Edward George MCCULLOUGH

MCCULLOUGH, Edward George

Personal Data

Party
Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)
Constituency
Moose Mountain (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
May 28, 1909
Deceased Date
June 17, 1994
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_McCullough
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=f2d24403-7a54-4b38-9e62-0118d999a2e6&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
CCF
  Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
CCF
  Moose Mountain (Saskatchewan)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
CCF
  Moose Mountain (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 249)


January 25, 1958

Mr. McCullough:

Certainly he is confused when he said that the governor in council is going to be guided by the estimated cost of production of any specific commodity if the minister is not prepared to accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley. The amendment seeks to amend the bill so we will know what the government considers the average cost of production to be.

Rather than repeat what I said this morning I want to make some further arguments as to why that should be written into the bill. I would point out to hon. members of the committee that we have no assurance that the prescribed price will meet the general average cost of production of farmers throughout Canada as the bill now stands.

I have in my hand a copy of a report issued by the Searle Grain Company Limited which contains an article entitled "Farmers' Costs of Production". The article says in part:

The latest dominion bureau of statistics index number of commodities and services used by prairie farmers (the farmers' cost of living and production) stands at 240.5 (1935-39 equals 100). In other words it now costs prairie farmers $2.40 to buy what one dollar would buy in 1935-39. This means, therefore, that the $1.40 initial wheat payment is worth only 58.2 cents in 1935-39 value of money, basis 1 Northern Fort William, or at the average country elevator point it is worth approximately 50.5 cents a bushel.

The same thing could be said about livestock products; the same thing could be said about eggs. What we are trying to find out is how the government is going to be able to establish the average cost of production. I

want to make some suggestions to the minister. I think we probably have the facilities in this country to establish what we would consider the average cost of production. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has indicated that in the United States they have formulas and that they have arrived at those formulas by going into designated areas where it is feasible and scientific to produce various agricultural commodities. I think the same thing could be done in Canada.

The minister said on an earlier occasion that there is authority in the bill to prevent anyone from participating excessively under price supports. I am sure all members in this group agree with that. What we want to do is to protect the family unit farm. We do not want to protect uneconomic farms. But today, Mr. Chairman-we had the same situation for a number of years under the former Liberal government-we have not got the average cost of production. The former minister of agriculture is sitting in his seat and I say that he and his government were completely dis-:redited in the minds of the farmers of western Canada so far as price supports under the Agricultural Prices Support Act were concerned. The objective of that legislation was stated to be to endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture and to endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.

We are fighting today to try to get the bill amended for the very reason that the western farmer has not had a fair relationship and the Agricultural Prices Support Act has not functioned to provide supports for the farmer. We want to know what we are talking about. We want to have some assurance that the farmers will not have to rely upon political moves on the part of the government involv-ng price supports at certain times in order :o obtain some degree of justice.

I may say that we in this group do not want >ur farmers to be mollycoddled because we io not believe in it, but the farmer has to jo out and buy certain things in order to be able to produce. He has to buy them from nollycoddled industries in this country operat-ng under high tariff, protectionist policies and ;he farmer has to pay for the protection they [DOT]eceive. Along with other people in this lountry the farmers are probably paying ipproximately $400 million in order to pro-;ect many of these industries. In earlier days t used to be said by other governments that hese infant industries had to be protected in >rder that they might be able to survive but oday some of these industries have become luge monopolies.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 25, 1958

Mr. McCullough:

I am speaking about the cost of production. The Minister of Agriculture always wants to interject. What I am trying to point out is that the people on the land are faced with these factors.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 25, 1958

Mr. McCullough:

But here we have members opposite doing nothing but chortling and trying to interfere with what I have to say. Unless a principle is written into the bill by which we will know what the average cost of production is going to be and by which the farmers in general can be guided we will have an empty bill. There is no guarantee. It may be that the minister will be able to put adequate supports under farm commodities but there is no guarantee. There is simply no guarantee. The bill is as open-ended as the former legislation, and here we on this side of the house are spending days trying to get better legislation and at the same time actually trying to help the government.

I point out that we are doing so seriously and that if the government would accept some of our recommendations I am sure they would get the credit throughout the country. Instead, they are just trying to hurl insults at us and saying that we are not trying to do anything that will help our farmers. In my opinion this legislation could more properly be termed a bankruptcy act for agriculture rather than a bill which does anything for the farmers. What does it mean? It means that unless we can attach some meaning to the average cost of production, if the prescribed price is going to be estimated-

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 25, 1958

Mr. McCullough:

-nine of them, the

hon. member says-I can only say that I think it rests with the government to determine what is a fair share of the national income. I certainly do not feel that the farmer should receive less than his cost of production and a decent amount left over with which to provide himself and his family with a decent standard of living. To get guarantees put into the bill in order to achieve that objective is something we have failed to do. I can therefore only say that it has been a great disappointment to me that the government, in bringing in what they have already stated is one of the broad pieces of legislation by which they hope to provide the farmer with a fair share of the national income, have failed to provide any guarantee. I do not think that in this bill we have any guarantee. The matter must rest with the will of the government. I hope that they will so administer the act that it will bring some benefit to our farm people.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 24, 1958

Mr. McCullough:

My point of order is that the commission referred to by the hon. minister was an independent royal commission set up by the government of Saskatchewan for the purpose of looking into certain aspects of agriculture. That is an independent report, and these people were not intimidated in any way; it was a very valuable report and we take no exception to it. I do want to point out, however, that it does not represent C.C.F. policy.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink