Mr. Harris:

I have noted what has been said. I just want to say that my hon. friend is not being deprived of quite as much time as he indicates, by reason of the fact that 82715-209

9, 1957 3301

Agricultural Products-Support Prices we are now sitting in the morning, which we do not normally do on Tuesdays when supply motions are under discussion.

Mr. Green:

But there would ordinarily be Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. Harris:

Quite so. Instead of two days we will have one day plus two hours. The Leader of the Opposition has stated the terms on which he thinks we should begin discussion of the supply motion and, so far as the government is concerned, we have no objection. If hon. gentlemen opposite would like to consider the matter until five o'clock we could perhaps arrive at an arrangement by that time.

Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):

I am sure this group will facilitate the business of the house, but I am concerned about the one hour for private bills. It seems to me that if we forgo the one hour for private bills provision should be made for it either after the vote tonight or some time tomorrow. Otherwise there may be private bills that will die on the order paper, and there are some private bills that I think should go through.

Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is making a radio broadcast at the moment, and in all fairness to him I think it should be said that the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company bill should be proceeded with in the hour from five to six. After all, that bill has been on the order paper for some months now. In fairness to my colleague I ask that this fact be considered.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, it is our view that we should retain the hour from five o'clock to six o'clock for such private and public bills as may be reached in that hour. Whatever arrangement should be made as to the time of voting perhaps can be the subject of further discussion or negotiation. Initially it would be our view that the hour from five o'clock to six o'clock should be spent on private and public bills, and that the vote should be taken at 8.15 p.m. However, perhaps we could negotiate further as to the time of the vote.

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved

that the house go into committee of supply.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, this motion provides the opportunity to bring before the

3302 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Support Prices house matters of national interest. On this occasion I propose to deal in general with the subject of agriculture and the need for action to be taken in order to provide and assure that the farmer shall have a fair and reasonable share of the national income.

I do not intend to deal with marketing legislation in any way, though ordinarily I would have done so. However, I express the hope that tomorrow the legislation that was introduced yesterday will be brought before the house, and that no excuse will be offered for not having it passed at the present session. We are most desirous of that being done. I mention that point merely in passing, namely that no excuse will be accepted by the opposition for any action that might be taken to delay the further processing of that bill and its enactment at the present session.

I commence by saying what has been said on previous occasions, namely that the farmer finds himself squeezed between rising costs of production and falling farm prices. His position is that he gets less and pays more. While there has been some improvement in the matter of the net national farm income within recent months, none the less the fact remains to be emphasized that the farmer still finds himself in a difficult and, in my opinion, perilous position.

The general submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made on December 3 last to the federal-provincial agricultural conference sets out the facts in general. I shall do no more than refer to one or two matters stated in that submission, instead of plastering the record with a great number of statistics to support the conclusions of that body. The submission states:

Farm prices in 1956 have been 6 per cent lower than in 1949, while costs of goods and services the farmer buys have increased 20 per cent.

Then it adds these words:

This means that the farmers' unfavourable price position is caused more by extraordinary increase in costs, than by the fall in farm price levels.

Then at page 3 of that submission there are set out in detail the changes that have taken place in recent years in Canadian agriculture, and in particular that during a period of ten years the number of farms dropped from 695,000 to 531,000, a drop of 24 per cent.

Indeed, on reading this summary we find that the general picture is such that Canadian agriculture finds itself in a difficult and trying position, which is not met by the quoting of statistics designed to show that there is statistical prosperity within our country.

It deals in particular with poultry prices and with the turkey producer's position. That

[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

producer finds himself with depressed prices resulting in considerable measure from unjustified competition on the part of United States producers. The fruit and vegetable farmers also find that United States farm products of this kind are being dumped into Canada, and that today there is no protection by way of anti-dumping duties or tariffs. Action must be taken in order to assure that valuation shall be properly determined, but not on the basis of invoices from the United States of America.

Then also the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a full submission to the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet on February 15 of this year. I shall do no more than quote one or two of the representations epitomizing, as they do, the situation that prevails. On page 1 they state:

Farmers from coast to coast feel keenly that on the average their returns have become badly out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation. It is important to emphasize purchasing power in this connection because the farmers' difficulties are to be found as much in high prices of the things he buys as in a decline in the number of dollars he receives.

Then it deals in particular with the price support legislation and endeavours to show- and I think successfully-that as this policy of the government in connection with agricultural price support has been revealed year by year, and as over the years the policy and philosophy of the government in administering this act has developed, it has been used only in the case of extreme price decline, in circumstances where the cost to the government will be moderate and the possibility of creating any real problems in the field of surplus disposal and trade relations would be almost entirely avoided. In other words, to summarize what has been represented by this great national farm organization the returns of farmers are out of balance with those of other major groups in the nation, and unless agriculture is stabilized and balanced the entire Canadian economy will suffer in consequence.

I believe that the two major objectives that must be faced by parliament are to assure stability for the farmer and also, as I mentioned a moment ago, to assure him a fair and reasonable share of the national income. The farmer finds himself in the position where his markets have been lost or diminished because of ineffective trade policies of the federal government. Briefs have been presented year by year by representative farm organizations, but the farmer finds himself gradually achieving a position detrimental to the preservation of the Canadian agricultural production machine.

Then also there is another phase that must be considered, for it reverses in Canada the trend in United States of America. The farmer's share of the consumer's dollar has been reduced considerably in recent years.

About 10 years ago the farmer's share was 59 cents, while today it is just about 50 cents. In spite of an increase in actual production since 1951, the farmer more and more is receiving less and less than a fair percentage of the total annual product.

It is no answer to say that in 1956 the share of Canadian agriculture began to approximate, to a degree that had not been so in preceding years, the net income of 1951, for the reason that the net national product of Canada in th._ same period has very materially increased, and as a result the disparity on the part of agriculture has increased and its share has decreased.

This is not a problem that affects only the farmers. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in one of their briefs, have set out in detail the farmers' problems. They point out that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recognizes that a sound and prosperous agriculture is vital to Canada's economy; that the interests of the agricultural industry and labour are interdependent, and the chamber therefore makes recommendations in detail as to the action that must be taken in order to preserve and increase agriculture's share of the gross national product. To those who object to farmers engaging in the marketing of their own products it is of interest to note that in recent representations made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce these words appear:

The chamber recognizes the right of producers of farm products to act together with respect to the sale of their own products. The freedom of farmers to organize and seek a sound solution to the problem of marketing is part of our Canadian way of life.

I mention that because there are some who would lead people to believe that business in this country is opposed to co-operative farm organizations.

I mentioned a moment ago that one of the difficulties in which farmers find themselves today is the vast importation of farm products that is taking place in this country. The farmer finds himself handicapped by the failure of the government to act effectively regarding the imports of farm products, many of which seem to be dumped on the Canadian market and have a detrimental effect on the Canadian farmers' market. On the other hand the United States has followed the course of permitting the import of Canadian farm products into that country, but 82715-209J

Agricultural Products-Support Prices whenever these importations have a detrimental effect on United States farmers, immediately Canada finds its imports under quota or restricted.

It is of interest to note that we on this side of the house, and particularly members from the maritimes such as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) and all Conservative members from the maritimes, have pointed out the situation with regard to potatoes. No action was taken until April 5, 1957. As I listened today to the revelation of what is contemplated in connection with power in the maritimes I could not but think of the remarkable impetus the re-election of one Conservative government in New Brunswick and the election of a new Conservative government in Nova Scotia have had on the thinking of this government which for so long has refused to act. If we could have an election every year there would certainly be beneficial results in various parts of this country which have been lacking for so many years.

Mr. Hodgson:

We might even get something in Ontario.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Agricultural Products-Support Prices into Canada. I say that advisedly, because at the present time valuations are accepted on the basis of the invoice price. Unless a change is made in that regard and valuations based on fair market values are applied, the Canadian farmer will find himself very detrimentally affected. I refer particularly at the moment to the fruit farmers of this country. Indeed, Canadian markets are being flooded with United States potatoes, fruits and vegetables, because the United States can produce and ship its very high volume surplus and undersell Canadian competition. We find that one of the companies today is able to package goods-it is a company that operates in Canada as well-and send them to Canada, and the Canadian company cannot meet the competition of its own products. The Canadian canning companies, particularly the small ones, are faced with competition they cannot meet, with large foreign companies coming into Canada and seeming to operate without *egard to losses.

I mentioned some of the imports into Canada. I am going to summarize just a few. I find that in 1952 the importations of fruit, fresh, dried and canned, and fruit juices and syrups amounted to $99,761,000. In 1956 that amount increased to $121 million. Vegetable imports increased in the same period from approximately $41 million to some $50 million in 1956; poultry, fowl and turkeys from $290,000 in 1952 to $5,556,000 in 1956. Canned peaches-and this tells the story-imported from the United States in 11 months of 1956, the latest figures I have available, came to 8,614,000 pounds and canned fruits other than peaches amounted to 32,170,000 pounds.

This is a serious situation. We want trade, but we do not want Canada's agricultural producers challenged by unfair competition brought about by the dumping of farm products into Canada. The Canadian Horticultural Council, in its recommendations to the cabinet on February 14, said this:

It is doubtful if, at any time in the past, our primary producers of fruits and vegetables have been so exercised or have suffered such serious losses as during the past years, from the "dumping" of like products from the United States on the Canadian market. These products may not be "dumped" within the limited definition of that term in the Customs Act or the Customs Tariff Act, but the effects on the financial returns of the Canadian farmer are just the same as though they had been "dumped" within the definition of the legislation.

That, in general, represents the views of the horticultural council. It says that approximately 50 per cent by value of all exports to Canada of fresh fruits and vegetables enter duty free. Much of these free products are citrus fruits, pineapples, melons

and grapes, and they compete, of course, with Canadian fruits. Substantial concessions were made to the United States or to the interests of the United States effective June 30, 1956, on certain fruit juices, processed pineapples, cherries and other processed horticultural products, all of which compete with Canadian products, but for which-and this I underline-there is no compensating concession on Canadian horticultural products.

That situation is detrimental and serious to Canada. The agreements on tariffs and trade have not been lived up to by the United States. They have been lived up to by Canada, but in so far as the United States is concerned it has almost with impunity broken those agreements in connection with agricultural products, which very seriously affects the Canadian economy.

As far as the wheat markets are concerned, they have been undermined by the unlawful give-away programs of the United States which have caused patent injustices to Canada. I believe the time has come to say a word to the United States, a word that can be understood, that we Canadians object most strenuously to policies that are in derogation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and to the detriment of the Canadian farmer.

Take flour, for instance, as a good example. The United States has a subsidy on wheat of $1.84 per hundredweight. I worked it out on the basis of a hundredweight. Its flour subsidy is $2.34 per hundredweight. In other words United States millers receive an extra subsidy of 50 cents per hundredweight on all wheat exported in the form of flour. The Canadian subsidy, which was introduced recently, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said would do something to meet this situation created by Canadian orders for flour being filled not in Canada from Canadian wheat, but in the United States from United States wheat bagged as though it were Canadian flour, with the export orders filled in a manner detrimental to us. The United States gives its flour millers a subsidy of 37J cents per hundredweight more than the Canadian government. Both wheats are approximately competitively priced in the export market. Our Canadian mills cannot compete with the current subsidy of 5J cents a bushel out of Atlantic ports.

We are losing our markets for flour because of effective action being taken by the United States and little action being taken by Canada. I believe if Canada wants to meet the situation it will have to increase the subsidy on flour so that Canada again may

start exporting in volume, and when she does our surpluses of wheat will be reduced.

Some ask, what about the cost in that connection? Well, I point out that when the wheat is kept in storage it costs the wheat board 20 cents per bushel per year, and if an extra subsidy were given on flour it would bring about savings in storage; it would stimulate Canadian production and would reduce, to the degree to which flour production was encouraged, our surpluses.

I mentioned, sir, the question of the Agricultural Prices Support Act; that a policy has developed that is used only in extreme circumstances, and that its present uses are not providing the necessary floors to maintain a responsible, profitable agriculture. We believe that a maximum of stability of income must be assured; that it is basic to Canada that the preservation of the agricultural machine shall be assured, and that having regard to the present use of floor prices under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the producers of eggs, chickens and turkeys as well should be assured of a reasonable floor under their products.

Throughout the years we in this party have advocated that action be taken on behalf of the farmer, and I am going to set out in detail some of the suggestions we have made and the motions we have moved in order to answer the propaganda that is sometimes spread that the Conservative party has no interest in the welfare of the farmer. I go back to April 8, 1941, as reported in Hansard at page 2280 when, on a similar occasion on a motion to go into supply I had the honour to move, seconded by Mr. Gordon Graydon:

That the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agriculture and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture in order that it may receive a just and fair return.

Then on March 23, 1953, I moved on behalf of this party, as reported at page 3208 of Hansard:

In the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.

Then on March 12, 1956, as reported at page 2026 of Hansard of that date, I moved on behalf of this party, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):

That ... in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.

That has been our stand and it will continue to be our stand, although there has been misinterpretation of a stand we took

9, 1957 3305

Agricultural Products-Support Prices in January last. At that time, in keeping with our responsibilities and realizing that the motion that had been introduced could not be effectuated and indeed was suspect, we refused to give it our support. It was meaningless and designed to confuse and deceive, because it held out promises that could not be carried into effect. It denied the need of flexible floor prices and promised 100 per cent income, without in any way indicating what would be par in connection with such an income.

In other words through the years we have endeavoured to assure the farmer of a fair share of the national income. Our objective is the equality of farmers in Canada's economy. We believe that action must be taken to correct the social inequity and the inferior economic position into which agriculture has been allowed to fall. We believe that action must be taken and taken at once.

One has just to look at the purchasing power of the dollar to realize the situation in which the farmer finds himself in relation to the prices which are paid today for Canadian farm products. With regard to all cost of living items, if the dollar had a purchasing power of $1 in 1939, in January, 1957, it had shrunk to 53 cents. The food dollar with a purchasing power of $1 in 1939, in January, 1957, had a purchasing power of 45 cents. The shelter dollar has a purchasing power of 63 cents today. The rent dollar has a purchasing power of 62 cents, and the clothing dollar a purchasing power of 51 cents today.

Those percentages indicate the degree to which the dollar has depreciated. Farm prices, whatever their comparison may be with those that existed in the past, are lower in purchasing power than they have been at any time since 1931 and 1932, at the height of the world depression. At that time prices in every part of the world fell to rock bottom levels because of the world depression that affected all; yet today Canadian farm prices have depreciated to a degree that is comparable in terms of purchasing power only to the worst days of the world-wide depression.

We believe that action must be taken now. I have already mentioned the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. That is now before the house, and it has received and will receive our support in order to enable farmers to market their products in a democratic and orderly manner. We believe that action must also be taken to recover our lost and diminished markets, particularly the British market for agricultural products. In keeping with our conviction we have advocated and pressed for a British commonwealth trade conference so that farm product and other markets may be developed and expanded in

3306 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Support Prices the commonwealth; but for some reason the members supporting the government have voted on every occasion against this demand and the motions I mentioned regarding farm prices.

We believe the time has come to investigate the very wide disparity between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer, as I pointed out a moment ago. We believe that the agricultural committee could have done a worth-while work in that connection had it been given the opportunity. Certainly it did not take the Minister of Agriculture very long to clear up the recent situation in connection with sheep. On that occasion he went into action quickly. Similar prompt action on the part of the government in convening the agricultural committee to investigate the disparity in the share the farmer receives of the ultimate consumer dollar would have paid dividends to the farmer.

We have repeated over and over again our belief that Canada should not stand idly by while its wheat markets are being lost through policies of the United States which are not fair or recognized competition but are actually policies that provide prices against which we cannot compete. These policies, as I said before, are contrary to the agreements that are in effect among the free nations of the world.

We believe, too, that action must be taken for the enactment of permanent floor price legislation based on a definite formula to allow for variations in production and demand for individual products. It is our contention that such floor prices should be announced well in advance of the production period each year and after consultation with representative producers and agricultural organization. We believe that a flexible price support program is the only means that will ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price cost relationship. We hold the view that only by action such as this will be met the problem which the agricultural industry faces today of falling prices and increasing costs of production.

The farmer is caught in that ruthless squeeze. At the present time the problem has not been met nor has any effective action been taken to preserve and maintain the integrity of agriculture against the adverse effects of that squeeze. For that reason we in this party believe that action should be taken now, and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):

[Mr. DiefenbakerJ

That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to introducing during the present session of parliament legislation which will assure farmers support prices for agricultural products based on a fair price-cost relationship, thereby resulting in agriculture receiving its reasonable share of the national income."

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would draw to your attention the fact that there was a vote on this subject, though not on the words used in the amendment, on one of the subamendments to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I draw this to your attention, raising it as a point of order, without arguing the case at the moment.

Mr. Speaker:

Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to indicate the subamendment to which he has referred?

Mr. Harris:

It was one moved by a member of the C.C.F. party.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into an argument now. Apparently the motion to which the Minister of Finance refers is that of January 23, which is entirely different from the present motion. That motion read:

We regret that Your Excellency's advisers seem to favour a flexible price support program, the effect of which is to leave the agriculture industry in a state of uncertainty and insecurity: we also regret that Your Excellency's advisors have failed to take the necessary steps to establish a system of parity prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure 100 per cent parity of income for agricultural producers.

I submit that the present motion is not in any way similar to that motion of January 23.

Mr. Gardiner:

I would just like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition used that motion made on January 23 as the main point in his speech just delivered.

Mr. Quelch:

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Progressive Conservative party is merely a somersaulting of their former position.

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) trying to smuggle a speech into a discussion of a point of order.

I take it the Minister of Finance has raised a question of order in regard to the amendment. If the point is seriously raised, then I suggest that the answer given by the Leader of the Opposition is a complete reply to the minister's contention. The Leader of the Opposition in the course of his remarks, quite apart from what he has said on the point of

order, clearly established the essential difference between the amendment which has been introduced today and the amendment introduced on January 23, which he has just read from page 582 of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, that amendment dealt with two things. It drew attention to the fact that His Excellency's advisors "seem to favour a flexible price support program the effect of which is to leave the agricultural industry in a state of uncertainty and insecurity." The second part of the motion expressed regret that His Excellency's advisors had "failed to take the necessary steps to establish a system of parity prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure 100 per cent parity of income for agricultural producers."

Sir, you will see that the purport of the present motion is quite different from that of the amendment on page 582 of Hansard, which was voted on by the house on January 23. The present amendment calls upon the government to introduce legislation at this session for a purpose which, in my submission, is not the purpose stated in the amendment of January 23, when regret was expressed that His Excellency's advisers had not recommended a certain course.

Now, sir, I think it is quite clear that the Minister of Finance in raising this point in an offhand way does not take his own objection to the amendment very seriously.

Mr. Harris:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not

want that impression to be left without saying this. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition making it quite clear that he is drawing a distinction between parity prices and support prices. That, I take it, is the burden of the amendment and the burden of his argument. I gather that is the point, and in those circumstances I can see he is about to make a distinction which, I may say, I expected him to try to make before the session was over.

Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):

On this

point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our party should have been supplied with a copy of this amendment. We have not got one. Thank you; I have just received one now. I would like to say a few words about this amendment. It says:

That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to introducing during the present session of parliament legislation which will assure farmers support prices for agricultural products based on a fair price-cost relationship, thereby resulting in agriculture receiving its reasonable share of the national income."

I have just read over the C.C.F. amendment on page 582 of Hansard, and it is in

9. 1957 3307

Agricultural Products-Support Prices almost identical terms. Certainly if the words are not identical the meaning is clearly the same, and it does seem to me that we should not be cluttering up the record with amendments which, for all practical purposes, have the same wording. I am not trying to make a political issue out of this. It does not make any difference to me, because we did not move the first motion nor did we move this. We have, of course, supported the principle throughout. But it does seem to me we should not have two almost identical motions placed before this house. We voted on this on January 23, and I do not see why the house should be required to vote on the same thing again on this occasion.

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression when I heard the amendment read that it was out of order, but after hearing the explanation of the hon. member for Eglinton that the purpose of this amendment is not the same as the purpose of the amendment moved by this group, that is that the purpose of the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative party is not the same as ours, I presume it is in order.