Mr. Casileden:

Before the luncheon recess, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the serious economic plight of the grain producer in the western prairies. I pointed out how he had been caught between rapidly rising costs of production and operation and rapidly diminishing returns during the last number of years. That is a situation that can lead only to bankruptcy. You do not long continue in business when the returns from your operations are less than the costs of operating. I pointed out that the western producer of grain and other products has a feeling of deep resentment toward the Ottawa government, not only for its failure to allow him some advances on the grain he has produced and for which he can obtain nothing with which to pay his expenses, but also for the fact that it is offering to place upon his back a further burden of 5 per cent in the way of interest on loans.

The action of the transport controller, in his failure to provide box cars to allow the shipment of grain, adds further to his resentment. Then the distribution of those box cars in a discriminatory way, thus preventing the farmer from delivering grain to the elevator to which he wishes to deliver it, further adds to his feelings of disgust. He looks over the record, and he watches the method of appointment of members of the board of grain commissioners. In this house we were given the word of the minister that he had received no recommendation from the Saskatchewan wheat pool with regard to certain men, but correspondence subsequently tabled in the house showed that the Saskatchewan wheat pool had recommended these very people for appointment to that job. This fact only adds to the grain producers' mistrust of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the administration as a whole.

The charges that have been made to the effect that we were opposed to the idea of the wheat board are completely unfounded. We have always supported it without any equivocation. To the farmer the maintenance of the wheat board is vital. The expansion of the wheat pools is vital to the producers as a protection against exploitation by the Winnipeg grain exchange. With their very last efforts they will fight to maintain the wheat board and see that it is run properly.

The farm organizations have been extremely bitter in their condemnation of the government responsible for present conditions, both as to the cost of production and markets. They condemn the policies of the

The Address-Mr. Michaud government during whose regime they have seen an expanding and constantly increasing cost of living through the years and as a result of which they now find themselves caught in a position where they are not able in any way to obtain cash for the products they have to sell.

I emphasize the fact that the problem is not just the immediate one of a few dollars cash. There remains the basic problem with regard to costs of production and diminishing returns. This problem will have to be faced if agriculture is to be saved. We are looking to this government to do something about the matter, but so far we have looked in vain.

I am proud to support the amendment as a condemnation of this government on its failure to take effective action in the face of a real and serious problem.

(Translation) :

Mr. H. J. Michaud (Keni, N.B.):

Mr. Speaker, may I associate myself with the previous speakers in this debate in complimenting the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both did well by themselves and by their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, the 1956 session starts auspiciously. Because of the high level of prosperity prevailing in the country, and a higher level of employment than at this time last year, economic conditions are generally satisfactory. True, one sector of the economy, agriculture, is going through a rather difficult period. It is a pressing problem which the government will have to face during this session. A situation such as this, however, adds nothing new to the ordinary duties of any government. Managing the affairs of a country is essentially a complicated job. I would imagine that there never was a government without any problem to solve. This government has shown in the past that it is experienced and efficient enough to solve a difficult proposition, and we can trust that it will find the proper solution to our present agricultural problem.

I do not wish to take up the time of the house to point out to hon. members and to the government all the difficulties that beset our farmers. It has already been done, and I am sure others will like to enlarge upon those difficulties, in their own way. May I be allowed, however, to emphasize at this time, a par-

The Address-Mr. Michaud ticular phase of this situation, which has resulted from the changes that have happened was equally beneficial to the consumer. Since thinking of the rural exodus to industrial centres and of the importance of checking this tendency.

We have to realize that nowadays there is a strong flow of population into the cities. Because of higher wages, of shorter working hours than on the farm, and of other facilities normally found in towns and cities, our country people feel more and more attracted to the industrial sectors of our country. We are being told repeatedly that farming no longer pays. Because working the land seems too difficult, it is given up. Everywhere, along our country roads, we see abandoned farms. These young men who leave the country to swell the number of city workers are leaving behind properties that used to be prosperous farm units. They leave without a qualm and without even finding a purchaser. Farms of up to 100 acres of tillable land, with good buildings, are put up for sale for as little as $500, yet they remain unoccupied and unproductive. And this goes on despite the fact that the young people in our rural areas do not know where to settle. In the face of such a situation, what are we to expect for the future of our farm people, whose merits and greatness were so often exalted? Are the noble accounts praising the advantages of country life nothing but fancy or fiction? No. Man's first necessity is to feed himself and his family; and the soil is and remains his sole provider. The land is also a guarantee of moral security. We can at this point repeat those words of writer Henri Pourrat:

Land, there is man's element; and the tilling of it is man's foremost task. When mortals have attained power, they can think of less simple endeavours, such as manufacturing automatic pencils, writing crime fiction, making streamlined automobiles. That is more wondrous still, with this undefinable touch of insignificance which clings to all human values. Tilling the land remains a greater endeavour.

Man will forever have to deal with winter and summer, rain and sunshine, soil and water, grass, trees, wheat, and the vine. Those are the tangible things. They are simple and lasting things. In the worst calamities, these will always provide a fresh start. After crises, wars, revolutions, after the resounding crash of crumbling civilizations, there will always remain the great silence of nature: the earth that turns soundlessly, clover, rye, oaks living their humble lives, timed on the regularity of seasons.

Can we forget that Canadian history truly began when valiant men cut down trees to clear through the forests a path wide enough to make room for houses? Is it superfluous to state that in rural parishes we find everyiMr. Michaud.]

thing that ensures durability and stability? Today, as in times gone by, life on the farm provides a favourable atmosphere where the noblest virtues and the soundest traditions will bloom. Rural life guarantees a strong, well-balanced race, sound in body and mind.

Farmers are cool-headed and thoughtful. They are less easily taken in by rash innovations and dangerous waves of opinion. They saved us many times from moral surrenders which threatened our integrity. True farmers can raise their soul to summits where the real meaning of life is better understood.

Mr. Speaker, those traditions, this deeply religious rural population must be preserved in all its integrity. To that end, the agricultural family must be guaranteed its rightful place. It embodies, on the Canadian scene, factors of strength, of balance and of dignity which heighten and enrich our whole national heritage.

(Text):

I wish at this time, Mr. Speaker, to commend the government upon its butter price support policy. Since the introduction of this policy seven years ago it has proven beneficial both to the producer and the consumer. It had the net result of eliminating speculation from the butter market. We often hear it said in certain quarters that this subsidy resulted in creating large and costly surpluses. This, however, is not a true picture of the situation. At no time since the introduction of this measure in Canada have the annual butter stocks exceeded the maximum consumption by more than 5 per cent. This is a small surplus indeed, considering the stabilizing influence of this policy in the marketing of this food commodity. Undoubtedly this support program has permitted the dairy farmer of this country to stay in business. It had its effects, not only on the price of butter but also on other dairy commodities such as fluid milk and cheese, the returns from which are closely dependent on the price of butter itself.

It must be pointed out also that this policy was equally beneficial to the consumer. Since its inception the consumer has been permitted to buy butter at a stable price within the scope of the value of this commodity and the ability of the consumer to pay. The situation is far better than it was before this control measure, when the producer never knew what his returns would be and the

consumer did pot know what price he would be called upon to pay for a pound of butter.

It is true that this has resulted, during the past few years, in certain butter surpluses which must be disposed of on world markets at a loss to the national treasury and to the Canadian ratepayer, but it is not long ago that the reverse situation existed. There was a butter shortage in Canada, and in order to protect the consumer against paying exorbitant prices for this commodity butter was imported into Canada. It is only just, therefore, that the dairy farmer also should receive protection when surpluses arise on the domestic market. This can only be done through the measures adopted by the government of exporting these surpluses at current world market price levels. In this respect let me quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, dated November 28, 1955, with which I agree:

Last summer when some government-held butter was sold to Czechoslovakia at 21 cents a pound below the support price in Canada, there was much talk of the communists being given a "bargain". The same talk is being revived now in connection with the considerably larger sale (through a Dutch importer) to East Germany.

These are no bargains at all. The European countries in question, or any others, could easily buy butter elsewhere at the same figure (37 cents) that is quoted by the Canadian government agency. For the world price happens to be substantially below present levels on this continent.

It is sometimes suggested that if the government occasionally has more butter on its hands than it knows what to do with, the surplus should be disposed of to Canadians instead of abroad. This policy has been followed to a very limited extent in the supplying of butter at cut rates to public institutions; some 4,000,000 pounds have been used up in this manner. But to offer the government surplus to the public as a whole would simply break the butter market, for who would pay the present market price if he thought he could get butter for perhaps 20 cents less?

It is estimated that since its introduction the price support on butter has cost the ratepayers of this country less than one-fifth of a cent per pound. As stated in the above editorial, is this too stiff a price to pay for keeping butter values at a fairly stable level for the benefit of both producers and consumers? Is it too much to pay for helping an important national industry adjust itself to the formidable competition offered by margarine? The farm people of the country are contributing their share in maintaining the degree of protected economy as it prevails in Canada. Most of the commodities they buy from our manufacturers enjoy protection in some form or another. Is it too much to ask that, in turn, the commodities the farmers produce also get a certain degree of protection?

A few days before I left home for Ottawa I had the opportunity of discussing this whole 07509-20

The Address-Mr. Montgomery problem with a friend. At the outset of our conversation he thought it was an abnormal situation that he had to pay 65 cents a pound for butter, while our surpluses were being sold to other countries at 37 cents per pound. In the course of the conversation I brought to his attention the same argument I have just brought to the attention of this house. In the end he admitted that the course followed by the government was fair and wise. He felt this was a matter that should be explained to every Canadian butter consumer. My friend admitted he had been led to view the situation unfavourably by certain recent press reports and radio broadcasts. In the light of our discussion he became satisfied that the government's action with regard to butter was fair both to the consumer and the producer.

We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, are dedicated to the task of bringing before Canadian citizens the legislative measures of a good, sound government.

Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):

Before directing my remarks to the subjects I intend to take up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of extending congratulations to the members of this house who have been elected for the first time. I hope they will enjoy their labours in parliament and their associations with the rest of us, and will receive the recognition they deserve from this government as the elected representatives of their constituents, regardless of the party to which they belong.

I would not miss this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of extending congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mrs. Shipley). She deserves those congratulations and the honour which was given to her. As the speech from the throne indicates, there will be legislation this session to give women equal pay with men in industries under federal jurisdiction. I think it was only right that she should receive the honour to' speak first on that issue on behalf of the women of this country.

In justice, I feel I must also mention one of the outstanding Conservative lady members of this house, who deserves congratulations for having pressed this matter so vigorously in the last few years that she has convinced the government that the time has come to introduce this legislation. She will get due credit for it. Last, but by no means least, I should like to congratulate the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Laflamme), who spoke easily and well. I am sure he will prove to be a good representative of his constituents.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery

There are several matters, Mr. Speaker, with which I could deal. Like most hon. members I am chiefly interested in matters which affect my constituents. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Michaud), who just took his seat, particularly his remarks with regard to butter. I also read with interest the speech the other day of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy). I congratulate him on his remarks and also the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). If this government does not wake up and take a warning from these hon. members who are supporters of the government, it will be in trouble.

If the members of the government read the speeches of the hon. members from New Brunswick they will know that everything is not well in that province. These hon. members would not be rising in their places and criticizing the government and trying to point out that improvements could be made if they were not giving the views of their constituents. It is pretty nearly time, Mr. Speaker, that somebody supported the opposition in this house, who for the last few years have been pointing out that the problems of agriculture and of various other industries have not received the attention they should have received in the interests of the agricultural people of the country.

My chief concern is agriculture, and I am going to direct my remarks chiefly to that industry. It makes no difference whether the agriculturist is in the west, whether he is a wheat grower, a dairy farmer in the central part of Canada or in some other part of the country, a small farmer, a vegetable grower, or whether he is a potato grower in my constituency, in Prince Edward Island or in British Columbia; the financial position of the farmer today is serious, and it is serious all over the country. It is time this government paid a little attention to what hon. members are saying, both their supporters and members of the opposition. They have been given fair warning.

The production of food is a very important industry. When the farmers are prosperous the whole economy of the country is stimulated. When the farmers cannot sell their products, and in addition cannot get anything for their labour because markets are limited and prices are low, then there is something wrong, particularly when there is a market in this country for the produce grown by the farmers.

The past two years have been abundant years. Crops have been good; yields have been larger than usual. This has been the situation of the industry in my section of the country, in Prince Edward Island, in other

parts of Canada and in the United States. We had a larger crop of potatoes last year than usual, but we are hearing so much about surpluses in this country that we are kind of getting tired of it. With the exception of wheat, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any surpluses are grown.

According to the facts presented before the tariff board in this city last July, more potatoes are consumed every year in Canada than are grown; therefore we have no surplus of potatoes in this country so long as our own people can consume them. But what do we find? Owing to the policy pursued by this government-and we cannot convince the Minister of Agriculture that it should be changed-we find that we have no access to our own markets. We have no access to our own markets chiefly because those markets are supplied by foreign products, which are allowed to come in here in competition with our own farmers' produce.

We are not growing more potatoes than are necessary in Canada. Our own people want those potatoes. They need them and they can consume them. The only reason they are not getting them is that the consumer buys where he can buy cheapest, and we are in competition with a foreign country. The producers of potatoes in a foreign country are permitted to dump their products in here. In many instances they have a shorter haulage distance. According to statements made to the tariff board, they are more efficient growers. The efficiency of the United States potato grower results from the policy followed by this government. That is the answer.

When you protect an industry that industry can grow bigger, and the bigger the industry grows the more efficient it becomes. In my constituency we have just as efficient potato growers as are found in the United States, when conditions are similar. The efficiency of the United States potato growers has resulted from their protected market and their quota system. If we were given a fair chance in our own Canadian markets our potato growers could grow potatoes just as efficiently, and they are doing it in some places.

Potatoes are vital to our economy. It is only right that I should place the feeling of the people of my constituency before this House of Commons, because they do not believe they received a fair deal in the last season. In the first place, no farmer in this country of plenty should be asked to work, to labour and to gamble on his crop, and then take a chance on what he may get out of it, when everybody else around him is protected. Industry of all kinds in this country is protected. The gold mining industry is protected and subsidized to the tune of many millions

of dollars. But what happens to the potato growers in the eastern part of the country? The rest of the country needs those potatoes, and that has been the hue and cry ever since the days before confederation. The inducements held out to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the rest of us in the maritime provinces to come into confederation were that trade would be encouraged east and west instead of north and south. We were promised that if we would come into confederation we would be given the opportunity to take our products into the markets of central Canada in competition with goods produced and grown there.

It all comes down to one thing, and that is that the transportation problem between the maritime provinces and central Canada is something that should be looked after by the federal government. It should not be left to the railroads to fix their rates at the point where they pay. It was never anticipated that we would have to pay heavy freight rates on long hauls in order to place our goods in the west and encourage east and west trade, or that we would be in competition with a foreign country which is dumping its goods in this country at prices less than the cost of production. For a time this year they were able to ship in potatoes as Canada No. 1 grade when they were smaller than the potatoes we were allowed to ship as Canada No. 1.

In making the final arrangements, because of the policy which has been forced upon our farmers the producers of potatoes must carry back home culls to a greater extent than they should be asked to do. The only market for culls is the starch factory, or to be used as feed.

I notice the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, but I should like to ask his parliamentary assistant or anyone else on the government side why it is that you can go into a government hotel like the Chateau down here and get table potatoes which are smaller than Canada No. 1. Those potatoes are not 2| inches in diameter; I do not think they would average more than 2 inches. Why are they being purchased as Canada No. 1? Why is the restaurant upstairs using potatoes that would not measure up to the size of Canada No. 1. Where are those potatoes coming from? It looks to me as though the United States can ship in any size they want while we have no protection whatsoever.

I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has come into the chamber, because I have a few words to say to him and I hope he will harken to them. They are not critical words, but when they are interpreted I think he will realize what the people down there are thinking. This potato situation was known 67509-20}

The Address-Mr. Montgomery in September, but because of the policy this government was following, because of the increased yield in the United States as well as in Canada, because United States potatoes were coming in here during the early part of the season as Canada No. 1 when they were smaller than what we could put on the market as Canada No. 1, our producers and potato dealers' tried immediately to get in touch with the Department of Agriculture in order to have a conference so that something might be done to relieve the situation which the farmers were facing. They could get nowhere.

Mr. Gardiner:

We had two conferences with them.

Mr. Montgomery:

I do not know whether it is the minister's fault and that is why I am speaking to the minister directly. There was no conference arranged. Wire after wire was sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who represents New Brunswick, and we presume word was sent from him to the department, but still no conference was forthcoming. There was no conference until around December 18. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected, but that is the information I have. Following that conference there was a further conference.

Mr. Gardiner:

My friend says he wants to be corrected and he is putting this on Hansard. At the moment I am not sure of the other exact dates, but there certainly was a conference during the first week of December. There was a discussion earlier than that, but during the federal-provincial conference, which was held in the first week in December, there were a number of discussions on the question.

Mr. Montgomery:

As I understand it, during the first week of December the ministers of agriculture of the different provinces met in Ottawa with officials of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Gardiner:

Members from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island governments had separate discussions with the Department of Agriculture officials, at which I was present.

Mr. Montgomery:

That was not granted at the request of the potato men. As I understand it, that was the first time the matter was brought to a point where all the parties could discuss it. The first meeting after that at which the potato growers and potato dealers could give their story and review their case was very close to December 18, if it was not on that date. Following that there were further discussions, and then the program of diversion was pronounced some time around January 4 or 5.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery

Going on from there I should like to know why the program has not gone into effect even yet.

Mr. Gardiner:

The hon. member will have to go down to New Brunswick to find out.

Mr. Montgomery:

I have just been down to New Brunswick and the government, as I understand, has yet to tell the people and the potato growers what they are prepared to do. There is just one thing they said they would do; that is, to guarantee $1 a barrel, but they did that after the market price of potatoes was $1.25.

Mr. Gardiner:

My hon. friend apparently does not understand it. I have the order in council in front of me which was passed a considerable time ago. It is not $1 a barrel of 165 pounds of graded potatoes, it is $1 a barrel for potatoes of garden run taken to the plant. The $1 per barrel is paid on that basis, which is an even higher price than my hon. friend has indicated.

Mr. Montgomery:

I suggest that the minister inform his officials in New Brunswick, because that is not what they are telling the potato producers in New Brunswick.

Mr. Gardiner:

It is they who told me.

Mr. Montgomery:

I hope the minister can furnish me with a copy of that order in council, because that certainly is not the information being circulated. It is $1 per barrel of 165 pounds of Canada No. 1.

Mr. Gardiner:

No, it is not.

Mr. Montgomery:

That is what I would like to have information on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member must realize that he is taking part in a debate, and that this is not a time for questions and answers.

Mr. Gardiner:

I will send this over, and my hon. friend will note that it is $1 per barrel of 165 pounds for potatoes spot graded. That means it is $1 per barrel for the potatoes as they are taken in to be graded afterward.

Mr. Montgomery:

I am afraid the minister would not agree with some of his potato inspectors. We will leave that, and time will tell whether the minister or the inspectors are right. I hope the minister is right, because that would be an improvement over the information that is being passed around.