Legislative Assembly

are only so many dollars, of course, to go around and the farmer has no union that will say that we must get the cost of production plus a worthwhile percentage for our investment and our work and so the farmer is at the mercy of this economic situation. He is acting as sort of a buffer to absorb the shocks of the increase in prices of all the social security measures and everything that must be paid. When the dollar is divided up he gets a very small share of it, and prob— ably getting a smaller share of it all the time. I think somebody has to step in and act as the advocate or the union, and I speak as one who belongs to a union myself, as a professional man. We have the labour people who have their unions to protect them and I think that is a good thing; we have the corporation, the big corporations who can demand their percentage and get it, whatever it may be. Six, eight or ten per cent profit. And something has to be done by government or law or some way that will ensure the farmer his just proportion of the dollar that is in circulation; until this is done I am afraid that the farmer is going to have a difficult time. But I think the challenge is there for the government to do some- thing about this and I hope that in all these deliberations of the Economic Im— provement Corporation that this matter will be taken into consideration.

I went through the Acres report on agriculture. I won’t discuss that, as I understand these reports are coming up later. But there are some false premises in that report. One of the most glaring impressions left is with regard to the profit in farming, because the prices that are used to figure out the profit are very much higher. They were the good years of Conservative rule back in 1964—65 (Applause) That is no criteria today at all.

Hon. Robert E. Campbell: What about 1961 and 1962‘?

L. George Dewar: Oh that is ancient history now, I am not going back that far. Walter R. Shaw: Make it 1958 and 1959 too.

Hon. Robert E. Campbell: I can tell you about them.

Hon. Alexander B. Campbell: There have been good years and bad years.

L. George Dewar: We have of course subsidies, and the sad part, of course, today is that the farming subsidies are going down instead of going up; they are going down. Subsidy on hogs, subsidy on cheese, subsidy on milk, which I think a method of trying to absorb some of this inequity as far as the farmer is con— cerned instead of improving the situation, the situation is getting worse. So we will look to the government for action with respect to agriculture. I am pleased that the Premier put that on the top of the list in his priority, because as agriculture progresses then we will all progress in this province.

Some Member: Your office fees.

L. George Dewar: Well now, that’s the problem, that’s a problem, of course, that is not easily answered. (Laughter) I will tell you about that. When I started practising medicine twenty years ago I charged $2.00 for an office call, and I paid very little income tax so I had two dollars in my pocket, and nearly everybody paid me too, and I had $2.00 in my pocket and I considered I was very well off. Today the fee is four or five dollars for an office call but the (lay after I get it I have to turn around and give $2.00 to Mr. Sharpe, so I have only got $2.00 left.

Hon. Alexander B. Campbell: Darn those Liberals!

L. George Dewar: On top of that, not nearly as many people can afford to pay me as could pay me back twenty years ago. So actually I am poorer than I was twenty years ago. (Laughter) And that is a good example of the sort of bogus money.

Hon. Robert E. Campbell: At that percentagge you must be making $40,000 a year.

L. George Dewar: I am not saying that. (Laughter) You are not the tax collector, but that is the situation. The dollars that are in circulation are fooling people. They are bogus dollars and people don’t realize it. It is not the same

_92_