respect to wheat, the disposal of surplus grain and the like. They went up and down
1302	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Disparity of National Income to Farmers the country with a great variety of suggestions for the solution of some of the surplus problems. Promises were made about deficiency payments and about a two-price system. Promises were made, as I said before, that they would stand up to the Americans and make sure that we did not face unfair competition from give-away programs and other forms of disposal in that country.
There has been a great departure in that respect. What in those days was called a crime seems now to be considered by the administration a blessing so far as United States disposal programs are concerned; because in his speech on November 23 last to the dominion-provincial conference the Minister of Agriculture had these kind words to say about something that was so bitterly attacked by Conservatives when they sat on this side of the house:
Up to now the exporters have had to bear the financial burden of carrying and disposing of surplus stocks. It is indeed fortunate that the United States, where most of the surpluses have accumulated, has had the financial resources and generosity necessary to provide for their distribution to needy peoples.
I have made some reference to deficiency payments for grain. I hope we will hear from the Prime Minister what the long-awaited decision is with respect to the marchers who came here almost a year ago. He said then to this group from western Canada that he was giving this matter "continuing" consideration. He indicated that he had some questions concerning it, and as a result another delegation came to see him in May of last year. Again his phrase was, "We are giving this "continuing" consideration". Another delegation came to see him at the end of last month. I do not know whether he referred to continuing consideration but I think he said that a decision would be reached within 30 days.
Perhaps during -the course of this debate it would be very appropriate for the Prime Minister to indicate what his intentions are in this respect. From what he said in Moose Jaw on March 15, 1958 about deficiency payments, when he said he would give the matter "sympathetic" consideration, we have gone along for many months with this other phrase, "continuing consideration".
These are just some of the problems I have time to deal with now and which are of interest to the farm electorate at this time. I do know that our exports of grain for the week ended January 20 are ahead of last year by about 8 million bushels, according to the D.B.S. weekly report; but I also know from information that is available to all of us that at this time last year there were very good forward sales of grain, particularly of wheat,

and that while these forward sales were on the books of the wheat board, purchase could not be made until about April.
That is not the situation today. This year wheat is available for shipment by the wheat board at a fairly early date. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce will give us some worth-while information on this matter.
I have indicated that since the government assumed office the position of the agricultural community has not improved but that actually the cost-price spread has widened and made the position of farmers worse. As I have indicated, net income for farmers in 1959 will be lower than it was on ten year average, and it may be lower by as much as $200 million. The farmers know, as I have indicated, that the costs of the things they buy are rising. They have also heard the Minister of Finance suggest that the bulk of the population will share in perhaps a 7 per cent increase in the gross national product. It is suggested that this rate of increase may apply again in 1960, but all the official forecasts from the Department of Agriculture indicate that in 1960 agriculture, separated and segregated from industry as a whole, may actually have less net income than in 1959. The farmers therefore see a general advance of 15 per cent in the gross national product over two years and at the same time a decline in the rewards for their own efforts.
This is an alarming situation that faces the agricultural community. What are the policies of the government to implement the promises that I indicated they made in launching their appeal to the electorate almost three years ago prior to assuming office? Are we going to have price stability? Are the farmers going to realize a fair return? Are they going to get a fair share of the national income? Is there going to be a fair relationship between the prices they have to pay for the things they buy and the prices that are paid for their products?
I say there is no indication that anything along these lines can be looked for from legislation proposed in the speech from the throne this session. Indeed some new policies, particularly with respect to eggs and hogs, have been a complete reversal of the policies which were presented to the electorate, which appealed to them and which returned Conservative candidates. These policies are creating chaos and panic in the agricultural community.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the implementation of agricultural policies designed

for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
This is in accordance with the preamble of the stabilization bill itself which this government presented to the Canadian electorate, and which appealed to them and which, as I say, has been repudiated so grossly in some of the current policies of the government.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this subject is of prime importance to the members of this party because we believe it is essential, if we are to maintain a healthy society, a healthy democracy, that we Canadians continue to improve the economic family farm unit. We believe that is an essential part of a healthy democratic society, particularly in a country such as ours, so rich in land, so rich in natural resources and so in opportunities in that direction. I think anyone who has given the subject any close study realizes, regardless of the worship of size nowadays and the association of efficiency with size, bigness and numbers, that the family farm is still an efficient unit.
I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker, who believe in the philosophy of size, quantity and numbers. I think we could give more consideration to the philosophy of quality in life. However, regardless of our tendency to be hypnotized by size, a family farm of sufficient size, on good soil and using good marketing principles, co-operatives and so on, and under beneficent legislation, can still operate as a most efficient [DOT] economic agricultural unit in Canada today and for the days to come.
Now, I believe it is quite fair and reasonable to say that there is a crisis in agriculture, in grain farming, in fruit farming, amongst the poultry farmers and amongst farmers generally, whether they are specializing or going in for mixed farming. I want to say this before I proceed to the remainder of my remarks, because my experience in life has been limited to a very small segment of agriculture, somewhat along the lines of the small general farm, fruit farming and some livestock. I do want to say that this party supports all farmers everywhere in Canada in their efforts to obtain a fair share of the national income and a decent standard of living as a result of their toil.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have had a somewhat limited experience as a pioneer bush farmer. I never discuss this question without
Disparity of National Income to Farmers going back to the days of the past. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues are rather inclined to think I live too much in the past on occasion, but I cannot get over that because I am a bit more advanced in years than most of them. I know all about the trials and tribulations of establishing a bush farm in heavily forested country. We came to this country with a group of distinctly green English people who purchased land in British Columbia for $100 per acre in cash, and some as high as $200 cash per acre from land companies operating under a beneficent Conservative government which had purchased that land from the government of the day for $5 per acre the year before. This was the sort of poor deal the farmers commenced to get in this country.
In any event, these men started in clearing this land, and were inspired with hope as the result of a pledge given them by the provincial Conservative government of the day under the late Sir Richard McBride. I remember as a boy seeing him come into our district with the father of the present Minister of Justice. I have a picture of my father standing there with his mouth open listening to Sir Richard McBride and the father of the Minister of Justice. They were telling us how fortunate we were to have this opportunity. I shall never forget the words of Sir Richard McBride when he said that under this beneficent government, in this land of beauty and opportunity, and with unremitting hard work, you could experience nothing but unending prosperity. This was the first time I remember being promised something and getting let down.
In any event, I know all about this. I can tell you that I represent a district which knows the necessity of saving money and watching the pennies. I think I represent a district which had the only travelling Plymouth Rock rooster. We used to ship him up and down the Arrow lakes in a crate, from one ranch to another. This gives you some idea of how careful we had to be with our pennies at that time. However, at the time there were local markets in the mine and lumber camps sufficient to take the surplus agricultural production of the district. There were not many acres cleared. Then there was overproduction beyond the capacity of the local mine and lumber camps, so the farmers organized into the associated growers of British Columbia.
Things went along fairly well, and they found markets on the prairies. There was some improvement, but only on a temporary basis. Production grew again and we faced another crisis. The Liberal government of British Columbia of that day was very sympathetic to the need for legislation. I notice

Disparity of National Income to Farmers the hon. member for Essex East is following my remarks with interest. I do not know in what he specializes as a farmer, but I do know there is no one in this house who can make hay better when the sun is shining. Eventually we had this British Columbia natural products marketing act passed, and that was an improvement. There was some stabilization of the marketing of fruit and other products in British Columbia as a result of the democratic expression of the will of the growers; over 75 per cent of the farmers as required by law.
Later on we had legislation in Ottawa which made it possible for two provinces to work together in the marketing of agricultural products. This legislation requires strengthening and extension, in the opinion of the growers in British Columbia. However, we again face this problem of farmers producing too much, and so we have another crisis, a crisis in agriculture generally as I have said before, whether it is in grain farming, fruit farming, poultry farming or in mixed farming.
The agriculturist has always done his duty. He has done it in two ways. He has always been willing to produce; he has not failed to produce far more than he could sell or could hope to sell under present circumstances. He has done everything possible, shall I say, to give expression to the co-operative spirit, to work together with respect to the organization of marketing, shipment, transportation, and so on. Indeed, on the prairies we have our own sales agency.
There comes a point-and this point is here today-where the farmers, having done all they can, having done their duty toward the community, must be assisted by government by legislation which will coordinate their efforts and provide for the marketing of their products not only within Canada but satisfactorily on an international basis, where they are so sadly needed.
The plight of agriculture is demonstrated by the representations this government has received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and also from representatives of the interprovincial farm union council, the Canadian horticultural council and other bodies. These representatives do not come to Ottawa just for a picnic or a holiday. They come here as representatives of a group who feel this government has a responsibility for taking some action in order to see that they get social justice at this time.
What is the situation with respect to the government's promises? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River I think read one or two of the choicest ones, and he scuttled my ship in that direction; but in any event I have

some others on which to fall back. In the submission of the interprovincial farm council to the government of Canada at Ottawa on February 17 of this year I notice this on page 1:
On October 14, 1959, addressing the farm equipment institute's 66th annual meeting in Montreal, Quebec, the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Douglas S. Harkness, stated as follows:
"The agricultural policy of the Canadian government is designed to ensure that the average economic producer will secure a standard of living comparable to that of people in other industries, and thus ensure a healthy agriculture, with sufficient production to meet our own needs and those of export markets."
We quite agree with the objective outlined by the minister. Then on page 2 I find this:
On another occasion, in his address to the Kiwanis club of Lethbridge, Alberta, on September 29, 1959, the Minister of Agriculture stated as follows:
"Our policy is to secure the best price possible for his products for the average farmer, and in order to do this we use the method which gives promise of producing the best results and does not lead to piling up unsaleable surpluses. The method of support by purchase for hogs and eggs has been given a fair trial to accomplish these purposes. It has failed because surpluses have developed. Now we must attempt to reach the ends we have in view by the method of deficiency payments. I have every hope and expectation that they will prove successful."
Then the submission of the interprovincial farm union council follows. Then in an address by the minister to the dominion-provincial agricultural conference on November 23, 1959 I notice two significant statements. On page 2 of this release he is reported as saying as follows:
-it seems quite possible that the farm income may be lower in 1960 than in 1959.
If the minister thinks that, you can well understand representatives of the agricultural organizations coming to Ottawa to express their fears and to place before the government their proposals. Again on page 4 of the same speech by the minister at the same time I read as follows:
The effect of the new trade pacts abroad by the European economic community and the outer seven on Canadian exports has still to be gauged.
Even the government itself is quite uncertain as to the impact of the European economic community and outer seven arrangements, and I can well understand its uncertainty. I am not blaming the government entirely. We live in a very uncertain world. We live in a world in which it is extremely difficult to take any sort of fixed position with respect to economics. This statement indicates that the minister himself is also fearful of the effect of these arrangements.
I now want to quote what Mr. H. H. Hannam had to say during his address to the 24th annual meeting of the Canadian Federation



I960

[Stage Direction]
of Agriculture at the Royal York hotel in Ontario on January 26 of this year. I am going to quote what Mr. Hannam had to say because in very clear language he deals with the plight of the farmer at the present time, and he does so not in general terms but with some exactitude. This is what he had to say in addressing the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
At the end of a decade and on the threshhold of a new one, what is the position of Canadian agriculture? Certainly the over-all position for Canada's economy is one of extraordinary progress during the past 10 years, and there's much optimism for the years immediately ahead. Canada's record is well illustrated by the following:
(a)	Gross national production-total value of all goods and services produced-has more than doubled in the past decade. From 16.3 billion dollars in 1949 it has risen to around 34£ billions for 1959.
However, we must remember that two fifths of the gain was owing to higher prices or, shall we say, inflation. The quotation continues:
(b)	Labour income more than doubled from $8 billion in 1949 to around $17.7 billion last year.
There again, of course, two fifths of the gain is attributable to inflation. The quotation continues:
(c)	Canada's export trade climbed from a little over $3 billion in 1949 to an estimated 5.2 billion in 1959. Import trade rose from $2.7 billion in 1949 to more than $5.5 billion in 1959.
(d)	Canada's population rose 30 per cent, from 13i million in 1949 to 17J last year.
(e)	The worker in manufacturing last year received an average of $1.70 an hour for a 41 hour week, whereas in 1949 the average was 99 cents an hour for a 42.3 hour week.
For the first year of the new decade, with increasing business confidence, responsible officials are forecasting a continuation of the recordbreaking upward trend in gross national product -.perhaps another 6 or 7 per cent rise this year.
Great would be the rejoicing in the farm homes across Canada if the record for agriculture, and the outlook, were in harmony with that of the general economy.
Agriculture's less favourable position is strikingly indicated by the following facts:
I want to place these facts on the record because they are given in exact terms.
(a)	Cost of goods and services purchased by farmers were 33 per cent higher in 1959 than in 1949.
(b)	The general price level of farm products is about the same or slightly below that of 1949.
(c)	On the average, the amount the farmer receives for his product today will purchase 27 per cent less of the goods he has to buy than it would in 1949.
What other section of the community has taken such a reduction in income as has the farmer?
(d)	The cost of marketing food between farm and consumer rose 84 per cent from 1949 to 1958- from report of royal commission on price spreads of food.
1305
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
(e)	The number of farm operators decreased from 652,000 in 1949 to 434,000 in 1959.
(f)	By their extraordinary increase in farm productivity per man and per farm, farmers have been able to offset to some extent, but only partly, the increasing severity of the cost-price squeeze.
Those are exact terms. I never liked the word "squeeze"; it seems to me it is almost too much like a hugging process.
The trend of prices and costs, as already mentioned, has however worsened the farmers' cost-price relationship in recent years. The parity relationship-according to C.F.A. formula-for 1959 is around 80 which means that agriculture's overall parity relationship is about the same as it was in 1940.
What other section of the community is experiencing these conditions at the present time? Then he goes on to say that this is all happening while huge world surpluses continue to overhang world markets. Later on I will deal with a suggestion with regard to doing something to correct that situation, but just before I proceed I want to give a definition of parity.
It is a term that is generally used, and I have always agreed with one given by the former minister of agriculture, a definition which I think was generally accepted by hon. members of this house including my colleagues. Mr. Gardiner, speaking in the house on February 9, 1943, had this to say in definition of the phrase:
Parity price is the price of the commodity which will give the purchasing power with respect to the articles which the farmer buys equivalent to the purchasing power of such commodity in the base period.
Of course it is agreed as a result of research and proper calculation what is the suitable base rate period. I may say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself sometimes explained parity prices in almost identical terms. I remember him speaking on the subject repeatedly and1 explaining the term "parity price" in almost the same language on repeated occasions.
Paul Joseph James Martin: "Parity, not
charity."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, that was one of the Prime Minister's favorite expressions. That is what the farmers are looking forward to at the present time.
Now, where I am?


An hon. Member:: A good question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will tell you this: I sometimes doubt where I am on occasions, but I am always on my feet. I never lose my balance.
We in this group believe-and I think I might as well lay the C.C.F. program in general before the house again, because a good

Disparity of National Income to Farmers thing can bear repeating-that a number of important steps must be taken before the present unsatisfactory position of agriculture can be corrected. I am quoting now, from the pamphlet which we issued during the last election containing our program for agriculture. We propose:
Guaranteed forward prices, based on parity, with the use of deficiency payments where appropriate, as a means of providing parity of income to agricultural producers;
National marketing boards, where requested by producers, for all farm products entering into inter-provincial and export trade;
Comprehensive crop insurance;
A national program to provide farmers with scientific and technical assistance;
A comprehensive land conservation and utilization program;
Removal of monopoly control of the farm machinery, fertilizer, chemical, meat-packing, flourmilling, and other industries in order to lower production costs and reduce price spreads between producers and consumers.
And then:
The C.C.F. believes that in a hungry world it is essential that food production be maintained at a high level and that the producers be assured of security and a reasonable return for their work. Vigorous government action is needed to produce this.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to know whether that is the policy of the new party or the old party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman is looking too far into the future during this debate. I am speaking on behalf of the C.C.F. group in this house which at this time represents the C.C.F. movement in Canada which continues to have the high regard and respect of a large percentage of the Canadian people, whether they support it or not.
Now, having surmounted that difficult hurdle, I want to say that I am not suggesting for a moment that this is a simple question which could be resolved overnight. Neither do I think my colleagues take that view. It is a complex problem which is going to need action at all levels by the federal government, the provincial governments, the farm organizations and other interested groups. It is going to need a spirit of co-operation to devise and give effect to a satisfactory national program. I am not underestimating the difficulties; none of us are on this side of the house. However, to indicate the lack of co-operation which one notices at the present time I should just like to draw attention to some remarks made by the premier of Manitoba recently with respect to certain aspects of agricultural policy, if I read the report correctly-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On eggs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, on eggs. I am very glad of the support I get from the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We work together on these things.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: While he is trying to walk on soft shells at times, the hon. gentleman always knows the answers.
The premier was speaking about the marketing of eggs, and indicated that he strongly disagreed with the policy presently being followed. If two Conservative governments cannot agree on a matter of this kind, how on earth can people with differing interests be expected to do so? Here is a clear indication of the lack of co-operation between federal and provincial governments with respect to agricultural marketing policy, and this type of thing is happening at the present time. We believe that much closer co-operation is required between the federal government and provincial governments, and between all levels of government and the farm organizations. It will take the collective wisdom of all who are interested in this problem to evolve a satisfactory solution. Everyone can make a contribution toward the solution of this complex and difficult problem. What we in this group are asking is that this government should take the lead in this direction so that there may be a wider understanding of the difficulties and in order that everyone associated with the industry can make some contribution.
We believe our national marketing board legislation has to be strengthened. The farmers stand ready to do their part with respect to the improvement of legislation both federal and provincial having to do with the price structure and marketing organization.
As has been pointed out many times before, in addition to those things which are strictly of internal interest we face the situation in the world where we have large agricultural surpluses while at the same time half the world is going to bed hungry. That is not only the view of hon. members of this group. It is clearly understood by representatives of farm organizations, and before I sit down I want to place on record a resolution in this connection, adopted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at their convention in Toronto on January 26-28 of this year, because I think it is very well phrased. It is resolution No. 57, which reads as follows:
Whereas Canadian agriculture is continuing to face conditions of production surplus to domestic or export commercial markets; and
Whereas there are still many underdeveloped countries of the world where many types of foodstuffs are in urgent need; and

Whereas we feel there is still undue emphasis placed on military assistance to other nations rather than economic and humanitarian aid;
Whereas the Prime Minister of Canada has expressed his support for the development of an international food bank, and the Minister of Agriculture, at a recent FAO conference, suggested action by FAO member governments aimed at arriving at means for more effective international action on the problem of using our food resources more effectively;
Resolved that the government of Canada follow up the initiatives it has taken toward the development of multilateral arrangements for utilizing surplus agricultural production capacity to help needy peoples and aid in assistance programs for lesser developed countries;
-that as an immediate step in such a follow-up the government establish a committee in Canada to review work already done in this field and to develop concrete recommendations on future action for presentation to the next FAO conference.
[DOT]-that all the efforts of the government continue to be directed toward the achievement of a world food bank or similar international program.
-finally that while these efforts to stimulate international action are going forward the government of Canada should, because of the urgency of this matter, establish for itself a national surplus food disposal program that can later be supplanted by multilateral programs for financing and carrying out surplus disposal.
I think that resolution puts in very good form, in very good language, what this government can do to meet the immediate situation and what it can plan to do to meet the long term situation. I am not suggesting that all these things could be done without some sacrifice. We have to make some sacrifices in order to do such things. They are related to our international trade policy, and to the question of long term loans to some of these Asiatic countries at low rates of interest with re-investment of such loans in the purchase of commodities or in the development of these countries.
Is it not better to keep the industrial workers of Canada employed, producing and paying income tax? Is it not better to keep the farmers of Canada producing to capacity and paying income tax? We believe it is and that we could use the money saved on unemployment insurance payments or equal amounts to assist some of these people on the basis of long term loans to purchase these surplus commodities over and above the gifts we can afford and to enable them to buy the other things from us which they so sadly need.
In concluding my remarks I move the following motion:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words "agricultural policies" the following words:
"which will include consideration of support prices for various grades of hogs and eggs and the consideration of deficiency payments on grain".
The amendment as amended would then read as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the 79951-0-83J
Disparity of National Income to Farmers implementation of agricultural policies, which will include consideration of support prices for various grades of hogs and eggs, and the consideration of deficiency payments on grain, designed for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
While our motion includes in general the principles outlined by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River we think ours is more definitive and pinpoints the actual needs of certain farmers at this time. We trust that when this debate concludes and the motion is put-which I assume will be about ten o'clock tomorrow evening-the arguments from the opposition side of the house will have been so eloquent, factual and convincing that it will be carried by a unanimous vote.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my good friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) has suggested in this house this afternoon that chaos and panic are rampant on the agricultural scene in Canada today. He has launched an attack on certain policies of this government which were created, designed and finalized to give some assistance to agriculture. From the appearance of the desk of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) it is evident that the matter will be prosecuted by my hon. friend with his usual vigour later in the afternoon.
It is very seldom that my voice is heard in this house and never at any great length but when we come to a consideration of the great industry of agriculture I feel that I must express views since my entire life has been tied up with that industry not only as a farmer but also as a technical agriculturist and, in more recent years, as a servant of farm organizations.
Reference has been made by both the preceding speakers to the submissions to this government by farm organizations. We have heard a great deal about the views of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We have heard and read a great deal about the views of members and officers of the farm unions. Let me say immediately that I have the greatest sympathy with any representatives of any farm organization who come to Ottawa to submit to the government the opinions and considerations of organized bodies because I used to do it myself. As the executive secretary of the Alberta federation of agriculture I can remember coming to Ottawa on a number of occasions to place submissions before the then minister of agriculture. I can remember during the war
1308	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers coining to Ottawa once every two or three months as a member of the minister's national advisory committee. The strange part of all these experiences to me was that none of the recommendations ever were accepted by the government of that day. That, is not true today. Any organization coming to make submissions to this government is assured of a sympathetic hearing. To some degree at least we have witnessed the thinking of farm people translated into and implemented by legislation.
The debate thus far today has evolved around eggs and hogs. The difficulty with these two products is that they are what we call in and out products. There always has been difficulty in this connection, it did not arise this year, last year or the year before. You can establish yourself as a poultry producer within a very few months. All you are required to do is buy some baby chicks in any number required, build proper accommodation and within three to five months you are a poultry producer. The same thing applies to hogs. It takes a little longer to become established in this field, but a hog turnover is very easy to achieve. For this very reason you have a recurring situation wherein you have over-production beyond the ability of the market to absorb and you find yourself in a conflicting position which requires some redress.
I have been waiting for two sessions-and this is the third-to hear some one more able than I get down to the heart of our agricultural problem and since this has not been done, sir, with your permission I should like to offer a few observations with respect to it.
We have in this country experienced two wars. Those who are in my age group or who are perhaps a little younger and who did not go overseas in the first war will remember the tremendous cry for more and more production that was sounded at that time. Wheat would win the war, was one of our slogans. Perhaps wheat had a great deal to do with winning the war but it is not my purpose to explore that theme in the short time at my disposal. Acre after acre of land in my part of the country and elsewhere in the west was taken out of sod and put into wheat. Thousands of acres that economically should never have grown wheat became wheat producing areas. The difficulty arising from that situation was, that when the war was over it was impossible to get that acreage back into the production of any other commodity and we continued growing wheat.
I am not going to talk too much about wheat because I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) will have an authoritative and informative report


to present to this house on this subject before very long. But let us face the fact that we are producing in surplus a commodity for which there is a shrinking market. 1 am not very good at remembering statistics but I read some amazing figures today with respect to the decline in the domestic consumption of wheat in the United States, and a similar decline in domestic consumption is being experienced in Canada.
In recent years we have achieved a higher standard of living in Canada than we ever enjoyed before. People are moving away from the use of what I may describe as the coarser foods and are becoming more and more attracted to the luxury items. One of the commodities that is declining in domestic use is wheat. We should make up our minds that in the immediate future and barring a great holocaust such as war our wheat problem will remain with us. Let me hasten to add that that problem was not created when this government was first elected. That problem was created as the result of peace coming after war.
In the west an interesting situation obtained with respect to cattle. Cattle, of course, do not constitute an in and out product. If you wish to be a cattle breeder-and I am speaking now of commercial cattle-you stay with it in good days and in bad. I was one of those who, when the war ended, said to my intimates and friends at home when they asked me about the cattle market, "Look out; this thing happened in the 1920's, I am afraid it might happen again". Why did it not? There was another war, the Korean war, and it is only now that we are beginning to feel a decline in the healthy tone of the cattle market. I am not pessimistic about cattle. I believe any man raising his own cattle today is still in a preferred position, but certainly he is not going to enjoy the very attractive prices of the last few years.
My good friend from Kootenay West always intrigues me. He has a lot of quaint phrases and every once in a while he says something, not too often, but every once in a while. Today he used a phrase that I think we should use often. He was talking about a submission by one of our organizations with respect to agriculture in which was contained a plea for some type of help for-and he did not say producers, he said economic producers. It struck me that we are inclined far too often to generalize about farmers. We have all gradations of efficiency, ability and management of the farming fraternity. I can drive 150 miles from my home town and I can pick out man after man after man who, by virtue of his actions,

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
by virtue of his ability to work, his willingness to work, his steady application to the study of his business, is a success, and that applies today, even in spite of the situation in eggs and hogs. I can pick out other men who, although they may stay on the farm for 50 years, will never succeed.
Ours is a great new country, a pioneer country, and earlier people from all over the world came to Canada, particularly to western Canada, and they established themselves on farms. Why? Because the government had a free grant of land, because the capital investment was not high. Some of them succeeded and some failed. In these after-days of the world war and the Korean war it is my considered opinion that we are in a shuffling down process; we have a limitation of markets for certain products. We have what is popularly termed an overproduction of those products. We have too many farmers. This is a hard thing to say to a group whom you represent in the House of Commons as a member of parliament, but it is true. My country has too many farmers. My country would be much better off with better, more efficient farmers, and I do think that this is one of the problems that will have to be faced in the next five or 10 years.
Another factor that strikes me in this debate as it did last year, is the continued reference to the standard of living of the farmer. No one is more interested in the farmer than myself. I know his problems; I have worked with him. I have even lent him a little money; in the main, somebody else s money, of course. I know the farmer's problems. I wonder whether these bitter critics of the government-and I commend this to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and my friend from Kootenay West- have driven across western Canada in the last four, five or six years and visited some farmers and noticed the rural electrification, the installation of plumbing, the advent of television, the new highways, the roads, the consolidated schools. Some of us had to go to the little red building, but not today. In my particular and immediate locality there are only 1,400 or 1,500 farm families but we have an investment of over $2 million in consolidated schools.
While it is very fine to criticize the government, it is also fair to see what is happening to the farmer's income. If I may suggest it to you, one of the things that is happening is that too large a percentage of it, perhaps, in the light of the-over all picture,
is going into the maintenance of a standard of living which, perhaps, all of the facts do not justify.
There is one other thought that might be expressed-perhaps someone else will express it later-but when we consider the farmer as compared with labour or as compared with the white collar worker, we tend to forget that while the farm may not be particularly profitable, while it may not have too attractive a balance sheet, it is true that every day of the year that farm is building itself into an estate, and that is a situation that no other worker faces.
It has been my experience to have something to do with managing estate farms, and at the time of farmer's demise one would think that the deceased was poverty stricken. And yet, when you consider the rise in land values, the improvements that inevitably have been made because they had to be made, the introduction of new machinery, the expansion of the flocks and herds, you find that the deceased farmer was in a position greatly to be preferred to that of someone who had worked all his life with his hands in the city or pushed a pen over a desk.
I said I seldom spoke and never lengthily. Thank you very much.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, since the house is going into committee of supply to consider the first supply motion, the opposition could hardly fail to introduce an amendment on the matter of agriculture. In fact, economists, sociologists and farm leaders are concerned with the general drop in farm prices, from a social as well as from an economic point of view.
The bankruptcy that is threatening a third of all farmers will have serious effects on the economic stability in our country. That is the point I wish to make.
Since the Conservative government came into power in 1957 we have heard a lot of talk on agriculture. On many occasions, we have passed several measures, and we have heard many fine speeches by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). What a lot of bragging was heard throughout the country. What pompous statements were made to have farmers believe that this government had improved their condition.
We have heard them say repeatedly that the Conservative government had done in two and a half years what the Liberals had
1310	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers been unable to do in 22 years of administration. I shall now prove that the Minister of Agriculture has failed in his task.


Mr. Parizeau:: No one will believe you.


Samuel Boulanger: Quite recently, the Minister of Agriculture made some statements at the convention of the Canadian federation of agriculture held in Toronto January last.
In his speech, the Minister of Agriculture said that very important farm legislation had been put on the statute books of Canada. He mentioned, among others, the Canadian Farm Loan Act-which succeeded that of the Canadian farm loan board

under which the farmers may borrow up to 75 per cent of the assessed value of their land, not exceeding $20,000 and $25,000 for the young farmers.
He said also that the Farm Improvement Loans Act had been amended to allow farmers to borrow up to $7,500.
He added that the Veterans' Land Act had been amended and that a crop insurance act had been adopted.
The minister made this recital after an attempt, of course, to vindicate his price support policy. He concluded his speech by saying:
(Text):
In numerous speeches during the past year or more, I have stressed the fact that the greatest basic agricultural problem which we have in Canada is the fact that at least one third of those classed as farmers receive, and can hope to receive, only an extremely small cash income. The census figures of 1956 show that 30-odd per cent of our farmers had a cash income of less than $1,200 a year. For most of these people no possible price structure, even though prices were double what they are at the present time, could provide a reasonable standard of living. In view of this, we have been engaged in extensive studies, designed to enable us to institute a program of rural development, by which we will attempt to solve this extremely serious social, as well as agricultural, problem.
As farmers and agriculturists, it is no use our deceiving ourselves that there is any quick and easy solution to the numerous problems which beset us. However, I have confidence that the long range program, and the policies which the government is following, will be successful in assuring an adequate supply of agricultural products for our own use and for sale on such markets as are available, and will result in an improvement in the relative income position of our farmers and in their general prosperity.
(Translation):
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the remarks of a minister who is said to be responsible for the agricultural situation in this country- and they were made before farmers unions from every province.
The minister said nothing about the price support on grain, which western farmers


have been trying to get for the past year and which justified their march on Ottawa last March 10, while quite recently another delegation came here to get a final answer from the Prime Minister.
He did not say a word about the promises made by his party during the general elections of 1957 and 1958, that they would restore the $120 which the Liberal government collected from every farmer's pocket every year. Nor did he speak about the army of salesmen which was to be sent to every country of the world to market our products.
The Prime Minister did not say a word about a floor price for pulp wood to benefit Quebec and maritime farmers, which he had promised while speaking in Rimouski.
Nothing was said, either, about putting a stop to the dumping of American products on our markets, and giving back to our farmers their share of the national revenue, to which they are so much entitled, according to what he said during the general election. He did not mention the very strict program which his government was to establish to make us forget Liberal mistakes. Yet, the Liberals were not as black as the Conservatives painted them; and our farmers realize it today.
In my brief outline of the situation, I shall quote some figures, which the minister will certainly reject, because he thinks that he is the only one to know about agriculture. Indeed, every time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), or anyone else rises to speak about agricultural matters, the minister takes offence saying that they are misrepresenting the facts and distorting the statistics.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Agriculture himself who, on several occasions, has clumsily distorted our arguments. This unfortunate experience in potato growing would hardly justify any claim of his to invulnerability.
If we want to have false statements, we only have to follow the Minister of Agriculture and listen to what he has to say. In fact, at the federal-provincial conference held on November 23, 1959, as recorded on page 2 of the report, the Minister stated:
Agriculture has contributed to the economic recovery which began in 1958 and continued into 1959.
A little later, the Minister said:
This year again the net farm income will probably exceed that of 1958, in spite of the fact that

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
in 1959 the farmers paid nearly 3 per cent more for the products and services they needed in order to produce.
While the Leader of the Opposition was delivering his speech, on January 18, 1960, the Minister of Agriculture interjected, as recorded on page 66 of Hansard:
-and that 1959 saw the highest income farmers have ever had in the history of Canada.
Those are the spectacular statements of the Minister of Agriculture. Yet, the facts are quite different. Preliminary estimates of the dominion bureau of statistics indicate that income from the sale of farm products for 1959 amounts to $2,776,000,077. If we refer to the figures supplied by the Minister of Agriculture himself, as recorded on page 1679 of Hansard for 1959, we note that cash income from the sale of farm products in Canada amounted in 1958 to $2,869,000,319. Therefore the 1959 income will be lower by $113,242,000, or 4 per cent, than that of 1958.
The minister also referred to the price index of goods and services bought by the farmers, and said that it had gone up from 259.9 in 1958 to 267.9 in 1959, an increase of 3.1 per cent.
The minister, who is fond of comparisons, did not however make any with 1956, when the index was 247.6 or 20.3 lower than that of 1959. And if we go back to 1955, we find that the difference is 29.6. Naturally, since the figures did not favour the minister's arguments, he ignored them.
Between November and December, the price index of farm products on the farm dropped by 2.5, this is 6.4 points less than it was a year ago.
Then it is claimed that the price cost squeeze has been stopped and even relaxed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on price stabilization. Yet, I do not want to repeat myself because I had an opportunity to speak about the matter during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There would be much to say in this respect but I shall limit myself to some remarks.
If we look back on the motives for that legislation, we see what the Minister of Agriculture had in mind when it was passed. First of all he meant to ensure stability of revenue for the farmers by protecting them against any drastic decrease in products. He also meant to provide a gradual adjustment to the loss of our export markets and to the
radical advance in the technical field. In the third place, he wanted to establish a flexible system so that any desired remedy could be quickly applied when conditions justified such remedy. Lastly, he wanted to prevent overproduction and hoarding of unsaleable surpluses.
These were the aims of the minister when he introduced the resolution in the autumn of 1957. He added that the measure would ensure greater security to our farmers than they ever had before, as the preamble of the legislation provided that, in principle, the fixed prices were to be related to production costs and thus guarantee farmers a larger share of the national income.
During the two years after the legislation was passed, we have been able to judge its effect. What did it give us? Confusion and insecurity among the farmers, bankruptcy and abandoned farms, because the spirit of the legislation had not been applied. That is the work of a politician, of an incompetent minister, and not of a leader who is interested in our farmers.
No legislation ever adopted by any government has given rise to so much criticism. All farmers' unions, and all the farmers themselves agree that this act has led us to unprecedented failure. Yet the minister has been travelling around the country trying to justify this policy and make people forget the promises of his leader. That is what he did in Newcastle, on April 26, 1957, as we may read in the Ottawa Journal of April 27, 1959:
The program of his party, he said, will provide a flexible system of price support, and a vigorous sales campaign abroad for Canadian agricultural products.
The farm price stabilization act has been recognized as a failure by the Minister of Agriculture himself, as, indeed, on page 276 of Hansard dated January 25, 1960, we find the following remark by the minister.
Mr. Speaker, if you study the experience in Canada and the United States the inescapable fact is that agricultural price support by the method of purchase has proved a costly failure in the case of many products. Not only has it not solved the problem of giving the farmer fair prices over the long run, but it has accentuated that problem and made it more difficult to solve.
And, a little further, the minister added:
The method of purchase is the method the Liberals were using, and it was as a result of the programs they had in effect for skim milk powder, eggs, hogs and so on that we got into the difficulty we are in. Our policy has been reversed. We have been getting away from these things. Having recognized these facts-
That is what the minister had to say after having been responsible for the Department
1312	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers of Agriculture for two and a half years. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when the Conservative government goes out of office, it will be due to the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk at length again on the matter of price stabilization with regard to hogs, but I shall mention some remarks made by the minister to the effect that the price stabilization policy was not as beneficial as people had been asked to believe.
According to page 16 of the speech he made at the convention of the Canadian agricultural federation the minister said this:
It is clear that approximately 90 to 95 per cent of all hog producers in Canada are putting less than 100 A and B hogs a year on the market, which means that, with a quota of 100 hogs qualifying for deficiency payments, most of our hog breeders will receive the deficiency payments for their total production.
In order to find out whether 90 to 95 per cent of our farmers will be able to benefit from that policy, I recently asked the Minister of Agriculture a question, I asked this:
1.	How many hog-breeders are there in Canada?
2.	How many hog-breeders are registered at the establishments inspected and approved by the federal government and where classification is carried out for the purpose of qualification for deficiency payments?
And the minister answered:
1. The 1956 census gives a total of 287,357 farms on which hogs were being raised.
And to question No. 2 he replied that 138,717 hog producers were registered at January 15, 1960.
If we figure that out, Mr. Speaker, we see that 45 per cent only of farmers who are registered in accordance with the farm prices stabilization act are entitled to deficiency payments. Now, if we take the percentage of grades A and B hogs, which may run to 80 per cent of 7,500,000 hogs which farmers will produce in 1960, we note that deficiency payments may be given only with regard to 2,500,000 hogs.
As regards egg production, the minister stated, at that same meeting of the Canadian agriculture federation, the following:
-It can be seen that 85.9 per cent of all Canadian egg producers will get, in general, for their grade A large eggs the same price they were getting at the support level when the purchase system was in force.
Again I asked the following questions to the minister:
1.	How many producers of eggs are there in Canada?
2.	How many producers of eggs have registered at the grading establishments in Canada?


Here was his answer:
1.	The 1956 census gives a total of 347,553 farms with laying hens.
2.	78,296 egg producers were registered at January 15, 1960.
If we figure that out, we realize that 22 per cent of the farmers have laying hens registered at grading establishments. And if we carry our calculations farther, so as to know in respect of what quantity of eggs farmers will be able to qualify for deficiency payments, we arrive at 9 per cent of the total egg production.
And, we will be told that it is farm prices stabilization that will save agriculture?
What is going to happen as a result of such policies which are so harmful to farmers? As I said a moment ago, farmers get discouraged and are quitting the farm.
The purposes for which the support price system has been changed are obvious. The government does not want to give farmers their fair share of the national income.
The government's deficiency payment policy is in complete contradiction with the purposes which were at the basis of that legislation. Producers are in a state of total insecurity and chaotic instability. That policy, first of all, creates confusion when, for purely political purposes, the government sets support prices which incite not only the integrators but also marginal farmers to increase their production.
The change in method recently brought about as a result of an accumulation of products is certainly going to affect small farmers but also those who through the years, thanks to the recommendations and advice of the Minister of Agriculture, had managed to make a success of their specialized production.
As regards integration, according to the information I have gathered, the new system will certainly affect it; but I do not share the minister's views that it will disappear.
Most integrated producers we know are people with extensive experience in business and commerce. They realize, in the light of statistics, that chick hatching in Canada is now 36 per cent less than it was last year, and that the production of piglets about 16 per cent less.
So, integrated farmers are doing the best they can, while ordinary farmers are simply giving up. It is time the government launched an educational campaign for the benefit of

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
farmers and encouraged them to maintain their production, in order to avoid a scarcity of products by the end of 1960 and by the beginning of 1961.
Among hog producers in the larger market areas, licences are being sold just as was done in the case of the 25 per cent subsidy per hundredweight of milk earmarked for processors.
A few days ago, the Minister of Agriculture announced in the house removal of the embargo on imports of pork, and uncooked pork products from the United States.
That embargo had been imposed in 1952 as a result of a serious vesicular exanthema epidemic then affecting United States hogs.
I do not wish to criticize the removal of that embargo on American imports, because the minister's attitude is in keeping with the principle governing restrictions on international trade.
I would like, however, to analyse the consequences of this change in our price support system that will appear the very moment it is enforced.
As a result of that decision, hog prices will now be linked to the U.S. price which, as a general rule, has always been lower than the Canadian price. The current prices of the Chicago market will therefore prevail in Toronto and Montreal.
On the one hand, when we ship hogs to the United States the prices we get will come down to the level of American prices which, by that very fact, will determine floor prices in this country.
If, on the other hand, we import from the United States, the prices we will have to pay will set the Canadian ceiling price. Let us hope that the effects of such policy will not be too disastrous.
Considering that Americans are able to produce at a lower price than Canadians, because of lower feed costs, one single advantage remains to us, that of producing a quality hog which will sell at a premium on the American market.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to deal with other aspects of agriculture, but the time at my disposal makes this impossible. However, I wish to support the demand of all agricultural associations in favour of maintaining present support prices on butter and cheese, and of re-establishing support prices on dried milk at least year's level.
In the province of Quebec, agricultural progress hinges on the dairying industry. That
industry is the basis of family farms in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and part of the maritimes.
We make generous sacrifices to help western farmers when they are in need, so it is only fair that eastern farmers should enjoy fair protection of their main source of income.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage in the discussion, the Minister of Agriculture will perhaps inquire as to what we would do if we were in power.
Let me tell him in the first place that in the 22 years that the Liberals have been in power, they never had to ask the opposition what policy should be followed to settle agricultural problems. In fact, conditions have never been so bad as today. Farmers were not leaving the farms as they are now. The Liberals never created a panic situation.
On the other hand, if the minister is asking for advice, something which is getting to be a habit among his colleagues, I would advise him to go over the promises made by his leader in the elections, and carry them out.
However, I think the best advice that could be given to the Minister of Agriculture, in the interest of farmers, would be to resign and give his job to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), who has a greater sense of responsibility.
I can readily see why he can expect no advice from the Conservative members from Quebec, because those members in a few months' time, will be travelling through Quebec rural districts saying that things are prosperous, so as to help Union Nationale candidates, to whom they owe such a heavy debt of gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, farmers are not a demanding group; they have always been satisfied with very little. Because of its way of life and its frugality, the agricultural class is the source of moral values from which society draws new intellectual and spiritual vigour.
However, there is a minimum of security below which you cannot go if you want to preserve family farms.
I indicated, in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that industry generally would enjoy government protection and that this year, particuarly in the fields of iron, steel and foods, its net profits would be 10 per cent greater than last year's. Moreover, the value of national production is steadily rising.
1314	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
Workers' incomes are also on the rise, while working hours are decreasing.
However, the farmer's share of the national income is decreasing. Prices of farm products are going down. Farm operating costs are rising. The farmer's share of the consumer dollar is shrinking. What does the future hold for the farmer?
That is what farmers themselves asked during their convention in Toronto. They passed a number of resolutions which are worthy of consideration and asked the government to implement them and put them on the statute books.
Our farmers are prepared and even eager to co-operate; their requests are simple, sincere and devoid of partisanship. They expect the provincial and federal governments to give them wise leadership based on a considered and long term program.
To this end, I take this opportunity to repeat to the government the recommendations I made last year, that an advisory commission be appointed in each province to study agricultural matters and to report its findings to the federal government. Each year, the commission would have to prepare a report and make appropriate recommendations, according to the needs of the various areas.
In the present economic context, the government must necessarily regulate Canadian agriculture, but it should, by all ways and means, favour the development of professional and economic associations, in order that the farmers, in the near future, may exercise by themselves an effective control in the fields of production, handling and distribution of products.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the amendment of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) because I believe that the Conservative government policy has been a failure, as proved by all agricultural thinkers of the country. I wonder what will be the stand of the Conservative members when they vote on this amendment, because the agricultural stabilization act-as I said earlier-has been a failure and has not achieved its goal. So, under the circumstances, I cannot see how the members on the government side can accept the Conservative government policy.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: On rising today to speak on this supply motion, the first thought that entered my mind was: why has the official opposition chosen agriculture as


the subject of this debate? One of the conclusions that I draw is that they have chosen this course in an attempt to apologize to the people of Canada for the mockery which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the rest of the Liberal party made of farm legislation already put through this house during the present session.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) has compared the conditions today with the period before the last election, the period under Liberal administration. Let me tell the house what the opposition thought of the farmers at that time and, particularly, what they did for the farmers during world war II. They put a ceiling on the price of wheat. What did they do after the war? They sold us down the river to Great Britain. Because they were poor salesmen they lost us $600 million as a result of selling our wheat for four or five years at a dollar below what it would fetch on the world market.
What did the government of that day do with regard to our cattle market? I should like to read this quotation from a speech made by the secretary for agriculture of the United States, Mr. Benson. Speaking in Calgary this year about cattle exports into the United States, he said:
We have had a long history of trade in cattle. Before world war II, every fall, feeder steers would move from the ranges of Alberta and other provinces into the United States, where they were fattened in feedlots during the winter.
During world war II, you will recall, these imports were shut off by the Canadian government.
That is what a United States official, head of the department of agriculture, said about our Canadian government and what it did during the second world war for our Canadian producers. They Shut off our market into the United States. That is how much they were concerned about the livelihood of farmers in those days. They put a ceiling on the price of our wheat and sold us short after the war until 1950. What did they do between 1950 and 1957? They never did anything. That is why they were voted out in 1957. If they had done anything at all they would probably be still in power. But they did nothing. To sum up the activities of the Liberal party while it was in power, I would say that they did nothing except hinder the livelihood of the farmer between 1940 and 1950, and nothing whatever between 1950 and 1957.
To summarize what we have attempted to do in the three years we have been in office would probably take longer than the time at my disposal, but one of the measures brought

in when this government took over was the provision for cash advances. What did the Liberals do when they were in power, and when cash advances were advocated by hon. members from the west? They said it could not be done, that the wheat board would resign. In fact, they did not want to do anything and they did not do anything. When the present government took over they brought in cash advances and since I have been a member of this house we have amended that legislation so as to make it work better in the interests of farmers who are growing malting barley and seed grain.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on to speak about wheat sales, suggesting that although we had stated we would promote these sales there had been very little action. In the last year when the opposition was in power wheat sales amounted to about 260 million bushels; we increased that figure to 316 million bushels. There may have been a drop last year to 288 million bushels, but if hon. members would read the reports of the committee on agriculture they would find that the chairman of the wheat board stated clearly that at least 18 million bushels were lost primarily because of the longshoremen's strike on the west coast. That is one of the reasons why we had a slight falling off in wheat sales last year.
What are wheat sales like this year? We find that exports have increased by something like 11 per cent, and if hon. members would like the figures, I will quote from the Current Review of Agriculture dated January 16 which says:
For the first four months of the 1959-60 crop year wheat exports amounted to 109.4 million bushels, 10 per cent greater than the 99.4 million bushels exported during the same months of the preceding crop year. Of the current total, 95.5 million bushels were exported in the form of bulk wheat, an increase of 11 per cent.
Thus in the short time we have been in office we have achieved results in the field of cash advances, and increased our wheat sales to the direct benefit of farmers who are growing wheat.
We amended the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and this act has worked very smoothly ever since. In fact, very little has since been said about it in the house and there has been no suggestion that further amendments should be made. Even the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) complimented us on the amendments and said that the act was now working smoothly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Introduced by a Liberal government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) says it was introduced by a Liberal government. But did the
Disparity of National Income to Farmers party to which the hon. member belongs amend it between 1950 and 1957? Did the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member bring about some of the changes that were advocated? Certainly that government did not bring in the changes for which they criticized the present government and which are of such benefit to the farmers of western Canada.
The Conservative government introduced changes to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and introduced cash advance legislation under which interest free money was loaned to western farmers. Last session amendments were made to increase the amount of loans available under the farm loan board. It was made possible for farmers to borrow more money under the act and the length of time during which repayment could be made was extended. Special conditions were given to young farmers who would accept or who desired supervision.
Hon. gentlemen opposite thought that cash advances were not needed and legislation of this kind1 was not introduced when they formed the government. I may point out for their benefit that last year over 45,000 Canadian farmers took advantage of the provision of this legislation and received interest free money.
My hon. friends opposite who have participated in this debate spoke at great length about the stabilization legislation and said it would not accomplish what it was designed to achieve. They told us that the egg and hog industries are in a condition of chaos and panic. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) pointed out, eggs and hogs are two products into the production of which farmers can readily gain admission and they can cease with equal facility. Therefore, there is a fluctuation of price or of production, one or the other. What has been done by this government that is going to cause chaos in these branches of the agricultural industry? I point out that 85 per cent of the egg producers of Canada have flocks of between 450 and 500 hens and therefore 85 per cent of the producers will receive maximum support under this legislation. I believe the price is set at 84 per cent of the 10-year average. With respect to hogs 90 per cent of the Canadian hog producers sell less than 100 grade A and grade B hogs. That points out quite clearly that the majority will receive maximum support under this measure.
What was the support price on hogs at the time this government assumed office? It was 80 per cent of the 10-year average or close to it. It is now 80 per cent and so while there may not have been any great change it is evident that this government has allowed
1316	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers farmers to produce a great number of hogs. Last year we had the largest hog production of any year since 1942. The farmers have sold large numbers of hogs under the support program of this government. Hon. gentlemen opposite declared that this was going to cause catastrophe in the agricultural industry.
We are directing this support to the farmers instead of the packing companies and those who are storing our meat and eggs. Under the deficiency program the support will go directly to the producer. Although I do not produce too many eggs I am a primary producer and I feel that this is the way it should be handled. I do not think large amounts of money should be directed to those people who are strictly in the business of storing produce.
There has been a great deal of adverse publicity about the deficiency program. Why? Because many of the large producers will not get the same volume of support they got before. It is my firm belief that the small producer who does not have sufficient capital to build large hog houses and hen houses should receive every bit as much support as the large operator who has capital. That is what will happen. The small producer will get as much support as the large producer under the program now in operation and I believe it deserves whole hearted support.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend does not agree with the interprovincial farm union council.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The interprovincial farm union council agrees with the system of deficiency payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend read the brief of the council at page 11.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I assure my hon. friend that I have read the brief completely. I know the feeling of the interprovincial farm union council for several reasons. I am a farmer and I know their thoughts. I am a member of the F.U.A. in Alberta. Also, I met with them for four hours the other night.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on to say that the support price would be the actual price under this measure. That is not the case with butter. The support price is 107 per cent of the 10-year average. In the case of wool it is 110 per cent of the 10-year average. In the case of sugar beets it is 93 per cent. Not long ago I noticed in the Lethbridge Herald an article stating the amount of money that would be paid out to sugar beet growers under the deficiency payment program. I am sure the farmers who received that assistance welcomed it. I am sure they said to themselves, "We never got


anything like this under the former government." With respect to soybeans which are grown near the constituency of the hon. member for Essex East I notice the support price is 87 per cent. I am certain that those producers welcomed the deficiency payments they received last year. I am convinced that they, too, said to themselves, "We never received anything like this under the former government."


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may tell my hon. friend that they are not satisfied with the floor price.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They may not be
satisfied with the floor price and indeed I do not blame them for wanting more money. Sometimes I would like a little more money myself, but that is only human nature.
I believe the stabilization measure has brought about much stability in farm markets. In every respect it has perhaps not been perfect but when the legislation was introduced by this government it was clearly pointed out that it could be amended as required to bring about a better working arrangement which of course is very reasonable.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on to say that this party said they would stand up to the United States government and protest their dumping practices, and so on. Let me refer to what the United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Benson, said in the same speech at Calgary:
I want to give you this assurance. We in the United States are deeply concerned that trade between our two nations-and indeed between the free peoples of the world-should be healthy and mutually profitable.
He went on to say:
Both our nations have shown great willingness to co-operate in international programs-
Certainly they have been made aware of our problems and are trying to adjust their surpluses. I could go on to read what Mr. Benson said about United States surplus wheat, and the program envisaged in Bill No. 580, but I shall not take the time of the house to do so.
Last year this government introduced crop insurance. Hon. members opposite said this was not a workable arrangement and would not benefit western farmers. I remind hon. gentlemen opposite that crop insurance can be applicable to all of Canada. The soybean growers who live in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Essex East could take advantage of it in the event of a crop failure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question. He is familiar with

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
this subject, I know. Could the hon. gentleman tell us how many provinces have accepted the federal government's proposal for crop insurance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was just about to deal with that, Mr. Speaker. One province in western Canada has agreed to take advantage of crop insurance and this subject is on the agenda for discussion by the legislatures of the remaining two provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not one province has accepted it yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Manitoba has accepted it.


An hon. Member:: Experimentally only.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Naturally. Anybody who knows anything about insurance realizes that you want to go into a program of insurance on an experimental basis initially in order that you can be sure you will not lose your shirt.
This government has guaranteed to pay 20 per cent of the premium and half the administration costs. I think that is an admirable step. As I mentioned to those in my constituency who are obtaining hail insurance at this time will find it is an improvement over the present hail insurance. At least they will benefit through having 20 per cent of the premium paid. I notice that the hon. member for Essex East laughs. Certainly, he laughs because he has no concern for the problems of western Canada; he does not know the thinking of the farmers in western Canada. That is evident from his remarks on previous bills that have come before this house.
The farmers in western Canada are grateful. We may not be giving them all the money they want, or all the legislation they want, but we are trying to bring in some measures that will be of benefit to them now, or in the years to come. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says that this crop insurance is on a temporary basis; but it is on the books, and it is legislation that can be built upon by provincial governments and by federal governments. I am certain that it will be of benefit to farmers all over Canada in the years to come.
We have had a great deal of talk from the party to the left of Mr. Speaker, and I noticed particularly that when the hon. member spoke he read out their agricultural policy. I must say that if we did not know which side of the house he was sitting on we would say it could have come from this side of the house because I could see very little difference in the agricultural policy that he read out and one that I could read out. At
times they have been prone to suggest that because of the economic war that is developing with Russia we are going to be forced out of markets, since we cannot compete with that country. This is what Mr. Benson had to say concerning Russia and the possibility of that country taking away markets. I might add that Mr. Benson spoke at great length on this and explained that he had travelled all over Russia, had crisscrossed the country and had visited several of their state and collective farms. He said:
After a first-hand look at agriculture under contrasting forms of government in three communist countries, and after comparing it anew with United States and Canadian agriculture, I am all the more convinced of the superiority of our system of privately-owned family farm, the profit motive, competitive markets, and freedom for the farmer to decide what he wants to grow and market.
The soviets will not equal or surpass our productivity in our lifetime, if ever, under their system of agriculture. Why? Because they can never duplicate the levels of efficiency and productive ingenuity which are called forth in a free society.
This is what he said in comparing the Russian method of producing and ours. I read this particularly for the benefit of the members of the C.C.F. party because they are the ones who are continually throwing out the suggestion that Russia is going to outproduce us, to take all our markets, and so on.
It is my belief our system of privately owned family farms is the best and this government is trying to maintain the system of family owned farms. This is why the deficiency payments program was brought into effect, to direct money to the family farm, to the actual producers. I am not suggesting that the times are perfect; that agriculture in western Canada particularly is in a utopia. Certainly I admit it is not; but I think the farmers in my constituency and in western Canada generally will agree with me when I say that in the past three years we have tried to bring about a marked change in conditions in western Canada. Certainly, that change has been for the better, as I pointed out at the outset.
When the opposition were in power they did nothing but hinder the farmers of western Canada by preventing money going to them. They put a ceiling price on wheat during the war, and sold our market down the river after the war. They sold wheat to Great Britain at $1 a bushel less than they were selling it on the world market and they shut off our cattle market in the United States, and did not open it up until 1948, and then the price of cattle jumped from 15 cents a pound to 30 cents a pound the next day in Calgary. You can imagine the money the western farmers lost in that time.
1318	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
What have we done? I have pointed out a number of things, and certain hon. members will point out many more, that we have done in the past three years. I went back as far as 1940 to show that they had not done anything. All that I can say that they did to bring about any direct benefit to the western farmer was that in 1939 they brought in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I said I went back to 1940, and I saw the hon. member for Essex East looking at me with a strange look in his eye. I think he was thinking of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; therefore, I mentioned it but that was brought in in 1939.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That was only one of many acts.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In three years we have brought about marked changes for the better. I am certain that in the next three years or four years, whatever the case may be, as conditions improve, we shall certainly reach our objective of a fair share of the national income for the farm people.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (SI. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising now in this debate is to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) who moved an amendment to the motion of supply, in order to call to the attention of this government the very important problem that Canada faces today, that of the critical situation in which farmers find themselves today.
I also congratulate the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) for seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
Mr. Speaker, so far we have heard a few speeches, including those of the hon. member I have mentioned and that of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), whose very interesting proposals deserve careful consideration.
However, from the government side, we heard two members who talked about everything and about nothing. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member who talked just before me, the member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). He went far back into past years in trying to convince the house that the current uneasiness in agriculture was the doing of the former Liberal governments.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that during the general election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, the same team of Conservative members or Conservative candidates travelled throughout Canada making specific promises and telling farmers what they were going
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1

to do once elected. What did they do? I could quote pages and pages of those fantastic promises made by our friends opposite, but I will quote only one of them made by the big chief to the voters of St. Patrice de Beaurivage on May 30, 1957. He said that the Conservative government would be the first to organize important markets for farm products. According to the Prime Minister, officials would travel all over the whole world to advertise Canadian products.
What became of that promise? We realize that in the nearly three years the Conservative government has been in office, Canadian agriculture has never been in a worse plight than it is now.
In my area-the Richelieu valley-one of the most beautiful in the country, an area of incomparably rich and fertile soil, never in the past have we had so much cause to complain and to fear as we have now under a Conservative administration.
Today, the farmers in my area, the richest in the whole province, are bitterly complaining and giving full support to the grievances stated by both great agricultural organizations, that is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the interprovincial union of united farmers.
I was listening a moment ago to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden), who claimed to be an expert in agricultural matters.
(Text):


Mr. Rapp:: He is an expert.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot claim to be an expert in agricultural matters, but having heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I realize that if Canadian farmers must rely on such experts to defend their cause in this house, they must be pretty hard up.
Indeed, the hon. member said that the present situation was the result of wars, during which we had to increase production, and that in the postwar period we were no longer able to sell our products. He even went so far as to blame-indirectly perhaps, but it was still a blame-the Canadian farmer for having a living standard which he described as too high. These are his words which I noted literally: "The farm may not be particularly profitable; its operating costs are high, and equipment is expensive, but from year to year the farmer is building up an estate and by the time he dies he is better off than the industrial worker".
Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who want to wait until the farmer dies for him to be as well off as the industrial worker. I

want the Canadian farmer to live at the same level as the industrial worker, and I want him to have his fair share of our national wealth and of the national income.
Mr. Speaker, we have many things to complain about. I do not want to put on the record the briefs or suggestions made by farmers' associations, because there are too many of them, and it would take up too much of the time of the house. Besides, I am sure that hon. members on the government benches have each received a copy of them. Yet, I would rather like to hear the Conservative members from the province of Quebec, who, under the Liberal government and during the elections, were complaining of the depression which had befallen agriculture-I would, as I say, like to hear those hon. members state some positive facts in this house.
As far as we of the opposition are concerned, we do have a policy. We have discussed it and shall explain it to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), as soon as he makes some effort to follow our discussions in this house with some attention.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I intended to ask the Minister of Agriculture a few questions-not that I expect to receive any answers-in order to inform him of certain claims made by the farmers in my riding. However, I see that he is not occupying his seat at present-


Murdo William Martin: His parliamentary secretary is here.


Yvon Dupuis: I would rather address myself to a minister than to a parliamentary secretary.
I shall reserve my questions until we come to the items of the Department of Agriculture.
Like other members, I shall merely point out today that Quebec farmers like those of the rest of Canada, are dissatisfied, because the government is doing nothing to help them.
Throughout our area, scores of owners are getting rid of their farms. Day after day, farmers are quitting at a disquieting rate. Why? Because production costs are higher than ever, because labour and farm implements are expensive, and because sale prices are going down constantly at a dangerous rate.
Dairying is no longer a paying proposition for the farmer; production and breeding of chickens, of livestock and hogs, has gone down substantially, and the egg market is tottering.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we of the opposition are waiting for action on the part of this government which said: "Give us your place
Disparity of National Income to Farmers and we will change the situation". What has the government done so far? Absolutely nothing, and it has no positive proposal to submit to the house.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to ask the government to act in such a way that they will fulfil some of their election promises, be they only a fiftieth or a tenth of all those they made to farmers, because I have figured they made nearly 350 or 400 of them. We could then say that the present Prime Minister has at least tried to implement a small part of what he had promised to do.
With regard to the hon. member who spoke before me, we would much prefer to hear him make recommendations to the government to help electors of his constituency as well as Canadian farmers as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, I shall withhold my questions on agriculture until we take up the departmental estimates.
However, I wanted to place on record in this house the views of an agricultural constituency which has always been quite prosperous and which, under the present Conservative government, is bitterly complaining about the Canadian farmer's present situation.
(Text):


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate but after listening to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) I felt I should make a few remarks. He did not give us any figures to prove some of the statements he made but rather rambled on for the length of time he had the floor without giving us any idea of what he would do or what he thought should be done to improve the situation. He criticized the deficiency payment program a little prematurely, I would judge. In the first place, it has not had time to work and in the second place he or nobody else has any idea what the result is going to be until sufficient time has elapsed for the program to prove itself.
We inherited the surpluses from the Liberal government some two years ago and have tried our best to get rid of them. We have done a pretty good job so far and now in order to eliminate any further surpluses we have initiated another program and if the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has patience enough to wait for a little while I feel sure that his criticism will look rather silly six months from now.
I intend to quote a few figures to indicate what has taken place in the last few years so far as the minister's predictions are concerned. In the past two years the Minister

Disparity of National Income to Farmers of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has been pointing out to producers of eggs and hogs that production was increasing to such a high level in Canada that it was impossible for the agricultural stabilization board to sell the surpluses outside of Canada. I am sure hon. members will agree with this. Other countries have also been increasing their egg production during the years since the war with the result that there is no market in which surplus eggs can be sold. Had we kept on buying eggs and storing them with no prospect of selling them, the only alternative would have been to destroy them. I do not believe anybody would think that we should destroy them.
Over the past two years the Minister of Agriculture has been warning producers what to expect if production was kept up. However, regardless of the warnings egg production kept right on going up and increasing, and on May 7 an announcement was made in the House of Commons by the minister that in order to keep the production of eggs in Canada at a level which the domestic market could absorb the stabilization board was being instructed to work out a plan of support for eggs by way of deficiency payments to producers rather than continuing to purchase eggs to support the market.
Now then, this is what we did. Perhaps I should explain a little bit about deficiency payments before I give any more details and figures. While considerable publicity has been given to the mechanics of the hog deficiency payments program, it is apparent that it is not yet fully understood. Most producers are probably aware that any deficiency payments made will be limited to grade A and B hogs and to a miximum of 100 carcasses of these two qualities which are sold by any one producer. A further requirement is that every eligible producer must have forwarded an application card to the data processing unit of the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa, and have secured a registration card and number. It is very important that the registration number be shown on the manifest with every lot of hogs shipped. Unless this is done the producer cannot expect credit for deficiency payments later.
Probably the least understood feature is the basis proposed for calculating the amount of the deficiency payment. The first point to note is that the present floor levels at various markets remain undisturbed as a basis of calculation. However, there will be no regional deficiency payments calculated, and a national average will be used. On the basis of present floor prices, the national average floor level has been calculated as $22.64 per one hundred pounds. To the extent that the actual national

average price for 1960 works out to be less than $22.64, a deficiency payment of that amount will apply. For example, if the weighted average market price for grade A hogs sold at all centres across the country this year should turn out to be $20 per 100 pounds, each registered producer would be entitled to a deficiency payment of $2.64 per 100 pounds on up to 100 grade A or B hogs delivered by him after January 11. This would be regardless of the price he actually happened to receive. For example, he might sell hogs in February at $5 below the floor, or hogs in July at $2 above the floor. Thus, at the time of marketing, no producer will have any way of knowing what his eventual net returns will be-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would identify the document from which he is reading?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The document is one that I wrote myself so that I could put my hands on it to describe the deficiency payment. Is that satisfactory?
The only complaints we are receiving now are complaints from members in the house. We do not have very many complaints about deficiency payments from the people in the country. The only reason members of the opposition are complaining now is that they are beginning to be afraid the system is going to work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would permit a question?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I certainly would.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the parliamentary secretary make available to us here in the house the two letters about the deficiency payments on hogs and eggs that were written to his minister by the Conservative minister of agriculture in Manitoba complaining very bitterly about both of these policies?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I cannot tell you about that, but I am sure the minister will be glad to give them to you. The reason for that is simple. These western egg producers were receiving a very low price for their eggs, and they were not very well satisfied. However, they did not understand the deficiency payments, and I do not think you or anybody else did. Now they are beginning to understand the program. When they do understand it and know they are going to get this deficiency payment-in fact, they are going to get even more than they expected to get because they are going to be paid at the end of March instead of the end of the year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are there going to be quarterly payments? Has there been a change in policy?

Disparity of National Income to Farmers


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No. You see, after the first three months there was not enough difference between the deficiency payment and the 33 cents a dozen-there was only a part of a cent-


Samuel Boulanger: What was the difference?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It was a part of a cent, three quarters of a cent or something like that. There was not sufficient there to grant any payment at the end of the three months, so it was extended to the end of six months. This will be to the producers' advantage, as we will no doubt all know later on because eggs will go up. We expect eggs to go up, perhaps I should put it that way.


Mr. Habel:: Why? Why do we have to pay more for eggs?


An hon. Member:: Because of the wear and tear on the hens.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Just a minute, do not get excited. What does the hon. member want to know?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Why do we have to pay more for eggs? It is in order to fulfil a promise that your government made and would not live up to.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You will have to pay more for eggs if the market is up. I have been a farmer all my life, and farmers are the most contented people in the world if you let them do as they want. They are not asking for handouts from the government. There is no farmer that I know who is satisfied with support prices. He would rather work on his own and the deficiency payment program is going to work to his advantage because he is not going to be told what he has to do. He will know himself without being told. He will follow the market trend, and when the market shows an increase in price, he will step up his production; when it shows a decrease in price he will step down his production. In that way he will get a better price than he would under support prices.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the parliamentary secretary any idea of approximately what the payment would be at the end of March? The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) wants to ask a question but he wants to have me put it in English. The question is this; Perhaps at the end of a calendar year a farmer might find himself in the position of being obliged to reimburse the crown for money that he has received.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I may be wrong-I do not think I am-but I understand the deficiency payment that will be paid at the end of March will not be averaged on the year's average.


Mr. Winch:: On the 10-year average?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: At the end of the year. It will not be taken off again if it happens to be to the credit of the farmer; he will get the advantage of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman give us the mathematical basis upon which the payment is to be calculated?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I cannot give the mathematical basis when I do not know what the price is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the process does not depend on the price.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If the hon. member would ask me something sensible I would answer.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Who lays the eggs?


An hon. Member:: You fellows are laying a lot of eggs.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: In connection with deficiency payments which may be made on eggs and hogs, the basis of payments to producers will be the difference between the national weighted price received by producers and the national weighted support price. The national weighted support price for eggs, based on the support price of 44 cents a dozen, grade A large, Montreal, is 33 cents a dozen-that is for the last 10 years-while the national weighted support price for hogs, based on the support price of $23.65 grade A hogs, Toronto, is $22.65.
That is what they are working on. When the purchase of eggs was discontinued on October 1, production was at a relatively low point and egg prices were well above the floor. More recently egg marketings have increased, associated with a sharp decline in prices. The extent of the decline has varied in different areas. For example, the price of grade A large eggs at Regina is currently about 16 cents, 21 cents below the prevailing price of 37 cents a dozen on November 1. In Manitoba, prices have declined by about 18 cents a dozen, from 33J cents to a current quotation of 15J cents a dozen.
In western Ontario the current price for eggs at London is about 19J cents a dozen, which is 27J cents below the prevailing price of 47 cents in early November. During the month of October and early November, the average difference between the producer price for eggs at Winnipeg was about 10 cents below the western Ontario price. Currently the difference between Winnipeg and London is only 4 cents a dozen.
This is a normal, seasonal pattern. In October of 1957 the difference between the London and Winnipeg egg prices averaged 10 cents per dozen, whereas the difference
1322	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers in December was only 4.8 cents. In October, 1958 the difference between London and Winnipeg amounted to an average of 16J cents a dozen, whereas the difference during December was only 3.8 cents.
When the stabilization board purchased eggs to support the market, they took the surplus eggs from western Canada but while it maintained the price in the prairie provinces it also prevented these surplus eggs from going on to the markets in the eastern provinces and thus lowering the price both to the purchaser and to the consumer. The result was that while egg prices in western Canada remained at the floor level for several months during the year egg prices in the east were well above the floor price for considerable periods of time. However, under the deficiency payment method, surplus eggs in western Canada can move freely to eastern markets to take advantage of any higher prices which prevail in the eastern provinces when the local demand is greater than the production.
These variations in the price differentials between the different areas have given rise to a number of representations to the effect that any deficiency payment should be made on a regional basis rather than a national basis. In this connection we have pointed out that the basis of a price stabilization program is to attempt to provide stability to the production of an agricultural product. In doing so, however, such a program should not greatly upset the balance between production and domestic requirements, or the normal flow of the product within the country. The principles involved in a deficiency payment program must take into account these two basic considerations. In other words, a price stabilization program is not designed to eliminate the variations between prices received in different parts of the country. Under a normal or free market egg and hog prices in western Canada are lower than in the heavier consuming areas of eastern Canada.
The agricultural stabilization board made a very careful study of the problem and it was their opinion that the national weighted average price received by the producer is the fairest and most equitable price upon which to base the calculation for any deficiency payment which may have to be made to maintain the support price on hogs and eggs.
In view of the low prices at the present time and the likelihood that they will be significantly below the support price during the January to March period, a deficiency payment to the amount of the difference between the average price received and the


national average price will be made to all registered producers. This payment, which will be made at the end of March, 1960 will be the same to producers in all parts of Canada. I hope that is clear enough.


Harold Edward Winch: Who wrote that? The hon. member never stopped reading all the way through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The parliamentary secretary has made a very important statement. He has said that egg prices will likely remain lower for the early months of the present year. I thought he was going to say there something about the support price being reached later. Would he prognosticate that the support price might be reached by the end of the year?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Nobody knows but we are hopeful that the support price will be reached before the end of the year. That has nothing to do with the deficiency payment paid until the end of March, I understand.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made an extremely critical speech but he did not quote any figures to prove his statements. I am going to give you, Mr. Speaker, a few figures in order to show that the picture is not as bad as it is painted. These prices are for selected agricultural products and they are terminal market prices.
Wheat No. 1 nothern in store Fort William -I.W.A.-and domestic sales, per bushel in December, 1958, $1.63; October, 1959, $1.64; November, 1959, $1.65 and December, 1959, $1.66. That does not look to me as though the bottom had fallen out of the market and that sort of thing, as predicted by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
Cattle, good steers all weights, Toronto at public stockyards, per hundredweight, in December, 1958, $26.17; October, 1959, $24.50; November, 1959, $25.33; and December, 1959, $23.64. The prices are a little bit lower here than they were in 1958 but not such a great deal lower.
Hogs, A, warm dressed weight Toronto, at public stockyards-government premiums excluded-per hundredweight in December,
1958,	$25.50; October, 1959, $23.77; November,
1959,	$23.65 and December, 1959, $23.69.
Lambs, good, Toronto at public stockyards,
per hundredweight in December, 1958, $20.59; October, 1959, $19.60; November, 1959, $19.55 and December, 1959, $19.86. That is hardly a cent per pound below 1958 which is considered to be an exceptionally good year in Canada.

Milk, for fluid use, f.o.b. plant, 3.5 per cent butterfat, Montreal, per hundredweight in December, 1958, $4.89; October, 1959, $4.89- that is the same price-November, 1959, $4.89 and December, 1959, $4.89. The price is the same right across the line.
Butterfat, Three Rivers, per pound in December, 1958, 70 cents; October, 1959, 71 cents; November, 1959, 71 cents and December, 1959, 71 cents. Here again the bottom does not seem to have fallen out of the market.
Cheesemilk, province of Quebec-subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight included effective May, 1959-per hundredweight in December, 1958, $3.02; October, 1959, $3.03; November, 1959, $3.07; and December, 1959, $3.07. Here again the price held up.
Chickens, broilers and fryers live No. 1, Toronto, per pound in December, 1958, 16 cents; October, 1959, 16 cents; November, 1959, 16 cents; and December, 1959, 18 cents.
Eggs, grade A large, loose, Toronto, per dozen in December, 1958, 37 cents; October, 1959, 47 cents; November, 1959, 20 cents; and December, 1959, 26 cents. There was quite a drop here.


Mr. Speaker:: Would this be a convenient place for the hon. member to break off?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: When the house rose I was quoting figures illustrating the prices of selected agricultural products. I had just finished quoting grade A eggs.
1958	1959	1959	1959Dec.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec..37	.47	.20	.26
Hon. members must bear in mind that this was after the deficiency payments program came into effect, and that these are not the prices the producers were getting. Then we come to peaches, Ontario, minimum price; these are in tons.
1958	1959	1959	1959Dec.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.$83.	92.50	92.50	92.50
The price is even better there than it was in 1957. Next, table potatoes, net to growers, delivered shipping points, Canada No. 1 bulk, New Brunswick. This is for a unit of 165 pounds.
1958	1959	1959	1959Dec.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.$1.45	2.60	2.85	3.08
Disparity of National Income to Farmers


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not have the figures by the bushel?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, I have not. Tomatoes, Ontario contract minimum price:
1958	1959	1959	1959Dec.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.$41.50	41.50	41.50	41.50
Here again, the price has stayed normal.
I could continue at considerable length, but I think I have proved my point and I do not wish to take up the time of the house unduly. I know there are others who wish to speak. However, I would just like to convey to the members of the opposition that good clean criticism is good for a government, but when hon. gentlemen criticize they should make it stick. If you are not able to prove your point, it is better not to criticize at all. I was in opposition for 17 years, and in that time I learned more by keeping my mouth shut than I did by talking. I have always felt sorry for those who talk on subjects they know nothing about, and this has been evident in the criticism we have heard today from hon. members opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question before he sits down? Did he ever give that advice to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when the hon. gentleman and he were sitting over here?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was never much of a hand at giving advice to anybody. I tried my best to take advice from others rather than give it.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the hon. parliamentary secretary. If we heeded his advice, we would often remain seated, and I realize that hon. members on the government side would feel much better. However, our remarks are meant as constructive criticism, our aim being to help the taxpayers who sent us here to represent them.
Personally, I shall disregard the advice of the parliamentary secretary, and shall make a few remarks with regard to a certain number of farm products.
I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words on the government's new policy with regard to deficiency payments on a number of farm products.
Under this new legislation, the government apparently lets the farmers struggle with market fluctuations, and limits payments to a certain number of product units, something which I think will tend to discourage integration.
1324	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
This measure tends to increase the number of products grown on a farm, at a time when the trend is to specialization, as a means of reducing the capital investment on buildings and machinery and of lowering production costs, thus giving the farmer a better net income or enabling him to enter world markets and become more competitive.
At the Toronto annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, severe criticism was directed at the way deficiency payments on eggs and hogs were applied. According to a report which appeared in La Terre de chez nous, present policies tend to reduce prices on the free market, thus creating chaotic conditions at the production level.
In the replies that the Minister of Agriculture gave with regard to the registration of breeders and producers, the minister said that on January 15, there were 138,177 hog breeders registered out of a possible 287,357 farms on which hogs were being raised at the time of the 1956 census. The 1956 census also revealed that egg-laying hens were being raised on 347,553 farms; yet on January 15, 1960, there were only 78,296 producers registered.
Must we infer that hog producers, as well as egg producers, will remain on the free market?
If such is the case, the price of those two products would go down sharply and predictions made at the meeting of the federation would be quite accurate and, thus, most detrimental to farmers.
This matter of deficiency payments on hogs and eggs was described as an example of confusion, uncertainty and fumbling in government administration by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on January 18. I think it is the best definition that can be applied to this measure.
On October 1, we learned that the price support policy on eggs would be replaced by this new deficiency payment system that allows every farmer a maximum production of 4,000 dozen of grade A large eggs.
Those deficiency payments will be based on the difference between the support price and the national average market price during the year. Moreover, this year, producers won't know before October 1960 the amount of those payments.
The support price being 33 cents a dozen, it will happen that if the average price during


the year is 25 cents, the deficiency payment will be 8 cents payable to the producer if he is eligible.
Therefore, if a producer has been selling his eggs 20 cents a dozen, he will get an 8 cent deficiency payment, thus raising his total return to 28 cents, which is much lower than the support price under the former legislation.
The same principle also applies in the case of hogs. On October 1, the support price on hogs was $25 and it was decreased to $23.65 which was the floor price provided in the agricultural stabilization act.
As in the case of eggs, since January 11, this price support program has been replaced by a deficiency payment system and each producer is entitled to those deficiency payments on a maximum production of 100 class A and B hogs.
The same situation exists for hogs and eggs and the producer has no assurance of getting the maximum price of $23.65.
Apparently, the minister and the government introduced that new system on account of over-production and surpluses caused by the old agricultural stabilization act.
The minister seems to be scared by farm surpluses.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article by Paul-Henri Lavoie, in La terre de chez nous, of May 6, 1959, which I think accurately reflects the minister's attitude in the present situation. Mr. Lavoie said:
Whenever farm surpluses are somewhat in excess of marketing possibilities, a spectacular show is put on under the leadership of groups hiding their true intentions under high sounding words. Government authorities are soon alarmed and rush into measures which often bear the earmarks of expediency.
It seems to me that it is exactly what the government is doing now.
Yet, in 1958, to show that Canadian agriculture was prosperous the minister quoted the agriculture production figures indicating the farmer's income had increased; yet, today, he seems to follow an entirely opposite policy since he sees danger in record production and since he is taking drastic steps to reduce that production.
In other words, what the minister found useful in 1958 he now rejects and he is urging farmers to go in for maximum production of eggs and hogs. He holds them

to a maximum production of 100 hogs and 4,000 dozen eggs a year. And if they do not want to comply with those restrictions, they will take a loss on the surplus they could produce above the limit imposed by the minister.
Yet, when the Agricultural Stabilization Act was introduced, the minister condemned all that had been done by the former government, and had unlimited praise for that Agricultural Stabilization Act which was to be the salvation of the farmer. Today the same minister is forced to take back what he preached at the time and to admit to all farmers in Canada that the Agricultural Stabilization Act proved inadequate for the commodities concerned. I am sure that a few years hence he will have to admit also that the deficiency payments act will have been as catastrophic as the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
I dare add that this government's farm policy has been a failure and is in complete [DOT]contradiction with the election promises that were made during the last two election *campaigns.
This new policy will force the farmer to engage in several different lines of production, if he wants to survive on his farm and we all know from experience that the more the farmer diversifies his production, the more his production costs will tend to increase. According to the new legislation, his sale price will not be guaranteed and, in various cases, the farmer will have to dispose of his produce at a loss, as the cost price will often be higher than the market price. I have no doubt that, after a very short time, he will realize the inefficiency of the legislation introduced by the Conservative government.
Certainly, this legislation does not mean greater security and greater stability in farm revenue.
As far as pork is concerned, it is quite as regrettable that this nefarious legislation coincides with the removal of the embargo on U.S. pork.
The price of Canadian pork is now threatened with a disastrous decline following the government's new policy of reducing surpluses and, at the same time, we learn of the removal of the embargo on the importation of hogs, hog meat and uncooked pork products from the United States which was in force the last few years. We may recall
Disparity of National Income to Farmers that the ban on those imports had been enforced under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act of 1952.
On October 22 last, Washington was able to declare its hog herds free of that disease, as no significant infection area had been discovered since November 1956.
We half expected that hog imports from United States would again be allowed, but the removal of the embargo does not at all coincide with the new policy, though it follows a government decision to allow hogs from the United States to be shipped to Canada. That decision may have the most serious repercussions on hog prices in this country.
With regard to those deficiency payments, the chairman of the U.C.C. stated on October 20, 1959, to the farmers gathered at Victoriaville:
That the government apparently wants to withdraw from the farm produce market by a policy of limiting payments to farmers to a certain number of products with the effect of discouraging integration.
And Mr. Lemoyne added:
That the new government policy seems to favour diversification of farm production at a moment where the tendency is towards more or less mitigated specialization.
He then listed the reasons why farmers should specialize, decrease their investments in buildings, machinery and farm buildings and make a more sensible use of farm labour; and he added, speaking of deficiency payments:
I feel, he said, that we are travelling in the fog into an unknown country.
There you have, it seems to me, a clear statement and appreciation of what these new deficiency payments will represent for farmers.
Since farmers of various areas will not be getting the same prices for their products, I say that this new legislation is discriminatory from a geographical standpoint.
In another field, credit restrictions are substantially detrimental to agricultural progress.
We all understand, with the exception perhaps of the Tory party, that agricultural production has required, and will continue to require much capital, and besides, it is what the Gordon commission pointed out on page 175 of its report, when it stated that "Too easy credit can aggravate farm problems".
Now, money being tight as it is now, farmers cannot even obtain loans from banks, even under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
1326	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Disparity of National Income to Farmers
Bank are cutting down their loans, even under that act, claiming that, in view of scarcity of funds at their disposal, they are keeping them for their customers. I presume, as I have already mentioned, that those funds have been taken over by the Tory government to decrease its deficits.
Now, if a farmer wishes to improve his equipment or buy new machinery, and if he is not a bank customer, he is refused a loan, even with the guarantee of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
This is intolerable, and I have no doubt that those who are engaged in agriculture will recall the difficult times they have been going through, from all points of view, since the Conservatives have been in power.
Another aspect of agriculture I should like to deal with is that of the dairy industry.
If agriculture is the keystone of our economy it must be recognized that dairy industry forms a large part of it, and that it is now going through a difficult period.
I should like, in this connection, to quote a few sentences from an editorial published in Le Soleil, of Quebec, on November 25, 1958:
In the last year, dairy production has been increasing in proportion to the increase in population; but, due to some strange phenomenon, consumption of dairy products-fluid milk, butter and cheese-is declining. Federal statistics indicate that milk production has increased from 8 to 10 per cent on our farms, during the first six months of 1958, while national consumption shows a rather substantial decline of more than 10 per cent; consequently, butter production has gone up, while Canadian homes were consuming much less. Economists blame this on the production of margarine, which was authorized by the federal government under special legislation, to the detriment of butter and cheese producers whose stored products reach into the millions of pounds.
This editorial shows that butter is undergoing severe competition from margarine and butter substitutes.
In an editorial which appeared on January 18, 1960, the Globe and Mail made this statement:
(Text):
A Crop to be Encouraged
Year end figures on butter and margarine production in Canada tell a story that should not surprise anyone. Margarine production was 4.5 per cent higher in 1959 than in 1958; creamery butter production was down 4 per cent. With the one, we have a domestic industry that is growing with Canada's growing population and growing customer income; with the other, we have a domestic industry moving erratically without regard for these factors.
[Mr. Racine. I
(Translation):
In 1955, butter production reached the figure of 318,577,000 pounds, and in 1959, it had risen to 324,109,000 pounds, an increase of less than six million pounds over the last five years.
Margarine production, which was at 125,094,000 pounds in 1955, soared to unprecedented heights, increasing by 27 million pounds to reach the level of 152,173,000 pounds in 1959.
And the article went on to say, with regard to the dairying industry:
(Text):
It is further to be noted that Canada's dairy cow population is on the decline. It reached a peak of 3.7 million during the war; since then, it has slipped to 3.1 million, the same as we had in 1921, when our population was only half what it is today.
(Translation):
The milk industry, and especially the butter industry, is greatly threatened by margarine and butter substitutes.
I doubt very much that the Conservative government will do something to help butter producers, because it is the Tory party which, on October 4, 1958, was according to Le Droit, of Ottawa:
In favour of margarine.
First party to advocate prohibition. It is the first important party which advocates abolition of restrictions on margarine. It seems that margarine constitutes one of the major points of the program by which the Progressive Conservative party hopes to be brought to power at the next federal election.
Already the Conservative party was advocating the import into Canada of this competitor of butter. May I quote here the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) who, during the 1959 session, as found at page 2396 of Hansard, said:
Since the end of word war I up to 1951, the production and sale of margarine were prohibited in Canada. In 1951, the privy council, confirming a supreme court decision, stated that, if, on the one hand, the international trade of this product has been a responsibility of the federal government, on the other hand, the production, possession and marketing of margarine were a provincial responsibility. Following that judgment, the province of Quebec, alone, exercising its rights, passed legislation and adopted a policy of total prohibition. But since the other provinces failed to adopt the same policy, in 1958 alone, production of both edible and inedible margarine increased to the fantastic figure of 145,598,000 pounds, to the serious detriment of our milk products business.
I know that at the present time experiments are going on in order that rapeseed might eventually be used in the making of this product. But so far vegetable oils used in it come mainly from abroad. Would it not be advisable to curb their import through higher tariffs?
Bellechasse recognized that before 1951 there was no margarine on the Canadian market but that in 1951, at the request of Union Nationale and its leader, the privy council upheld a decision of the supreme court saying that the manufacture, the possession and the sale of margarine were under the jurisdiction of the provinces. At that time, or rather in 1949, the so-called protectors of the farmer, that is the Quebec government, adopted Bill No. 66 prohibiting and controlling the sale, marketing and possession of those butter substitutes in the province of Quebec.
Well, it is as a result of the stand of the province of Quebec, and mostly of its leader of that time, that margarine came under provincial jurisdiction and became one of the most prosperous industries in Canada, directly threatening our butter producers.
As far as Quebec is concerned, despite the hollow provisions of Bill No. 66 which was meant only to bring votes, butter substitutes are sold openly everywhere in the province.
What will the government do now to make up for this potential loss in our butter market?
Margarine is now found in the homes of many consumers and the government will necessarily have to consider taking action to protect our dairy industry, regardless of the effects on sales of margarine.
Must we forgive the premier of that time for having obtained this legislation from the federal government?
I must admit that I find it hard to-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that some of them do not appreciate how well their voices carry when they are conversing privately. It is very difficult with so many conversations going on to hear the hon. member who has the floor.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult in a situation such as the one we are facing, to forgive the government of the province of Quebec of that time. Indeed if we refer to a Canadian Press despatch dated February 20, we find that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) said in Winnipeg, following certain
to Farmers
government concerning par-federal-provincial relations, the Quebec premier of that time became angry. I quote:
Mr. Duplessis was angry in 1944 after failing to obtain from the federal government the expected co-operation, said Mr. Fortin. The question of provincial autonomy became his "main ideal... more or less an obsession", stated Mr. Fortin.'
The hon. member went on to say that, during the three of four last years he was in power, the premier "made no reasonable effort to find a solution" to federal-provincial problems.
If, according to the statement made in Winnipeg by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, the premier suffered from an obsession, we must forgive him. In the policy he established and with which we are faced, we find that the introduction of margarine in Canada has created one of the most urgent problems for farmers. Even if the then premier did not do it deliberately, he was nevertheless the promoter of margarine in our country.
(Text):


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment and the subamendment now before the house ask the government to initiate policies that will bring about a fair relationship between the price that the producer receives for his product and his costs, but the debate that has followed has not indicated that the opposition knows precisely what they want in the way of policies. This is quite understandable because I have not yet heard a declaration of policy with respect to agriculture on the part of the opposition and I assume that they are still attempting to formulate a policy. They made no mention whatsoever of the broad agricultural program initiated by the government. They have singled out one point in the price stabilization legislation, the one applying to the deficiency payment program on hogs and eggs, and have attempted to convey the impression that this is the Conservative policy for agriculture.
This is grossly misleading because it is merely pointing the finger at one aspect of agricultural policy that is now in the process of adjustment and at the time that this policy was implemented I do not think anyone expected that there would be an immediate change and adjustment to the policy. It always takes time for farmers to adjust to a different method of price support. It takes
time to adjust to the different production pat-among other things, that terns and it takes time to bring supply in line legislative measures passed with demand.

Disparity of National Income
By this statement, the hon. member for by the central
ticularly
1328	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers I propose tonight to the deal with the farm policy of the government in an effort to point out what we are attempting to do, how we are proposing to assist the farmer in such a way that he will become less dependent on the government and more dependent upon himself and his own initiative and ability. In doing this we must be guided first of all by what we want to do, by what the ultimate aim in agriculture should be. To put it briefly, to me it seems that our aim should be the'development of the agricultural industry by mobilizing all its resources, financial, human and land, to such a degree that the farmers are able to take care of themselves.
We must first of all diagnose the problem correctly. We must realize what is ailing agriculture today and then apply the proper remedies. I have no use for the type of talk we heard this afternoon. Members of the opposition are not diagnosing the problem correctly. They are attempting to create problems where none exist and they are attempting to apply remedies that cannot possibly be applied.
In the past agriculture and the problems of the farmer have been dealt with on a crisis to crisis basis. Farmers have been attempting to adjust to changes in technology, to changes in production and consumption patterns. Farmers have been attempting to get along by themselves, and if we allow ourselves to be placed in the position where the farmer is going to depend upon welfare measures, if we continue to regard the farmer as a welfare problem, then, of course, the only remedies that can be applied are welfare measures. I do not think there is a farmer in the world that wants that type of legislation to help him.
As I said, changes in technology have created some dislocations. Production patterns are changing as well which would indicate that it is necessary for us to produce those things for which the demand is increasing. We cannot afford to set the clock back. We cannot afford to think that we can expect farmers to continue to live under policies that might have been applicable years ago but have no place in broad agricultural policy today.
What are the policies of the government? They were stated in the election campaign in 1957 and, briefly, they fall into four major pieces of legislation; price stabilization, crop insurance, farm credit, soil conservation and rural development. Of these four major pieces of legislation three have already been implemented and the fourth is in its formative stage. There have also been changes, as was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act with respect to


cash advances and a host of others. I do not intend to go into these changes other than to mention the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because I think it illustrates the necessity of changing our thinking with regard to agriculture.	.
I have no criticism to offer of the policy that was initiated at that time to assist farmers with crop losses because the problem that was intended to be met at that time was one of drought. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act, although it was four or five years late at the time it was implemented, was designed to take care of that condition but we have not been confronted with that condition of recent years. Increased costs have made it necessary that some other method be sought whereby we can assist farmers who suffer crop losses. I have in mind a fairly good example of what is wrong with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act this year.
In my area farmers suffer more from excessive moisture than they have ever suffered from drought. This year was no exception. Farmers were unable to sow a good percentage of the crop. In one particular instance three farmers farming a section of land were able to sow only 65 acres of the whole section. The yield from the 65 acres was more than the amount needed to qualify for P.F.A.A., so in spite of the fact a greater percentage of that land was not sown because of the wet weather, these three farmers were unable to qualify for assistance. This illustrates the need for some changes in agricultural policy to take care of situations that do develop from time to time.
It is hoped that crop insurance will take care of that need. Although there was criticism here last year when this policy was introduced, I am happy to say that the province of Manitoba has embarked upon a program of crop insurance by setting out three test areas within the province. It is to be hoped that the establishment of these test areas will enable the province of Manitoba to develop a type of program that will assist farmers when they suffer crop losses. It is to be hoped as well that the other provinces will follow suit because it is my opinion that, without a sound actuarial system of crop insurance to assist farmers when they suffer crop losses a good many farmers are going to be unable to continue. Should higher production costs and mechanization create a condition where farm costs rise to a point where it is not possible to maintain a reasonable standard of income, then any year when income falls below that production cost the farmers are likely to go broke. I commend the government for the action they have taken in introducing the program of crop insurance.

The second aspect of our particular agricultural policy deals with price stabilization, and this is the point that was under criticism here this afternoon. Under the price stabilization act now in effect-it seems this is a point that is constantly being misinterpreted-there are three methods of supporting price: first, the delayed purchase method; second, the deficiency payment method; and then, third, the straight support method. This method of support for hogs and eggs, according to farm organizations, was creating the development of vertically integrated units. As a result of this the money that was being paid out for support was going more and more to the vertically integrated units, to the larger producers, and less and less into the pockets of the smaller farmers. At the request of these farm organizations, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and this government changed the support price policy on hogs and eggs from the delayed purchase method to the straight deficiency payment method.
In making this change the government recognized that we were confronted with two problems. The first one I have mentioned already, that is the development of larger commercial units and, second, the crisis of a surplus supply in this country of these two products which was making it impossible for the government to dispose of these two products on our available markets. Obviously, and I do not think anyone will criticize this, something had to be done. The program that has been implemented has undergone a period of adjustment, and no one is going to deny that. No one is even critical of the fact that farmers had to experience this period of adjustment.
I have here a brief that was presented to the government the other day by the interprovincial farm union council. They do not criticize the deficiency payment program. They make some suggestions as to the development of regional areas for calculating deficiency payments, and they make a suggestion as to quarterly payments. I want to read this portion of the brief which indicates their thinking on the deficiency payment proposal. They say:
There is little doubt that the method oi providing market price supports on limitless quantities which was in effect lor such commodities as eggs and hogs until the introduction of the deficiency payments method, provided production incentives to large-scale commercial operations. In our efforts to promote policies which will stabilize the livelihood of the family farm, we have regarded the development of such commercial enterprises with a good deal of apprehension. As a result, farm unions have actively supported the principle of a deficiency payment program for farm commodities based on cost of production which would limit the amount of support payable to a basic volume of 79951-0-84
Disparity of National Income to Farmers each farmer's production. We believe that any support policy should have as its objective the welfare of the farm family.
The federal government apparently concurred in this point of view. The Minister of Agriculture announced in the House of Commons that deficiency payments would be used as a method of price support for both hogs and eggs. Emphasis was made by the minister at that time of the need to limit the amount of price support to large-scale commercial operations. Press reports which followed the minister's announcement reported that certain commercial operations had reacted immediately by severely cutting back the number of their contracts.
In other words, the policy that was implemented at that time, designed to cut back production in the larger units, was effective.
Some mention was made here this afternoon of correspondence between the federal Minister of Agriculture and the minister of agriculture for Manitoba. Essentially the recommendations made by the minister of agriculture for Manitoba are very similar to the recommendations that are made here by the interprovincial farm union council. He suggested that regional areas be established for the purpose of calculating deficiency payments in various parts of the country. Certainly this would appear, on the surface, to be a desirable method. But on closer examination I think you will find that very serious complications could develop as a result of the initiation of this policy.
In the first place the establishment of regional areas would promote the movement of eggs from one region to another without any regard to the problem of creating a surplus in different areas. It has also been indicated by the Minister of Agriculture that this move would also necessitate the establishment of regional areas for the purpose of establishing price supports. In addition to this, of course, there is the tremendous problem that would be involved in the administration of this type of program.
Perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation, so far as the farmer is concerned, that has ever been passed in this house is the one that deals with farm credit. Although this government has never attempted to convey the impression to anyone that a single one of these policies is going to be a cure-all for the problems of agriculture, we do say that each one of these policies, applied in the direction it is intended and doing the job it is intended to do, will work toward the common objective of creating in agriculture a situation whereby a farmer will be in a better position to realize that standard of income and that standard of living we all want to see the farmer enjoy.
There have been serious weaknesses in the farm credit legislation we have had in the past. First of all, we do have a number of
1330	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers father to son transactions on farms. Under the old legislation it was not possible for a farmer to retire and have his son take over the farm. This new legislation that we have will facilitate the transfer of farms from fathers to sons. In addition to that, it will provide the younger farmers with an opportunity to get started in agriculture.
In the third place, it will enable farmers to enlarge the size of their operations, to diversify them or to do both. In addition to these three things, the legislation will provide something that I think is extremely important in the proper development of our agricultural economy, namely technical and farm management assistance. You need only to travel through the country today in order to see the amount of work that can be done by proper farm management practices in assisting farmers to take advantage of all the technology and all the know-how that we have in agriculture today.
We make no claim that the moment these policies are implemented they suddenly change the entire picture but we do say this. Given time to be operative, given time for farmers to take advantage of these policies, they are going to make a tremendous impact on the welfare of the farmer. They are going to do the job we hope they will do. We have never maintained that the mere passing of legislation is in itself enough. We have implemented the policy of cash advances and the following year we made some changes that appeared to be necessary. We have made several changes in the P.F.A.A. We have made changes in the price stabilization act.
It is important that as a government we continue to recognize that we are in a changing economy and that changing policies are necessary in order to keep pace with the development of this country. If we fail to do this, we will get ourselves into the very position that the hon. members of the opposition got themselves into from the years 1939 to 1957. They introduced a program of P.F.A.A. and then forgot about it. In 1945 they brought in price support legislation and for 13 long years they just sat there and never bothered to review it in order to see whether the program was working. They never bothered to see whether the policy was doing the job it was intended to do. They simply thought that because they had legislation on the statute books, that was enough.
We know today that we cannot continue to look at the problems of the farmer in the light of conditions that existed in the past. We must continue to keep abreast of these problems. We must continue to change our


legislation to the degree that it will be able to take care of the situations that are developing from year to year.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I might say that the policies we have implemented since this government took office will require a few years to become operative in order that they may do the job we hope they will do. I must say that in the course of this debate there has not been a great deal of light thrown on this situation by the official opposition. I am rather surprised that during the entire course of the debate thus far no mention whatsoever has been made of these policies, except of the condition we find ourselves in today with respect to hogs and eggs. We know there is an adjustment taking place. They need not come to this house in order to tell us that. But I will say to them that this government is going to watch developments, will continue to keep a finger on the pulse of the people and will implement policies that are in keeping with the dignity of the people.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, if we believe all the statements we have heard in the last few hours from the government benches we would probably be very foolish to rise and speak on the problems of agriculture, because there would not be any problems. This may be borne out by some of the statements that have been made. I would just like to read a few paragraphs from the Monetary Times in which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) outlined the 1959 agricultural situation and prospects for 1960. He started in this way:
Canadian agriculture has enjoyed another successful year and the industry continues to maintain its place as a major contributor to the country's economy.
Then he goes on to say this:
The agricultural industry shared in the economic recovery that began in 1958 and continued into 1959. Farm cash income from the sale of farm products for the first half of 1959 was $1,318 million, an increase of $39 million over 1958, and of $134 million over 1957. For the full year farm cash income is likely to be higher than in 1958 and to remain at the higher level in 1960. Farm net income will probably be somewhat higher in 1959 than in 1958 and will continue its upward trend, in spite of the fact that farmers paid about 3 per cent more for commodities and services in 1959.
If hon. members read this particular article the minister wrote for the Monetary Times they would have to agree that the situation in agriculture was better than it has been, that it was continuing to prosper and they probably would take into consideration the fact that the gross national product is expected, according to the government, to rise probably 7 per cent this year. If so, obviously agriculture is going to follow

along in this particular line. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not true in my part of the country and I suggest it may not be exactly true in some other parts of the country, particularly the area represented by the hon. member who spoke last.
If I remember aright, at one time he was an official of the interprovincial farm union council and was a spokesman for that organization and took a great interest in their presentations. I am going to refer to some of those remarks as indicated in the brief they just recently presented.
I picked up two farm papers, one of which is very lowly rated by some of the hon members from western Canada, namely the Western Producer. I should like to read from it only one paragraph. It was referring to the general agreement that took place at the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This is a resolution adopted by that convention:
Initial resolution, for both commodities-
They are referring to eggs and hogs.
-deplored the federal government attempt to control the agricultural economy of the nation by means of deficiency payments, applicable only on a limited volume of production.
The Manitoba Co-operator on the other hand, under the heading "Lower Prices Recorded for December Farm Products" states as follows:
Canada's index of prices received by farmers from the sale of farm products for December is estimated at 231.4 . .. down 2.5 points from the revised November estimate of 233.9 and 6.4 points below the December, 1958 index of 237.8. The decline between November and December is largely attributed to lower prices for grains, livestock, and eggs, and the drop from December, 1958 to lower prices for these same items as well as poultry, according to a dominion bureau of statistics report.
These two farm papers seem to indicate that the picture is not the one that was given by the hon. member who spoke last or that given by the Minister of Agriculture in his report to the Monetary Times. In my own particular area I have received many complaints from farmers who consider that the situation is now worse than it has been for a number of years.
We might say, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers have failed to take advantage of the opportunities given to them under this wonderful legislation that has been presented by the federal government and that over the years they have failed to keep up production and to increase production on their farms as they should have done. I would point out that this has not been the case. In my own community a great deal more production is taking place on the farm with less help than ever before. On the farm on which 79951-0-84J
Disparity of National Income to Farmers I live, instead of having two hired men they now operate a dairy farm with the services of only one hired hand. This is probably true throughout the whole district and I suggest that in the dairy industry labour is more stable than it is in some other branches of agriculture.
Just before Christmas I had a talk with a farmer who has been in beef and egg production for a number of years. This gentleman has built up a reputation for being one of the most shrewd farmers in that area. He was pointing out to me that because of the increase in the cost of production he was not able to make ends meet with regard to his sales of eggs. The prices of hens had dropped so low that he was unable to unload them, and when he tried to make up the difference in his income by selling beef cattle he found that the price of this commodity also had dropped, so he found himself in more serious straits than he had been for years. This experience could be repeated over and over again. We are not crying in the dark. This is the situation all across Ontario.
It may be asked:	what should the
government have done about it? I have before me a number of excerpts from speeches made by such people as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). The right hon. gentleman said out in Saskatoon on February 13, 1958:
-political opponents had dealt only with the measure's protection against "distress prices"- its guarantee that for nine products the price would not fall below 80 per cent of the average price during the previous 10 years.
But its major benefit was that 12-month support prices would be established each year in relation to a 10-year average base price with supports bearing "a fair relationship to the costs of production."
This has not taken place under the stabilization act. The minister has said on a number of occasions that the reason it had to be changed and why a program had to be introduced in the case of eggs and pork was that surpluses were developing. He did not take costs of production into consideration, or what was to be considered a fair parity price for these products. All he took into consideration was the fact that the government was finding difficulty in disposing of the surpluses which were accumulating under a minimum floor price at that time.
One of the Conservative members hit the nail on the head when he said it was not the responsibility of this particular legislation to sell agricultural products. That, he said, did not come under the Department of Agriculture; it came under the ministry of trade and commerce, and if there was any
1332	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers problem about surplus products it was due to the failure of the Department of Trade and Commerce to sell those products, and that Canada was in a sad position if we had to limt our production by giving the producer less than his cost of production in order to avoid our ending up with a surplus of agricultural commodities.
Throughout the years there have been agricultural surpluses, but one or two bad harvests have in most cases eliminated these surpluses. I suggest we are likely to have a fairly small harvest of grain in western Canada this spring if weather conditions should make it impossible for the farmers to harvest any of the wheat which is now lying under the snow. Bad weather conditions could eliminate a great deal of the surplus which has built up in this particular commodity. With regard to other commodities such as pork and beef the experience has been that conditions have usually developed in the course of a few years which have eliminated the need to worry about the size of the surplus in those commodities. This has happened with regard to hogs on a number of occasions. It happened with regard to beef when we developed a surplus of that commodity through unfortunate conditions in the United States, and I suggest that can and will happen with regard to other commodities in the course of the next few years. If we do have a surplus, conditions will arise which will make it possible for us to get rid of it.
I think this fear of a surplus should not be a guiding light when we are deciding whether or not to pay a reasonable price to the farmer for the commodity he produces. We should consider our surplus in terms of trade, and ask our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) to go out and sell our surpluses rather than worry about them at home. Goodness only knows, the Canadian people would like to see our trade deficit with other countries across the world decreased, and would like to improve our position in relation to international trade. One of the commodities which we are able to produce and which we should be able to sell is, obviously, wheat, and such other agricultural products as bacon, eggs, hogs and so on, about the surplus position of which we have sometimes to worry.
The Prime Minister not only said we intend to establish a fair and reasonable relationship between price and cost of production a year ahead of time, but he declared that this could be done before the season began. The right hon. gentleman is quoted as having said in Prince Edward Island on February 27, 1958:
"Each year, before the crop season the farmer will know the lowest price that he will receive.


That price, in order to insure the farmer of his fair share of the national income, is to bear a fair relation to the cost of farmers' production," said Mr. Diefenbaker, adding "that's what the farmers have been asking for."
I suggest this is still what the farmers are asking for. I suggest that the farmers in my area would like to know that they would at least get back their cost of production. If it costs them 22 cents to produce eggs, they should be assured of at least 22 cents in return, instead of 18 or 19 cents. If the Prime Minister was correctly reported, I suggest this is what the farmers have the right to expect. This is what they want. The hon. member who spoke earlier referred to a period of adjustment. If he was referring to the period of adjustment as meaning the program which is now taking place we should have a little more information with regard to what this program is going to accomplish and how long this period of adjustment will last, because I do not think the farmers should be asked to carry this adjustment.
I am surprised by this government and its attitude. Before they were elected to power hon. gentlemen opposite knew what they wanted to do for the farmer. Some of the hon. members now sitting on the treasury benches came into my riding and pointed out that they knew exactly what to do for agriculture. I am sure that some of the farmers who listened to them have been puzzled ever since and wondering whether they were mistaken in what they heard or whether this government will ever make up its mind to develop a program which will be of advantage to this industry.
The farm union presented a brief recently which to my mind is definitely at variance with the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture. The brief did not say, as the minister did, that Canadian agriculture has enjoyed another successful year and-I quote -"the industry continues to maintain its place as a major contributor to the country's economy." The industry may be contributing to the economy all right, but I do not think the farmer is getting his fair share out of it. The farm union brief pointed out that the disparity between farm prices and costs in Canada is continually widening. The October, 1959 index of prices of farm products stood at 235.9 representing a decline of 6.1 points from the 1958 annual average of 242. The brief of the interprovincial farm union council states:
The November, 1959, Issue of The Current Review predicts that the trend toward increased farm costs is expected to continue into 1960 while farm income will remain stable or decline, resulting in declines for both realized farm net income and farm net income in 1960.

That would not indicate to me that the farmer should be satisfied with agriculture as it is. The brief continues:
On the basis of facts gathered by the royal commission on price spreads of food products, it is evident that benefits of lower farm prices for food products have not been passed on to the consuming public.
That should be of interest to all Canadians. This would serve to indicate that the consumer who pays for subsidies will derive no benefit from the program the government has implemented. The brief goes on to state:
We believe it is clearly evident that the problem of the average farmer in our nation today does not hinge on increased productive capacity but rather on receiving a price for what he produces which bears a realistic relationship to his cost of production. Unless this cost-price relationship can be established, agriculture cannot hope to obtain a fair share of the national income.
The brief continues:
If stability of farm prices is to be a true objective of the act we believe that such support prices must be related to a cost of production index calculated on an individual commodity basis.
The brief goes on to point out that the Liberal government did not do as much for agriculture under its price support legislation as it could have done. It justifiably points out that the $200 million fund set up under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for the limit of annual expenditures was not fully employed and that indeed approximately only one half of what could have been spent in any one year was spent. The brief then pokes a little fun at the present government for increasing the amount of the fund from $200 million to $250 million. The brief poses the question why the amount should have been raised when the government gives no indication of using the full amount of money that is presently available.
One could read other sections of the brief to indicate that the farm union does not agree that agriculture is in a healthy state or that the hog and egg situation is satisfactory. I shall not go into the egg problem in detail because that was done a few weeks ago in this house by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) who pointed out many of the faults in the present legislation. He knew what he was talking about in his presentation. He advanced his ideas sincerely because nothing had been done by the cabinet or in caucus and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) had paid no attention to the views of western members who outlined the problem. I urge hon. members of the Conservative party to re-read the speech of the hon. member for Rosthern. I agree with every word of it.
I particularly endorse that part of the hon. member's remarks where he referred to the
Disparity of National Income to Farmers economic advisers of the government. It is my opinion that the advisers employed by the government today are the same advisers who supplied information to the Liberal government. If anything was wrong with the legislation introduced by the Liberals there will also be something wrong with that introduced by this government because these economists produce the figures they are asked to produce and are in no sense independent. If they were they would certainly have known that the changes made with respect to support for eggs and hogs in terms of the limiting factor relating to production were not realistic changes. I do not believe that any farmer could live on the production of a thousand dozen eggs or 100 hogs. This has to be supplemented by income received from other sources of agricultural production.
The hon. member for Rosthern failed to mention that there should be support for grade B eggs and other classes of production. A factory can turn out one car after another and each will be fit for the road but a hen does not have this factor of consistency. A hen may lay a grade A large egg one day, a grade A medium egg the next day and a grade B egg on a third day. I suggest that there should be support over the entire range of production. Even if a farmer is feeding a balanced ration to his hens he will have no control over the class of eggs they will produce on any given day. If we are going to offer protection to the farmer the government should consider extending support prices to a larger range of grades.
There are other segments of the agricultural industry in as serious a plight as that of the egg and hog producers. In recent months we have been faced with a drop in beef prices. This has affected those farmers who went into this production without knowing too much about external conditions that influenced production over the past two or three years. It should be a responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to make available to farmers information on a periodic basis that will assist the farmer in learning what he may expect in terms of a market price. I do not mean to suggest that the minister could garantee a forward price but he could indicate what the price might be within certain limits. The farmer would then know when it would be wise to sell and could consider external conditions as indicated.
We are pleased with the result of the limitations placed on egg and pork production under the stabilization legislation because it relates to vertical integration. Through this method we may be able to control what was becoming a monster in the agricultural industry. This represents a good step and I should like
1334	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers to see vertical integration checked in this manner in other fields of production.
Ontario farmers have been concerned with marketing legislation and more recently the dairy industry has been alarmed over what are referred to as blended prices. Under this movement those segments of the dairy industry that are in a more advantageous position are asked to co-operate with other less fortunate segments so they will be able to develop and maintain uniform prices for milk to apply throughout the whole industry.
This problem is being faced by the dairy farmers who are co-operating among themselves including the skim milk producers, the condensed milk producers, the cheese producers and others. This government should give more assistance to this industry in helping to develop methods of disposing of surpluses that have plagued the industry, and allow them much more fluid control over some of their own products. As has probably been pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, in the past the dairy industry have tried to give some of their products to other countries that were in need of them. They have tried to give away powdered skim milk. The producer himself was willing to pay for it and give it as a gift. Because of the anti-dumping laws and other laws those gifts were not allowed to be made by the dairy industry. At all times consideration should be given to segments of all industry, particularly the agricultural industry, which are willing to help themselves by making it as easy as possible for them to continue to help themselves.
I am concerned very much with this matter of family farm units. While it is true, as an hon. gentleman said this afternoon, that there are people living on farms who probably are not operating them in an economical manner, yet there is a large segment of our rural economy which is no longer able to operate under the rural farm unit which it previously operated under. This means that those farmers are going to have to expand their holdings; they will have to put in more modern machinery. They must mechanize and establish credit, particularly short term credit, which will allow them to mechanize and maintain their position in the economy.
I am of the opinion-and I think all farm organizations have expressed this opinion- that the family farm unit is a valuable part of our rural economy. I suggest this government has an obligation this year, not 10 years from now or five years from now, to do something about it. When the agriculture committee is set up I hope we do not meet for two or three months and carry on the foolish business we did last year. Hon. members will recall that last year the only major item before


the agricultural committee was whether or not we were interested in the humane slaughter of animals. I think when the committee met everyone on the committee expressed the opinion that he was for the humane slaughter of animals, and we did not need to waste all the time we did on that particular item. It was a foregone conclusion that everybody supported it and something had to be done and was done.
I am suggesting that this year the agricultural committee should discuss this matter of the family farm unit and its place in the Canadian economy. We can call before the committee witnesses who will give this government a great deal of free advice on what to do about the farm problem, and it will not be from a limited economist's point of view. We quite often hear in this house that the minister goes to those economists and says, "Get me the figures to prove this because I need it this afternoon". Instead of that we will have a presentation from many farm organizations that are vitally and personally concerned with this problem, organizations that will be willing to come before the agriculture committee and give us the benefit of their years and years of experience in the agricultural field.
I suggest that if this is done we shall know once and for all whether the family farm unit is worth while saving and if it is worth while saving, as I believe it is, then we will also have many methods of maintaining the family farm unit and fitting it into the Canadian economy in 1960 and 1961, rather than looking at the agricultural problem in the days before rural electrification and modernization which has had to take place in rural Canada. This involves not only the farm people but all small businesses, small communities, the municipalities, the schools, and the many towns that are totally dependent in Ontario, and indeed all across Canada, on this very vital unit, the family farm.
I strongly suggest that the agriculture committee could do no better work than to take the problem of the family farm unit in the Canadian economy and examine all its facets and make recommendations to this house, that will be supported by every member in this house, to make the situation much better for agriculture than we have done in the past by coming here with an emergency resolution to solve a problem after that problem has been developing for many years.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) move his amendment to the supply motion I was very much surprised to find that the Liberal party

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
thought that agriculture was the weak point in the present Conservative government policy. When the Liberal party went out of office on June 10, 1957, or soon after that date, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a statement to the effect that they blamed their demise on the fact they had lost touch with the grass roots. If they think they are now in touch with the grass roots I suggest they had better go back and do a little bit more gardening. If agriculture is the weak point in the policies of this government we have a mighty strong government in Ottawa today. Indeed, we will probably be in power for the next 40 years or 50 years and I am sure every member of the present government must feel very pleased to think that this is our weakest point.
The Liberal party did not have to get in touch with the grass roots if they wanted to find out what the Canadian people think of the agricultural policies of this government. All they had to do was sit down and watch the press conference on television recently when Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, answered many questions about the policies of the present government. I am sure that none of the statements he made at that time could be construed in any way as a condemnation of the present policies of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), of the Department of Agriculture, or of this party. I am sure the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is in touch with the farmers of this country and does know something about the problems and the way in which this government has endeavoured to meet them. I am sure he is very pleased with the long range policies of this government in comparison with the stop gap policies of the former Liberal government.
Since I come from Nova Scotia I am well aware of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and how very true it is that the Liberal party lost touch with the grass roots. Indeed, from 1951 to 1956, 2,500 farms were abandoned by farmers in Nova Scotia because of the policies of the former Liberal administration. This somewhat indicates the type of agricultural policy they had at that time. The main reason for the abandonments was the high cost of production on those farm units that were not economic. Why were they not economic? Because the Liberal government would not provide legislation that would assist the farmers of Nova Scotia.
In 1957 the farmers of Nova Scotia indicated very clearly what they thought of Liberal farm policies and certainly indicated
their belief that the Conservative party had the policies they wanted, and they are very pleased with them to date. When we took power we quickly realized that the legislation on the statute books was outdated and had to be replaced. We realized it and the farmers of Canada realized it. The only people who did not seem to realize it were the Liberals of that day. We quickly saw to it that a broad policy applicable to all areas of Canada was brought forward in an orderly fashion.
The first thing we did was to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We increased the amount that could be borrowed from $5,000 to $7,500 and we maintained the interest rate at 5 per cent. Soon after we amended the veterans legislation. We amended the Veterans' Land Act. We increased the amount that veterans could borrow and we increased the percentage of value of their stock, farm and equipment on which they could borrow. Today veterans can borrow up to $20,000 at an interest rate of 5 per cent, and the maximum period for repayment has been extended from 25 to 30 years.
We replaced the Canadian Farm Loan Act, long outmoded, by the Farm Credit Act. This has accomplished two very significant things for farmers in Nova Scotia and will continue to do so down through the years. It has allowed our farmers to obtain economic farm units and to eliminate the high cost of production that was apparent on the uneconomic farm units that were in existence during the period before this legislation came into effect. Today under the Farm Credit Act a farmer can borrow up to $20,000 or, if there is to be supervision, up to an amount of $27,500. Further, it will assist the young farmer who wishes to remain on the farm. This could not be done before because there was no means whereby he could obtain the funds that were necessary to secure an economic farm unit.
In my constituency I have some of the finest cattle raising land in Canada. The former Liberal administration did one thing. They brought in the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act but they only did so after a great deal of prodding by the former member for Cumberland, Percy C. Black, and the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan. However, they finally did put it into effect and as a result we have some excellent beef raising land today.
However, until the Farm Credit Act came into effect our farmers were unable to obtain the stock that was necessary because of lack of capital. It is my hope that with this act we will now see a greater percentage of cattle for our own consumption raised in our own area. The significance of our imports of meat in the maritimes can be brought out

Disparity of National Income to Farmers by looking at a brochure issued by the meat packers council of Canada in which they state that the maritime provinces produce 2 per cent and consume 11 per cent of the total meat output of Canada. This indicates very clearly the necessity of the maritimes raising more cattle. The provincial government at Halifax has done a great deal in assisting in the establishment of an abattoir. I feel that the credit legislation and the agricultural policies of the government will also do a great deal to enhance the farmers' position and our position with regard to meat.
We have also heard a great deal of criticism of the government's policies with respect to deficiency payments on hogs and eggs. If the Liberal party had got down to the grass roots, shall we say, and had been in contact with the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture they might have had other ideas as to the policy of the government in this regard. In a brief presented to the Nova Scotia members of parliament by the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture at Ottawa on January 21, 1960 the federation stated as follows:
In our Nova Scotia federation of agriculture we support the action of Hon. Douglas Harkness in implementing deficiency payment programs for hogs and eggs. There will be a period of adjustment, which many of our producers will be forced to accept, but we believe it will have the effect of stabilizing these phases of our industry, and further, we believe that the policy will put production back in the hands of family farm units, where it belongs, and out of the hands of speculators, packing houses and feed companies.
I do not believe that we can disagree with this policy adopted by the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture. I wish to join with the statements made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) in which he set out the long range policies of the government. We are not, by stopgap measures, bringing in legislation that only meets the need of the day. Our policies are long range. They are going to give stability to agriculture in this country. They are going to assist all of us by assisting our farmers. They will assist our farmers to get a fair share of the national income. They will bring to the farmers of our country and to their families a stability they have not enjoyed to date. This will not happen tomorrow or the next day. It will be a slow process but it will be a very satisfying one to anyone associated with agriculture in this country.


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the last speaker who has just resumed his seat. There is one point, however, which he stressed
[Mr. Coates.l
and which I would not like to leave unchallenged. I refer to his statement made concerning the "Press Conference" program of last Tuesday night upon which Dr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, appeared. I, too, listened to that "Press Conference" and Dr. Hannam clearly indicated that the federation in no way approved of the present system of deficiency payments on hogs and eggs.
In introducing the amendment which is now before this house the Liberal party has one main objective and that is to focus attention of the government and of the country on the plight of Canadian agriculture and the urgency of immediate remedial action. The gravity of the situation seems to be more and more drawn generally to public attention. I should like, in this respect, to quote from an editorial in the Moncton Times, dated February 8, 1960:
The position of Canadian agriculture last year was somewhat less buoyant than in 1958, with the farmers' share of the national income still continuing well below urban averages. From the official figures of the cash income from the sale of farm products in 1959, plus income from cash advances on farm-stored western grain participation payments on the previous year's prairie grain crops, it is disclosed that the entire total reached an estimated $2,776,077,000 as against $2,786,877,000 in 1958, a decline of $11,800,000-
Of particular interest to the province of New Brunswick, this editorial had this to say:
In the maritimes, New Brunswick was the only province to show reduced cash farm income, the farmers' earnings here declining to a total of $45,891,000 last year from $46,096,000 in 1958, a decrease of $795,000.
Continuing in more general terms, the editorial goes on:
The problem of low farm income is a matter of concern not only to farmers and agricultural organizations but also to the federal and provincial governments. Putting it in a nutshell, the farmer's share of the national income is considerably out of balance and should be more proportionate.
There ought to be a general understanding among all men in this country who possess any degree of wisdom that the prosperity of agriculture must be striven for as the basis of all other forms of prosperity. The notion, on the farms, is that there is not a general acceptance of this truth, but that there is a contrary idea, that the wealth of the farms can be annually hauled away on transport trucks and on trains and no adequate returns made to the agricultural class who produced it.
I feel that this is a pretty accurate appraisal of the true facts as they exist in the Canadian farm industry at the present time. Farm groups particularly have been contending that their industry continues to suffer from the cost-price squeeze. In the face of reduced farm cash income in the year 1959 these farm

Disparity of National Income to Farmers
groups also feel that the net return probably has been further reduced through increases in farm operating expenses.
It was stated in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen oi February 15, 1960:
There can be little doubt that Canadian agriculture, taken as a whole, is not in a flourishing condition today. Important sections of it are dependent on foreign markets and are finding themselves increasingly vulnerable as a result. At home, prices for most products are not keeping pace with the cost of the goods farmers buy. The "cost-price squeeze" is no figment of the imagination.
There seems, therefore, to be a general recognition of the serious conditions now besetting agriculture. In the light of these circumstances, what does the government propose to do? In this matter, as in the many other serious problems with which it is confronted, will the government be satisfied to give the same stock answer that we in the opposition are the prophets of gloom and doom in bringing this all important matter to the attention of the country? Will the government again say that in so doing we are undermining public confidence in the stability and prosperity of our Canadian agriculture, which the government alone persists in claiming is still existing? Will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), in his own modest way, persist in rebuffing everybody who dares to disagree with the infallibility of his own prognostications by telling our national farm groups, our economists, our press and business institutions that they do not know what they are talking about, just as he did so kindly to opposition members in this house just a few days ago?
It is time that this government and the Minister of Agriculture realized that the ignoring of a situation is not its solution. In bringing this matter before parliament we of the opposition feel that we are performing a duty in pointing up to the government the gravity of the agricultural situation in this country. We feel that we have some support in doing so.
When we are dealing with agricultural matters, we must go back to some of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) statements to the farmers of Canada during the 1958 election campaign, after his government had been in office for a period of time. Surely by that time the Prime Minister must have guessed something of the difficulties confronting a government in the administration of policies, and in particular in the consideration of price support policies. Speaking at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, on February 27, 1958, he said:
Each year, before the crop season, the farmer will know the lowest price that he will receive: that price, in order to insure the farmer of his fair
share of the national income, is to bear a fair relation to the cost of farmer's production. That's what the farmers have been asking for.
This is as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian, February 28, 1958. Again, speaking at a large agricultural meeting in Stein-bach, Manitoba, on March 7, 1958, he stated:
The government, through a commission, would probe into that layer of fat-the difference between the price the farmer gets for his product and the amount the consumer pays-and if wholesalers and retailers are found to add unfairly to the price of farm products, the necessary legislation would be brought into effect.
This is as reported in the Toronto Star of March 8, 1958. There were many more statements made to capture the farm vote, and capture it they did when one realizes that they secured almost all of the seats west of Toronto. But what has been happening to these promises in the two-year period since they have been made? Let us now analyse some of the statements, dealing with them in order of reference.
In the first place, farmers were to be advised one year in advance the lowest price they will receive for what they produce and it was to bear a fair relationship to the cost of production. It was this pledge perhaps more than anything else that prompted the great majority of farmers to vote for the Progressive Conservative candidates in rural constituencies.
What is the situation at the present time? According to the bureau of statistics report recently the following is found:
The Index of prices received by farmers from the sale of farm products in December, 1959, was
231.4	points, down 2.5 points from the revised November estimate of 233.9.
The most significant feature about the report is that the December, 1959 figure was
6.4	points below the December, 1958 figure. This certainly is a far cry from the Prime Minister's promise that policies would be established that would bring about a fair relationship to costs of production and also that the farmers would receive their fair share of the national income.
Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that while prices the farmers receives for his produce are continuously going down, as indicated by the D.B.S. figures, the price of everything the farmer has to purchase is going up continuously and that what is commonly called the cost-price squeeze is getting worse month by month until it has become a national emergency of a most serious type.
In the second place, there is the difference between the prices the consumer pays for food and the prices the farmer receives. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's reference to this matter when he said the
1338	HOUSE OF
Disparity of National Income to Farmers government would, through a commission, probe into that layer of fat, namely the difference between what the farmer received and the consumer paid. To me this statement indicated that there was too great a spread and that the trade, both wholesale and retail, were receiving exorbitant profits; that, if so, they would be dealt with severely under legislation; and also that, when the commission report was received, legislation would be introduced by the present government to ensure the farmer of the greatest possible return for his goods.
The commission made their investigation and presented to the government their report indicating that there are instances of too great a spread. But the report fails to recommend specific corrective measures; and to one familiar with these problems there is throughout the report an indication that the members of the commission were completely lost with respect to the whole complicated problem. In any event, there is no indication that the government intends to do anything about the matter, either by policy or legislation, and the government can be assured that the farmers will not sit idly by without demonstrating their great disappointment in this respect.
What about those deficiency payments already in force? Indeed there are now in effect with respect to deficiency payments plans which are failing miserably. Hon. members will recall that this government in recent weeks abolished the former government's policy of support prices on eggs and hogs and placed those two commodities under a plan of deficiency payments. This action results in a situation where the consumer prices will find their own level, where prices will depend solely on supply and demand and where, if the producers do not receive a specific price or return, the government will reimburse them up to a specific price established by the price stabilization board.
As far as I am aware, the board has not established a firm and definite price which will guarantee to the farmer a minimum price, as he was led to believe would be done by statements made during the last election campaign. But this is what really happened. Instead of knowing one year in advance what price he will get the farmer will now have to wait one year in order to [DOT] know what he will receive. In the meantime the prices of eggs have dropped to an unprecedented low, and if the time lag continues for an extended period without their knowing what the deficiency payments will amount to many poultrymen will be forced out of business.
As a consequence of this situation there will eventually develop a scarcity of eggs

resulting in prices skyrocketing to unprecedented high levels, to the point where price controls will be asked for by the consuming public. Further, high prices will be an incentive for many farmers to go back in the poultry business and thus begins the up-and-down cycle resulting in an in-and-out poultry industry. We already have indications that this statement is correct because many reports from all over Canada are to the effect that if the present policy is maintained, eggs will be selling at extremely higher levels by the autumn of 19(50.
There is another serious aspect of the present deficiency payments for eggs. It is that eggs are sold by individuals and not by a board or local agency. Consequently the prices will vary almost in every community in Canada. As an example, eggs produced near a large market will give to the producer a higher price than will be received by a producer who lives a long distance from a large market, thus resulting in a situation where it would be impossible to equalize payment to every producer and it will end in ruin and confusion to everyone.
The present hog situation is not quite so serious by reason of the marketing set-up in some provinces but the same situation with respect to prices will result because there is no substitute for eggs and bacon.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that the business that was indicated at the end of last week is still unchanged for the balance of this week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There might be one slight change. Tomorrow, of course, we continue with this debate and then on Wednesday we take supplementary estimates. The resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealing with an amendment to the British North America Act would come after that business if we finish the supplementary estimates. Then we will take the other two resolutions that I mentioned, one in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) dealing with the Railway Act and the other in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) dealing with the National Housing Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the hon. gentleman whether that would also be the program for Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it would be. If there is a change, I will announce it later on.


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

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


Mr. Boulanger: 1.	How many persons have been employed by the
Department of Agriculture in connection with the deficiency payment programs in respect of:	(a)
eggs; (b) hogs?
2.	What is the annual rate of their aggregate remuneration ?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	There have been 50 additional persons employed by the agricultural stabilization board in connection with deficiency payment programs with respect to eggs and hogs. Since these employees work on both programs no satisfactory segregation can be made.
2.	$107,580.



WOODWORKING MACHINERY IMPORTS

Mr. Boulanger: What categories of merchandise and what amount of each were imported into Canada from (a) United Kingdom; (b) United States; (c) German Federal Republic, in the year 1959, under the designation woodworking machinery and parts n.o.p. and given the class no. 5589 in the publication, Trade of Canada?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics are not available by categories for merchandise imported into Canada under class No. 5589, designated as woodworking machinery and parts n.o.p. in the publication Trade of Canada.



BRITISH FOOTBALL POOL SERVICES IN CANADA

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the post office had any communications with the British G.P.O. or the British treasury regarding the entry to Canada of British pool services?
2.	If so, on what dates, to what effect?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster
General):
1.	Yes.
2.	On November 27, 1957 the British postal administration was advised that evidence had been received showing that Vernons Pools of Liverpool, England, were using the Canadian mails for the distribution of sport pool literature, and that as pool betting or selling was illegal in Canada, the Canada Post Office Department had issued an order prohibiting the delivery of mail posted by or addressed to Vernons Pools.
Questions
The British postal administration was requested to notify the above company, and any others concerned, that any pool material posted by or addressed to them, which was observed in the Canadian mails, would be disposed of by the Canadian postal administration in accordance with Canadian postal regulations.
On December 19, 1958, the British postal administration was advised that evidence was received indicating that other pool companies, Littlewoods, Zetter's, William Hill (Glasgow) and Copes, were sending pool material through the Canadian mails and the British postal administration was requested to notify the companies that any pool material posted by or addressed to them observed in the Canadian mails would be disposed of by the Canadian postal administration in accordance with Canadian postal regulations.
The British postal administration replied that the firms concerned had been advised as requested.



BRITISH FOOTBALL POOLS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the post office carry out an investigation of the use of the mails by Canadians playing the British football pools?
2.	If so, was it found that any Canadians were corresponding with any of the following pools companies: Littlewoods, Sherman's, Vernon's, Soccer Pools, Copes, Murphy's, Zetter's, and Empire Pools?
3.	If so, which companies?
4.	Did the post office send any information, requests or warnings to any of these companies?
5.	If so, what was the substance of these?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster
General):
1, 2, 4 and 5. No, but when evidence was received indicating that the Canadian mails were being used in connection with British football pools, the British postal administration was asked to notify such companies that such pools were illegal in Canada and that any pool material posted by or addressed to them observed in the Canadian mails would be disposed of by the Canadian postal administration in accordance with Canadian postal regulations.
3.	Littlewoods, Sherman's, Vernon's, Soccer pools, Copes, Murphy's and Zetter's.



RURAL MAIL CONTRACT REGULATIONS

Mr. McWilliam: Do post office department regulations prohibit rural mail contractors from carrying freight, express and/or passengers in the course of the performance of mail service under their contract?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster
General):
No, provided the mail is adequately protected and there is no interference with the required performance of the service.
79951-0-85J

Tuesday, February 23, 1960