Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):

Mr. Speaker, after reading the bill entitled Agricultural Stabilization Act, which is supposed to replace the Support Prices Act, which is now in force I wondered whether my agricultural training had not become suddenly out of date, since I cannot understand what good could come out of this new bill which the department has already amended twice since it was first brought in.

As an agronomist with some experience of agricultural problems, both from an economic and technical viewpoint, as one who has acquired some practical experience on farms in western Canada, having worked as an agronomist for both the federal and provincial departments of agriculture, I claim I am somewhat justified to state, I think, that the agricultural questions are not entirely alien to me.

I have examined this new bill and compared it with the existing legislation which was adopted in 1944 and which has operated satisfactorily ever since.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

I must say this new legislation does not provide any improvement important enough to justify any change that would merely involve administrative difficulties and confuse the minds of the farmers. The change in this legislation seems to have but one objective, one strangely similar to the objective which has prompted the introduction of some other pieces of legislation by the present government, i.e., a purely political one.

For the moment, let us consider the effects of this piece of legislation which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has twice amended since its introduction, on account of its utter lack of responsibility and popularity among the leaders of the agricultural class, the farmers and the members of parliament, because it does not meet the needs of our farmers. The formula for establishing the basic price of some farm products at 80 per cent of the average price in the last ten years is a discrimination against our farmers because it takes no account of production costs. It is a price which would necessarily be much lower than the cost of production.

I have figured out what the floor price for a dozen eggs would be under the new act. The average price I have been able to establish for the past ten years, would be 38 cents, with perhaps a few decimal points more or less. At 80 per cent, as the minister of agriculture wants to establish it, the price would be 30.4 cents a dozen. Can anybody imagine that such price would protect our farmers when it is known that the production costs vary from 32 to 34 cents a dozen? I am aware that this is a minimum price and not necessarily the one obtained by the farmer for his produce if demand is good; but in the case of overproduction, the price will obviously fall to the floor limit which, in this case, will remain below cost. Then who will pay? It will still be the farmer. He will curtail his production, thus giving rise to a greater demand for that product and to a disproportionate price increase. Production will then be out of line. In my opinion, the act of 1944 which is now in force proved sound enough to prevent that fluctuation. Its formula is flexible since the advisory committee can accomplish price changes according to need and as occasion arises, quite apart from the twelvemonth period provided by the proposed legislation.

It is understandable that the floor price is not as high as the producer would like it to be, but it can be said it is not low enough for the farmer to produce at a loss, as would be the case under the new legislation.

96698-216i

Moreover, the statement made by the minister of agriculture contains this mention "the price fixed at the beginning of the year will remain in force during the twelve months". That is another provision which inconveniences the farmer who is often compelled to plan his agricultural program many years in advance. He cannot tell a year and a half or two years in advance what the price of a certain commodity will be. Another inconvenience, a psychological one, results from the procedure of setting prices at 80 per cent of the average of the last ten years. In point of fact, those who are a little familiar with the trade practices in the country know there are unscrupulous dealers-

Mr. Boulanger:

I shall therefore suggest to the minister: (1) to reconsider the dangerous effects the bill might have if adopted; (2) to give consideration to the suggestions of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Interprovincial Farm Union Council, who speak for the more serious farmers of this country, before rewriting his bill for the third time; and (3) to postpone discussion of this bill to the next session. This would be the best chance for the farmers to benefit from the present act while waiting for a change of government which would bring them what they really want.

(Text):

Mr. Boulanger:

I was saying that some unscrupulous merchants exploit our farmers themselves when it comes to selling consumer goods and trade products such as fertilizers, farm implements, feeds, etc.

Under this new bill, merchants will be held as dictators in some parishes because they control credit, they will go around the concessions and tell credulous farmers that the government set the price of some commodities at such a level and that they cannot pay more than that price. Some may say that this is no concern of the government. I should think that the government has no right to put weapons in the hands of those unscrupulous merchants, weapons with which they will be able to exploit the agricultural class.

I say that the act in its present form-

Mr. Boulanger:

Those with the slightest knowledge of how trade is practised in the rural areas know that some unscrupulous merchants are exploiting our farmers-

Mr. Boulanger:

You asked no permission to make a speech, though.