Mr. Drew:

To refer to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said, there is of course a decisive difference between those measures which the government announces that it is going to introduce and subjects which are only referred to by way of general reference. It should be pointed out that in the speech from the throne there is no statement that the government is going to introduce something or in what form it will be introduced. The nearest that it comes to an indication that anything might be brought before the house is to be found in these words:

. . . amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.

That, Mr. Speaker, is just simply a general statement with regard to the possibility of something which may or may not be introduced. I can only repeat that, if a decision of this kind were reached, it would only be necessary for the government to set down a list of things which it did not think it was going to introduce and say "we may introduce them"; then when the speech from the throne was finished, all discussion of them by way of resolution or amendment to a motion of this nature would be precluded, and the ordinary rights of the opposition to introduce subjects for discussion in this way would be terminated by a decision of this kind.

Mr. Coldwell:

May I just say one word,

Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the discussion and it seems to me that this matter can be decided by thinking of an ordinary procedure at a public meeting. I do not think the chairman of a public meeting would take a motion that something cannot be introduced or considered. I think the chairman would say that when this is introduced for consideration, at that time you have the privilege of voting it down. Taking it from that point of view, it seems to me that this motion is analogous to the situation arising if somebody at a public meeting rose and said that something shall not be considered. Consequently, apart altogether from the long discussion of the rules and all the rest of it, in my opinion this amendment is not in order. That would be my view.

Mr. Fulton:

If I may just reply to the

point made by the hon. member for Rose-

80709- 2104

Turnover Tax

town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), it seems to me there is a fundamental confusion between the two things that he has referred to. This resolution which I moved this afternoon does not say that the house must not consider something. I have not the text of it before me at the moment, but what it says is that the proposal submitted by the government to the provinces should not be proceeded with. It does not say that the house must not consider something which is not before it at all. It refers to things which the government is doing, admittedly in another place, and which it is doing now. It is not hypothetical. The question of this amendment has been considered at sessions of the conferences, has been discussed in correspondence and is to come up again. It is a matter which is under active consideration. This resolution merely asks the house to express an opinion on something which is now under consideration by the government.

Question.

Mr. Speaker:

May I say first of all that I raise this question of order because I realize, along with the leader of the opposition, that it is a very important matter. The leader of the opposition says that it would be a dangerous precedent not to allow it. I was concerned with whether or not it would be a dangerous precedent to allow it. I do not know to what length members might go in introducing motions of a negative character.

For instance, if this motion is allowed to stand I suppose I could not object to a motion, if an hon. member decided to make it, to the effect that further consideration should not be given by this government to bringing in legislation in connection with old age pensions, or a means test between 65 and 70. If I allowed this amendment I am afraid I would have to allow a similar amendment.

I realize the importance of this decision, and for that reason I have allowed full discussion of the point of order. I wanted to be very sure that I was right, and that I was doing an injustice to no one, and I was not establishing a, precedent that would not be a sound one.

I made some notes of what has been said. I will not refer to all the remarks that have been made; but if this amendment is allowed, would it not have been in order for an hon. member to have moved an amendment similar to the one before the house to the effect that at this session further consideration should not be given to a complete revision of the Indian Act? If this amendment is in order then I think an amendment to that

Turnover Tax

extent would have been in order on a motion to go into supply because all that is said in the speech from the throne regarding the Indian Act is:

You will also be asked to consider a complete revision of the Indian Act.

By adopting the speech from the throne I take it that the house agreed to consider an amendment to the constitution along the lines referred to in the amendment, should such an amendment be submitted to the house. Might I say also that the question in connection with an amendment of the constitution is not to the effect that the house would amend the constitution; it was not to the effect that the house would amend the Indian Act and the other statutes. The effect of the speech from the throne was that the house would give consideration to an amendment of the Indian Act and the constitution, and other matters which are referred to in the speech from the throne.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Would Your Honour allow me to point out the difference in wording of the two? In the one case it says:

You will be asked to consider a complete revision of the Indian Act.

In the other case it says:

The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of this present session.

I submit there is a great difference there.

Mr. Speaker:

I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, but when the speech from the throne was prepared it was not known whether it would be necessary to present to the house amendments to the constitution. But by adopting the speech from the throne I take it that the house agreed to, consider amendments to the Indian Act, and also agreed to consider amendments to the constitution, should they be presented to the house.

As I say, I realize this is an important decision. I have listened carefully to all the representations that have been made. I came into the house with an open mind, and after giving careful consideration to what has been said on the point of order, I am now prepared to make my ruling.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said that this is a negative motion, and he doubts whether it would be allowed at a public meeting. The amendment anticipates by a negative motion something which may be presented to the house at a later date. In

my opinion, by the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the house indicated its willingness to consider the measures set forth in that speech, particularly:

The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.

As I have said, these constitutional amendments are referred to in the speech from the throne, and I understand that the proposals for the amendments in the speech from the throne were then a matter of public record and related to the proposals in relation to an indirect provincial sales tax.

The present amendment before the house, which would prevent further consideration being given to the sales tax proposal, is, in my opinion, not reconcilable with the earlier decision where, by a vote of this house, the house indicated its willingness to consider such a proposal if and when introduced by the government. I therefore rule that the amendment is out of order because it anticipates by a negative motion something which may be presented to the house at a later date, and as being in conflict with a previous decision of this house.

Mr. Drew:

I appeal the ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:

Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.

Yea.

Mr. Speaker:

Those against will please say nay.

Nay.

Mr. Speaker:

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And some members having risen:

Mr. Speaker:

Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:

To the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, Mr. Fulton moved, seconded by Mr. Drew:

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

"this house is of the opinion that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize by amendment to the British North America Act an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent."

I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it anticipated by a negative motion a measure which the government had indicated it might present to the house at this session, and also on the ground that it was not reconcilable with the previous decision of the house in adopting the

MAY 22, 19b 1

address in reply to the speech from the throne to give consideration to such a measure, if and when presented.

From this ruling Mr. Drew and others appealed.

Mr. Gardiner:

I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):

Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I have a grievance which I wish to raise at this time and which affects hundreds of thousands of wheat producers in western Canada. I refer to the fact that during the present crop year the wheat producers have produced wheat now selling at a price which does not adequately compensate them for their increasing costs of production.

We in this group have always held that the wheat producers and other farm producers of Canada, and the industrial workers for that matter, should have a parity income, should receive for their services a price comparable to the cost of producing those services. There is no method at this time by which the wheat producers of Canada can protect themselves against the ever-increasing costs of production. In order to indicate how these costs have risen I might say that in 1945 the eleven factor cost of production index for farmers stood at 152*1, whereas on January of this year that index had risen to 216*9, an increase of 64*8 points or 42*6 per cent. I want to point out that when the 1950 crop is finally disposed of there will be little or no chance of the western wheat producers receiving any more for it than they received for the 1945 crop, even though since that date the cost of production has gone up by more than 40 per cent.

Wheat

As I have said, we in this group have always believed in parity prices. We believe there should be some fair relationship between the farmer's cost of production and, in this instance, the price of wheat. I remember that during a debate in 1946 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made the statement that a parity price for wheat at that time would be $1.41 or $1.42 a bushel. He went on to explain- that this was the parity price previous to increases which had occurred in implement prices and farm labour costs. If one looks at the eleven factor index at that time, that is, January of 1946, one finds that it stood at 149-7. In April of 1950, when farmers were undertaking expenditures for the production of the 1950 crop, that index stood at 209-7. In August, 1950, when the farmers were harvesting the 1950 crop, that index was 218-7. On that basis the 1950 average for the eleven factor index was 214-2. This means that on the basis of the parity price given by the Minister of Agriculture in 1946 and the change in the cost of production since that time as given- by the bureau of statistics, parity price for the 1950 crop would be $2.02 a bushel. One might figure parity prices on a different basis. If one makes the assumption that the price for wheat during the five year pool period bore a fair relationship to the cost of production, taking the average of the eleven factor index for that period as 175-6 and considering the average for 1950 as 214-2, then parity price for the 1950 wheat crop would be $2.24 a bushel.

I have heard it said altogether too frequently in this house that the farmers in Canada are making more money today than ever before and that the wheat producers of western Canada, being the elite among farmers, so it is said, are making even more than the average of all farmers in Canada. I have before me a report of the bureau of statistics showing the net income of farmers in the prairie provinces in 1949 and 1950. The income of farmers in the three prairie provinces in 1949 was $803-5 million. In 1950 the income of those farmers dropped to about $644 million, or a loss in that one year period of $159-5 million or more. I realize that certain adjustments will be made which will change that picture to some extent; but considering the cost of production in 1949 as compared to the cost of production in 1950, and the very large drop in income indicated by the bureau of statistics, I submit that the position of the farmers in 1950 even including any subsequent payment on the 1950 crop will be considerably worse than the position of the farmers in 1949.

Mr. Gardiner:

It is already $200 million.

-'Mr. Argue.]

Mr. Argue:

Yes, but $200 million does not buy nearly as much today as it bought in 1949. The minister could not have -been listening to what I said. I pointed out that the effective buying power of the farmers' income for 1950 will not be as great as it was in 1949. I have here a publication of the Department of Agriculture, the Economic Annalist. It contains a table showing the value of production in constant dollars per farm worker, starting back in 1901, omitting some years and going up to 1949. In looking over these figures I was amazed to find that the farmer's production, in other words his income, has gone down from a peak of $2,211.60 in constant dollars in 1942 to $1,857.10 in 1949.

Mr. Blue:

If I may ask the hon. member

a question, is he speaking from -books or from experience?