Mr. Gardiner:

He wishes to know whether the hon. member for Calgary West is going to vote for the amendment or for the bill.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

And I suggest that to carry out what the hon. member has so well expressed, in such eloquent language, he must support the bill before the house-because the amendment will do just the very reverse of what he was arguing.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

If the amendment is defeated I will vote for the bill, of course I will.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

If you vote for the amendment you will kill the bill.

Mr. Drew:

Nonsense.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

There has been quite a bit of dispute as to the matter of fixing prices. We heard considerable criticism of the speech delivered in Brantford by the

Minister of Agriculture; but I venture to say that in making that speech, and in following it up, as he did, the Minister of Agriculture was largely responsible for selling 60 million pounds of our pork in Great Britain. They got it through at that rate. Now my friends turn round on the Minister of Agriculture and criticize him for the amount he is getting for that pork. I would point out that the taxpayers of Canada generally are subsidizing that sale of pork to the tune of $2,100,000. I believe the western farmers will appreciate that action. A total of 670 million pounds of pork is consumed in Canada, so another $23,500,000 will be paid by the consumers of Canada because of the increase in pork values the minister secured. Yet my friends argue that we are going to lose from the sale of wheat to Great Britain. Their prognostications there will again prove entirely incorrect.

There is a variety of views as to whether marketing should be conducted by the government and whether we should fix floor prices. I believe that those of us who come from western Canada are fairly unanimous that there should be floor prices for our farmers. We do not want to see the bottom drop out of prices; we want reasonable floor prices guaranteed so that there will be some stability to compensate for the sacrifices they made during the war and since in connection with prices. Some part of this burden should be borne by the general taxpayers who are not farmers.

The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) keeps quoting the Searle Grain Company Limited, but this company outlined a plan in the issue of their publication of March 22, 1950, that agricultural products should be handled and marketed solely through the open market and the usual trade channels and that individual support prices should be fixed. This is the so-called Brannan plan. Consumers would have the benefit of purchasing at open market prices whenever such prices fell below the support prices, and farmers would receive a cheque direct from the treasury of Canada.

This plan was strongly supported by Mr. Chapman, president of the Montana farmers' union. On the other hand, Mr. Kline, president of the American farm bureau federation, vigorously opposed the Brannan plan. Then there are other gentlemen in the United States who have made other statements. Mr. Kline made another statement at Washington in which he said that he was definitely against any such plan.

On the other hand we hear certain commendation of the policy followed by the Minister of Agriculture and which apparently meets with the satisfaction of the farmers of my constituency. I should like to quote what

was said by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the convention recently held in Niagara Falls, and I quote:

During the past seven or eight years, the present agricultural program has been evolved between the federation of agriculture and its member bodies on the one hand, and the Minister of Agriculture representing the dominion government on the other. Canadian farmers have greatly appreciated this cooperative arrangement and the mutual understanding and confidence which it engendered.

The understanding, however, which farmers across Canada had of this program is that it was to cover both the war and post-war periods.

It has for a period of four or five years since the war. That is the commendation of the head of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. There is in our province a gentleman who is greatly respected by farmers of all political stripes. Dr. Hedley Auld, in summarizing the matter in January of this year, said this:

Figures given to the agricultural production conference held in Ottawa in mid-December showed that the United Kingdom can buy bacon from Ireland, Denmark and Poland for a fraction less than 31 cents per pound, then 36 cents in Canada; that cheese is available from New Zealand for less than 22 cents and from Australia for 19-2 cents per pound, compared with 30 in Canada; that these countries also have butter at 34-7 and 34-5 cents respectively, whereas our price is pegged at 58 cents; that Denmark's eggs are priced at 30-8 cents per dozen-

And again:

It would seem, therefore, that Canada cannot hope to retain an important share of the British food market unless and until our prices are brought more closely into line with those of competing exporting countries and exchange problems are more satisfactorily resolved.

Meanwhile, recent Ottawa dispatches indicate that cabinet ministers are not in agreement as to how much support should be given to farm prices through the Agricultural Prices Support Act. It should be clear that food prices cannot be maintained at their present levels. To do this would require state aid to farmers on a scale without precedent. But a policy of unsupported prices would surely invite a depression which would be most unpleasant, and it is improbable that many would solicit a return to the thirties.

I think his further remarks are significant because they indicate an unbiased opinion. He continues:

Her willingness to buy Canadian bacon and other products from Canada now and to defer acceptance of a corresponding value in terms of wheat is a concession which may be very useful to us in stabilizing values of other Canadian farm products in 1950.

Incidentally, it is my understanding that if the 1946 wheat agreement had not been made when it was drawn it would have been impossible to negotiate it at any later date. And without the wheat agreement of 1946 there would have been no Anglo-Canadian agreements for meat and cheese in 1948 and 1949. And without such agreements and with so many farm products of the United States declared "surplus," the problems connected with the marketing of Canadian food surpluses could easily have arisen a year or two earlier.

Agricultural Prices Support Act

That is the opinion of an unbiased gentleman who has retired from public life. It is idle for hon. members of this house, such as the hon. member for Souris, to compare conditions in Canada with those in the United States where their home consumption is much heavier. It is idle for the Scotsman from Manitoba-I forgot his name-to contend that we should be compared with Great Britain, that they have a stabilized market over there for their farmers. Everything produced in Great Britain is consumed there and when you consume everything in your own country it is a simple thing to stabilize prices to the consumer and to everybody else.

I do not intend to speak at any great length except to say that my friends to your furthest left, the one and a half farmers, have been talking and talking in this house until some of us are getting tired listening. You would think that they had all the farmers on their side of this legislature. We have past presidents of rural municipalities, we have a number of former reeves who were in municipal life for many years, and we have farmers from Ontario and all the other provinces of Canada. On the Liberal side of the house there are more farmers than in all the rest of the house.

Mr. Homuth:

How many farmers are in the cabinet?

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

After all, the cabinet listens to the private members. In answer to the hon. member and his leader may I say that we are not rubber stamps. I have never been told yet how to vote in this house and I have never yet heard of a Liberal who has been told how to vote. In answer to my hon. friend I want to say that if there are any rubber stamps in this house they are to be found in his party. When we were dealing with the pipe-line bill I can remember how his leader waved the old flag and wrapped himself in it and then each and every one of the Conservative party got a little flag and was waving it. No truck and trade with the Yankees.

Mr. Homuth:

My hon. friend is not a rubber stamp because a rubber stamp at least makes an impression.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

C.C.F. representations have been made to the government and no doubt the government will listen, but I trust that the government will also listen to the representations that have been made .by the many Liberals who represent farmers in this house. We had the experiment of a socialist government in New Zealand. I was there ten or eleven years ago shortly after their Labour government was formed. I have heard from a minister of

Agricultural Prices Support Act that government every year since I have been there, and if you check the history of that government you will see that all it did for the farmers of that country was to practically crucify them. It was the farmers and the liberal-minded people of the towns and cities of New Zealand who kicked out the Labour government the other day. They decided that they had had enough of taking farm prices, putting them in the general pot, and spending them on somebody else. We do not want too much government control in Canada. We want fair prices for our farmers. Western Liberals have been fighting for that for thirty years, and we are going to try to see that we get it. If we do not get it from the government, the carpings and wailings of my friends to the left will never stir any government to give them anything.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

shall not endeavour to follow the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart)-

Nobody could.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

-in the address he has delivered, but he interested me when he spoke of the number of farmers in the Liberal party and of the high positions they have occupied. If I did try to compete with him I might point out that the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) was vicepresident of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at one time, and that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) was president of the rural municipalities association of the province of Manitoba. Therefore they are both at least as qualified as the hon. member for Yorkton and myself to speak on this question.

Mr. Sinclair:

A couple of barefoot boys.

Mr. Sinnoit:

How many more have you got?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

The Progressive Conservative party has consistently supported the legislation first introduced in 1944 known as an act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace. We have continued to support that legislation. Mention has been made of the amendment and the effect it will have on the legislation. I cannot follow my hon. friend in his argument as to its effect. The amendment reads:

That Bill No. 17 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of legislation to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act so as to provide that floor prices should be established at such levels as to guarantee to producers a price-cost relationship not less favourable than that prevailing in the period 1944-48.

There would be no delay in connection with the bill. If a meeting of the agriculture

committee were convened today under the chairmanship of the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), with the efficiency that he brings to bear in the discharge of his responsibilities as chairman, it would not take that committee very long to arrive at a conclusion on this matter and bring the bill back into the house as directed in the amendment. For years we of the Progressive Conservative party have been advocating the establishment of parity prices. In April, 1941, I moved a resolution on one occasion in the house for the establishment of parity prices.

In his argument the hon. member for Yorkton quoted certain persons as authorities for the propositions he advanced. I am glad he did because he established in advance the authority of those from whom I intend to quote. He mentioned in particular the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Hannam. I accept him as an authority just as the hon. member for Yorkton did. In the Free Press Weekly Prairie Farmer Mn. Hannam had this to say about the agricultural situation:

. . . Canadian farmers face a worse market outlook now than farmers of any other country.

He went on to set out the supporting facts. At the moment I am not placing the responsibility. I realize quite well that when the British minister of food was in Canada in 1947 he indicated that Great Britain would continue to buy Canada's food products, but I say that Mr. Hannam has stated the position of Canadian farmers generally. He pointed out the need of the establishment of parity prices. I should like to read a supporting excerpt from the Rural Co-Operator of February 28 last:

Farmers, in their prices support recommendations, are not asking the government to maintain farm prices at peak levels.

The article goes on to quote Mr. Hannam as follows:

"In its recent brief to the federal cabinet, the Canadian federation of agriculture asked that certain farm prices be maintained at December, 1949, levels, but these were certainly not peak prices" ... '

In quoting that excerpt, I realize that someone will say that the amendment covers the period from 1944 to 1948, and that there was in fact some decrease in farm prices during the year 1949. In any event, when the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted his brief he asked for a parity price and he stated:

. . . the level of returns to farmers in 1949 was substantially lower than in the peak year of 1948 because of a 30 per cent increase in freight rates and increased feed costs. Costs are still at 1949 levels . . . farmers, who went down one step in the level of their returns in 1949, had to suffer another

and more serious step downward in 1950 with the reduced prices which resulted from loss or reduction of markets.

I shall support the amendment. I am in entire agreement with the hon. member for Yorkton in his attitude towards applied socialism; I have taken that stand in this house from the very beginning. But the amendment submitted by the C.C.F. party is not socialism; it is salvation for Canadian farmers because the situation is such that if the level of prices as fixed under the Agricultural Prices Support Act is a level that is below the costs of production then in reality such a floor level will be of no assistance to the Canadian farmer.

I realize the difficulties in fixing a floor price level because if the level is fixed too high, too great a contribution will have to be made out of the $200 million revolving fund. On the other hand, if the floor price is down in the basement, so far as price levels are concerned, then the legislation will be of no benefit whatsoever. On a matter such as this I should like to see the minister give members on his own side of the house the freedom to vote as they wish. I am not saying that any direction is given or that any member in this house is under pressure by an alleged farm bloc or any other bloc; but I do feel that this amendment represents what Canadian farmers in all parts of this country are asking for. Indeed, during the election campaign the question of price supports was discussed, and over and over the attitude of those supporting the government was stated to be that the price level should be maintained on a parity basis. I have the quotations which I could read if necessary. I intend to support this amendment.

It has been stated that this legislation must be passed before Thursday evening. No one wants it to fail, or to die by the efflux of time, but surely the house has a right to discuss this matter, even though it has been introduced within the dying days of the period during which it is in force.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

Could not the group with which you associate have introduced a resolution earlier in the session, and left the act alone? And can you assure the house that the Senate, through your friend Haig, will pass this?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

What was the last part of the question?

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

Whether the other man in the other place will pass this.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I do not know who the other man in the other place is.