After five very long days of debate, under our present extended hours, on the second reading stage of the bill we had another example of the tactics which hon. members opposite follow, in that there were immediately two interjections after I had spoken for only five minutes. After five days of these outpourings from the opposition we had these two interjections, one by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano "filibustering his own bill", and the other from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate "a great way to get business done."
These foolish and childish interjections are typical, of course, of the sort of things which have been going on during this session, and which have been coming from hon. gentlemen opposite because they do not want to hear the facts. They feel they should have days and days in which to put forward their own misinterpretation of this piece of legislation, and when the minister responsible for the legislation attempts to reply they immediately try to prevent him from speaking by making interjections along these lines.
Last night, Mr. Speaker, I had pointed out that the main Liberal criticism of this bill was that it was not as good as the Agricultural Prices Support Act now on the statute books, and which the Liberals had introduced some years ago. I had indicated why I was quite sure that was a proposition which no farmer in this country would accept.
The other Liberal criticism of this bill put forward by the hon. member for Rosthern was that it does not cover wheat, oats and barley produced in the prairie provinces, which are handled by the Canadian wheat board. I think the reason for not including wheat, oats and barley under the price support act introduced by the Liberal government was that these grains were handled by the Canadian wheat board. The heads of the three prairie wheat pools did not want, and do not want now, to have wheat, oats and barley handled by the wheat board included in this bill.
3738 HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The reasons for their stand are very-obvious. If you attempted to handle these grains under two government boards the result would be nothing but confusion and difficulty. I feel there is no question but that it would destroy the efficient operations of the Canadian wheat board. Since the leaders of these three farm co-operatives who represent the people most directly concerned with handling these grains, and who I think know a great deal more about the matter than the hon. member for Rosthern or other members opposite, did not want these three grains included, it is rather difficult to understand why the hon. member for Rosthern and certain members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties have been criticizing the bill because these three grains are not included.
Whatever is done, so far as wheat, oats and barley are concerned, will be done under the Canadian wheat board, a body of which the great majority of western farmers are very strong supporters. I deplore the line taken in this regard, particularly from the point of view that it was an attempt to rouse sectional feelings so far as this bill is concerned. Time after time the hon. member for Rosthern said that this bill did nothing for the western farmers. This bill looks after every product produced by the western farmer, with the exception of wheat, oats and barley, which are looked after by another Canadian government board.
This attempt on his part to arouse sectional feelings in regard to this matter is a deplorable example of the extent to which he and the members of his party will go in order to try to stir up trouble in this country. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, from which we have suffered most in Canada is this business of the Liberal party trying to stir up sectional difficulties for their own political advantage. This was just another example of an attempt to do that.
The majority of the criticism levelled at this bill by the C.C.F. and Social Credit was merely abuse, abuse of me personally and abuse of the legislation. As such it is not proper, I think, to dignify it by answering it. Apart from this general abuse, the basic criticism of these two parties was that the legislation contained no rigid formula. This is correct. It contains no rigid formula for the very good reasons which I gave at the resolution stage, and again when I spoke on second reading.
Subtopic: MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.