Mr. English:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has stated that the Conservative members from the province of Quebec had not taken part in the debate on the bill now before the house and that therefore they are not interested in it. If the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) had been in the house last Saturday, he would know that I participated in this debate.

If he makes his speech without any information, how can the electors of the constituency of Charlevoix-

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Maltais:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I did not say that the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) had not taken part in this discussion. I simply expressed the wish-

(Text):

I did not say that the hon. member did not speak during the debate. All I said was that his voice was not loud enough to be understood.

Mr. Breton:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we had simultaneous translation in this house there would be much less confusion than there was tonight.

Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, obviously one cannot be expected to match the display of vigour of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) and possibly, too, one might not be able to stir up the house to the same extent. Recently a certain Canadian newspaper, referring editorially to the official opposition in this house, that is, to the Liberal opposition, indicated that they had displayed during this present session an excessive fear of an election, and its performance, so that editorial stated, has been pathetic, inept, and in some cases, ridiculous.

I refer to that at this moment because of something which was said by a member of the official opposition this morning. When the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) was speaking, during at least at one

stage of his speech I could hardly believe my ears. It is known, of course, that the hon. gentleman was not speaking for the official opposition, but this is just one more indication that we have of the ineptitude, let us say, of the official opposition; its pathetic weakness not only in connection with consideration of thjs measure but also the ridiculousness of its attitude toward most issues. This morning the hon. member for Meadow Lake said, if I heard him correctly, that he would support this measure-Bill No. 237-in order that it might pass; in order that in turn the Canadian farmer might turn against the government, rise, as it were, in wrathful indignation and smite the government down. To me that is fantastic reasoning. Surely if the hon. member feels as he seemed to feel about the measure he should show that he has the courage of his convictions and oppose it. The position he took this morning was in my opinion in complete contradiction to the position taken by his leader last night when, in reply to a question, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) indicated that if they were given an issue they would certainly oppose it even if it meant defeating the government. I am almost inclined to believe on the basis of what I have heard not only today but on previous days that if someone in one of the smaller opposition parties, or in the government, were to move a motion indicating that the government itself was not competent, et cetera, the official opposition would squirm out of voting for that motion on some such pretext as those we have heard in recent days.

Speaking in the House of Commons on Friday last, January 17, my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) said that mass meetings, lobbies and threatened marches had been the result of this legislation-

Why don't you use your own speech?

Mr. Shaw:

If the hon. member who made that remark is here long enough he will, perhaps, learn. The hon. member who interjected may have been the same hon. member -I do not know-who has been stirring them up. Mr. Speaker, if I had been answering that question I would say unequivocally that the government has been stirring them up. And one of the major actions which has resulted in their being stirred up is this Bill No. 237. Possibly I, with a few others, may be in a rather unique position as far as this stirring up is concerned-

It is certainly unique.

Mr. Shaw:

Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have very limited contributions to make.

3G5S HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization I have just heard another one. Between November 7 and December 24 I was out of Canada. During my absence the resolution which preceded this bill was brought down and discussed. Then the bill itself was brought down and during the course of discussion was amended. Following that, I believe on December 21, the house adjourned for the Christmas recess. Almost immediately after my arrival at my home on December 24 I was besieged by farmers who came to speak to me about this bill. Some were speaking only for themselves as individuals and others were speaking possibly for themselves as individuals but were also officials in local farm organizations. They immediately started asking me certain questions about Bill No. 237.

I was in a very happy position at that time because I had never even heard about Bill No. 237. Having been out of the country, I had not seen the resolution and I had not the slightest idea as to what the bill contained. I did not even know the title of it. Therefore I was in the very fortunate position of being able to say to the farmers, "Obviously you do not like it; tell me why". I made notations of their complaints. Certainly it was not a case of stirring them up at all.

Later when I returned to Ottawa on January 3 I examined the bill for the first time and read all the debate relative to it and I found that there was ample justification for their complaints, the main one being, of course, that the formula which had been faithfully promised by Conservative candidates did not appear anywhere in Bill No. 237.

I have been amazed when I have contrasted the observations made by Conservative members in this house while they were in the official opposition with respect to parity and what we have been hearing in this house today from government members concerning this subject. It seems repetitious for one to refer again to the comments that have been referred to so often but, after all, at times it does seem absolutely necessary.

I noted that when the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking on Friday he took us back once again to certain amendments which were moved by Conservative members while they were in opposition. He referred us, for example, to March 12, 1956, on which occasion, as recorded at page 2024 of Hansard, the then private hon. member for Prince Albert, our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), moved an amendment to a motion in the following words:

[Mr. Shaw.J

-"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".

Those words "parity of prices" stand out so large, Mr. Speaker, that probably even I could read them if I were to remove my glasses. The words used by the Prime Minister on that occasion were "parity of prices". There was never a suggestion on the part of any Conservative member when he was in the opposition that he did not understand the meaning of the word "parity". There was no suggestion on the part of any Conservative on the opposition side of the house at that time that when he spoke of parity he meant 70, 80 or 90 per cent of parity; he talked of parity and nothing else.

Today we found one of the ministers of this government referring to the question of parity in a rather interesting and unsual way. He said, in effect, that an arbitrary 100 per cent of parity was a fantastic assertion. In fact, he created the impression, in my mind at least, that he considered it ridiculous because he went on to say that it does not stand analysis. In addition he also said-perhaps not in these words because I do not have his exact words before me-that it insults one's intelligence. Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that we are hearing these things only now? Why in the course of the speeches made before the last election by Conservative candidates did not these same persons stand before their audiences, and especially farm audiences, and say, "Well, after all, the word 'parity' sounds good. Maybe it is good. I will try to find out something about it and if I find it is good I promise I will do something about it."

But no, that is not what they said. I appeared upon more than one platform with my Conservative opponent during the last election campaign and addressed meetings the bulk of which were sponsored by local branches of the farmers' union of Alberta and he, like all the other Conservative candidates was a most agreeable individual. In fact, he was so agreeable that I am prepared to believe that if the farm organizations had asked him to demonstrate that he could stand on his head he probably would have been agreeable to the suggestion.

I recall very well that we were asked certain questions. Do you believe in parity? If you were elected would you press for parity? And the answer in every case was yes; but, of course, we must remember this, that there is now ample evidence to demonstrate that just about every Conservative candidate in the country had his own private version of what

the Conservative party stood for as far as agriculture was concerned. We had that demonstrated in this house, for instance, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was asked what he was prepared to do with respect to the acceptance of foreign currency as partial payment for Canadian agricultural products. The minister in as many words asserted that we have not been asked to accept foreign currency and the policy of the government would certainly seem opposed to the very idea. I mention that because of the fact that my friend the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) upon one occasion at least during the course of his speech was challenged by the minister who said that his party never did promise that. What the party as such may have promised I am not prepared to say, but it is a fact that every Conservative candidate I have heard speak in my part of the country pledged that if elected, even if he were in the opposition, he would fight for the acceptance of foreign currency as partial payment at least for Canadian farm products sold abroad. As has already been pointed out, even in the House of Commons certain members of the Conservative party including the Prime Minister have gone on record on the floor of this chamber as having supported our amendments which called for that particular policy.

A little earlier I referred to the observations made this afternoon by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) who read from certain publications. His purpose was to demonstrate to the house that farm organizations across this country have endorsed Bill No. 237. He read from a publication known as the Rural Co-operator. I have in front of me the very editorial he was reading. I watched carefully as he read several paragraphs and I was hopeful-in fact at one stage I was very close to asking him- that he would also read paragraphs 10 and 12. He did not. Therefore, I shall read paragraph 10, which reads as follows:

A support price may be set at any point that will ensure a steady supply of a particular commodity and also permit the efficient farmer to make a living, provided it is above 80 per cent of the average price in the previous 10 years. According to the provisions of the bill the cost of goods and services the farmer has to buy will be taken into consideration in setting a support price. But the price will be set by order in council on the recommendation of the prices support board after the prices support board has consulted the advisory board of farmers for which the bill provides. The price will not be set on the basis of a known and established formula as recommended by the C.F.A.

Paragraph 12 reads as follows:

I feel that we should thank the government for giving the farmers support legislation. But I think the bill would have been much more acceptable to farmers if some formula had been included as a guide for establishing price supports that would

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization provide a fair relationship between farm prices and the cost of goods and services the farmer has to buy. Then it would be possible to discuss and negotiate support prices in the light of an agreed measure of the farmers' position in the economy.

I would suggest that these two paragraphs probably would lead most to conclude that while Gordon Greer, the Ontario federation of agriculture president, was, in that editorial, expressing a degree of appreciation for the fact that the government was endeavouring in its own way to do something, the bill itself actually falls considerably short of what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is asking for, and certainly it is a known fact that the other Canadian farm organizations feel exactly the same way toward it.

I find that farmers in my area take the strongest possible exception to the fact that this formula is missing from the bill. Possibly during the course of the discussion the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) might indicate to us whether Bill No. 237 does fall completely within the pattern of his own personal thinking. Probably the minister should indicate to us whether he does feel sincerely and conscientiously that we can line this bill up alongside of his own many declarations in the House of Commons since 1945 and whether the two do not conflict violently. Maybe he will be quite successful in doing that.

Then, I would ask him to take the speeches of the present Prime Minister of Canada since 1940-I believe I have heard most of them-and place this bill alongside of his declarations and see whether or not there is violent conflict between the two. There is absolutely no doubt in any farmer's mind that the party which now forms the government of Canada did during the election campaign give an absolute assurance to the Canadian farmers that under a Conservative government they would be provided with a fair share of the national income. This bill cannot, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, provide that assurance.

Secondly, I should like to point out that there is not a farmer in this country who has forgotten that less than a year ago the Conservative party pledged equity to the farmers of this country. It is my absolute conviction, Mr. Speaker, that no such assurance can be given under the provisions of Bill No. 237.

I have already stated, and it has been pointed out many times, that over the years, and more particularly during the last election campaign, the Conservative party promised the Canadian people adequate parity. I can recall during the election campaign picking out that word "adequate" even at farm forums where all candidates appeared. I pressed myself to try to find out what the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization word "adequate" meant in relation to parity, to see what is was and who would define it, if and when the Conservative party ever formed the government of Canada.

I think I know now what the official definition of "adequate" is if considered in Conservative language. Certainly it does, as far as I am concerned, create a contradiction when placed alongside the word "parity". I repeat that there was never an indication in this house during all the past years by Conservative speakers that parity meant anything else but parity. This bill does not-let us not kid ourselves into thinking that it does- provide parity and the Canadian farmers, by their demonstrations, today have clearly indicated that they too do not accept it as something which will provide real parity.

The Canadian farmers were promised by the Conservative candidates that if they were elected in sufficient numbers to form the government of Canada there would be established for agriculture a fair cost-price relationship. Again I say this bill cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, guarantee a fair cost-price relationship for agriculture. Possibly it does on certain items, but certainly wherever items are excluded it is utterly and completely impossible for that situation to be established.

Finally, the Canadian farmers were assured that the Conservatives, if elected, would guarantee to correct social inequity as applied to the farmer and the inferior economic position in which agriculture had been allowed to fall. Well, Mr. Speaker, cash advances did not do that. Cash advances, as a temporary sort of remedial measure, were supported by us. In the circumstances it was necessary. It certainly has not done anything to guarantee that situation.

Once again I suggest to the house that if it is the minister's conclusion that this bill can or will provide social equity and place the farmers in a proper position in our economy, I would almost have to accuse him of being inebriated. I am absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the position taken by the government with respect to the amendment which asks that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. How often in the past 18 years I have sat over there in the house when the Conservatives were also sitting over there and heard them damn the government of the day for not making more use of the committees of the house. Here would have been an admirable opportunity to demonstrate that they believed what they declared when they were over there. All this eyewash about it holding up the bill unnecessarily, and it is nothing but eyewash, does not impress me very much. This bill, the previous bill and

the resolution preceding the legislation have been before the House of Commons for how long? Well, a couple of months.

Two and a half months.

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, more than two months. Had the minister himself announced to the house that he would take the initiative in asking that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee, we would have been able to say two things, first, that at least he was doing what he advocated when he was a private member of the house and, second, that he was taking the proper course of action. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the bill had been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization there is every possibility that it would have been given third reading and passed by the house long before this.

With amendments.

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, even With amendments which we would expect to be brought in at some stage. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the government has actually changed its whole attitude towards house committees. There is another thing that has happened that makes me wonder. The present Prime Minister, when a private member of the house, spoke of what he called the deplorable condition of agriculture. Believe me, I would not want any new Conservative member of the house to think that any language that any of us might use about agriculture would be exaggerated because the Prime Minister could think of the most brilliant words, phrases and clauses in describing the deplorable condition of agriculture and do so better than anybody else in the house. Of course, conditions now are not unlike what they were then and there is not too much prospect of them being different. With respect to the matter of the licking taken by Canadian farmers because of the spread between what the farmers get for what they produce and what the consumers pay the present Prime Minister said on March 12, 1956, as found at page 2021 of Hansard:

I think it will be agreed generally, for certainly it is the view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm union organization of Canada and other farm organizations, that in every province the farmer today is caught in a ruthless and unrelenting squeeze between falling prices of farm products and rising costs of production. I am not in any way advancing an argument of depression when I say that the squeeze is of such a nature that, unless action is taken to meet it, it will, unless curbed, lead inevitably to bankruptcy of Canada's outstanding industry. That trend applies equally to the apple and the potato grower, the field crop producer, the dairy farmer, the livestock producer and the wheat farmer.

I read that for one specific reason. How short it makes Bill No. 237 fall of what

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

it should be in order to meet the very conditions which he described. I now have the passage to which I wish to refer with relation to the matter of committees. I repeat once again that I have seen considerable evidence that as far as the committees of the house are concerned there is great danger of our being treated in exactly the same way as we were treated by the previous government. With respect to this matter the Prime Minister had this to say in the house on March 12, 1956, as found on page 2026 of Hansard:

Next I mentioned in general the widespread disparity between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer. That disparity, that spread, deserves to be investigated. Many hon. members in this house want work to do. They would like to perform a worth-while work but have been denied the opportunity of making the contribution which their ability and training would permit. I would like to see the agricultural committee, when it is set up, undertake to make a preliminary investigation into those spreads. Then if after hearing evidence the agricultural committee finds it is circumscribed to such an extent as to be unable to come to a definite finding on the question which exercises the thinking of farmers all across the country today, I should like to see a royal commission appointed in order to investigate this spread and ensure a greater degree of equity to agriculture in assuring that the farmer would receive the largest possible percentage of the price ultimately paid by the consumer.

I am not forgetting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact that a royal commission has been set up but this is what I am wondering about. In the light of that declaration why was the agricultural committee completely ignored and completely bypassed. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to put those members to work whom he seemed to feel did not have enough to do. I do not know who they are. I have been here quite a long time and I have always felt that I had a little bit more to do than I could handle. In any event, this suggests to me that unless we are extremely careful we will find that the committees of the house may well become almost useless to the House of Commons.

I do not intend to proceed further. Frankly, I had not intended to take quite this long although I did not promise anyone that I would not. I indicated a moment ago that it is not a matter of stirring up the farmers as far as members of parliament are concerned. The bill has stirred them up. The Minister of Agriculture is an Albertan, a very fine qualification in itself, but personally I feel that he has had to engage in a great deal of compromise in respect to the bill. In fact, I do not think he would have brought in the first draft and then moved to change it if he had been able to follow his own

wishes. If it had not been for certain difficulties, which maybe I only imagine, I am sure he would have brought in the present bill first, and I am still satisfied in my own mind that if the minister had had a reasonably free hand in drafting the bill we would have had a different bill and that the formula would have been in it.

I sometimes pass whatever idle moments I have by looking at the Conservative ranks and wondering which members it might have been who might have stood in his way. I think the Canadian farmer deserves something better and I am still hopeful that before the bill goes through we will have something better. My main reason for taking part in the debate is that I am still hopeful that as long as the bill has not been passed it will be amended and improved.

(Translation) :

Mr. Neree Arsenauli (Bonavenlure):

I am

rising, Mr. Speaker, not only to take up the childish challenge of my friend the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), but in order to fulfil my duty as representative of the Canadian people in this house by defending our farmers. My hon. friend from Charlevoix will learn in due course and at his expense that it is not always good to deny the responsibilities of a political past.

I shall right now, state my admiration for our government which is introducing such important and necessary legislation for the economic survival of our country.

(Text):

Mr. Maltais:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I understand there is a rule of this house that a member is not allowed to read from a text. Who wrote the text?

Mr. Speaker:

All hon. members, I think, are familiar with that rule, and I ask the member not to read his speech.

(Translation):

Mr. Arsenault:

I do not have to analyse the bill as its contents fully explain its purpose, but I want to dwell on the main idea behind this legislation. It is the sincere desire of our government to restore a proper relationship between the rural population and the industrial population of our country. That is why I now want to refer to a few figures which will emphasize the need to consider, especially in this study, the human factor. This bill could just as well have been entitled: "Stabilization of the farming class".

The efforts made in the past by the preceding governments in an attempt to reach the same solution indicate the importance of the

3660 HOUSE OF COMMONS

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization problem, but those same people who were responsible did not carry their inquiry far enough, and the enforcement of the solutions they advocated was ineffective.

Their last effort in this direction was the setting up of a Senate committee to investigate agriculture. There again they have failed in their task.

At the beginning of June, 1957, a member of this committee stated that it was high time to remedy the depressed condition of agriculture in eastern Canada. He then calculated that the average annual income per farmer in that part of the country was only $750 and suggested that four or five farmers or settlers be replaced by a single farmer. Solutions of this type caused our predecessors to further accelerate the movement of our farmers away from the land. Under their administration our rural population has decreased at a fantastic rate. They have brought about a national unbalance in our labour force, which in turn has brought about the economic situation with which we found ourselves faced when we took over.

Let us have a look at the 1941 statistics, when the Liberals were in power. Farmers then made up 27 per cent of our population, whereas, ten years later, in 1951, that proportion had gone down to 20 per cent. In 1956-and this is still under the former government-statistics show that only 17 per cent of our people have remained on the farm. This movement of our farmers away from the land and into industrial centres must be ended forthwith and the legislation under consideration at this time is such as to remedy this situation. It will allow the farmers to find on their farm the income necessary to the subsistence of their families and to the education of their children. To put it briefly, it will allow them to live normal lives and to benefit from modern advantages just as much as their fellow citizens in industry.

This bill will be of great assistance to the farmers of Canada, and more particularly to those of the constituency of Bonaventure which I represent in this house. At a time where the whole of Canada enjoyed relative prosperity, between 1945 and 1955, the people of my constituency only enjoyed part of the advantages of the economic boom brought about by circumstances.

If I may at this point, I should like to single out of this period the middle year, 1950, and to quote figures on the average income per farm of my constituency for that

year. The average income per farm in 1950 amounted to $812.47 of which 26 per cent was derived from the forest products of the farm and 74 per cent from food products.

Because this farm prices support legislation was neglected, and because farms had the disadvantage of being remote from the consumer market, the low level of farm income held my people in hardship until they finally had to give up farming after years of moral suffering in the face of an ever uncertain fate. This bill will help remedy the situation wherever it is still possible because, alas, far too many of our farmers have already left their farm.

The figures I have just quoted give an indication of the significance of wood products in the agricultural economy of my people. The same holds true for the whole of the province of Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada. That is why, in the future, this lumber production by farmers will be considered as farm product and will benefit from the advantages extended to other farm products.

The importance of forest products in the economy of our country is great and, to demonstrate it, I would like at this point to make an analysis of the national value of farm produced forest products. In 1956, Canadian farmers supplied 2 million cords of pulpwood to the paper market and this crop provided the federal treasury with some $30 million by way of direct taxes, while providing industry with capital of approximately $110 million.

Labour employed in pulpwood processing plants earn more than $100 million annually. Now other figures will show the importance of farm forest products in the field of our national exports. In 1954, Canada's exports were valued at about $3,800 million. The forest products of Canada make up the large part of 37 per cent, or about $1,400 million; out of this amount, the forest products from our farms contributed about $160 million. That is why our government, conscious of its responsibilities, considers such production at its true value and is extending to it the same benefits enjoyed by our other farm products while providing for an adequate classification of that commodity so that the paper companies may be interested in using that raw material in their mills.

During the discussion on this bill, some hon. members have mentioned the control which this legislation could bring to bear on support prices in order to regulate the

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

increase or decrease in the production of certain commodities. It is absolutely normal that such an indirect control should guide our population, and the freedom of our farmers will not be affected if their efforts are guided towards the adaptation of their production to the consumers' demand. Such a control will make it more easy to prevent a new exodus of our rural population to our industrial centres since this desertion of our farms is a consequence of an ill-planned production.

The bill now before the house has another important aspect which, as it is implemented, will demonstrate its efficiency. In order to come closer to farming communities, our industries will in the future leave the large urban centres. Indirectly, when the royal commission on price spreads will have provided us with figures indicating the reasons for these spreads, we will be in a better position to judge the extent of this decentralization.

Before concluding, I would like to mention the speech made this afternoon by the member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry). To begin with, he asked that maple syrup be included in the bill. This is a useless request since this product is already included among all those farm products to be known as designated products. I also admired the assurance of this Liberal member in his comments on Bill 237. However, he ended his speech by saying his remarks were pusillanimous and that he was not giving himself out as an expert on those matters. I therefore wonder on which principle of responsibility this hon. member is going to base his right to vote in this house, and explain to his fellow-citizens that he is protecting their rights. After admitting himself the weakness of his remarks he, moreover, showed that he had not even understood the bill before him. May I stress here the assertion he made in his speech with regard to the price support for butter. When he himself refers to a price of 58 to 65 cents a pound, he does not seem to realize that he is dooming the dairy farmer of his country to work on his farm for an average of $15 a week. In this he imitated his colleague the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) who before him, had stressed that dairy farming was the main source of revenue for the country people of northwestern Quebec. This industry cannot even keep on the land the rural population which has settled in that district during the past 30 years. The lack of foresight of these hon. members prevented them from understanding the position described to the farmers in their own county.

In commenting on this position, they would have realized that farming had kept on- though haltingly-and only thanks to the revenue the farmers got from their wooded lots. There was then and there is now an exodus of settlers and farmers from these areas just as soon as their acres are cleared of the lumber which provided them with a living.

I hope that these few remarks will enlighten those who would be tempted to vote against this bill.

Once more I would like to stress the confidence I have in this legislation. Provided it is administered properly-which is a certainty with the Conservatives-this bill will be the salvation of our farmers.

Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):

Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the most agricultural constituency of the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, I think it is appropriate for me to make some remarks on the second reading of Bill No. 237 entitled "An Act to provide for the Stabilization of the Prices of Agricultural Commodities".

First, allow me to point out that I have found in this bill much more phraseology than anything new, and I am convinced that the farmers of my constituency who will read it will use, to qualify it, the same phrase used by an old author: "A deluge of words over a desert of ideas".

The present Conservative government, aware of the unfortunate experience undergone by the United States as a result of their policy with regard to agricultural prices and, furthermore, anxious to save its face, following the carload of fantastic and irresponsible promises made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the last electoral campaign preceding the June 10 election, now wishes to give Canadian farmers the impression that it wants to adopt radical steps in their favour. An examination of the bill in the light of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which it purports to abolish, and of the general agricultural situation in eastern Canada and in the Province of Quebec in particular, is therefore imperative at this stage, and that is what I wish to do, taking also into account the agricultural situation in the constituency of Roberval which I represent.

The preamble of this bill is rather bombastic and is along the lines of the terms of the act, generally. For lack of anything better, our farmers will have to thrive on words.

3662 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization This is really characteristic of what they got in the past from Conservative governments, from the Bennett regime right up to the one who has now been in control of the province of Quebec, under a borrowed name, for fourteen years.

The legislation introduced by the previous Liberal government contained the expression "support prices". The one now offered by the present Conservative government contains the expression "guaranteed prices". Since support prices were the equivalent of guaranteed prices, I do not see much difference from the act which is to be repealed, except that support prices took into account production costs at the producer level, i.e. the cost to the farmer himself, whereas the guaranteed price which the present Conservative government intends to bring in will be based on a formula representing a moving average over a ten-year period. The new board will set the base price for a given agricultural commodity by calculating the average price on representative markets, for example, Montreal and Toronto, for the ten years just preceding that of the fixing of the guaranteed base price. The guaranteed price of any particular commodity for the 12 following months will be a percentage of this base price. Under this legislation, the government does not therefore intend to calculate the guaranteed price by taking into account what the farmer has to pay in 1958 to buy a product on the market, but merely to arrive at an average of the price paid for that particular product on the main markets of this country over the last ten years. In this way, it will be guaranteeing not the average price which, more often than not, hardly allows the farmer to live, but only 80 per cent of that average.

This seems to me an implicit admission on the part of the government of its inability to solve the problems of agriculture, and it is a sure sign that agricultural prices will take a further drop below a level which, in the view of the farmer, is already inadequate. Never has a government announced with such unconcern and resignation the advent of the era of lean-fleshed kine in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion of Mr. Villeneuve (Roberval) the debate was adjourned.

(Text):

Mr. Chevrier:

May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?