Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):

I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that it would be better for the Postmaster General to go back to his seat and look after his responsibilities as Postmaster General, because obviously he has not the slightest idea of what we are talking about.

Mr. Winch:

However, it is good to see the Postmaster General back where he belongs- with the opposition and not with the government.

Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):

May I suggest, in the interest of finishing the business before us, that we sit through the lunch hour?

One o'clock.

Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):

Hon. gentlemen opposite are always asking for co-operation-

Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member looks so tired that I think he should be given some time off.

Mr. Winch:

One o'clock.

The Chairman:

An hon. member has called it one o'clock; therefore I leave the chair.

At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Mr. Jorgenson:

Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support the measure announced by the Prime Minister yesterday providing assistance for western grain producers. In doing so there are several points I want to mention without trespassing on the ground that has already been covered, and I would also like to reply to some of the comments made from the opposition benches.

The hon. member for Essex East as usual entertained us yesterday when he replied to the announcement by flailing away in all

Supply-Agricu Iture

directions in the jungle of his thoughts. He then proceeded out into the cow pasture where, blissfully ignorant of where he was placing his feet, he proceeded to plod in all directions. He did indicate, however, that he knew something about cow pastures because he did not forget the bull.

I want to say that this measure providing assistance to western farmers is going to materially assist the transformation that today is taking place. The development of agriculture within the past ten years, the changing over from the old type of agriculture into the "agri-business" has required a tremendous amount of capitalization, and before this government came into office very little assistance in this direction had been received from the previous government.

The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska in many of the speeches he has made in this house, as well as again today, has referred to the Prime Minister's policies in the two election campaigns. I am glad he did that, because if he were to look at the program that was outlined by the Prime Minister in the 1956 and 1957 campaigns he would discover that the policies outlined at that time have, with the exception of a national rural development and soil conservation program, being largely implemented.

The hon. member for Essex East chided the Prime Minister for bringing in these measures, for talking about crop insurance and farm credit and things of that nature. I think it was necessary that this be done in order to indicate the place this particular program fills in the over-all agricultural policy of this country. I do not think it is possible for anyone to point to any particular measure and say that is the cure-all. We have never attempted to do that, but almost invariably when a measure of this nature is brought into this house the criticism which comes from the opposition benches tends to indicate that they believe, regardless of what measure is brought in, that that measure by itself could cure all the problems of agriculture. Each specific measure that is introduced, and there have been many since this government took power, is designed to take care of a particular situation, and when the entire program has been implemented then we will have that degree of parity that the Prime Minister has spoken of during two election campaigns and indeed on many occasions in the past.

I want to thank the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska for assisting us in our argument supporting this assistance to western grain farmers. One thing which I think we must all recognize is that the western grain producer occupies an unique position in the agricultural economy today, in that the greater percentage of his products find their

[Mr. Jorgenson.1

way into the export market. This makes it extremely difficult to apply measures which we have applied to other products largely consumed in the domestic market. This makes it necessary to develop a policy that is unique in attempting to solve the problems of the western grain farmer.

The hon. member pointed out that during the 1959 crop year the income of the farmers in Canada had dropped by $27 million. He strengthened our argument for an acreage payment when he said this, although he neglected to point out that $20 million of that $27 million was in western Canada. In addition, when he referred to the drop in income in the first quarter of this year and the drop of $50 million, $47 million of that amount was again in western Canada. I might also add here that when he referred to that period he was referring in 1959 to the highest quarter in Canadian agricultural history.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there has been a tendency on the part of a good many people to attempt to relate the price stabilization legislation to a means whereby the problem of the cost-price squeeze-and this is the big problem in western Canada today-can be solved. I submit that this is manifestly wrong. Price stabilization was introduced for a specific purpose, to prevent the uncertainties as to income of the farmers of this country. At the time the bill was introduced the prairie producers of wheat, oats and barley were not included under the jurisdiction of the board, and there was a specific reason for that. Price stabilization by itself is designed to level off violent fluctuations in price and to ensure to the farmer that prices will not drop below certain specified levels. The farmers themselves have an opportunity of discussing price levels with the stabilization board.

To attempt to solve the problem of the cost-price squeeze by the use of the price stabilization board could lead us into serious difficulties. First of all, if it is applied to wheat, oats and barley, as I mentioned earlier a large percentage of these products goes into the export market and we would be using money to subsidize exports. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, that would weaken our argument against those countries which are using that type of sales policy today.

In my opinion the problem of the cost-price squeeze can only be dealt with if you base your calculations on the fact that whatever product is produced must be sold. There are those who conveniently ignore this fact, but assuming that whatever is produced in this country must ultimately be sold, then the problem of the cost-price squeeze can only be met with measures designed to reduce the cost of production-and we have taken

many steps in that direction, and to increase our export markets-or, and I hesitate to suggest this last alternative because it is one that I know will be unacceptable to the farmers themselves, through the imposition of production controls. The United States attempted to use this type of rigid price support in order to assure to farmers their fair share of the national income. Subsequently they had to introduce acreage controls, and rather than getting out of their difficulties they increased them. The government are wise in that they have not followed this course in Canada.

Our product, wheat, finds a ready market in the countries of the world because of its superior quality. It is essential-and I think this is where the government does render a great service-to maintain the quality of our grain and make every possible effort to find more markets for it.

Some time ago the Prime Minister announced that our agricultural policy would follow two parallel but separate lines. There was the over-all policy which was designed to take care of the national situation, and then there were policies which would have to be implemented on a regional basis in order to take care of difficulties that arise within various regions of the country. Obviously a program designed to take care of a regional problem cannot possibly help people in another area; therefore our policy has been designed with that object in view, and we have constantly tried to make the policies complementary.

It is useless to have a program of price supports if crop insurance is not implemented along with it, because no amount of price support can be of any possible value to a farmer who has suffered a crop loss. This is true in this particular instance as well, because during the years when farmers were asking for price support and for some assistance in agriculture they did not have the benefit of crop insurance. I am glad to say that the province of Manitoba has taken the lead in this regard, and in my area a trial program has been put into effect. I might also add here that contrary to the predictions of the opposition, who maintained that farmers would not take out insurance policies, in my own municipality 75 per cent of the farmers have taken out crop insurance. This is an indication of how the farmers themselves support the policies of this government, and it must serve as a reminder to the opposition members that when they were on this side of the house and those policies were asked for they would have been wise to implement them at that time-

Supply-Agriculture

Many arguments have been presented with regard to the specific program now before us, and I do not intend to cover the ground again. There is one particular point in regard to the acreage payment that I wish to raise. I hold in my hand a card issued by the Canadian wheat board which represents the interim payment on the 1957 crop, which amounted at that time to 10 cents a bushel. This card was given to me by a farmer when he came to me and pressed for acreage payments. He said "I have no use for this. It will give you a clear indication, however, of how useless deficiency payments would have been to me". This card is from a farmer who farms a section of land near Arnaud, Manitoba. The total amount of his interim payment on a section of land at that time was $1.33. If he had received a deficiency payment of 30 cents a bushel he would have obtained $3.99. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the $200 which each farmer will receive under this program is by far the better method of distributing this amount of money.

I have received many letters from reeves, councillors, farmers and businessmen in my own constituency, and of all the letters I received from individuals not one advocated a system of deficiency payments. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. member for Essex East is supporting a program of deficiency payments on western grain, because he studiously avoided making any mention of it yesterday. We shall be waiting with interest to hear what policy, as an alternative to the one the government has now proposed, he would implement.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the government for providing this measure of assistance to the farmers in western Canada and in particular to the farmers in Provencher who, like many farmers across this country, at the present time are using the facilities of the Farm Credit Corporation, crop insurance, cash advances on farm-stored grain, and many of those other programs the government has implemented since it came into power in an attempt to establish more economical units and reduce the cost of production in an effort to meet the cost-price squeeze and to produce for the benefit of the people of this world. I support this measure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the government has arranged for a large number of its supporters to participate in this debate. That, of course, is a right which must not be denied to any party in this house or to any hon. member; but since this is the decision, hon. members will appreciate, of course, that we in the

Supply-Agriculture

Liberal party are also entitled to put forward some views, which will be done during the course of the day, as we are in committee, and as I say since the government has decided to put up such a large number of speakers.

I should like to put on the record now, so that we shall not forget the circumstances which have led to this particular declaration of policy, those events which over the course of a year and a half have agitated the farmers of western Canada in particular, and the members of this house, who have been anxious to ascertain the policy of the government, based on representations which were first made by some 1,000 farmers who descended on Ottawa on May 10, 1959. It is doubtful whether in Canadian political history any policy of a government had its genesis in an event so long removed from the particular situation at the moment as the circumstances which surround this particular policy.

It will be recalled that 1,000 farmers came to Ottawa seeking to elicit from the government some declaration of policy based on promises which the government had made in 1957 and 1958. In 1958 the government announced the same policy we are now discussing. The farmers were going to receive something not consistent with the declaration of "parity, not charity". They were not going to be given deficiency payments as they had been led to believe from speeches made by members of the government and by supporters of the government. Instead, they were to be-

Mr. Harkness:

I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. What members of the government ever made speeches along that line?

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

Every member of the government who spoke in the election campaign of 1957 and in the election campaign of 1958, including the Minister of Agriculture, gave to the farmers of Canada the impression that they were going to-

Oh, oh.

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

Hon. gentlemen, of course, do not like us to take part in debate so they interrupt. They gave the impression that if they were given a chance to form a government they would embark on policies embracing deficiency payments; parity, not charity. They said they were going to give the farmers of western Canada and the farmers of Canada generally a new deal. That was undoubtedly the implication of assurances given by hon. members opposite.

Mr. Harkness:

Absolutely incorrect. Neither I nor anybody else ever made any such statement about deficiency payments.

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

Mr. Chairman, if you want to detect whether or not a point you are making is effective, all you have to do is listen to the Minister of Agriculture who will continually interrupt, clearly indicating that he recognizes the merit of the proposition made and which offends him.

Mr. Harkness:

I only interrupt when something absolutely incorrect is being said.

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

In 1958 the government came forward with a proposal precisely like the present one. That was its answer to the farmers of western Canada, an answer that was inadequate from their point of view. Because the farmers recognized that the acreage assistance program of 1958 was not in fulfilment of assurances given during the election campaign they organized this mass meeting, which represented not only one farm organization but the other great national farm organizations. They came here and made their submissions in a manner that impressed everyone, because the Prime Minister observed how orderly and constructive they had been. I hold in my hand a booklet entitled "Souvenir, On to Ottawa", issued by the western farm delegation under date of March 10, 1959, a delegation that came to Ottawa in protest over the failure of the government to implement its election promises and to express dissatisfaction with the inadequacy of the government's program as represented by the acreage assistance program of 1958.

Mr. Brunsden:

Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall the march to Ottawa in the thirties, when 2,500 western farmers came here to wait on a government of which the hon. member later became a minister? Does he remember the reception that was accorded to that delegation?

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

All I can say is

that any delegation of farmers that came to see a Liberal government did not have to wait for a year and a half before that Liberal government announced its policy.