1970-01-20

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In this morning's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail there is a report on certain exchanges that took place in the House yesterday in which there is attributed to me a statement that is the very opposite of what I actually said.


Mr. Trudeau:: It happens all the time.


Mr. Benson:: Join the crowd.


Mr. Bell:: Impossible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Ottawa chief of the Globe and Mail has already apologized to me personally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I never get any apology.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he should get his name in the paper too. In any case, I feel that the record should be corrected. The offending sentence in the Globe and Mail reads as follows:
When Mr. Trudeau said he expected to make an announcement "in due course," Stanley Knowles (NDP Winnipeg North Centre) said sarcastically: "I hope the phrase 'in due course' will not take as long as it usually does."
Mr. Speaker, I understand the confusion. In fact, I learned yesterday afternoon there was some confusion so I went to the office of the Canadian Press to find out what that bureau put out over its wire. I have in my hand the words the Canadian Press sent out, which were as follows:
Mr. Trudeau said it is and the government will report to the House "in due course." Stanley Knowles NDP-Winnipeg North Centre said he hopes "in due course" takes as long as it usually does.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry my subtle sarcasm was not understood. When I suggest that "in due course" sometimes takes a long while 1
have in mind a certain commission which was appointed in 1965 and took two years to make its report, following which it took a year for the report to be translated and then there was a white paper which is still before a committee. It is that kind of pace which I would like to see if and when this matter is dealt with. Indeed, if the Prime Minister has any idea of acting on this matter in this Parliament he can count on me to oppose him, all the way.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau) moved: that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, January 16, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions-Mr. Yewchuk:
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented on December 16, 1969, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will recall that yesterday, when the motion listed in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca was called, the President of the Privy Council raised a point of order concerning the propriety of placing the notice of motion by the hon. member under Routine Proceedings. The basis of the submission made by the President of the Privy Council was that in the absence of any authority from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development the hon. member for Athabasca
2576	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report could propose his motion, since it purported to concur in a substantive proposal, only as a private member's notice of motion. Later in his comments the minister suggested that the House should not adopt a practice whereby a private member might raise a substantive question by means of a motion to concur in a report of a standing committee rather than by the other methods provided for such under our Standing Orders.
There may be considerable merit in that position, but on this occasion it is the sole and only duty of the Chair to look at the notice of motion to ensure that it has been prepared in accordance with the practices and usage of this House.
The most important question is whether it is competent for any private member or any unauthorized member of a committee to propose a motion to concur in a report of a standing committee. It is apparent that there is a dearth of precedents to which the Chair may revert for guidance in regard to the question now being considered. At the same time the Chair must not disregard any precedents that in fact exist.
The precedent of May 23, 1932, and that of May 19, 1947, both of which were cited by the President of the Privy Council yesterday, seem to establish the point that a member who is not a member of a committee may move concurrence in a report.
A review of the Journals for 1964-65 will indicate that no fewer than four different members moved concurrence in various reports of the Special Committee on Procedure.
An extensive search of the records of the House has failed to disclose that any objection to a motion made under circumstances similar to those now under review has ever been made. Taking into account these precedents, few though they may be, I am of the opinion that the motion may be proposed by any private member.
The next point to be reviewed is whether the notice of motion has been properly placed on the Orders of the Day. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of the submission made by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that private members or unauthorized members of a committee should not be able to raise substantive questions in the manner proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca, the provisions of the report of the Special Committee on Procedure, as adopted on July 12, 1955, and recorded at page 944 of the

DEBATES	January 20, 1970
Journals for that date, make it obligatory to place a motion to concur in a report under heading "Motions." That provision reads as follows:
That motions for concurrence in reports of any standing or special committee, for the suspension of any Standing Order, or such other motions made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observances of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment shall be listed, when notice is required, called and disposed of under "Motions."
The relative words in this citation of course are, "motions for concurrence in reports of any standing or special committee." The motion to concur in the report is, I suggest, in its proper position on the Order Paper.
By way of conclusion I should like to make the following observation and suggestion, if I may. Under our new Standing Orders the standing and special committees have assumed a more important role in the legislative process. For obvious reasons our authorities do not take account of this development. In view of the decision I have taken to allow the motion of the hon. member for Athabasca to stand under motions and in light of the necessary proliferation of committee reports, there is the risk that the business announced each Thursday by the President of the Privy Council could be seriously disrupted by committees who feel their reports should be debated rather than government business. This was the point made very forcibly and clearly yesterday by the President of the Privy Council and it is a difficulty which the Chair fully recognizes. My suggestion would be that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization might like to examine this situation to suggest ways in which the business of the House can be arranged in order to reconcile the demand of committees to have their reports brought forward for debate with the requirements of government business.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations between the parties on this point and agreement reached to stand the hon. member's motion for today's sitting and also for tomorrow. Perhaps I could ask that the matter be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Baldwin:: At the request of the
government.
January 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Trudeau:	At the request ot the I ask the unanimous consent of the House
government.	to move this motion.



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to move a motion which I will present in a few moments. Recently there have appeared in the press and in correspondence expressions of grave agitation and concern by both commercial and residential leaseholders in the national parks of Canada as a result of demands being made on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for rent increases under long existing leases of up to over 4000 per cent. This has created a great deal of controversy and unrest. As a matter of fact, it goes to the root of the long-festering struggle between the residents of Jasper, Banff and Waterton National Parks in the province of Alberta and the officials of the parks branch. In addition, Mr. Speaker, yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am
allowed to explain the purpose of my motion.


An hon. Member:: Briefly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says he is allowed to explain the purpose of the motion. 2 understand the Standing Order allows him to explain the urgency of the motion.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Banff townsite a plebiscite was held by the residents and on Saturday I am told a similar event took place in Jasper townsite. The question was whether the people wished to remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Because of the urgency of the matter I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock):
That the whole question of recent rental increases demanded of commercial and residential leaseholders in the national parks of Canada by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the circumstances leading to the holding of a plebiscite by the residents of Banff National Park on January 19, 1970 be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs for investigation and report to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the question cannot be put unless there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising from the press release of the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission on the matter of the proposed conference on price stability. Does the government intend itself, or through the Prices and Incomes Commission, to submit specific pricing criteria, to use words used by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as another way of referring to guidelines or specific restraints?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is a great relief to know that my hon. friend, who indicated earlier in the session that he was against the Prices and Incomes Commission, now thinks it may be making progress. Although the Prices and Incomes Commission has indeed secured a great deal of co-operation from business, industry and the professions and has been supported by the government, I believe it will be the objective of this meeting to work out criteria and it will not be for the government to impose criteria upon industry and business in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his lecture and for the small bit of information contained at the end of his remarks. May I ask a supplementary question. Will the government feel committed to arrange the work before the Prices and Incomes Commission or will the government reserve, until after the conference has taken place, its decision on whether any restraints actually approved of will be supported by the government?
January 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a general belief that it will be best for those who are going to be involved in voluntary restraints to work out the criteria. Of course, the government has all along supported the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission, which is a good deal more than the opposition has done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the minister's suggestion that everything is to be left on a purely voluntary basis, what comment has the minister to make on the indication by the chairman of the commission that if violations take place the commission will resort to the government for sanctions? Will the minister indicate to the House what sort of sanctions the government might impose in the case of violations of the criteria that may be agreed on?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have from the beginning supported the laudable efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and when they approach the government for support we will do everything reasonable to support them in their very laudable efforts.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not relieve the mind of the Leader of the Opposition and the minds of the people of Canada by indicating that he is taking steps to persuade the automobile insurance companies to hold back on their announced premium increases, which in some cases will be in the order of 13 per cent?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, having just returned to Ottawa today after visiting the wonderful new city of Thunder Bay, I have not had the matter brought to my attention. I have not had an opportunity to deal with this matter, but at the suggestion of my hon. friend I will look into it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I take it from the reply by the Minister of Finance that the government does not have in mind any specific sanctions in case of violations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this government keeps thinking, which is more than the opposition does.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuous rise in consumer food costs, is the Prices and Incomes Commission making any attempt to

determine such price increases being made by the food processors and distributors concerned?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the minister who usually answers for the Prices and Incomes Commission is not here. However, I will refer the hon. member's query to the commission.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easl Richmond):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister not aware of the Prime Minister's statement to the effect that only two-thirds of his cabinet are worth while?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SCIENCE COUNCIL


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Science Council of Canada must be free to function in the best interests of the public and in view of the fact that its present chairman, Dr. O. M. Solandt, is also vice-chairman of the Electric Reduction Company of Canada, a firm which has contributed substantially to water pollution in Canada, is the government giving consideration to ending this serious conflict of interest by requesting the resignation of Dr. Solandt?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Prime Minister was rising to answer, I believe, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get help.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary which may help? I would like to help and I direct this supplementary to the Prime Minister for his consideration. Since Dr. Solandt has publicly discounted the importance of phosphate water pollution, and since his firm is the sole manufacturer of phosphates in Canada, will the Prime Minister investigate this matter and indicate to the House what action the government intends to take?


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: supplementary question to the Prime Minis-
January 20, 1970

ter. Will the Prime Minister look into the recent conviction of ERCO under the Combines Investigation Act for maintaining a monopoly against the public interest, and Dr. Solandt's position as chairman of the Science Council and vice-president of ERCO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact the Prime Minister was seeking advice from him when the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway asked her question, I would like to go straight to the fount of knowledge of this government and ask the President of the Treasury Board-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Where is this presidential system going?


David Lewis: -whether the government is considering asking Dr. Solandt to resign as chairman of the Science Council in view of the obviously evident conflict of interest because of his high office in the corporation to which reference has been made?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think in any instance where we as a country endeavour to secure the part-time services of a distinguished citizen of Canada, some incidence of conflict of interest is bound to arise. If the man heading the Science Council of Canada had no other interest than that, he would not be a distinguished Canadian. In the present circumstances I think one has to take into account one's view as to the ability of Dr. Solandt to rise above this type of conflict, and in him we have confidence.


David Lewis: Would the President of the Treasury Board undertake at least to consider searching for another qualified person who would not be tarred by a conflict of interest which can do nothing but harm to the work of the Science Council of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government is always on the lookout for good and better people. When the hon. member suggests that we might look for a replacement for Dr. Solandt on the Science Council on the basis of the representation he has just made, the answer is no.


Malcolm MacInnis: Can the minister not find somebody who is not connected with a firm which was fined $40,000 for offences against the Combines Investigation Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the principle advocated by the President of the Treasury Board is the principle which the government is following in accepting members into the cabinet who have a conflict of interest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase my question to the Prime Minister. Is the principle which is advocated by the President of the Treasury Board accepted by him when considering as candidates for cabinet office hon. members who have outside interests in corporations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: My question is intended for the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister will take it. In view of the fact that the United States government has advised all its commercial airlines that they must end pollution of the air by jet engine smoke by 1972, does the Canadian government contemplate issuing a similar directive to our own airlines?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I am taking the question as notice and shall submit it to him as soon as he returns.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to pollution by jet engines and I wish to direct it to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister ordered a similar conversion to clean burning fuel systems of jet aircraft within the military service?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
January 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Northern Development. Did the minister tell the residents of Banff, Jasper and certain other national parks that if they did not like the situation in the parks at the present time they could leave? If not, what did the minister say?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt as to the form of the question. I would not think it was in order for an hon. member to ask whether or not a minister had made a certain statement outside the House. Perhaps the question might be rephrased.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you. As Your Honour might expect, there has been considerable controversy in the press and the other media in connection with this matter. In order to clear the air, so to speak, I thought the minister might like an opportunity to make a statement. Possibly I could put it this way: would the minister make a brief statement to the House, perhaps by asking to revert to motions, on the subject of leases in the national parks?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I can
make a very short answer to that. With the permission of the House I will table a letter written in January, 1962, when the then Minister of Northern Aff airs, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, announced the policy which was to come into effect today-the policy of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Oxford kindly resume his seat? I gather that the minister has asked leave to table a document. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Now that we have heard those interesting remarks by the minister, perhaps the hon. gentleman will answer the question he was asked.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have just said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Rocky Mountain.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Bearing in mind the results of the plebiscite held in Banff yesterday, which showed clearly that 80 per cent of the people of that community are dissatisfied with the present method of administering the townsite, will the minister deal with the citizens of Banff and Jasper in a reasonable and sensible
[Mr. Nesbitt.)
manner from now on rather than make the kind of ill-informed statements attributed to him in the press last week?


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the question of the member for Rocky Mountain because I did not have the opportunity to answer. Concerning national parks, the policy of the government is always to put the interests of the Canadian people before those of businessmen.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker I have a supplementary question for the minister arising from a question asked previously by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. Is it the view of the minister and the government that citizens of the national parks who do not like the unfair tactics of the government should secede and join the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I understand his department recently issued a new directive to the copper producers stipulating the amount of copper which must be retained in Canada for domestic consumption. Can the minister give us some idea of the percentage which must be retained and the extent to which the new directive differs from the directive issued only a few weeks earlier?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The amount is 23,500 tons a month in the next two months, which is about 55% of the monthly tonnage of refined copper produced in Canada. This is based on average supplies of the first six months of last year, a period when supply was the highest in Canadian history. As I said
January 20, 1970

the other day "legitimate needs" are difficult to assess. This tonnage is less than the fabricators could use at the price of 57 cents but it might be equal to what they would have asked for had it been 66 cents.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it the minister is saying that the amount set aside for domestic consumption is less than the Canadian fabricators could use? If this is the case, may I ask what value is there in holding the price down to 57 cents if the users cannot buy any copper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF CITE DU HAVRE

Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Is the minister now ready to make an announcement with respect to the development or disposal of the Cite du Havre property in Montreal?


Some hon. Members:: Order Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt whether particular urgency attaches to that question. If there is such urgency it is not apparent to me at the present time. The hon. member might wish to give notice of the question for consideration at the time of adjournment.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the Barber Commission report on farm machinery prices, just released, contains the shocking information that Canadian farmers are being gouged by the machine companies to the extent of at least $2,000 per item through the overpricing of tractors sold in Canada, what action is the government contemplating to meet this serious situation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there is a recommendation in the report that asks for the imposition of a reverse dumping duty on these importations. This has never been done and right now there are no such duties being applied.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance give consideration to the provision of a tax incentive to all-Canadian companies such as Versatile in order to lower the price of farm machinery?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is a broad policy matter the hon. member is asking about. I think all policies such as this would normally be announced during a budgetary statement.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was only asking whether the minister would consider the matter.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue, and I might say I was not able to hear the answer he gave to an earlier question. In view of the recommendation contained in the interim report on farm tractor prices to the effect that the government should in certain circumstances impose a reverse dumping duty on tractor imports, will the minister inform the House whether or not reverse dumping duties are now or ever have been applied to Canadian imports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the hon. member is repeating the question which was asked previously.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not intend to repeat the question. Perhaps the answer was an appropriate one but I could not hear it.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I said that the so-called reverse dumping duties are not now applied nor have they ever been applied to imports into Canada.



POLLUTION


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether officers of his department are engaged at the hearings of the International Joint Commission being held this week in certain places in the United States and in Ontario concerning the reduction of phosphates?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, officers of my department take cognizance of all hearings of the IJC. I am unaware whether they are physically present at the hearings this week, but I will take notice of the question
2582	COMMONS DEBATES	January 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
and give my hon. friend an answer at the ries. He did no such thing. If he made any next sitting.	statement it was for continued colonial status.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the federal position on the IJC proposal that phosphates should be banned by 1972 is being propounded?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, when the IJC report in this regard came out we took immediate action. This question has been given study by an interdepartmental committee. Some of my officers returned from Sweden only yesterday I believe following a specific study of the situation, and I hope to have a comprehensive report within a few days.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by saying how much I enjoyed the radio broadcast he made to the citizens of the Northwest Territories on the occasion of their centenary during which he used such phrases as-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member intend to ask a question?


Frank Howard: Oh, indeed, Mr. Speaker, indeed. Because of the fine phrases the minister used during that radio broadcast 1 should like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Frank Howard: Don't be impatient. I should like to ask the minister when he will be making a statement, either in the Northwest Territories or to the House, about the question of self-government for the Northwest Territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already made a statement in the House about this matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister has just engaged in misleading the House when he said he made a statement to the House about self-government for the Northwest Territo-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extremely low interest rate of 3 per cent on Dominion of Canada perpetual bonds I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will consider calling in these bonds which are held mainly by elderly people and those on fixed incomes, and also in view of the fact that yesterday they were quoted at $36?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when people buy perpetual bonds they are buying an interest rate. In effect the bonds go on forever. The perpetual bonds issued have changed hands a great many times, and in most circumstances people generally buy at a price that will produce the kind of interest rate they want. This is the nature of perpetual bonds.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the interest rate of 3 per cent would substantiate the minister's remarks. However, will he give those people who are in possession of these bonds the opportunity to register them and give proof of date of purchase, and will the government then withdraw them up to say the year 1955?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, one would have to look at this very carefully. For example, if the government redeemed perpetual bonds at par someone who bought them at $47, for example, would make $53 per $100 invested.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interfere but it seems to me this is becoming a debate between the minister and the hon. member.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry say what action, if any, has been taken to eliminate or control the mercury pollution of the Saskatchewan River, which has been acknowledged by the government?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the source which I
January 20, 1970
identified the other day in the House of Commons is the plant of the co-operative producing soda and chlorine near Saskatoon. The necessary steps have been taken to make sure the effluent stream containing mercury is kept within the plant itself. Mercury is meanwhile being removed by treating the effluent.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that the pollution of the Saskatchewan River by this mercury effluent has been discontinued?


John (Jack) Davis: The pollution from that plant has certainly ceased, and we think it is the principal, if not the only, source of mercury pollution. However, it will take a spring freshet to flush out the river completely.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether any of the compensation he announced earlier will be paid to those people who caught fish that were contaminated or will the federal government contributions be made to a general pool for distribution?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of compensation to fishermen in this case because all the fish they have been able to catch has been bought from them at the going market price. The fishermen have not suffered in any way. There is still the question of recovering the amounts paid to the fishermen by the federal government because we have had to destroy all the fish in question.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate at this time how long the purchase of contaminated fish by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board will continue?


John (Jack) Davis: I cannot be certain. However, it will continue as long as the level of contamination observed in the fish comes anywhere near the United Nations standards with regard to mercury.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the poisonous effect of mercury has the minister taken any steps to make certain that no fish caught in this area are bootlegged to another lake which may be clear of mercury so that they can then be sold?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is the main reason we have continued to pay what would have been the market price and, indeed, have followed the upward trend in prices normal at this season of the year. There has been no price incentive whatsoever for fishermen to
Inquiries of the Ministry sell to anyone else and under the freshwater fish legislation there is no legal buyer other than the Freshwater Fish Corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a further supplementary but I must remind hon. members that we are running out of time.



DUMPING OF MINE TAILINGS IN QUATSINO SOUND

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question about the application of the Utah Mining Company to dump into Quatsino Sound some 9.3 million gallons a day of tailings which have a quantity of cyanide residue. What action is the minister's department taking to prevent this dumping which could be very detrimental to the fishing industry of Vancouver Island?


John (Jack) Davis: We have been keeping this situation on the west coast under very close review. My department does not issue permits to pollute or dump any effluent in the fisheries waters of Canada. Its powers are well known in respect of imposing fines. So individual mining companies like Utah Mining Company have kept in close touch with the department and have cleared their processes and practices with the department. We believe they will be following the right procedures.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Government House Leader. Has there been any departure in the order of business set out for the House by the House Leader last Thursday? I am particularly interested in the second reading of Bill C-175 respecting the Canadian Saltfish Corporation since there are a number of people in the five provinces concerned who are quite anxious to be here for that debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is difficult to predict the order of business without some firm agreement as to the time each particular measure will take. I expect there might be some agreement to conclude the debate on the Canada water bill in the early afternoon tomorrow.

January 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry It is hoped to follow that with the four financial bills. At the present time it would look as though there would be no prospect of reaching the Fisheries items I have mentioned before Thursday of next week, it being assumed that on Monday and Tuesday next week there probably will be a debate on a motion in respect of a constitutional committee.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
Hon, Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in view of the criticism levelled at the government by a former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, suggesting that the austerity program now being followed may do irreparable damage particularly to such institutions as the National Film Board, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to review the across-the-board application of this policy and reconsider its effect on such institutions as are causing special concern to Mr. Pearson?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all it is not an across-the-board expenditure cut. The guidelines, as the hon. member knows, made certain exceptions and also made certain provisions for increases in other departments. The suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, if applied to the Film Board, would certainly apply to almost every department and there would be no reduction in expenditures of the federal government. There would also be no surplus and we would be blamed for not combating inflation. The opposition should take a clear position on whether they want the government to spend more, or less. If they want us to spend more they should state that quite clearly and we will thank them for the mandate.



INFLATION-INCREASE IN RATES BY B.C. HYDRO

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance having in mind his efforts to restrain inflation in Canada by getting agreements from various industries to refrain from rate increases at this time. Would he consider taking similar action in British Columbia where B.C. Hydro has announced a 15 to 20 per cent rate increase, which is an inflationary measure?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier I do not

think I can approach everybody in Canada who increases the price on anything. What the government has indicated is its support for the efforts being made by the Prices and Incomes Commission, which in addition to consulting with industry, business and labour has been consulting with the federal and provincial governments with a view to having general restraints on a voluntary basis in the country.



MINAS BASIN-PUBLICATION OF STUDY

Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the recent press statement concerning Minas Basin tidal power, may I ask the minister when we will receive this most important study and whether the government has decided yet whether or not it will be made public once received? It has been over a year now since the study was completed.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I might answer the latter half of the question first. No decision has yet been made concerning publication. I am instructed the report will be made available soon. I am not sure whether that is the "soon" of yesterday or of other days, but in any event that is the information I have.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the minister say whether it is being held up because of the translation or because of governmental or departmental studies?


John James Greene: It is held up within the administrative structure of government but whether because of translation or otherwise I have not been informed. I will inform myself and if that is the particular reason I will instruct the hon. member accordingly.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering the great number of Frenchspeaking immigrants to Quebec who apparently wish to settle in another province, could the minister tell us whether he discussed that
January 20. 1970	COMMONS
matter with the Quebec Minister of Immmi-gration? If not, does he intend to?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any discussion. In the circumstances I do not see the need of such a discussion.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Communications. In light of the current difficulties encountered in respect of telephone communication with the northern parts of Canada, could the minister say whether there will be a detailed investigation into communications in the north and would he undertake specifically to study the frequent and prolonged breakdowns in telephone communication between Hay River and Uranium City?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we have already formed an internal committee in the Department of Communications to investigate the reason for delays not only in the area of telephone communication but also in respect of the provision of telegraph services.



TAXATION


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister indicate to the House approximately how many protests he has received in respect of the white paper on taxation? Are they in the hundreds or in the thousands?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I
DEBATES	2585
Inquiries of the Ministry wonder if I might address a question to his Parliamentary Secretary. If he does not have the answer he might give notice of the question to his minister. In view of reports from British Columbia that doctors there are banning the use of phenacetin, a drug used in headache pills, can the government say whether this action would be supported by the department, and would the minister also make a statement in respect of reports that Syntex Laboratories are testing or experimenting with certain mini pills?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt whether questions such as the one being asked now by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should not normally be placed on the Order Paper. It is always difficult for a non-medical man to determine whether or not there is any urgency to such a question, but I would think that generally speaking this is the type of question that would normally be placed on the Order Paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe there is some urgency, and that is why I thought it would be appropriate to ask the question today so that it could stand as notice for the minister tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Yesterday I asked him about the entry of a troublemaker, a known activist, Danny Cohn-Ben-dit, alias Danny the Red. The minister, knowing very well that this person has been barred from France and, I believe, the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should ask a question. He cannot make a statement.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My question is: in view of yesterday's disturbance by Danny the Red and Stanley the Gray in a court of law in Montreal, would the minister see fit to deport this individual immediately and send Stanley along with him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Gander-Twillingate.
January 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would he take advantage of the first opportunity on motions to make a statement to the House outlining the nature of the programs which the federal government has to offset forced unemployment in the Atlantic region, in accordance with the statement which he made on national television on Sunday evening?



IMMIGRATION


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope that I can receive an answer from the minister. I consider this to be a very important matter. If we can afford to have such hoodlums come to Canada and not look after the Jewish population in Poland, then he should be able to reply to this question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am not administering the immigration laws of either France or the United States, and under Canadian immigration law this person is not prohibited. I do not intend to take the hon. member's description of "troublemaker" as a basis of preventing admission to Canada. We intend to apply the normal policy, which I think has stood up and which has been supported in this House and elsewhere, with respect to these cases. With respect to the rather snide comment made by the hon. member in reference to our treatment of Jews from Poland, somewhat similar to the comments he made about immigration from Asia-


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a question, of privilege-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I would want to tell him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the minister was speaking to a point of order. I gather that the hon. member is now rising on a question of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be impugned at any time by any member of this House intimating that I have

any racial discrimination, as the minister has just been doing-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Your words speak for themselves.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -or by innuendo, and I don't want him to carry on in this way.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to co-operate with the hon. member and follow his standards of behavior. His words on that occasion are in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to the question, and I understand the Minister of Finance also has to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a very important question was raised by the hon. member on a point of order, with the implication that somehow this government was eager to admit such persons as Cohn-Bendit and prevent the admission of Polish refugees. I stated yesterday, in reply to a member of the opposition, that we were treating refugees from Poland in a very sympathetic way, and our record in that situation is above reproach. I offered to discuss this matter in greater detail with any member of the opposition because the success of our program to help these Polish refugees depends to some extent on the manner in which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I already pointed out, the question period expired a few minutes ago. But at the same time the question by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate got lost among the points of order and questions of privilege, and perhaps the minister might like to reply to it at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the representations made by the hon. member.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley James Korchinski: That this House condemns the government's failure to make full use of existing facilities that are
January 20, 1970

available for grain storage, its failure to provide adequate additional facilities, its failure to adopt and implement a system of payments for the resulting storage of grain on farm lands, by reason of which failures the farm grain economy and dependent industries are suffering serious and continuing harm.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a press release on December 5 last, issued by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), stated in part:
On October 15th of this year the Prime Minister announced that the complexities of international grain marketing problems combined with the importance of the grain trade to the Canadian economy, had led to the decision to make grain marketing a focus of effort by a minister without general departmental responsibilities.
This seemed to send off the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). It was like a quotation from Shakespeare. We knew there was thunder and lightning. We knew there were announcements, with heralds, and there was a blast-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: hot air.


Stanley James Korchinski: I suppose of hot air, and the minister made his entry. Since then, we have had occasion to observe his operations.
I think he wanted to impress the world with the fact that he had just entered the ministry, but if he has impressed the world he certainly has not done anything for the western farmer. He has not done anything to put a few dollars in his pocket. Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, after that he made a few announcements.
He cushioned the blow for the Wheat Board. He cushioned the blow for the railways. He cushioned the blow for himself. He set up a grains group, and this group was to take the brunt of the attack. After a series of mishaps last year the Wheat Board reckoned that it had better clear itself, and the railways wanted the minister to make their lives a lot easier in connection with arranging their box car allocations.
The importance of my motion may well be emphasized by the questions that were asked in this House last week. Anyone who cares to look at Hansard will notice that not only did the Official Opposition ask questions pertaining to this particular problem but so did the NDP. Even supporters of the government asked questions pertaining to this problem. I say, good for them. But where does it end? Does it stop with a question or can we expect members of the government to emphasize their concern by voting in favour of this motion? I hope that the NDP would show
Business of Supply
their concern by voting for it. I also hope that members of other opposition parties would show their concern in other parts of this country where there are difficulties. Many members must have had questions asked of them during the Christmas recess and I hope they take the opportunity to express their concern by way of a vote. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in western Canada last year he was peppered with a little bit of wheat but that is a small inconvenience for a public man to suffer when you consider the difficulties encountered by most of the people in western Canada. To a large extent, the difficulties stem from the action of this and the previous government.
When people tell me that they can no longer borrow money at 5 per cent interest, I remind them that it was the Liberal government that insisted it was going to make borrowing easier. I am a farmer myself and my operation requires a lot of financing but I cannot borrow money at 5 per cent any longer. Farmers are renewing their notes.
There was a series of articles in the Toronto Star setting out some of the farmers' difficulties. When the Minister without Portfolio was appointed his seat mate said, "You know, the east does not understand the west." The minister's big role was to convince the east that they had to understand the west. He did make an announcement to the effect that he would be the champion of the western farmer.
I have been through a few campaigns in my day and one of the criticisms levelled during them was that I did not know enough members on the government side. After all, Saskatchewan used to send 17 members into the House of Commons but with a Liberal government we did not get an opportunity to express our point of view to the cabinet. Now, we have that opportunity and what a wonderful thing it is except that mum's the word.
Instead of sending boxcars to pick up the wheat, the minister sends inspectors with the RCMP. At the Lakehead there is space available for 70 million bushels and this represents almost a one bushel quota per farmer. When you consider that the grain from the western half of the province of Saskatchewan will be shipped to the west coast, it represents more than a one bushel quota. Yes, there would be approximately 85 billion bushels taken in on the one bushel quota. The grain from the eastern half of the province would be taken to the Lakehead and Churchill.

January 20, 1370
Business of Supply
During the election campaign the minister declared, "I am the man who will speak for you in the Liberal cabinet, I will do everything possible." Why is he not speaking? What is he doing?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Stanley James Korchinski: Nothing. I would not mind if he did anything, but he annoys people in the process because he has made it very nice and comfortable for the railways and he has found a way out for the Wheat Board. Now, I have supported Wheat Board action over the years though I often wonder what wisdom there is in it. I think I have a right to question it. I have also acted as chairman of the local wheat pool and know their concerns. I also know that it is this government that raised the interest rate from 5 per cent to the 9 a per cent I pay now. The gentleman referred to in the Toronto Star report only paid 9 per cent, but he was lucky.
It is not only the interest rate that bothers me. I know there are some who would question the authority of Joe Caplan and say he had no right to act as he did in connection with rapeseed. However, he has provided me with some figures on the volume of wheat sales. The figures do not mean anything until translated into percentages in terms of world sales. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this table on record. It shows the figures from 1953 to 1968-1969 for the volume of sales and the percentage in terms of world trade. I think this table is important because of what is behind our complaint. So with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House may I include as an appendix to my remarks in Hansard Table 3 of a report entitled "A Farmer's Reflections on Grain Marketing" by Joseph Caplan.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Our complaint is simply this. We have the necessary volume of space available at the terminals. There is space there for 70 million bushels of grain. We do not want to cram all that space immediately with every available bushel of grain because we must have some working room. It seems that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who represents a western constituency, is more concerned about the efficient operation of terminal elevators than about the welfare of our farmers. He is afraid that a man here or there will be laid off. These men who are laid off will receive unemployment insurance in any

event. High interest rates are driving many people out of business and if the minister thinks that his policies work for the ultimate benefit of the farmer he had better revise his thinking.
The government set up this nice Grains Council. We are supposed to be fighting inflation and yet when organized labour asked for a 30 per cent wage increase, its demands were met. According to a report tabled the other day, the banks have enjoyed tremendous increases in earnings. We told the Minister of Finance in 1967, I believe, that with increased bank rates farmers were going to suffer. And what do we find? We find that banks have enjoyed increased earnings of between $154 million and $250 million odd. With your permission, and with the consent of the House, I am also prepared to table supporting figures included on pages 2233 and 2234 of Hansard as an appendix to my remarks.
I have some figures before me which indicate the elevator price for wheat, oats and barley. I want all members in the House to remember that not everybody produces No. 1 wheat and that last year, because of damp grain, few farmers were paid on the basis of No. 1 wheat for their grain. There were all kinds of wheat grades last year. The last time I obtained the No. 1 wheat price for my crop was in 1961 when there was a drastic shortage of grain.
May I also include as an appendix to my remarks table 1 of the document entitled, "1969 Elevator Prices for Prairie Grains" indicating that as between the 1966-67 crop year and the 1969-70 crop year, there has been a drop in initial prices, even when one takes into account the 20 cents per hundredweight freight charge, ranging between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. What other segment of our economy can claim to have suffered as much in the name of fighting inflation? I do not think anybody can absorb losses ranging between 25 per cent and 30 per cent and still stay afloat. These remarks apply not only to wheat but to barley, oats and other grains. I hope Your Honour and the House will permit the pertinent document to be appended to my remarks in Hansard since, if one is to make a careful analysis and study of the situation, it is essential for one to see the figures.
Farmers have had reduced incomes. What must they do, therefore? They must look for increased sales. But what is the picture? Last year the situation was difficult, and no doubt the minister will tell us that special circumstances prevailed last year. There was damp
January 20, 1970

grain and we had to have special quotas. But in the last 20 years I do not remember a situation in which farmers had not delivered any grain beyond the initial quotas by the middle of January. It is over six months since we made our last delivery, and anyone who can live on the income derived from 400 bushels at $1.20 a bushel is a miracle worker. And what is our minister doing? He is staggering sales in order to make things nice and comfortable for a few men at the Lakehead and because he is worried that a few men, who will receive unemployment insurance anyway, may be laid off. He could not care less about the farmer who will have to make his payments at the end of December and who must now pay 9J per cent interest on loans he formerly obtained at a 5 per cent rate.
He could not care less about the men who are going out of business but he does want an efficient system of grain handling. It all looks very good on paper. Nowadays it is hard to find anyone who goes into town especially on Saturday night and stays longer than is absolutely necessary. At one time we were worried about our villages; but now we should be worried about our towns because they are suffering also. You can no longer depend on a businessman being there when you need him and you can no longer expect the machinery dealer to be in business. Our costs of production are high enough but now we shall have to travel 50 or 60 miles in order to get a machine repaired at prices which the Barber Commission called outrageous.
Seven years ago I with members of the Liberal party and of the NDP sat on a committee of this House which looked into this matter. The Committee came to the conclusion now reached by the Barber Commission. It has taken seven years for this miserable government to come to that conclusion. And what is it doing? The Government is setting up another committee to see what is to be done. What must we do to convince this government that we now have to pay 9J per cent interest on loans for machinery that is $2,500 overpriced? No one in Britain, France or anywhere else pays more for farm machinery than we in Canada but this government still sets up another commission. Are we supposed to sit here while the children go unattended and communities fall apart? In the meantime the minister sets up commission after commission. I have pleaded with the government before. It is not only members in my party who have been pleading with the government 21611-25
Business of Supply
but I also hear expressions of concern from the government side. This is what disturbs me.	.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister visited western Canada all he could utter was, why should I sell your wheat? I say to the Prime Minister that we want to live in Canada.
There was a four page report in the Toronto Star on the subject of separatism in western Canada. It is not separatism that we want. We are as good Canadians as will be found anywhere in Canada. We have taken our lumps in the past but do not compare us to beggars.
Much of the beneficial results of the legislation on our books is defeated by other governmental actions. We have regional development areas yet the banks in my area are charging the same rates as are being charged in Toronto. The Prime Minister stated that Toronto and the province of Ontario are contributing to inflation. I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he thinks Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are contributing to inflation. I dare him to make that statement. He knows that is not the case.
I intend to leave one thought with the government today because over the many years that I have been here I have found that the Liberal government can only absorb one idea at a time. I am not sure they will act but I think they can comprehend one idea. What I intend to say may not be received too well by some of the elevator companies. However my concern is for the farmer and his family who have for many years struggled, worked and manipulated in order to make a go of it. The minister has expressed himself to be somewhat in favour of this idea. The fact that the government intends to spend $71 million this year does not make any sense to me. It may be the basis for a very good speech indicating what the government is doing for the farmer but it does not make sense for the elevator companies to have this money in order to keep operating. It is not the elevator companies that are in difficulty but the farmers.
I am going to table a report which was provided by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. This is also another report by Joe Caplan. I want to incorporate these reports as part of my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this might be a good point to interrupt the hon. member and refer him to his requests submitted to the House in the course of his speech

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
that the documents to which he referred either be tabled or incorporated in his speech. When the hon. member first alluded to these documents he was content to ask that they be tabled. I reserved until the end of the hon. member's speech the occasion to ask the House whether there was consent to do that, but before asking the House whether there is any objection to the hon. member tabling these documents I should refer to his suggestion that these be incorporated as part of his speech. I suggest to the hon. member that it is contrary to the long established practice of the House that such documents be incorporated in a member's speech. If the hon. member wants to have part of such documents reported in Hansard as part of his speech, he has to quote them. In this way, they will appear as part of his speech.
There are exceptions to this general rule, such as official or ministerial statements, where official documents are, by consent of the House, allowed to be included as part of the ministerial or official government policy statement. This would not apply, I suggest, to a statement such as the one now being made by the hon. member.
I am not charging to the time of the hon. member the minutes I have taken to bring this to the attention of the House. In the circumstances, my suggestion would be that the documents to which he has referred might be tabled. These would then be available to all hon. members who might want to consult them in conjunction with the hon. member's speech,


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of these documents, the minister might be prepared to agree that they not be tabled or not be made a part of his speech, but made an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I have some hesitation about that departure from principle, especially in view of the variety of documents to which reference is being made. I would be delighted to have them tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: From a procedural standpoint, I would have the same objections as those which I have just mentioned to the suggestion now made by the hon. member for Peace River that they be included as an appendix to Hansard. I think that, too, would not be in accordance with the established practice of the House. My suggestion should be taken into serious consideration by the hon. member that these important documents, tables and

statistics, be filed for the consideration of members who may want to study them in conjunction with the member's speech.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have four different documents that I am particularly interested in having incorporated as part of my remarks. I reserve the right to ask to have them incorporated as part of my remarks rather than take up the time of the House by making the same request for each one individually.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When I interrupted the hon. member, I thought he had concluded his remarks on this point.


Stanley James Korchinski: Do I have permission to incorporate these tables into my remarks?


Mr. Speaker:: I mentioned to the hon. member that this would be contrary to the practice of this House. I have sat in this Chair and have very often heard hon. members seek the same privilege. The question was never put to the House. Of course, the House is master of its own proceedings. Of course, if the House wants to have any documents, statistics and tables incorporated into a member's speech and appear as part of Hansard, it has the right to do so, but it would be a very serious departure from a long established practice. I suggest we should think twice before we allow this to be done. If this is done for the hon. member for Mackenzie it should be done for every other member and instead of receiving Hansard at eleven o'clock the next morning, we may not get it until 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. the next day.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Stanley James Korchinski: I am quite willing, if Your Honour will allow me, to table these documents as part of the proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: How are we to get round this problem? It is evident we must put some money into the hands of the farmers. Over the last 15 years the amount of money put into the hands of the elevator companies, not only by the federal treasury but by the farmers themselves, is in the order of $974 million. If we were to distribute this money among the farmers, something positive would be accomplished. I realize it is difficult to do without any storage at all, so there is one proposal I wish to leave with the government. It is that they should set up a series of inland terminals. Let us do away with a lot of the
January 20, 1970

temporary storage facilities which have accumulated profits for their owners for years. Take the case of a 20,000 bushel capacity storage facility in a temporary building for which some $2,500 a year is paid. At this rate, the building has been paid for time and time again.
The next thing the elevator companies will want will be handling charges. Bearing in mind that one half of the world's surplus of grain is in Canadian hands, it is time the government came out with a storage proposal for farmers. This would help to put money where it is most needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: It would also cause the elevator companies to realize that for the last 30 years they have not reorganized their system.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon.
member but I have to interrupt him again, this time to call his attention to the fact that the time allotted to him has expired; he can continue only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: I shall not take up much more time of the House. I want to say simply this; it is time the government realized that it is not important we should have elevator systems in this country. It is important, though, we should have farmers who are making a living. By implementing a farm storage program, the government would be able to put the money where it is so badly needed.
If an adjustment is necessary, as predicted in the economic report, let us make it as easy as possible for people to get out of the business of farming, and avoid forcing them out needlessly.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Official Opposition should have chosen this day to bring to the attention of the House, of the government, and indeed of the people of Canada to the situation which exists on the prairies, placing emphasis on the storage and handling of grain and urging the government to consider ways and means of improving the present state of affairs.
As I come to the end of the time allotted to me today, I shall introduce an amendment on behalf of the New Democratic party which we hope will contribute toward a solution if the government in its wisdom chooses to take some advice. It badly needs some advice. I
Business of Supply
suppose I would be safe in saying that it has succeeded in allowing the wheat economy of western Canada to drift into the worst position it has occupied since the 'thirties. I say this in the light of the experience of one who has farmed continuously in Saskatchewan since that time, and as one who has been active in farm organizations there.
The Department of Agriculture has lately put out an official news release advising the farmers that they should reduce acreage next year to 20 million acres-the extent of our marketing ability in the year to come as far as the department can see. If anyone cares to do the calculation he will find that a reduction to 20 million acres means a reduction of around 5 million acres in the coming year, equivalent to a reduction in productive capacity worth between $90 million and $100 million. This would be a reduction of about the same size as was effected last year. Hon. members can look at the net figures; anyone can carry them into the House and quote them; they are published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. But what we are talking about in real terms is the productive capacity of the farms in the west, and it is the productive capacity of these farms, together with the saleability of the product, which will make or break the prairie economy and, particularly, the Saskatchewan economy. This is what we are talking about today.
We do not have to look far for evidence of what is happening and what is likely to happen. The Globe and Mail is carrying a series of articles on the outlook for 1970. Their reporters have been going from one part of Canada to another. The particular article before me appears under a sub-heading: "Hard Times in Farming Likely to Continue". The writer says that the cash position of Canadian farmers is a major factor to be taken into account when assessing the outlook for the companies which sell machinery and other supplies. In other words, those people the Barber Commission were talking about, the machinery manufacturers who have been stealing the farmer blind in western Canada, are going to find that the object of their depredations, like the turkey after Thanksgiving Day, has been picked pretty clean.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The article, in part, reads:
The farm market at present Is in a depressed state and projections by federal Department of Agriculture economists show gloomy prospects in the coming year and probably the next two years.

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
Then, it reads:
Provincial governments are offering farmers some assistance, particularly in diversifying from grain production into livestock, but this is spotty. The federal government is cutting programs as part of the federal austerity policy and there is little likelihood of any new assistance from that quarter.
This last statement in the article I have just quoted, if it is a true assessment of the situation-and from my personal observation I cannot quarrel or disagree with it-would indicate that provincial governments, particularly the government of Saskatchewan, has made some attempt to deal with this situation. Whether what they have attempted to do is right or wrong I do not know, but they have tried.
It has been announced that the government will lend money to farmers to increase production. What the outcome of that will be remains to be seen. In any event, there have been some shortcomings. Action should have been taken already but it has not been taken. Therefore, there will be some difficulties in this regard. I do not intend to go into these this afternoon.
What has been the contribution of the federal government in respect of the situation it knows exists? The government could not help but know this situation exists because, as the previous speaker said, never before in the history of western Canada have we reached the middle of January and found the majority of our delivery points not yet on a one bushel quota. The government's contribution has been to jack up the interest rate on farm improvement loans and farm credit loans. If we do have to make a shift, the result of this increase in interest rates will make it more difficult for the farmer to decide where to get the money to do the job. This decision will be difficult no matter which of the limited alternatives he decides upon-beef, hogs, dairy cattle or oil seeds.
In spite of this situation, subsidies are being reduced rather than increased. The proud boast of the Department of Agriculture is that it will progressively phase out bonuses or premiums on grade quality hog production. The sad irony of the situation is that during meetings of the agriculture committee, we have learned that the Department of Agriculture has been saddled with the task of deciding the manner by which the income of dairy farmers is to be reduced to the extent of $10 million. The division has already been decided to take away that $10 million but we have not yet decided where to prick this industry in order to let out the blood.

We are now faced with price reductions and a reduction in income from wheat. The January 15 issue of the Western Producer gives the price of Wheat Board offerings for last year and this year. For No. 4 wheat the price is approximately 30 cents below that of a year ago. For No. 3, the price is approximately 22 cents lower. The price for No. 2 is 13 cents lower and the price for No. 1 is 15 cents lower. I have not referred to the fractions of |, J and so on in which our prices are usually quoted.
In the face of this situation, we received a statement from the Minister without Portfolio, as reported in the January 17 issue of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, under the byline of Stirling King. The heading on this article reads, "1969 Final Wheat Payment now remote, says Lang." This final wheat payment is no further away than I thought it was going to be five months ago. This is exactly what the Star-Phoenix meant when it referred to the payment as being remote. It means that for the 1968-69 crop year, unless the government decides to do something, farmers cannot expect final payments of any significant size on spring wheat.
The least the government can do under these circumstances, and I suggest this to the minister whose constituency is adjacent to mine, is guarantee to the wheat farmer of western Canada that he will receive not less than the floor price under the International Grains Arrangement for the wheat he delivered in the 1968-69 crop year. This amount would at least help to save the economy of Saskatchewan from continued disintegration.
If we can believe a report which appeared recently in the Globe and Mail, certain industries are to be curtailed in Saskatchewan. This will result in the disintegration of small businesses in small towns because they depend on farm production. When these businesses disappear, the services they provide farmers will also disappear. Not only will the livelihood of these businessmen be eliminated, but the farmers will lose their services.
The argument for the government to do something constructive to prevent this happening is actually the reverse of the government's stated policy. According to government statements, regional differences in Canada must be eliminated. Equality of opportunity and income in various regions of Canada must be provided. This is the other side of the coin. If it is decided by the advisers to the government that an adjustment has to take place in respect of farm operations in
January 20, 1970

western Canada, it is up to the government to bridge the gap between now and the time such an adjustment takes place. This is more than a moral obligation, it is an economic necessity because it will cost a great deal more to correct this impending disaster than it will to prevent it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is the main point I want to make to the government this afternoon. The space at the Lakehead or some place else can be filled, because it is merely a matter of moving cars. But what about the over-all policy with regard to storage? What is to be the real policy and what are to be the real decisions in respect of how much grain we will keep in storage? Is there to be a real decision as to where we will keep it in storage and how much we will be ready to pay to keep it in storage? These decisions have not been made; they have been avoided for the last number of years. The farmer in western Canada will accept answers if they are given to him. He will live with a policy if it is established. But he cannot live when there is no policy and when he does not know where he is going. He cannot, and neither can the economy of the nation or the economy of a part of a nation, live under circumstances in which the people do not know where they are going. If they do not know where they are going, they surely cannot plan how to get there.
It is answers of this type that are being awaited. The Canada Grains Council has been sitting for a year-or standing or sleeping, we do not know which. I hear some reports in Saskatoon that people have said some nice things about it. Possibly we may get some answers. Since my time is expiring, I should like to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton);
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words: "and that this House urges the government to give immediate consideration to the taking of steps to deal with the prairie farm crisis by: 1. Providing a deficiency payment for the 1968-69 crop year sufficient to assure the farmer a final return equivalent to the $1,955 minimum price established under the International Grains Arrangement, and 2. Appointing a Transport Controller to co-ordinate the movement of all western grains."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Possibly I might be given an opportunity to reflect on the amendment. I have just one or two initial reservations about it. First, I should like to discuss these with Mr. Speaker. I do
Business of Supply
not wish to delay the House and shall make a pronouncement on the amendment in a few minutes.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) refers in several respects to the use of storage facilities, the proper amount of storage facilities for the future and the place at which they should be. It was to this aspect the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) referred just before proposing his amendment.
I should like to say a few words about the issue which seems to have caught the interest of hon. members in respect of the storage question. The specific issue of course relates to the storage situation at Thunder Bay where, quite in the usual fashion, the amount of grain in storage at the close of navigation drops to a fairly low point. The drop this year took place very rapidly at the end of the period of navigation because of the flow of sales at that particular time and the requirement to move grain eastward from the Lake-head in those last days of navigation.
I emphasized to hon. members before, and should like to do so again, that this decline to a low point in storage at Lakehead facilities is a perfectly natural, normal and efficient thing to have happened. The question that is really fundamental here has to do with the most effective and efficient use of the grain handling and storage system. The Lakehead must be filled to capacity at the time of the opening of navigation whenever heavy sales are in prospect. This is the case this year, so it is important that we attempt to ensure that the Lakehead will be full at that time.
Normally, during the course of the navigation season, stored grain is used to supplement the additional inputs of grain throughout the period when meeting the demand for export, and at the end of the period the storage capacity is not nearly all used but is at a rather low point. There is ahead, of course, the period when navigation is closed and no grain is moving out of the Lakehead. Accordingly the storage space can gradually be filled again in anticipation of the navigation season.
The issue which has been put before this House from time to time is the speed at which that space should be filled. The interest of the farmer in a general way, of course, is to see that there is enough there to meet sales at the time navigation opens. I have given

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
assurance about that as being a matter of grave concern and grave interest to us. Beyond that, the most effective way to fill the storage space is to arrange the deliveries fairly steadily over the period, taking into consideration, however, the fact that generally speaking at the end of the period a marked increase in deliveries must take place. There is, therefore, a situation where there should be put into use a growing number of railway cars in the movement of grain toward the close of the winter season in preparation for the extremely rapid movement of grain which is required thereafter.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is not in the farmer's interest to pay the additional storage costs of grain simply sitting idly in the Lakehead facilities, but more than that it is certainly not in his interest to have the whole system operate inefficiently and more expensively. I say to hon. members opposite that surely any time there is a choice between doing the thing efficiently and inefficiently, it would be better to do it efficiently and then find a way to pass on those savings to the producer. This surely should be the objective with regard to our handling and transportation system.
There is this year in prospect an extremely heavy movement of grain, and I want to emphasize this because of the important bearing it has upon the state and the condition of our handling system as we move on to the opening of navigation.
I indicated some few days ago the prospect of exports this year of 375 million bushels of wheat, and unusually high exports of barley. That figure alone should indicate the significance of the movement of grain in the remaining months of the crop year, but I would like to analyse it even further.
The hon. member for Mackenzie has referred to the slow movement of grain during the first part of this crop year, and I will come back to that. To the turn of the year about 115 million bushels of wheat were exported. Therefore, to reach the 375 million figure there must be an export of 260 million bushels between the beginning of January and the end of July. That means a very rapid movement of wheat indeed, particularly in the several months of open navigation from the Lakehead, when we will see one of the most rapid movements of wheat out of the country that we have ever seen.
I mention the fact that exports were slow during the first portion of the year. Our

China contract had a gap of two months in it. We were paying the price in terms of sales for the period during which we attempted to hold the price at the International Grains Arrangement level, and that period is now behind us. Not only did this mean a slower movement of grain out of the country, to the extent of the 115 million bushels only which were exported in that period, but from the point of view of the individual farmer the problem was even greater during that time because of the fact that toward the end of the last crop year a very large quantity of grain was placed into box cars in an attempt to equalize quotas throughout the prairies. I am told that perhaps as much as 35 million bushels of grain were in box cars at that time. That is not an efficient use of a handling and transportation system, and it is not a use which really ought to commend itself to this House.
I would like to commend the hon. member for Mackenzie for having dealt briefly with the issue of storage, which I suggest is a phoney issue, and then turning his attention briefly to some of the fundamental questions which do face us, some of the fundamental problems which must be solved in the days ahead.
Surely, it is clear to most people that the problem with regard to wheat in this country is more one of too much wheat than of too little storage space. It is clear that we must examine rigorously the issue of how much inventory we ought to carry in this country, and particularly on behalf of the farmer how much inventory, he ought to pay for because he pays most of the costs. This is a decision which must be arrived at in a hard-headed fashion.
Most people have reached the conclusion that the inventory we have now is far and away too large, and that the emphasis should not therefore be on additional storage space but on reducing the grain that we have in store.
The hon. member for Mackenzie did touch on several other important questions, several of which again were referred to by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. After we have examined with rigour the question of how much grain we ought in fact to store in this country, there is clearly the second question of where it ought to be stored. I have asked that question in that way quite a few times now in speeches throughout the prairie region. If I ask the second question, which is should it not be stored where it is least
January 20, 1970

expensive to store it, usually someone in my audience suggests that this means it ought to be stored on the farm.
I think it is important for us to face the proposition with regard to storage, as with our handling and transportation system altogether, we must look hard at the question of where and how we can do the job most effectively and at least cost to the producer.
We have some real challenges facing us with regard to the total handling and distribution system, and again I would like to commend the hon. member for Mackenzie for apparently reading the speeches I am giving across the country on this subject. It is certainly a real challenge to produce a system for today's needs which is as effective and efficient as possible, and to remove from the farmer's shoulders any cost which is unnecessary because it is the child of inefficiency.
This is the challenge which faces us, a challenge upon which I welcome suggestions from hon. members opposite, a challenge which we will be picking up in the days ahead in discussions with farmers throughout the country, because I say to them that in large measure the choice is their's.
What farmers are entitled to know is the relative costs to them of various systems which may be possible. Then, in large measure, they ought to have the choice as to which cost they will bear, considering the incidental burdens, or difficulties, or changes in their environment or way of living which are implicit in the system or systems. It seems to me that this is a thing in which we must all join. We must examine these questions now, not in a spirit of partisan politics but with a view to coming to grips with the issue itself of providing as effective a system for the handling and transporting and dealing with our grain as it is possible for us to provide. That is why it grieves me when hon. members opposite, instead of accepting this challenge to go to the country to talk to the farmers about the efficiency of the system and ways of changing it, choose to concentrate on whether there should be more bushels or not at a given point in time at Thunder Bay or, even worse than that, suggest we should not use the most efficient and effective system of moving grain into those elevators.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Instead, it has been suggested we should move that grain in a way that would entail more storage costs to the farmer, because in the ordinary case he pays for storage. What
Business of Supply
the government pays for storage is calculated on the grain in storage on August 1 and is not affected by the flow in or out of Thunder Bay during the year. More important than these costs involving small transfers from the farmers to the terminal companies are other costs involved in opposition members' proposals. They would have us use the elevator and transportation systems in an inefficient and unnecessarily expensive manner. Surely, hon. members opposite know that, the cost of inefficiency forced upon the railroad system is borne by us in the end, either by higher rates within the system or by subsidy payments through the treasury. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is not the best use of our money; it could be used to much better purpose if we would run the system efficiently and pay the money saved direct to producers.
To the hon. members opposite I say, by all means accept this challenge; join with us on this side of the House in talking to the farmers of this country about the problem of quickly and effectively making the changes which will put the grain industry and the individual farmer in the best possible position to develop a viable and happy industry. There is no doubt in my mind there is a place in this great country of ours for the family farm and all we must do is see that those parts of the system which are touched or affected by the government are made as efficient as possible as soon as possible. This will enable the benefits to flow to the individual farmer.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the motion before us.
Opposition members have said time and again that it would be possible to solve the problem of marketing the supposed surplus of western grain.
It is quite normal, before going into the matter of grain storage, to talk about grain marketing. We know in eastern Canada, and particularly in Quebec, that it is possible to use up a good portion of the grain produced in western Canada.
We always wonder why the government did not promote the study of certain solutions and also why it will not tackle the problem.
Before talking about storage, I wish to say that the surplus should be stored and then ways to market it should be studied. Even if the eastern population is considerable, it is probably not considerable enough to con-

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
sume the western surplus production. That would be one way to market the surplus production because one must live in our regions and hear with his own ears our farmers' complaints.
It is stupid, as they keep telling us, that they should have so much trouble getting adequate supplies, when western farmers do not know what to do with their surplus production. This is an illogical situation. Our good farmers realize it and complain about it, of course. In reviewing this problem, we should first seriously consider the possibility of selling a good part of these surpluses in eastern Canada, especially in Quebec.
The motion under consideration reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government's failure to make full use of existing facilities that are available for grain storage, its failure to provide adequate additional facilities, its failure to adopt and implement a system of payments for the resulting storage of grain on farm lands, by reason of which failures the farm grain economy and dependent industries are suffering serious and continuing harm.
The whole problem is being boiled down to a question of storage. My remarks were intended to widen its scope to a certain extent.
Surpluses must be disposed of, and to destroy them is a most stupid, not to say a most morbid, solution. Thousands of people are dying of hunger around the world. It is unthinkable that some produce that could bring relief to large numbers should be destroyed.
A study of the problem shows that elevators should be built across Canada and not only in the West. In 1962, the hon. member for Bellechasse asked that elevators be erected in Quebec. Had the proposals of the Rallie-ment Creditiste been heeded since then, this non-confidence motion might have proved useless today.
It is time the government pondered and considered a little more seriously the proposals made by the opposition.
It should, from now on, show at least its goodwill and stop saying over and over again; Sorry, nothing can be done.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We have surpluses that we are unable to sell, which would be the thing to do if we want to solve the problem. If not, we must stop accumulating them. However, such a measure would condemn many producers to unemployment and would eliminate the trade

of a lot of people. This is unthinkable! And the government keeps on saying there is no remedy.
We reject this attitude, because we would like the government to show much more willingness and take concrete and effective measures. I therefore support the motion of nonconfidence even though, in my opinion, we could also blame the government for its failure to seek solutions not only with regard to the storage problem, but also to the problem of grain marketing.
Some people should stop making profits out of storage alone, because it is indeed a ridiculous situation. Products should not be intended only for storage.
While the motion before us has some merit in that it puts the blame on the government, it is perhaps not clear enough. In fact, it might be possible to find all kinds of solutions to the grain storage problems but in the end, production would be intended for this sole purpose, which would be ridiculous. Marketing this grain should be our first concern.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to make about this motion.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to take part in this debate. Conditions I have seen and experienced first hand in my riding as recently as the early part of this month have convinced me that it is almost impossible to overstate the gravity of the situation facing the prairie community today as well as our national economy. I congratulate the minister for the apparent sincerity evident in the remarks and comments he has made on his tours across the country. I would agree with some of his suggestions, but we have yet to learn whether the government intends to act on them.
His closing remarks today indicated that he wanted the opposition to take up the challenge, so to speak. May I remind him that he is a member of government and that the government must meet its challenges, not challenge the opposition by asking it to solve the desperate situation in agriculture.
The producers of grain are in desperate straits. Mortgages are being foreclosed. I know of three or four large farms, lying between 20 and 30 miles of my community, on which the mortgages are in the process of being foreclosed. We have spent much time in the House discussing subjects like Biafra; but you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that not too
January 20, 1970

many prairie members were involved in the debate on Biafra, simply because we have poverty enough out west. We have our own problems out west and need not go as far as Biafra to find any.
There has been much talk about the huge assets of some farmers. The people down east and in Ottawa laugh at us, and say, "Why, some of these fellows are worth $100,000 and others are worth $500,000." These figures are bandied about, and when you speak of the poverty of the western farmer people laugh. I remind the minister that it does not matter how great your assets are or how much your land is worth, because, if you renege on your taxes for three years, all your assets become the assets of the state. How the minister expects the farmers on these pitifully low quotas to even pay taxes, let alone retain their holdings, even when those holdings are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, is beyond my understanding.
When you foreclose on a farm you do much more than simply put a farmer off the land. These people are not only farmers; they are customers and taxpayers and contributors to the nation's export trade. Supposedly the government is most concerned about this matter and makes much of it. Nevertheless, on top of the load our farmers already have to bear, which in many cases is intolerable, we now have the proposals of Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) contained in the white paper. One proposal is that farmers be taxed on recaptured depreciation of equipment. For instance, when a farmer trades in a machine or a piece of antiquated equipment for a piece of new equipment, he will have to add recaptured depreciation to his income. It will have to be included in his income calculations. Also, the method of evaluating basic herds is to be changed. The value of these herds has been established through income tax returns, but that value will not be taken into consideration. Apparently the value of the herd will be its market value on V-day. These are all matters which lead members of the opposition and those involved in this country's agriculture to doubt the government's sincerity in dealing with agricultural problems.
When a farmer is put out of business, you start a process of economic subtraction that seriously affects not only local merchants, but community administrators and Canadian workers all the way back to the assembly lines of central Canada. Canada's trade is vital, as is its agriculture. Perhaps the minis-21611-26
Business of Supply
ter may think that I am prejudiced in my remarks because I come from western Canada. May I, therefore, read what the Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada has said about agriculture. I quote:
On the basis of Canada's gross national product in 1967 of $62 billion, agriculture and its directly related enterprises generate a total economic value to the Canadian G.N.P. of $26 billion. (This) represents the measure of involvement of the agricultural industry in the overall economic activity of Canada-The $26 billion figure, equal to 42 per cent of G.N.P., excludes consideration of the effect of agriculture on the demand for other products.
Finally, the Agricultural Economics Research Council concludes with the words:
-At this juncture Canada cannot afford to let agriculture disintegrate for lack of positive information, constructive policy and vigorous implementation.
This debate has been launched on the basis of unfilled storage space for grain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, but this is only one facet of the whole problem. I believe the basis of the problem lies directly under the aegis of the government and the Wheat Board, and the system under which that body operates. The answer to the problem must be found in the same place. From the years 1953 to 1969 Canada's share of world wheat markets dropped from 30 per cent to 19 per cent; Canada's share of the barley market declined from 35 per cent to 11 per cent over the same period; and in the case of oats the figures relating to the same period show a drop from 51 per cent to 4 per cent. If we had a similar percentage of world trade to that which we had in 1953, and in many years since, we would be selling over 500 million bushels of wheat a year.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I wish to quote from the minister's press release of December 1, 1969:
Mr. Lang also warned that farmers may have to reduce wheat acreage. But he stressed that the sales effort of the Canadian Wheat Board has maintained Canada's share of the world market in face of stiff international competition.
I do not know where he got the information that we have kept our share of the world markets. Admittedly, in the last few years there has been a decline in world wheat trade, but when I take figures from the FAO production yearbooks, I find that the long term trend for world wheat is double today what it was in 1953. In 1953 it was 856-odd million bushels. In 1969 it was 1,605,000 bushels. Over the long haul, world wheat trade is up. We certainly do not have any evidence

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
that we have maintained our percentage of world wheat trade.
I might also add a word about world wheat production figures.


Otto Emil Lang: Those are the ones that are up.


Cliff Downey: I am again referring to FAO figures. In 1953, the world production figure for wheat was something over 6 billion bushels. In 1969, the world wheat production was 10J billion bushels. There is certainly a trend towards more world wheat production. The responsibility for failure cannot be sloughed off. This responsibility is right here with our government, Wheat Board and all the complicated machinery that we have administering the whole wheat and grain industry. The Canadian Wheat Board has exclusive power over the Canadian grain industry in every aspect of sales, except those within the province of origin.
It is probably true that the tremendous power now enjoyed by this centralized agency of government was largely conferred upon it with the agreement, and even at the urging, of the producers. However, this was many years ago in times that were vastly different. Conditions of world trade and production are greatly changed today.
In the desperate days of the mid thirties, a Conservative Prime Minister, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, created the Wheat Board to help farmers sell their wheat. It was, in its original concept, a help, not an autocratic and all-powerful government body. The concept of that day of the Wheat Board was that farmers were free to sell in the open market, selling only to the Board when the world price fell below that offered by the Wheat Board.
The exigencies of World War II persuaded the government to give the Board exclusive jurisdiction in the field of buying and selling all wheat produced for sale beyond provincial boundaries. After the war, barley and oats were added to this compulsory marketing set-up. Since that time, although it has no responsibility for purchase or sale, the Board has gained effective control of the trade in rapeseed, flax and rye through its control of storage and transportation facilities.
My chief criticism of this evolution of the Canadian Wheat Board from an agency of assistance to one of dominance and dictatorship is that the Board failed to measure up to the responsibilities that automatically went with additional power. This tight little group of five all-powerful czars accepted all the

exclusive rights and powers thrust upon them by government and by events, but they neglected to keep abreast of events. They failed to keep up with the times, to modernize their methods and to shift to meet changes in the export and domestic markets. Most dramatically, they failed in their primary task of selling grain. They simply delegated this job to designated agents and became an agency for purchase and storage of grain. That is primarily their function today.
What the Canadian grain industry needs most in today's world market is a modern, aggressive sales agency, directly responsive to the demands of that market and in particular to the best interests of the Canadian producer. Under the existing system of selling, the actual sellers, the designated sales agents of the Board, have no direct interest in Canadian grain as such and no compulsion is on them to feel patriotic about Canadian grain.
The result in recent years has been that Canada has lost sale after sale to old and reliable customers such as Great Britain and Japan. Only recently Canada lost all of its share of the Japanese monthly tender for barley to the United States and Australia.
One of the most disturbing features of Wheat Board operations is the cost to the farmer-producer of their operations. The cost of storage, interest and administration are all deducted from the final payment to the farmer. Over the 15 year period I mentioned earlier, 1953 to 1969, the cost of storage in this country has mounted and has cost the producers and taxpayers almost a billion dollars.
If you visit the prairies, look around to see what we have for all these storage payments. We have supported an elevator system rather than people. Storage payments should be made to the producers. Instead, a vast inadequate elevator system of some 5,000 delivery points was built when, with modern transportation facilities, we could very well have gotten along with possibly 400 to 500 delivery points. We should have plants in the country that have drying, cleaning and blending facilities. Think of the assistance this would be in the eventual transportation and lining up of the appropriate type of grain to sell at our terminal markets.
Administration costs of the Wheat Board run at about $3J million. I calculated storage costs and interest to be on an average of approximately $55J million, but I notice in one of the minister's press releases that government costs this year will be in the order of
January 20, 1970

$71 million. These might be acceptable cost factors if the grain were moving regularly, but they are intolerable when the system is clogged and no wheat is moving. This static condition emphasizes one of the worst features of the present system of marketing grain: a premium is placed on the storage of grain in Canada, not upon its sale. Consequently, there is no real incentive to move it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We often hear it said that Canada is not pulling its weight in the area of aid to less developed countries. Certainly, when we look at the figures it would seem that our contribution is one of the lower ones. But really we are doing a terrific service to mankind inasmuch as we are storing over half the world's grain surplus. Canada, at a tremendous cost to her own economy, is one of the world's largest food banks. Canada, which grows approximately one twentieth of the world's wheat is storing over half the world's surplus. If that is not an important service to mankind, I have never seen one. But can we afford it?
As I have said before, since 1953 the grain producers and taxpayers of Canada have paid out almost a billion dollars for grain storage to the terminal elevator companies, in return for an antiquated system of grain storage, an empire which is basically the same as it was 50 years ago. In what other area of our economy can we find the standards of 50 years ago applying today? At our present rate of wheat sales we are only revolving our wheat stocks every four years, which means that total storage charges, including handling, interest, and so on, are costing Canadian taxpayers and grain producers between 80 cents and one dollar on every bushel. Let us not kid out-selves; we shall have to move this wheat even if we are obliged to take a little less on world markets. If we take a little less, the ECC could very well open up again as a market to us. At the present time the ECC is spending $300 million a year subsidizing its agriculture; it might not stand this expenditure for long if there were a slight drop in our prices. When we maintain or raise our price above a certain level, other countries subsidize their wheat growers; if we remain below that level we can move ahead.
What we need is a government supported basic floor price for wheat. I spoke earlier of the importance of agriculture to the whole national economic picture. If our economy is to continue to progress we must keep agricul-21611-26i
Business of Supply
ture healthy. Many cut-backs have already been put into effect in agriculture and others are proposed. It was drawn to my attention the other day that support was to be withdrawn from straight-bred steer classes at the Edmonton exhibition next year. I cannot understand why we should be presented with cutbacks affecting agriculture while expenditures by other departments of government are increasing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am afraid his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that other departments have increased their expenditures. Take the Department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). In the last five or six years expenditures there have risen from something like $5 million to $342 million. Consider the basic policy which the CBC has laid down! I quote from the annual report for 1968-69:
The Corporation's basic policy is that efforts to increase commercial revenues must not dominate program decisions.
Why should we have to put up with these cutbacks in agriculture in an area which we have shown to be so important to the Canadian economy while other departments are taking an entirely different attitude?
I shall not continue for much longer Mr. Speaker. As for the statement the minister made with regard to cutting down the practice of grain bootlegging, I say it is all very well for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to make a virtue out of upholding the law, but it means nothing, and will accomplish nothing. If this country had been laid out properly to start with, the borders between Alberta and Saskatchewan and between Manitoba and Saskatchewan would not exist; this whole prairie region has, generally speaking, the same problems, the same topography and the same climate; it should be one province, under one administration.
It is all very well to talk about upholding the law. It is easy to make self-righteous statements, but it is something else for the farmer who must feed and clothe his family

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
with nothing negotiable but the grain that is sitting on his farm-grain he cannot sell for cash.
I want to emphasize one further point. We should not bind ourselves with red tape, rules, boards and commissions until we destroy our ability to be flexible. To function successfully in the marketplace of the world, our agencies must be flexible, in tune with world trends and demands. Canada's grain marketing agencies have forgotten this basic business requirement and this is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in today. There is evidence of this even in our domestic feed grain marketing arrangements. We spend our own feed freight assistance money importing United States corn into Ontario and Quebec while western Canada is sitting on a mountain of feed grain. It is time the government, working through all channels including the Wheat Board, got down to business in this country instead of being pre-occupied with a lot of wishful thinking, superfluous talking and announcements with which we have been plagued over the years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will recall that when the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) moved his amendment I expressed some initial misgivings about its admissibility. On reflection, I am prepared to admit it unless there are objections which I have not heard. My initial thought was that the first paragraph, dealing with deficiency payments, did raise a new question and that the amendment might have been out of order on that ground, but in the circumstances, and in view of the fact that this is an opposition day, I am prepared to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. On that basis, the amendment moved by the hon. member is now before the House.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no private members' hour today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: That is the best speech you have made yet.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are just jealous! A few days ago I sought to initiate an emergency debate in this House concerning the use or misuse of the space available in the terminals at Thunder Bay. The Chair quite properly ruled against me, and I accepted that decision. I am pleased that the official opposition chose

the topic of the plight of western agriculture today in order that we might have an opportunity to discuss this matter at some length with the government. May I say at the outset there is very little difference between the Minister without Portfolio and myself, and I suspect with all hon. members on this side, concerning the necessity to think about, plan and do something about the long term problems facing the agricultural industry generally. In relation to western agriculture, the whole system of grain handling, storage, pricing, planning, production and inventory needs to be thoroughly considered. Surely, there can be no argument on that score.
o (5:00 p.m.)
Certainly, the minister will agree that most of these items will take many months to consider. Some will take years to change. My colleagues the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) have or will deal with some of these aspects. Therefore, I should like to deal with what we must do in the interim while planning and discussing. We welcome every opportunity to co-operate with the minister and the government in order to arrive at new policies and programs.
What do we do in the interim? The farm cash income position and the whole of the economy of the three prairie provinces, as a result of low delivery quotas, have never been so bad as they are now. That is a broad statement but the facts bear it out. This is in great measure an emergency debate because an emergency situation exists.
It is incumbent upon the minister and the government to consider temporary emergency measures to deal with the present situation. We cannot just continue to accept, as we have during previous debates in this House, the admonishments of the minister that we should look at this in the long term and come up with long term answers. There has never been any argument in that regard, but the minister has not provided us with answers as to what should be done at the moment. He and his officials continue to use or misuse the idea that our grain handling system should be continued because that is the method which has been used before.
Having regard to the space at Lakehead terminals, the minister is wrong in suggesting that it is more efficient to fill that space gradually until the opening of the shipping season around the tenth or the middle of April. I make this statement partly from my
January 20, 1970

own knowledge about transportation and partly as a result of consultation with people actually involved in loading and unloading railway cars, terminals and ships. I have also consulted with people actually involved with the operations of elevators and those employed by the railways.
The practice being followed by the minister is backwards. I admit that at the outset the filling of space immediately will incur greater storage charges, most of which will come out of the farmer's pockets. That is not what the farmers are concerned about now. They are concerned about delivering some wheat and getting some cash, and they are prepared to accept some additional storage charges later on.
Let us consider the situation in respect of quotas now as compared with a year ago. The situation a year ago was even worse than normal. I am sure the minister will agree with that statement. A year ago we had delivery problems and problems regarding tough and damp grain. On January 12 a year ago, we had in the neighbourhood of 840 shipping points in the three prairie provinces on two and three bushel quotas. As of the same date this year, there were none on two or three bushel quotas.
I completely support the minister in his enforcement of Wheat Board regulations in respect of delivery, permit books and bootlegging. The tragedy is that as a result of the failure of shipping points in the three prairie provinces to deliver their unit or one bushel quotas, or even the supplementary quota of five bushels from the previous crop year, farmers are forced to go to inordinate lengths to obtain cash. Therefore, they are breaking the Wheat Board regulations. Farmers do not like to do this. The overwhelming majority of farmers support the Wheat Board. They will even accept penalties or fines when they break the rules. The fact is they have not been able to deliver grain and are desperate for cash. They are forced to go to these lengths.
It is time the minister adopted opposite measures in the practice of filling space at the Lakehead terminals. It is normal that at the end of the shipping season the terminals are nearly empty. It is normal to fill up this space in the wintertime. If the farmers could deliver their quotas during the wintertime, this would be of no concern. They would be happy to fill this space. As a result of not being able to deliver their quotas-and this has resulted in their desperate cash situation
Business of Supply
and extra effort is required to make space available at the country elevators so farmers can deliver these quotas and receive cash, in spite of the fact extra storage costs will be incurred.
The 60 million to 70 million bushel space in the terminals at the Lakehead is equivalent to a two bushel quota for all shipping points that normally ship to the Lakehead. This would include all the shipping points in Manitoba and half the shipping points in Saskatchewan and would represent about 31 million acres, some 62 million bushels of grain or over $100 million in farm cash income. Once this grain was delivered to the country elevators half of this amount would be used by the Wheat Board to cover cash advances. This would leave something over $50 million in the hands of the farmers. Such a program could be carried out within the next five weeks.
I suggest that the space at the Lakehead terminals could and should be filled by the end of February rather than by the middle of April. This would allow' farmers at all shipping points in Manitoba, and at over half the shipping points in Saskatchewan, to deliver two bushel quotas some six or seven weeks earlier than would otherwise be the case.
The minister claims it is more efficient to complete the filling of this space close to the opening of the shipping season at the rate of
1.000	cars per day. He suggests it is more efficient to bring this grain in at the end of the loading period. I have talked with grain, handlers at terminals and elevators, and they have told me that it is more efficient to unload a thousand cars a day at the beginning of this period when you have space for 60 million or 70 million bushels.
Terminals at the Lakehead, when worked on full capacity, can handle 1,200 or more cars per day. During the wintertime it is true that trains must be short, but it is certainly reasonable to suggest that 1,000 cars per day could be unloaded, and that this space could be filled by the end of February. The number of cars could then be reduced as the terminals were filled. When available space is reduced to 10 million or 20 million bushels there are fewer bins from which to choose for specific grades. There is also less space for drying grain. It stands to reason that when you unload up to 1,000 cars per day at the end of the period, when you have a shortage of space, you will have a backlog of 6,000 to
8.000	cars. It is much easier to unload 1,000 cars per day when you have maximum space at the terminal. I have been assured of this

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
by the head of the grain handlers union, by officials of the grain companies and by railway people. The reason the grain is not being handled in this manner is that it is more convenient for the railway companies to supply a larger number of cars later on.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I, for one, am not one bit interested in the convenience of the railways. I plead with the minister, because it is an emergency, to adopt the idea of filling this space quickly, thus providing space at shipping points which are eligible to ship to the Lakehead. This, in turn, would provide space at country elevators for the two bushel quota, thereby enabling the farmers to deliver the grain sooner than they would otherwise be able to do. When one looks at the performance of the railways, in spite of their protests and the assurance of the minister that everything is carefully planned, it smacks of sheer incompetence and indifference. A look at the DBS weekly report of car loadings shows that in the period August 1 to December 21 last, a period of about 20 weeks, 21,109 fewer cars of grain were loaded than in the same period in the year 1968. That was a slow and rough year. In this crop year 21,000 fewer cars were loaded. Compared to the year 1967, 29,000 fewer cars were loaded in the same period.
The minister assured the head of the grain handlers union at the Lakehead on Monday, January 17 that 3,000 to 4,000 car loads would arrive at the Lakehead. The information I have is that between 1,500 and 2,000 cars arrived during the week ending January 17, half the number the minister said would arrive. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool states it could now handle, on a five-day week working three shifts a day, 400 cars a day and that they received during the eight working days between January 2 and January 13 an average of 71 cars per day. They are not even getting the 100 cars a day they had expected. The total number of cars under load was something over 4,000 fewer on January 14 this year than on January 14 a year iago. There were some 12,000 cars in transit and under load on January 14 a year ago and 8,400 on January 14 this year. There were 726 cars under load and in transit to the Lake-head on January 15 and that was an accumulation of two days of loading.
The whole thing has not been properly coordinated. This is the effect of an improper plan of the minister and his officials to gradually fill the Lakehead storage by the opening of the navigation season somewhere around
IMr. Beniamin.]
April 10 or April 15. In the meantime, the farmers must wait seven weeks longer than necessary in order to get another one or two bushel quota to the shipping points which are permitted to move grain to the Lakehead. The railways may claim a shortage of equipment. This may not be an important matter, but I understand there are something in the order of at least 1,000 potash cars sitting idle. These are more easily and more quickly loaded and are more easily and quickly unloaded. Now, when there is a shortage, these cars are sitting around idle. It is true they must be cleaned in order to prevent corrosion, but there is no excuse for their not being used when they are sitting idle.
I ask the minister to review his program because this is an emergency situation. I agreed earlier that when conditions are normal what is being done now and what has been done before can be understood, but this is not a normal situation. It is in fact an emergency which affects not only the farmers of the prairie provinces. When one goes into the communities, talks to the small businessmen and employees and sees what is and has been happening in the last few months, and when one goes downtown in Regina and finds several business places vacant, one finds evidence of the situation which exists. When one finds people employed by farm implement plants and others who should be handling grain laid off, surely the minister will agree there is an emergency situation and that he should take extraordinary measures to fill the space in a record time. It can be done. The equipment and the men are available to do it. The space is available in which to put the grain. I hope the minister will agree that some other measure must be taken rather than the one he is taking at the moment.
The amendment to the motion calling for a guaranteed price for the farmers also calls for the appointment of a transport controller, who I submit should have complete authority and control over all aspects of grain movement between Vancouver and Thunder Bay. When we tried this system before it worked reasonably well, although there was room for improvement. This must be done again. Because of the confusion in respect of authority, and because of the great number of agencies involved, the problem is too difficult to be handled properly in the present way. So I hope the minister will do more than just appoint a co-ordinator for the terminals at Vancouver and the Lakehead. I expect he will appoint a terminal co-ordinator at the Lake-head, but I suggest over and above that, what
January 20, 1970

is needed is someone who would be in complete command, who would have the authority to act when action is required and when it could be taken much quicker than if it had to have approval of the minister or the House of Commons.
I hope, therefore, the minister will look at 'the plan he has for the filling of this space, 'will consult with those who have some knowledge of the situation and be prepared to change the plan and adopt an extraordinary technique in order to provide cash for the farmers now.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so in the hope that today's discussion will do much more than simply focus attention on a few specific weaknesses in our present system of handling and marketing wheat.
I believe it is essential that all Canadians realize that these are merely symptoms of a general malaise that is sapping the strength of a large and important segment of our society and of an industry that is vital to Canada's economic well-being. I am hopeful that this discussion will at last bring home to the government, and the people of Canada, that the agricultural industry and the farm community of this country must be preserved in the national interest. The farm unit must be retained and strengthened for sound social and economic reasons. In the prevailing depressed state of the grain trade, individual farms are disappearing fast, properties are being broken up and going out of production and farmers are leaving the land for good. [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
One of the long-term contributing factors undoubtedly is the lack of adequate government support for agriculture. It has recently been calculated that federal government expenditure on agriculture works out to about $286 per person active in farming in Canada. In the United States, the equivalent figure is $1,287 per head for such things as research, extension, price stability and so on. The myth is firmly established in this country's urban areas, and apparently too in the inner circles of government, that Canadian farmers, particularly western grain producers, are a pampered political pressure group that prospers on government hand-outs at the expense of other Canadians. The per capita figures on government expenditure in Canada and the United States that I have just quoted give the lie to that myth.
But there is other sound evidence to the contrary. For instance, the net out-put per
Business of Supply
man in commercial industry in Canada has increased at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent since 1946. In the seven major industrial groups used in that calculation, agriculture was best with an annual rate of increase of 5.5 per cent. Since 1961, the rate of increase has been even better. Agriculture's net output per man shot up to an annual rate of 6.5 per cent while the productivity of other commercial industry declined and limped along at 2.9 per cent. This dramatic increase in productivity has been made at the expense of farm labour and agricultural employment. But while the purely agricultural population has shrunk, agriculture as an industry has contributed in an outstanding manner to national productivity and national prosperity.
A recent economic survey in the United States showed that some 30 per cent of all employment in that country was farm based, that is, dependent upon the requirements of the industry of agriculture in its widest sense. I do not know of any similar study for Canada, but I believe it would be even higher than 30 per cent in this country. With this in mind, I am sure the government owes it to western agriculture at this point in time to take a good look at its present condition, and to be ready with subsidies, either in the form of payments on farm stored grain or acreage payments for this coming year. These measures would tide Western agriculture over this very difficult period of its existence.
Despite that fact that agriculture today enjoys only 11 per cent of Canada's total merchandise trade, it still accounts for more than $1 billion a year in balance of payments credits, and as recently as three years ago this was nearly $2 billion. These figures alone I believe are enough to give Canadians some rough idea of the magnitude of the agricultural industry and of its tremendous importance to our business and social life.
One of the major afflictions besetting the industry today is a situation regarding the grain trade. One cannot talk about the grain trade without immediately coming slap up against the Canadian Wheat Board and the other government apparatus that has grown up over the years to handle what, in all important aspects, is really a federal government monopoly.
I have no wish to throw stones at the Canadian Wheat Board, or to make life more difficult than it already is for the board and its members. I think they are probably as much victims of circumstances and government disinterest and lethargy as they are of a failure to keep abreast of the times and the

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
changing world market. To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I believe the name of the board is wrong and misleading. The Canadian Wheat Board has exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of trade in grain outside the province of origin. In addition, it effectively controls the trade in oil seed by virtue of its powers over storage and transportation facilities, although it has no responsibility for the export or sale of such produce.
This makes the problem of the Wheat Board a very complex one. The members control the purchase, movement and sale, and I believe each of these aspects requires separate detailed study and radical over-haul. At the very least, the apparent failure of the board to handle adequately its responsibilities with regard to the grain trade in existing conditions calls for a formal and extensive investigation. I am not suggesting a punitive type of investigation, but one the aim of which would be to find better ways of doing what needs to be done.
The fact that the transportation pipeline for grain has become hopelessly clogged while terminal storage facilities stand half empty shows that the Wheat Board has relapsed into being an agency for the storage of grain, not for the movement of grain. This problem is aggravated by instances where flax, rapeseed and other oil seeds cannot be sold to foreign buyers because they have not been placed in a position to be shipped readily. These oil seeds, being beyond the board's responsibility yet dependent upon the board's transportation and storage facilities, come ofE second best. This is doubly unfortunate when the world appetite for such products is said at this time to be almost limitless.
I believe it is vital that the actual relationship of the board to the producer be studied with a view to improving the flow of market information. The movement and storage questions must be studied individually and, of course, the outmoded Canadian system of merchandising and selling must be drastically reviewed.
The fact that Canada's share of the world market has declined from 30 per cent in the crop year 1953-54 to 19 per cent in 1967-68 is reason enough to investigate. These figures are only for wheat. The situation is even worse when we look at two other grains for which the board has sole responsibility as regards sales, namely, barley and oats. In the year 1953-54 we enjoyed 35 per cent of the world market in barley. By 1967-68 this had

shrunk to 14 per cent. Oats were even worse off, declining in the same period from 51 per cent to 5 per cent.
To my mind, one of the most serious deficiencies of the present system is its failure to provide up-to-the-minute market information to the producer. The events of the past few years have demonstrated this many times over.
Last October, in an address to the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists, Mr. J. E. McWilliam, president of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, noted the dramatic changes in the world market picture resulting from the increased production of new varieties, changes in demand due to new methods of baking, and other changes in the traditional areas of export sales. He said in part:
The awareness of these developments by the Canadian producer has been rather remote, due to our separation of the market system from the production end of our market system.
He went on to mention other changes in the area of new demands, notably feed grains. I quote:
The demand for feed grain is the fastest growing segment of the export agricultural field. It has increased from 13.6 million tons in the years 193539 to 42.4 million tons in 1967. This is over a 300 per cent growth factor in 30 years which is a tremendous market potential.
Last year the Wheat Board was selling barley for export at approximately $1 a bushel. In September, the board dropped the price of export barley in one day by approximately 23 cents a bushel. In other words, it seemed to have arrived at the stage where it felt our barley had to be competitive on the export market. When we place this fact beside the substantial demand for flax and rapeseed and then consider that the majority of grain producers were not even aware of the demand abroad for these products, we can appreciate the dire need for better information for the primary producer on potential markets, and for closer liaison between the seller and the producer.
Another instance of the failure to keep abreast of changes in the market place, and failure to disseminate vital information to the producer, is found in the radical changes brought about in Great Britain by the adoption of a new baking method. In this traditional market Canada sold 78 million bushels in 1960. In 1968, this amount was reduced to 55 million bushels. The decline was caused by a radically new system of baking adopted in the United Kingdom, whereby bakers there can utilize up to 80 per cent soft wheat and
January 20. 1970

get by with as little as 20 per cent hard spring wheat. In addition, this soft wheat can easily be secured by Britain in soft currency areas, thus saving the expenditure of hard dollars.
Coupled with that is another change made by our chief export competitors. The United States, Australia, and Russia too, have all swi ched over to a system of a guaranteed uniform protein basis. This appears to be what today's customers want, and yet Canada persists in selling wheat that varies in protein content from 12 per cent to 15 per cent.
When we consider that Japan is making plans to adopt the new British baking system which requires higher percentages of soft wheat and a guaranteed protein content, we would be blind if we did not see the import for Canadian producers and Canadian export sales. This is one of the chief reasons for my desire to see a thorough and impartial study of our whole system of handling and selling grain, not with any idea of trying to pin blame on anyone or any agency but rather to try to evolve a system that is more adequate, more flexible and more suited to the conditions of the modern market place.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I have no wish to labour my point about the importance of the agricultural industry to Canada. To my mind this is quite evident to any thinking Canadian. But I do wish to emphasize that I believe it is the urgent duty of the government to help an important segment of our na'ional economy which today is in serious trouble. A large number of our people are directly or indirectly dependent upon the industry of agriculture both for export and domestic use, and the high levels of taxes paid by this industry are vital in maintaining such things as our extensive social and welfare services, not to mention many hundreds of small municipalities.
As an example of the situation of farmers in my own province of Manitoba, in 1969 the actual cash income, from all sources, of farmers was about $250 million. The value of production was about $450 million, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. This means that about $200 million worth of grain is still in the storage bins. If this grain is not moved and turned into cash, disaster will ensue and not only will the farmers of Manitoba suffer but many thousands of Canadians from the prairies to the Atlantic coast.
Business of Supply
I urge this government to regard the situation in agriculture as one of national crisis and to take immediate, effective action to modernize the whole system of buying, transporting, storing and marketing our grain crop whether it be wheat, barley, oats, flax or rapeseed. We have the skills, the know-how and the adaptability; all we need is action and leadership at the national level.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to take part in the discussion on what the minister in charge of the Wheat Board described as a phony issue. When I look across the House I am reminded of the many times that we, the opposition in this chamber, have been accused of being a great nuisance and worth nothing. We have been told that the other side of the House received the mandate of the people and therefore we might just as well save our breath. Mr. Speaker, I wish people who gave that mandate were in the galleries today to see the empty seats on the other side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Count your own.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: This is no phony issue. The minister invited us to talk to the farmers, to listen to what they said and to tell them what a good, efficient job he is doing. Well, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask him-


Otto Emil Lang: You missed the point.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: -why he does not even listen to the farmers who sit with him at the Privy Council table. Does he not receive advice on the shipping and handling of grain from any of his colleagues? Does he ignore the fact that there are dozens of people directly concerned with this problem-and I mean directly? In 1932 I worked on a farm. In 1936 I managed a large farm, and in 1939 I had my own farm.
I think it is about time the minister responsible took some of the advice he gives. What better place is there for a farmer to speak than in this chamber? I know a farmer cannot speak personally, but as an MP he can speak, in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said about an MP not amounting to a hill of beans. I take exception to that remark, although as a matter of fact I think he has said worse. I have heard that the Prime Minister has 30 advisers.


Gerald William Baldwin: He should have more.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Perhaps he should have another name for them-trusties. They are

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
trusted all right, but we do not see or hear anything of them. I have heard it said that as a person goes through life he is lucky if he has one trusted friend. The Prime Minister is exceptionally lucky; he has 30. But why does he not listen to those who sit around the Privy Council table? I do not find fault because he listens to the people he trusts-I do not mind that at all-but he does not have to believe them and pass on their advice.
This is not a phony issue, Mr. Speaker, but one of the most important before this country today.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: It is not confined to western wheat or grain growers; it is felt all across the country. One has only to read the newspapers from coast to coast to learn that the trouble in this very important area of the Canadian economy is making itself felt in other facets of our economy.
The minister goes across the country making speech after speech, saying the same thing. On December 1 he said that the Wheat Board had maintained Canada's position in world exports. I do not know where he gets his figures. Honest and worth-while contributions have been made in this House. We on this side do not oppose simply for the sake of opposition. Many good suggestions have been brought forward, but the government does not listen to them. Indeed government members are not even in their seats there is only one minister here this afternoon.


Gerald William Baldwin: Shame.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: They are the party with the mandate of the people, and I repeat-I only wish the people could see that they gave their mandate to empty seats.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They would be awfully disillusioned.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The minister talks about blocks of cars. I do not know what it is, but it is supposed to be a great improvement in the shipping of grain. However, the rapeseed growers are having trouble moving a very small amount compared with the wheat involved. Where is the block system and where is the improvement, Mr. Speaker?
I should like to remind the minister that I am a farmer and I have not had a quota on my farm for nearly a year. But still he talks about equalizing quotas. This does not make sense to me and I think I have very good

reason to speak about it. I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, why there has not been a quota on my farm since last May.


Otto Emil Lang: Did you get your deferred delivery permit?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am talking about the quota. There has not been a quota on my farm since last May. What can we do without quotas when we are supposed to deliver wheat and other grains under the quota system? I should not have to spell it out, but I suggest that the system is run on financing, borrowing money at 9J per cent, whereas the average rate of interest paid-and I know whereof I speak-is about 15 per cent. After two or three years of not selling the product, this not only creates a hazard but makes it darned hard to live.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) went to Chatham and set out some guidelines. I think he is the one who is being guided. He said:
We in the federal government do not make trade decisions based primarily on one commodity or class of commodity. The people of Canada demand and rightly so that we should take into account the interests of the entire Canadian economy and make what is, on balance, the best decision.
The government does not take any one commodity or any one facet into consideration. I refer to the automobile pact, with which we are all very familiar so I need not go into detail. If that pact does not take into consideration one particular facet of our economy, I should like to know what does. Another example with which we are familiar is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Although we are discussing the Canadian economy and the grain producers of Canada, I think it is pertinent to consider this example. As I understand it, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is financed to the tune of nearly $.5 billion. Again, that department will be involved with a special part of the economy. Yet when we raise in the House one of the most important issues affecting the economy of Canada, we are met with deaf ears and empty seats.
Just four years ago wheat was our No. 1 export. A few months ago it was about fourteenth, and where it stands today I shudder to think. When an important facet of the economy such as wheat deteriorates so quickly, what are we to do? I suppose because I am in the opposition no one will expect me to offer suggestions, but I raise two points. First, I
January 20, 1970

suggest that the facet of the Canadian economy which we are now discussing should at once be treated at least as fairly as other facets. Other countries show more respect for our grain.
May I also remind the minister that there is in the world less wheat on hand than there was one year ago, and much less than there was ten years ago. There is on hand only enough wheat for one year's supply. There is not a glut in any way, shape or form when you have only one year's supply. A drought in Canada or in any of the great wheat supplying countries would change this picture. But we are told to cut down, cut down, cut down on wheat production. We are cutting down; we cannot get rid of our wheat. The minister should be cognizant of the fact that there is only one year's supply of wheat in the world, and he should be careful. We do not have to do the cutting down, because mother nature can do that very well.
Other countries in the world are looking at Canadian agriculture, even though our own government does not seem to be interested in it. The Japanese government has entered into a direct contract with growers for delivery to Japan of a rapeseed crop to be grown on hundreds of thousands of acres in Canada. It seems that other countries realize our potential and our own government does not. The government's attitude just does not add up.
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke in Chatham he reminded the people that there is one good thing in this situation: the consumer has been the major beneficiary. That is only a smokescreen put out by this government. To say that the consumer is the beneficiary, when the cost of living is higher than it has ever been, when interest rates and unemployment have never been higher, is nonsense.
How can a member of this government go around making fatuous statements like that? I am sure he was putting up a smokescreen because he wanted to divert people's attention from the real problem which he hates to face. He is a farmer and rancher; therefore, I cannot understand why he should be talking about these so-called guidelines and flexible programs. I agree with him that we should be flexible in our approach to agriculture, but where is the flexibility? There is absolutely none. A moment ago I told hon. members that it is nearly a year since we had a quota on our farm. Where, then, is the government's flexibility?
Several hon. members said this afternoon that space for grain is available at the Lake-
Business of Supply
head. The minister said, "Why do you not tell farmers what a good, efficient job we are doing? We want to get this space filled by April or May". I ask, why not fill it now? What would be the difference? Action such as this would make a difference to people who have not had a quota for a long time, who have no money in their pockets and who are paying, and have been paying for two or three years, ridiculously high rates of interest.
There ought to be another name for interest rates like that, because no one in agriculture or industry who has to find money under these conditions can look forward to making any kind of profit. I ask, why not fill the storage facilities now? Why must the government be what it considers orderly and efficient in this regard? The minister may call it flexibility, but it is no such thing. The government cannot even move a few loads of rapeseed to the coast and get them shipped to overseas customers. That is how flexible it is.
What else could we do? We could change our system of grading, because that is long overdue, and bring in a system that would encompass the protein content of wheat. This system is being used by buyers, particularly high class buyers such as millers and distillers as well as many of our overseas customers. I think they know more about our crops than the government does. They know what regions produce wheats containing large amounts of protein.
I point out that millers and distillers in particular consider wheat with high-protein content much more valuable than wheat with low-protein content. If we could introduce a new grading system along these lines, we might be able to introduce a two-price system on the domestic scene and, in addition, charge two different prices to export customers who would be quite willing to pay more for high-protein wheat. I will leave these thoughts with the minister; I suppose he will have to read them, because he is not listening to my remarks.
What can we do immediately? I strongly advocate that we immediately pay farmers for on-farm stored grain. If we paid for grain in storage that way, it would mean that farmers would receive about 18 per cent of the value of their crop, which would just about equal the interest which they pay on loans. I believe this would help our farmers, and we could do it immediately. We should do it if we are serious about giving to our agricultural sector the consideration that we give to other facets of our economy.
Business of Supply

January 20, 1970
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The government could go a little further. I am not talking about money that comes from the treasury and is provided by the taxpayer. This system could be paid for by the farmers, because they are paying now. I have heard it said that they do not pay it, but if they were paid for farm-stored grain, the government would not have to pay storage on amounts above 178 million bushels because it would not be in the elevators.
The payment should be made to the farmers. Let the elevators be handling companies. I do not mind saying that. 1 have belonged to elevator co-ops for 30 years and I believe their position should be that of handlers. Railway companies are shippers. We have never had any real complaints from the railway companies as shippers. I do not see any cause for so much talk. Ministers are running around the country talking about a new boxcar system. There was never any trouble delivering wheat when there were sales.
According to the minister, the Wheat Board has maintained our world position. I again say that I fail to understand this, because some world exporters have lost only 2 per cent or 3 per cent of their posi'ion in the world market. Others have lost 4 per cent, 8 per cent or 15 per cent. Canada, Mr. Speaker, has lost 45 per cent of its world trade. How does the minister explain that? Here again he is using the Wheat Board as a scapegoat. They are not salesmen; they are buyers. They are the sole purchasing agent. I am sincere when I say the minister uses the Wheat Board as a scapegoat.
How can the minister say that we have maintained our place in the export of grains when in fact we have lost nearly 45 per cent of our market? The whole thing just does not add up, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, the government shows absolutely no interest in this problem. I am serious when I say that the minister does not even know what he is talking about. I have talked to the farmers and listened to what they have said. I hope that for once the minister will listen to what they say through farmers who are members of the House.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are willing to subsidize a sales agency under the Wheat Board.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The government will probably turn it into a Crown corporation, appoint its friends to the corporation and thereby get the responsibility off its back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, 
but his time has expired. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. South-am).


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to take part in the debate and I should like to begin by complimenting my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) for having introduced this mo'.ion of non-confidence in the government with respect to its agricultural policies and, more particularly, wi.h respect to grain storage and movement.
If there was ever a period in Canadian history during which the people of Canada, especially those who live on our farms, had no confidence in their government, that time is now. Time and again members of the opposition have sought to adjourn the House to discuss agricultural problems; hundreds of ques.ions have been directed to the government on the subject, opposition days were used for the same purpose last fall. Today, once again, we find the official opposition devoting its first opposition day to the subject of agriculture. Surely, in these circumstances, the government should finally come to life and take remedial action.
I listened very carefully to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt when he spoke before we adjourned for the dinner hour. What did we hear? We heard that this motion was a phony. Just imagine a statement like that coming from a new minister who is charged with the responsibility for looking after the interests of western agriculture. I was never more surprised in my life. I am sure the government's supporters will have red faces for some time over this statement. In regard to grain storage at the Lakehead he referred repeatedly to normal conditions. But, let us face it, these are not normal times. Indeed, the times are most abnormal. The minister referred re-
January 20, 1970

peatedly to the efficiency of the present system, quoting pious platitudes. At least he appreciates that a problem does exist. His remarks-thank goodness-were at least an improvement over those of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on the last two or three occasions when he spoke during a debate on agriculture. On those occasions all we could discern from the hon. gentleman's statements was that the farmers "never had it so good".
This afternoon the minister talked at length about long-term planning and policies yet to be formulated. In the long haul, long-range planning is, of course, important. We all realize that policies concerning marketing, pricing, storage, transportation, production and quality have to be reviewed. But what about plans for dealing with the present emergency? I would remind the House that at the present time wheat sales are the lowest for several years. Moreover, farmers are receiving the lowest prices in years, the lowest quotas in years and the lowest net income-if any at all-in years. At the same time, input costs are the highest in Canadian history. All this has resulted in more people than ever leaving or wishing to leave our farm communities. The total effect has been to place the agriculture industry in the most serious position it has occupied in our time. To add insult to injury, the minister tells us there will not even be a final wheat payment this spring. This is another indication of how bad things really are.
I ask the minister: What does the government intend to do to meet the cash crisis on western farms? If hon. gentlemen opposite have not already made up their minds, let me make a couple of suggestions. First, steps should be taken at once, not a week or a month from now, to move wheat into the space presently unoccupied at the Lakehead. I understand that 60 million bushels could be accommodated there, and that if the railroads would provide 1,000 cars a day-and they have done so before-this amount of grain could be stored at Thunder Bay within six weeks.
This would mean something like $75 million of new money being placed in the hands of farmers in the eastern part of Saskatchewan and all of Manitoba, a sum represented by approximately a two-bushel quota, even after they had paid back a portion of their cash advances. It is true that if we allow time to fritter away the grain will eventually move to the Lakehead and fill up this space three months from now. My point is that the farm-
Business of Supply
ers need this cash today, tomorrow and the next day; they require it very soon in order to meet the commitments of spring seeding operations.
The second suggestion I have is, I feel, an important one which would take up the serious slack caused by the absence of a final payment this spring. I have made it on other occasions in this House. It is that the government should make a substantial acreage payment available. This should amount to at least $2 an acre up to 400 acres. A larger payment would be even better, provided the treasury, whose accounts are now showing a substantial surplus, would loosen up. Assistance of this type was forthcoming on three occasions through legislation brought forward by a government I had the honour to serve. It proved very effective in conditions which were far less trying than those which now exist. If the government wishes to approach the problem in another way, it could introduce wheat acreage reduction payments with the stipulation that the money made available be used to establish livestock herds of cattle or pigs.
I believe a further suggestion should be put forward at this point. I have made it on previous occasions and the minister told me he would take note of it. I have heard it put forward in many areas of western Canada. It is this: farmers would appreciate a moratorium in connection with repayments due under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Act and the new farm machinery legislation. If these demands were postponed for one year, I am sure it would assist the farming population to a great extent in meeting the present emergency.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In any event, the problems of agriculture require immediate action. If the House wants evidence of prices in the west, let me read some newspaper headlines. I have before me the Toronto Daily Star of January 17, 1970. This indicates that even in eastern Canada people are beginning to appreciate the situation. The headline is, "The disenchanted prairies". The next headline is, "Gusher of prairie discontent will alter our future". The next sub-heading is, "Alberta leaders start looking enviously at the fruits of separatism". Those are headlines in just one newspaper.
Let me quote again from the Toronto Daily Star of the same date. The headline is, "Prairies rage at grain glut and money famine". The next sub-heading is, "A Manitoba farmer goes carpentering". Another heading is "It's

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
really worse now than the 30's". The next sub-heading states, "People are fleeing the prairie". Another sub-headline states, "Wheat pool demands 'federal help or else' ",
Let me refer to an article in the Leader-Post of December 19, 1969. The headline reads, "Early grain movement requested". That is what we have been talking about this afternoon and this evening. Another article appearing in the Leader-Post of November 15, 1969 had this headline, "Elevator system on prairie must be rebuilt says Winter". Another headline is, "Grain surplus made last year frustrating". Another is, "Hard times in farming likely to continue". Another headline reads, "No storage space for bumper crop". An article, again in the Leader-Post states, "Lull in grain-handling hit".
So goes the story, Mr. Speaker. Every day when you pick up the paper you see indications that this crisis is becoming worse. In conclusion, let me beg the indulgence of the House in quoting for the record an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer of Thursday, January 8. This is a very interesting article and is very applicable to the present situation. It should be read thoroughly by every individual who lives in an urban centre in order that he may become aware of the importance of the agricultural industry to the economy of Canada. This article reads in part:
The agricultural economy's research council of Canada has performed a valuable service to Canadian farmers by spelling out the value Canadians derive from the presence of a strong agricultural industry in this country. It did this in a statement to the Canada Grains Council which was reported fully in the Western Producer for October 9. The statement is worthy of careful re-examination.
What the economic research council reported in essence was this:
"On the basis of Canada's gross national product in 1967 of $62 billion, agriculture and its directly related enterprise generate a total economic value to the Canadian GNP of $26 billion."
Imagine that figure! It further states:
"(This) represents the measure of involvement of the agricultural industry in the overall economic activity of Canada . . . The $26 billion figure, equal to 42 per cent of GNP, excludes consideration of the effect of agriculture on the demand for other products."
Finally, the economic research council concludes:
"-this juncture Canada cannot afford to let agriculture disintegrate for lack of positive information, constructive policy and vigorous implementation."
What the council took into account in arriving at its figure of $26 billion for industry included: gross agricultural production, the "value added" in processing these products in Canada, the return at retail level and lastly a "multiplier factor" to take

account of services rendered in the whole process including agricultural commodities and their products in position where consumers can use them or they go into the export market.
These economic concepts of "value added" and the "multiplier factor" are common to the economic analysis of implications in production of all raw products. They are an element that has been frequently overlooked in assessing the importance of agriculture as a stimulant to further business activity.
I think this is a very good article and I commend it to those hon. members who are particularly interested in agriculture. I was very interested in the remarks of my neighbour, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who on a number of occasions has voiced some very good suggestions that I have supported. They have also been made by other hon. members. I will listen very closely to learn what excuse that hon. member has for not supporting the amendment now before the House.


Albert B. Douglas: including ultimately the government, to make adequate use of our grain storage facilities in Canada. The extent of the government's failure lies mainly in the fact that until recently it relied on the voluntary co-operation of the owners and operators of the storage facilities, the labour unions, the railways, the exporters and all others involved in the movement and storage of grain. This co-operation has not been forthcoming in adequate measure.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is rising to ask a question. I should point out that it is the option of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) to accept the question or not.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have about 20 minutes to deliver the material I have here. If at the end of my speech I have time, I will be glad to answer questions. Hon. members will recall that I have on several occasions urged the government to follow a previous precedent and appoint a transport controller who would have control over boxcar distribution as well as terminal and other storage facilities. If this had been done a year or more ago, I believe grain farmers, the grain trade and all Canada would be better off today. However, this was not done, partly because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) had too many other important things to look after and was forced to accept bad advice given him by some of his advisors.
Most farmers, and I hope most hon. members, were very pleased and encouraged when the government appointed the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who would devote his full time to the urgent problems of the grain industry. By doing this the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government indicated their concern for western farmers. They showed that they recognized the size and the seriousness of the problem by giving one minister exclusive responsibility for the Wheat Board and for the grain industry, something that had never happened before. I say again that this was a tremendous forward step.
One of the benefits we have already derived from that unprecedented appointment was evidenced in the recent announcement by the minister of the appointment of a coordinator for the movement of grain and the
Business of Supply
operation of the terminals at the port of Vancouver. A detailed study had proved the need for such a co-ordinator. In response to a question I asked in the House, the minister indicated that a similar co-ordinator will likely be appointed for Thunder Bay before navigation opens in early April.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Farmers are very pleased with these appointments because they indicate the government is genuinely concerned about the past bottlenecks and difficulties and is willing to do something to prevent a recurrence. They also hold the promise of a better service being provided to our customers. This eventually should be reflected in better sales, which is the best way to solve our grain problems. This should always be uppermost in the mind of those who attempt to find solutions. I am sure it is the primary concern of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
I should like to warn the minister again that I am not as confident as he concerning the ability or willingness of the railroads to move the large quantities of grain which will have to be moved in the last four months of this crop year. I urge him to watch their performance very closely and to immediately appoint a boxcar controller if they fall even a little way behind. For heaven's sake do not let them put off measures to effectively equalize quotas until the last month or two. It cannot be done in this manner, and if it were attempted we would again be in the intolerable situation we experienced last summer.
Grain farmers have three main concerns. The first is that they want as much grain as possible moved into the markets. Second, they want an equitable sharing of those markets among grain producers through an improved quota system. Third, they want the best possible price consistent with the first two objectives. Incidentally, the rational and orderly use of our storage facilities would probably save the farmers money.
In passing may I also say I am happy to note that a special committee has been set up to make specific proposals in the very near future regarding revision of the grain quota system. I suggest to anyone interested who reads or hears these words that he or she should immediately submit to the Wheat Board their ideas about quota reform. I also point out to the minister the urgency of publicizing the new quota regulations before spring seeding starts, because they could have an important effect on rationalization of production.

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
No doubt the minister is studying the most effective methods of transporting, storing and marketing our grain. I am confident everything will be done without undue delay to make the best possible use of all these facilities. I would be surprised if such a study did not reveal the need for more storage facilities at the west coast and possibly overseas. It may well reveal the need for more interior terminals which would dry our grain if necessary, clean it, blend it and prepare it for direct loading into ocean-going vessels for our customers. These interior terminals could receive grain directly from our farm trucks. Enough of them strategically placed could eventually supersede our present elevator system, which with some exceptions, has remained relatively unchanged since trucks came into common use by farmers.
With regard to farm storage payments, I have never been convinced there would be any over-all advantage to farmers if they paid themselves through the Wheat Board for storing grain on their own farms. I am still of that opinion, so long as delivery opportunities remain reasonably equal. On the other hand, recent developments, including the block system of grain gathering and transportation, may result in a continuing inequity in respect of delivery privileges. If this should happen- and we should be able to judge this by July 31-then I say steps should be taken to pay the farmers for their authorized production of grain, with a small holdback, while it still remains on the farm. Furthermore, those farmers who are not allowed to deliver their normal quota should be paid a reasonable amount for storing that grain until it can be accepted.
It is a great temptation to digress and talk about many other farm problems such as the many desirable and necessary changes in the quota system, the expansion of markets, market research and production advice, a more realistic two-price system, what final payment may be expected this spring, and the need to set up separate accounts in the Wheat Board for Durum and bread wheat. Then there is the matter of the cash shortage, the reformation of the Wheat Board, the International Grains Arrangement, and a new grading system.
I hope to persuade the government-and I have already spoken to some members of the government about this-to change the Wheat Board Act, if necessary, in order to make sure the Wheat Board accounts for Durum wheat are kept separate from those for other types

of wheat, so that at least the Durum producers will receive a final payment next spring on their 1968-69 deliveries.
Mr. Speaker, I could talk about all these things but I shall attempt to stay within the terms of the motion before the House. Before I sit down, however, I wish to anticipate some remarks that may be made later, possibly along the line of the remarks made on November 18 in a similar debate by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). In effect, he said I should vote against the government if I had the courage of my convictions.
My position is quite clear. This is related to something the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) just said. I was elected as a Liberal and will, the Lord willing, remain a Liberal at least until the next election. But this does not mean I must be silent if I do not agree with the government's actions or lack of action. I have told my constituents, and I firmly believe it, that I can do more for them as a member of the government party. I believe I have accomplished a few things-more than I could have accomplished as a member of the opposition.
I further believe that the Liberal Party, even with its admitted imperfections, will continue to govern this country in the foreseeable future. If I thought I could do a better job in the opposition, I would cross the floor. The parties opposite, I believe, will remain in opposition for a long time and I might look forward to a long and ineffectual career. I submit that the two small opposition parties have no hope of ever becoming the government. The official opposition is so split, and so badly in disarray, that I cannot imagine any revival of their fortunes for many, many years.
I believe I was elected because my constituents wanted a representative on the government side of the House. I shall continue to speak up in the House on matters affecting my constituents whether or not my opinions differ from those of the government. The Liberal Party is big enough to welcome a difference of opinion within its ranks on many subjects. I shall continue to battle for my constituents in the House, in caucus and on every other possible occasion. But I shall not indulge in the foolish luxury of voting against the government and thereby risk alienating the only federal political organization which is in a position now, and will be in my opinion for many years to come, to do something effective to solve our problems.
January 20, 1970

In closing, I say it would be fine if farmers could deliver enough wheat now to immediately fill the Thunder Bay terminals. This would permit those who have grain piled outside to get it under cover. It would let us use the roads before they become completely clogged with snow or before the spring thaw makes them impassable. Most of all, it would get some badly needed cash into the hands of grain farmers. But one must balance these considerations against the need to make rational use of our transportation facilities, to maintain a steady movement to the west coast and to have our system geared and adjusted to the much expanded movement which will be required after navigation opens. We must consider, also, the fact that about 111,000 farmers have already obtained over $250 million in cash advances since last August 1, some of this being taken out since January 1.
Perhaps there is good reasoning behind the minister's decision to have a steady but increasing flow of grain to Thunder Bay this winter, ensuring that the terminals will be at capacity well before navigation begins about April 10, instead of a crash program as suggested by opposition speakers, followed by weeks of stagnation.


An hon. Member:: What is your quota?


Albert B. Douglas: Nothing. I agree that there are many serious problems in respect of our grain industry, but I do not believe the matter raised in the main motion before us is as vital as many other aspects the opposition might have selected for us to discuss today. For these reasons, and others, I cannot support the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) even though he is a fellow Saskatchewan grain farmer.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member who just spoke inform the House why he felt it necessary to state publicly that he does not use stimulants or sedatives before speaking?


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the minister's protestations this afternoon in regard to inefficiency in making use of available commercial storage, and in spite of the shocking and irresponsible statement he made that this motion was just another phony issue advanced by the opposition for political purposes, the very low quota situation prevailing on the prairies and the fact that there is a reported 70 million bushels of
Business of Supply
unused storage in the terminals at the Lake-head, to be filled at leisure between now and the opening of navigation, are, to put it mildly, beyond comprehension. Even allowing for about 15 million bushels working space, the 55 million bushels needed to fill the remaining space would bring a welcome infusion of income to the cash-short farmers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan served by the Lakehead terminals. There is certainly no question of not being able to find selected grades, since a variety of grades were harvested in good condition in that area last fall, and the local elevators could supply almost limitless quantities of any variety.
Apart from cash advances, delivery to the elevator system is the only means grain-producing farmers have of turning their grain into income, unless of course they are willing to accept the lower prices offered by feed mills and by others in the feed supply business. Any withholding of grain storage space, with the farmers in a critical cash position, does not appear to be in their best interest. In fact, if this practice were to become commonplace, the request for payment on farm-stored grain would become even more valid because the Wheat Board is the sole grain handling agency. The minister speaks of the cost of this storage to the farmer as the main reason for the empty space, but this is of little comfort to the farmer who has to borrow money at extremely high rates of interest, and even less to the man who has used up all his credit and cannot borrow at any cost.
The low quotas which the farming community has experienced in the last two years -and there are indications that this condition will prevail at least for the foreseeable future-mean that the farmers will continue to bear the burden of storage facilities, grain deterioration, interest charges and other expenses connected with the proper care of the grain, without receiving any compensating financial benefit. Under these circumstances it is to be hoped that the government will seriously consider some form of compensation being made to farmers who provide proper storage on the farm.
Another problem that will loom large as spring approaches, and the Wheat Board has arrived at its final figures on the 1968-69 grain pool, is that it is doubtful there will be a final wheat payment out of the pool, regardless of what the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) says, and this for the first time since the 1940-41 crop year.

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply


Albert B. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) has intimated that I said there would be a final payment. I did not say any such thing.


George Robson Muir: I took the hon. member to intimate that there would be a final payment. When we read Hansard I think we will see that is the inference he was making. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board approached this subject cautiously the other day. However, he left the impression that he believed the assumption that there would be no final payment was correct. Furthermore, since the initial payment basis for No. 1 Northern at the Lakehead was reduced from $1.70 last year to $1.50 for this crop season, farm income is reduced at this critical stage and works a real hardship on farmers who because of lack of space were unable to fill their quota before the end of the last crop year.
The announcement by the manager of the Farm Credit Corporation in Saskatchewan that payment arrears in that province were running at about 20 per cent of outstanding loans, compared with less than 1 per cent during the previous 15 years, is a sad commentary on the situation in the prairies. This unhappy situation is compounded by the fact that some farm equipment dealers are barely hanging on and others have already given up the ghost. When the lack of orders begins to be felt in eastern Canada, this will no longer be just a regional problem; it will become a matter of national concern. The opposition has tried many times to point this out, but the government refuses to listen. All available statistics would seem to indicate that a further reduction of wheat acreage is desirable, but at least up to the present neither the government nor any of its appointed boards or commissions have been able to offer alternatives that could achieve this objective without causing embarrassing surpluses in other grains.
Short-term objectives such as feeding more hogs, or long-term objectives such as raising more cattle, may be ways to spread the risk or, to put it more appropriately, to diversify farm operations; but they do nothing to meet the pressing problem of cash shortage which conceivably could reach crisis proportions before seeding. The federal government must accept responsibility in this area if agriculture is to remain a viable industry and thousands of farmers are not put out of business

because they are unable to sell enough of their products to pay expenses. I need hardly suggest to the government how this could be done; there are many precedents which the government could follow in regard to assistance for the agricultural industry.
Assistance to help establish industry in various parts of the country is a continuing program. A classic example is the subsidy paid to the automotive industry in working out the U.S.-Canada automotive agreement, and the subsequent payments that were made to that industry last year. A comparable amount paid to western agriculture in the form of acreage payments would give that industry a much needed boost and the nation as a whole would reap dividends. While the government hopefully, may be giving serious consideration to this suggestion which has been brought to its attention on several occasions by members of the opposition, I hope that in the interim everything possible will be done to open quotas in order to make available much needed cash.
The minister has told us he is going across the country talking to the farmers about their problems. He invited members of the opposition to join him in this so-called crusade. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of western Canada are thoroughly fed-up with talk by ministers, government members and commissions, and are looking for action from those who are responsible for the transportation, storage, distribution and sale of grain. In this respect, no amount of government waffling, no amount of academic discourse from the minister, and no further delay can relieve the government of its responsibility to adopt policies which will enable agriculture to remain solvent in the face of disaster.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), spoke this afternoon in the debate, we heard the same soothing words that we have heard from government benches for the past year and a half, a cover-up operation for the inaction of Liberal government policy or failure to take concrete action to help the western farmer deal adequately with the present crisis. He invited members of the House and people in the west to join in the challenging task of coming up with changes to improve the present system; then he made a call for efficiency.
January 20, 1970

Mr. Speaker, I did not think any Liberal cabinet member would have the audacity to come into the House and invite members of the opposition or anyone else to join them in getting more efficiency in grain-handling and marketing problems. After their handling of the problems of last year-damp grain, inefficient boxcar allocation, transportation difficulties, low prices and export figures-I did not think any Liberal minister would have such nerve. With such a dismal record, I should think shame would prevent them issuing such an invitation.
Let us look at some of the latest quota figures. I have a statement dated January 19, 1970, which shows that over half-that is, 894-of the delivery points in the prairie provinces are still on a unit quota while the other 893 points are on a one-bushel quota. This compares with over 900 delivery points which were on either a two, three or four-bushel quota at the same date in the last crop year. In the minister's province of Saskatchewan, and mine, at the present time there are 540 delivery points on a unit quota and only 419 on a one-bushel quota. Is this a record of which to be proud? Will it encourage anyone to join the minister or the Liberal government in proceeding to meet the great challenge of the future?
Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that the minister may even have had visions of grandeur when he invited everyone to join with him, that perhaps he would be the Messiah to lead the west out of its wilderness. But I think most people have realized that they cannot look to the Liberal government or a Liberal minister to lead them anywhere except into deeper trouble. I suggest it will take more than the same old words to deal with the present crisis. The farmers are sick and tired of the bungling evidenced by the present situation. They want performance, action, policies and a square deal. That is all they want, but many of them feel they are being "taken" in more ways than one.
Last Friday the report of the Barber Commission on farm machinery costs, dealing particularly with tractors and combines, was presented to this House. The report noted that in 1968 prices for various tractors in Britain ranged from $837 to $2,287 lower than in Canada. This has been common knowledge for some time, but in spite of questions from farm organizations and others the Liberal government put off the evil day when they would have to face the facts.
Business of Supply
The commission report went on to suggest that multi-national corporations, such as are represented by the large farm machinery companies, are independent of the national authority which applies to individual companies. At the present time there is no international authority to exercise control over them. With Canada's industry and trade largely in the hands of multi-national corporations, the independence with which these companies operate has far-reaching implications. The farmers of western Canada have recognized this situation for a long time and now expect the government to take concrete action in dealing with the report of the Barber Commission.
When it comes to elevator companies, I have one example before me of a farmer who sold malting barley to the Pioneer Grain Company. I think the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) has knowledge of this company. The sale was for 1695 bushels. I saw the invoice and it contained a list of deductions as long as your arm. First of all, government inspection and weighing, $4.50; cleaning, a half cent per bushel. Then there were 415 pounds of screenings for which he received 99 cents credit; removal of stones, five cents per bushel-although in this case the land was stone-free-elevator and handling charges, 3f cents per bushel; service charge, one cent per bushel; storage for 34 days, $19.21 total. This was because the farmer had asked that the cheque be made out in 1970 because he preferred to receive payment then for income tax purposes. Interest on freight-again this was because the farmer asked for his cheque in 1970 even though the grain company had the grain at its disposal and probably moved it into its own market channels-for 39 days was $1.62; bank exchange, one-eighth of one per cent. These deductions were made from the farmer's cheque before he received any money for his malting barley.
Mr. Speaker, a good deal has been said in this debate about the transportation tie-up at the present time and over the past year. I suggest that the railways are guilty of gross negligence in dealing with this matter. My information is that in the last three months of 1969 the railways were 8,000 cars short of what the Canadian Wheat Board asked them to place in Lakehead positions. This situation is partly responsible for the situation at the Lakehead. Is this another example of efficiency?

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
At the present time the railway companies are taking cars out of grain movement, claiming this is because they have introduced the block system which will ensure greater efficiency. But they did not have enough cars in operation in the first place. It is probable that there will be another pile-up at the Lakehead on April 1 when the navigation season opens.
Mr. Speaker, the economic effect of the present situation is obvious. With the shortage of cash, farmers are not able to pay their bills. We already have reports of what is happening regarding payments due on Farm Credit Corporation loans. We also have many examples of reduced employment on the prairies. Many people are moving from Saskatchewan, in particular, for this reason. In my own city of Regina the cement plant closed down for the first three months of 1969 and it will probably be closed for four months this year. In 1969 it was closed for a total of 18 weeks. Some of the major motor car dealers are experiencing considerable difficulty, as are the farm implement dealers. As the member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out, we have never seen so many "For rent" signs on premises on the main streets of the city.
There is a population drain from Saskatchewan greater than anything seen since the time of the previous Liberal government prior to the election of the CCF government. Last year the population of Saskatchewan decreased by 6,000. Add to this figure the natural increase in population, and we see that the situation is really much worse than that figure indicates. Thus, the income situation in Saskatchewan is quite desperate for many farmers, yet we find that the government has failed to deal with this situation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Farmers find it very frustrating when ministers and spokesmen of the Liberal party and the government point to cash advances as the big thing that was done to help farmers. Mr. Speaker, everyone acknowledges the important role of cash advances, but everyone knows that they are not a solution to pressing problems. Farmers become increasingly frustrated and resentful when they find Liberal Party spokesmen and government spokesmen falling back on this sort of argument. Is it any wonder that at the present time there is talk for secession in the west? There is no need for this sort of talk. It is not the way people really feel and it is not what they want to do. But this type of situation arises out of frus-

tration and resentment because of the failure of the federal government to take any concrete action and to review grievances over the past year.
It is for that reason that my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), seconded by myself, moved the amendment which asked the federal government to consider a deficiency payment for the 1968-69 crop year sufficient to assure the farmer of a final return equivalent to the $1.95J minimum price established under the International Grains Arrangement.
I suggest that a case can be made for this amendment on the ground that the International Grains Arrangement was entered into by Canada as a nation. It was not entered into by the Canadian Wheat Board, the farmers or the farm organizations; it was ratified by Canada as a nation. When Canada entered into that agreement, by implication it also made the commitment to its farmers that they would be paid at least the minimum grain prices over the life of the arrangement. We see what is happening this year. The Minister without Portfolio made it quite clear that there will be no final payment on the 1968-69 crop pool. We feel that this is the very least the federal government should do in dealing with the present situation.
The second part of our amendment calls for the appointment of a transport controller. Recently, after months and months of pressure, we had the announcement of a transport co-ordinator or controller at the Vancouver terminals. It seems to me that the appointment of this official supports and backs up the need for our having an official with the authority necessary to deal with all aspects of grain movement in the prairie region and right through to the Lakehead. I think it should be made clear that the block system is not the final answer to transportation problems. I think it should be said that it is a help, but that it does not deal with the total transportation situation.
Thus we see the record, Mr. Speaker. The problems of farmers and of agriculture have probably been debated more than any other topic in this House over the past year. Is it any wonder that the events of the past year and the inaction of the government have led to despair? Finally the government comes along and says, "It is too late to do anything about the problem because the time to deal with it is past." That is the government's usual way of getting out of many situations.
January 20, 1970

I could quote a number of figures to show the dismal record of the Liberal government in dealing with agricultural problems. I have noted in particular that over the past few months, whenever agriculture has been debated the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has quoted the 1963-68 average figures and compared them with the 1958-62 average figures. While this is very nice, and I suppose the minister has his own reasons for trotting out these sets of figures, we want to know what has happened since he became Minister of Agriculture. It is a rather dismal record, Mr. Speaker.
Farm cash receipts have gone down steadily since the minister assumed office. We have a dismal record with respect to farm marketings, with respect to export sales and export prices. I will not go into statistics at the present time. This afternoon we heard a speech from the Minister without Portfolio in which he criticized some aspects of the motion before us. He did not deal at all with the amendment that was moved by my colleague. His address in the debate this afternoon reminded me of a lecture in a law school such as he might have delivered at one time. It is perhaps a good idea for the minister to keep in practice, because I predict that he will be back in the classroom before too long.
It is also good to know where the Liberal backbenchers stand on this question. I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). I do not doubt his sincerity in wishing these problems to be solved. I have noted that he has made some very fine statements in various parts of the country, and on occasion in this House. He has from time to time asked for a number of very useful things. But it is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to anything important, he is not listened to by the government. More important than that is the old saying: Talk is cheap. It is how the hon. member votes that counts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Stratford Burton: We want to see how the hon. member will vote this evening. He has indicated that he will vote for the government. It is his right and privilege to decide how to vote. It seems to me that unless the hon. member and other Liberal backbenchers representing agricultural areas in the west support our amendment, they will make it quite clear that they are not in favour of a
Business of Supply
deficiency payment or the appointment of a transport controller. I suggest if they really mean what they say, those Liberal backbenchers will support the amendment moved by my colleague. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is time they put their vote where their mouth is. We have had enough talk in this situation.
In addition, we have to ask where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the rest of the western members of the cabinet stand on this matter. We have a number of cabinet ministers from the west; they are called upon to do the government's dirty work whenever the powers that be within government circles say "No" to requests from the west for farm legislation or assistance to farmers. Either that, or they do not understand the situation; they cannot have it both ways. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if they have any guts at all, the western representatives in cabinet will tell the Prime Minister and the cabinet, "If you want us to continue in cabinet, you will have to approve better policies than you have up to the present time." They will have to say, "We now have a bankruptcy of policy."
If they are not willing to do this, if they have any integrity they will have no choice but to resign from the cabinet. On the other hand, if they are content to sit on their little pedestals of glory until the next election, that is their choice. In that event, I suggest that the people of western Canada will deal very harshly with them at the next election.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although I do not come from a farm constituency, the area I represent depends to a great extent on the well-being of western farms and the western economy. I do not like to pre-suppose anything, but I dare say I feel very much as the proposer of the motion feels about the west and the western economy.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) and I both have in common our geography. We are both people who earn our living in, and both of us call home, that part of the country west of the Lakehead. We are both conscious of a feeling of alienation in this country that we call home. There is a feeling of alienation in the world generally and in western Canada specifically.
Some of us have a vague feeling that the last 100 years have somehow let us down. I think this feeling has some justification, because in 1867 when Canada became a confederation as we now know it, the combined liabilities of the original colonies that
Business of Supply
came together were composed, to the extent of 60 per cent or so, of debt for transportation and canal systems that had been built up with the expectation that they would get the cream of the trade from the western United States. Our people did not get it. The people of the United States outfoxed them by building their own canals. Thus, the colonies of the regional parts that became Canada were in great trouble and in great debt. Their inspiration was that if they could only persuade the other colonies to the west of them to come in, somehow or other they could utilize these assets which were built but not paid for such as the canals, railroads and other facilities with which they were stuck. There is no doubt we in the west were consciously or unconsciously considered a colony by the original part of Canada when we joined confederation 100 years ago. There is a vague feeling still of discontent and disappointment in the 100 years that have passed.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) mentioned the matter of tractors a moment ago. This is another nail in the coffin. In Winnipeg there is a tractor company that makes profits which are certainly healthy by any capitalistic standard, yet it undersells other farm machinery companies in a market stretching from the Peace River to Texas and from the Rocky Mountains to Pennsylvania. This indicates there must be something wrong with the farm machinery business, if a medium sized manufacturer in Winnipeg can do so well and still undersell the big fellows.
I think this feeling of alienation will grow if the government does not accept the challenge offered to it by Mr. Barber's report and look into this matter. The government has muscle. It must be able to do something about manufacturers who ride roughshod in the manner that Mr. Barber has indicated.
I must say reluctantly that I was disappointed when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) presented his motion. While I agree with his sentiments and feelings of frustration, I cannot agree with his motion. The motion in substance censures the government for its failure to use its existing facilities, failure to provide additional facilities for grain and the movement of grain and for the failure to implement a system of payment for grain stored on farms, by reason of which failures the farm grain economy is suffering serious harm. I think the hon. member missed the mark on this motion. The amendment
[Mr. Osier.)
January 20. 1970
does not help either, because it talks about deficiency payments and a transport controller. I think this also misses the point.


Stanley James Korchinski: How would you have worded it?


Edmund Boyd Osler: In my mind this is the mark of irrelevance. The farm grain economy is suffering harm, not from these minor details which anybody could tinker around with whether they were bright or stupid, but because it is growing unsaleable crops and grades of grain that cannot be sold. This is a hard fact. It is a fact that I, as a westerner, do not like to admit; but I think the beginning of wisdom is to admit hard facts and act on them.
Our own surveys have belatedly begun to show this. The FAO underlined the fact by saying: Thank God we are liable to have a food surplus in the world in the next little while, and those who grow food in bulk had better watch out because they may be in financial trouble. This is something for mankind to rejoice about. It is something the people of western Canada have to consider seriously. Let us not waste time, then, with motions, amendments and talk about facilities and details. Our facilities have more grain in storage now than they have had in the last two years.
Last year there were 497 million bushels of grain in storage; the year before there were 504 million bushels, and this year there are 516 million bushels. Grain has therefore been moved and put into storage. All we are really saying is that the world has not bought as much grain as we have grown and would like to sell.


An hon. Member:: What about the quotas?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will speak to the hon. member later. I repeat, there is something wrong with western agriculture today, but the items referred to in this motion are irrelevant and wide of the mark. Vague feelings of alienation are shared by the hon. members for Mackenzie, the member for Regina East and myself. Westerners will not be served by having these vague feelings of alienation fanned, deliberately or otherwise, by members of this House. The problem is a deep one and must be looked at in a long-term manner. The farm organizations who asked to see the Liberal members from Manitoba during the Christmas recess to talk about their problems were unanimous in saying that the long-term

January 20, 1970



approach that is appearing looks good. The Grains Council looks as though it may work and will be a good, long-term solution.
I submit the appointment of a Minister without Portfolio to be responsible for grain was a good thing. We have a good man for this job. The block system for boxcars is also good. The fact that serious people are considering the modernization of the standards of grading grain is good, and I understand this House will be asked to make amendments to the Grains Act to this effect. Developing market research and forecasting activities, which this industry never had before, is a good thing. The member for Regina East spoke of diversification that is causing the Japanese to look for oil seed facilities, etc. All of these are good.
Predictions indicate that the demand for grains will catch up with supply during the next decade. On the other hand, if there is a slack in the long-term industry, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will help to pick up that slack. This was evidenced in my own hometown last month when Boeing located there. The federal government assisted in this venture to the amount of approximately $1 million.
In the long term the federal government is facing up to the situation. It appears that ultimately the correct decisions will be made, divorced of politics, by the men who should make them in this free economy of ours. I refer to the people who live at the head of the Lakes and west of there who are mostly concerned with the grain trades.
Everyone I talked to in the Winnipeg area told me there is a healthy feeling of co-operation, co-ordination and long-term optimism. People are putting aside their petty regional, bickering politics-I do not mean this in a "political" sense,-and grappling with the long-term problems. It will not be too long before the people of western Canada start looking after their own knitting in a way they have not done before. When this happens, they will not have to look to politicians other than for genuinely political decisions.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In the short term, I suggest that because this country has been involved in politics up to the armpits in the grain trade in the last 80 or 100 years, politicians cannot pull right out just because the people themselves are beginning to make decisions in a sophisticated,
Business of Supply
twentieth century way, as they should be doing.
How does one maintain now the ability to produce at present levels, so that opportunities can be seized when present levels of production are again required in the next five or ten years? How does one see these farm people through the present crisis without wrecking this wonderful producing machine? How does one help individual farmers to get through this cash crisis period without encouraging people, falsely from an individual point of view and, I would say, sinfully from the point of view of the country as a whole, to grow unwanted grain? How does one help them without falling into this trap? These are the matters we should be debating today, not details which, I maintain, have been brought forward with the best of good faith by hon. members but which are wide of the mark.
To fill the Lakehead terminals now, as some have suggested, would accomplish little. Some farmers might receive small amounts of instant cash, but the handlers at the Lake-head would soon run out of work because the elevators would be full; they would be laid off after a couple of months. More important, the pipeline feeding through to the Lakehead elevators would soon have done its job. Then boxcars would be dispersed all over the country even more widely than they are today; it would take God knows how long to get the railroads cranked up to do their jobs properly so that when navigation opened they would be able to feed the Lakehead again.
Is it not more sensible to arrange for a crescendo of build-up, so that when navigation opens things will be running full blast at the only time it really matters? The figure of
1,000	boxcars a day has been mentioned. They would have to be hastily assembled, then dispersed, then reassembled again. I maintain it is better to do what is being done now. Hon. members should not forget that grain is moving at the present time; about 20 million bushels a month are moving to Vancouver, grain is moving steadily to Halifax, and the Lakehead will be going full blast when navigation opens. Grain cannot move out before that, because neither the government nor the opposition parties can persuade the ice to melt earlier on the Great Lakes. I note that 375 million bushels will be moved during this crop year, 260 million bushels in the final six months. There will be lots of work for everybody when the ice goes off, and nothing will

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
be gained by trying now to move more than is being moved.
To get back to the original argument, grain is moving at the rate of about 20 million bushels a month. Everybody in Canada is benefiting from this movement, except the farmer. It does not matter where we live- Halifax, Montreal, Toronto or Winnipeg

the movement of grain through the country is creating jobs for people, for oil workers in Alberta, for the railway men, for grain brokers, for vessel brokers, for insurance men-for everybody who is in any way connected with the trade however remotely. Everyone, that is except the farmer.
Farmers who survive this short-term crisis will ultimately benefit, too. At the moment, what is keeping the wolf from the door is $252,700,000 worth of advances, which is good. It cannot be ignored. True, these are only loans, though no interest needs to be paid on them. The people of Canada, who are benefiting from all this movement of grain, are taking up the slack, helping the people of western Canada, by paying interest charges on these loans of $252 million, as well as by paying some storage fees. That is just about all.
To get back to the story of confederation, I have no doubt that the long-term solutions which are being worked out by this government and by private individuals of great competence will ultimately see western Canada through this crisis. However, I suggest that the people of Canada as a whole, and we as parliamentarians who represent them, are not being very good Canadians or acting as deeply committed partners in confederation, nor are we acting as very intelligent people, if we do not keep pressure on this government to come up with ways and means of helping these farmers get through their short-term crisis in a manner which will not delude them into growing a heck of a lot more grain, but in a way which will assist them to get through this period of changeover, by diversifying their operation or contracting it to a point at which only the amount of grain presently needed will actually be produced.
This is a challenge to Canada which will not be met by putting forward motions which inadvertently seem to be futile, like the one we are discussing this evening, or motions like the one to abolish the Senate which everyone knows is an illegal proposition, brought into the House to waste its time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said so?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Instead, what we must do is find ways and means of helping these people through a short-term-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there could be a more opportune occasion for a debate on agriculture, or more urgent need for such a debate. As we all know, this is the first day since the resumption of the session on which the official opposition has been able to designate the subject of the discussion to take place in the House. I thank my colleagues on this side for agreeing to have this debate on agriculture. It is obvious that the government does not want to discuss our farm problems.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The federal constituency of Marquette is mainly a rural riding. During the Christmas recess I had the opportunity of touring my riding and talking to many farmers and businessmen. I have never seen the western economy in the deplorable condition it is in today. The lack of grain sales and the existence of the largest wheat glut in our history is affecting everybody in western Canada. Many businesses will be lucky to survive this year, and most farmers are desperate for cash.
According to figures released by the Canadian Wheat Board, as of January 5 in Manitoba there were 271 delivery points on initial quota and 51 delivery points on a one-bushel quota. For the benefit of hon. members in this House who do not understand what an initial unit quota means, it means that all the income these farmers have received since July 31, 1969, from grain is approximately $500. How would anybody like to survive for six months on $500?


Thomas Miller Bell: That's even worse than $30 a week.


Donald Craig Stewart: The government might say that the farmer can get cash advances up to $6,000 in any one crop year. This sounds good, but an individual has to be a mighty large farmer to qualify for the full amount of $6,000. The average farmer in my area, and I stress the word "average", is lucky
January 20, 1970

if he can get $1,500 to $1,800. I say to the government that when we start talking about farm income at this time we are getting pretty close to the poverty level.
During the last crop year farmers only reached a four or five-bushel quota, and from all indications their deliveries will not be any higher this year. I have told this House before, and I repeat, that our farmers cannot exist on a five-bushel quota. This low quota has existed for three or more years and there has to be a day of reckoning. This day is fast approaching if our family farm operations are to survive.
I support the motion this party has placed before the House. Farmers should be paid storage on farm-stored grain. Under present conditions farmers are asked to carry abnormal amounts of grain and it is not their fault that we have a glut of grain. There are other things this government could do to help the farmer. It should investigate the possibility of overseas storage facilities for unsold grain. I understand that at the present time the only grain in this forward position is sold grain. Most grain moves through Rotterdam or Tokyo. Often a customer wants 200,000 bushels or less in a hurry, perhaps in five to ten days. Because we have no unsold grain in this forward position, we cannot take advantage of these orders. I realize these are not large sales, but small sales often lead to large sales and we should investigate every possible way to sell more grain.
The government must look at our entire sales policy. No matter what figures you look at, we are not getting our share of world markets. I realize all wheat producing countries are facing problems similar to ours; however, nobody has lost a greater share of markets than Canada. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Not only must we stop this downward trend in sales; we must recover the markets we have lost. Whenever I am home I hear farmers questioning the effectiveness of Wheat Board sales. These farmers want the Wheat Board but they feel it is slow to react to market conditions. Perhaps it is time we had a shake-up in the Wheat Board, with no appointees serving for more than five years until we see how effective they are.
The government must show leadership in facing up to our agricultural problems. It should, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, set up a special sales 21611-27
Business of Supply
force to assist the Wheat Board in selling our surplus grain. The government should eat, sleep and talk grain until we sell our surplus and recover our markets. Let the government become aggressive about wheat sales. It has been stated that if Canada had maintained the share of world trade in wheat, oats and barley we had 15 years ago, we would have no surplus of grain today.
Until this government has recovered our wheat markets there must be immediate assistance to western farmers. This assistance could be in the form of an acreage payment to tide the farmers over the present serious situation. Our party has asked many times during this session for acreage payments. The need was never greater than it is now. Acreage payments do not represent a long-term solution to our agricultural problems, but at least a substantial acreage payment would tide the farmers over until the government came up with an effective long-term policy. Surely, a government that can wipe out Expo's debt to the tune of $125 million, and give $80 million to the Ford Motor Company, can give the western farmer a small slice of the pie.
We have contended that no other industry could survive the cost-price squeeze the farmers have been faced with in the last ten years. This was never brought more to light than by the special report on farm machinery prices tabled in the House last Friday. This is a prime example of how the farmer has had to sell in open world markets, yet buy his equipment in a protected Canadian market.
I have received many letters from constituents who indicate their alarm over recent government action. I should like to quote from a letter I received last week from a constituent who is a farmer. He said:
Hon. Otto Lang's attitude to farmers selling grain at below Wheat Board price seems to indicate a total lack of understanding of western farmers' problems. No one would willingly sell his grain at less than market price unless he was desperate for cash. Surely instead of attacking farmers, Mr. Lang would do better to spend his energy on finding legitimate ways for the farmers to obtain cash for their product.
Another thing, this is not the time for the government to cut back on funds for agricultural research. Agriculture is not to blame for the present inflationary trend and the government should be making every effort to help the farmers function better, not make things more difficult for them.
This letter is very indicative of western feeling. Other members wish to speak, and I will

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
not continue much longer. Before I close there are several points I want to stress to the government. The situation in western Canada is very serious, and time is running out. I believe it is time the government got off the cultural kick it is on and got back to the bread and butter issues facing this nation.
When people see their lifetime work going down the drain, they become desperate. This is happening to the farmers and people of western Canada. They are fed-up with talk of Quebec separation and ask what is the point of saving Canada if we cannot survive economically in the west. No matter what meeting I attended during the Christmas recess, I found this feeling. This is not meant as a threat that western Canada wants to separate. The people there feel, as we all feel, that Canada is a great nation with a wonderful future. However, let me again stress to the government that the situation in western Canada is critical, and it is a shame that this should happen because of lack of action by the government. The government seems to have two speeds in facing up to agricultural problems-slow and very slow. Let us have immediate action from this government to alleviate the serious situation in western Canada.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, during my few remarks this evening I do not intend to add to the waves of criticism that have been washing over the Canadian Wheat Board in recent months. I believe there are faults both in the make-up of the board and in the manner of its operation. Many of these faults have already been mentioned. It is my firm conviction that the board has been largely the scapegoat for the shortcomings of others, notably a long line of Liberal ministers whose only contribution in recent years has been to manipulate the Canadian Wheat Board for purely political advantage.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The real culprit in bringing Canadian agriculture, and western grain producing agriculture in particular, to its present critical state is the Liberal Party that turned its back on this country's agricultural community deliberately and which has kept it turned for the past five years or more. The sorry mess in which we find ourselves today is as much due to the inadequacies of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as to any faults in our system of marketing grain.
[Mr. Stewart (Marquette) .1
Instead of spending his time trying to sell the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet to the west and trying to engineer the merger of the provincial wing of his new party with his old party, he should have been selling the west to this administration, which in so far as action or interest is concerned appears to be completely ignorant that the west exists within confederation. It is apparent from the attitude of this government to the west, and people and things western, that the Prime Minister's Canada ends at the Lakehead.
As long as we have a federal system of buying, handling and selling our wheat, as long as the whole apparatus is dependent upon the government of the day, it will continue to be effective or ineffective in direct proportion to the amount of importance and support accorded it by Ottawa. We could have the best and most up-to-date grain marketing set-up in the world, but it would still be unsatisfactory as long as the federal government continued to callously disregard the needs of the agricultural industry and gave it no priority among the items of national business. I suggest, therefore, the first and most necessary thing Parliament must do is generate a real and informed concern within this government for agriculture. Then, and then only, will we be able to get anywhere in completely overhauling and modernizing our system of marketing Canadian grains.
In respect of the grain industry, the fact is that while the primary producers, the farmers, have taken giant strides forward in adapting modern technology and methods to their end of the business, the rest of it has remained in the horse and buggy era of the 1920's and 1930's. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), farmers have increased their per capita productivity at a tremendous rate which surpasses that of any other industrial classification in Canada. Yet the system of marketing their output-and in the area of grain-handling the government has denied the farmers any responsibility-remains archaic. This system of marketing is not only cumbersome and ineffective but is petrified in a mould that could operate at all only in the best of all seller's markets. It is useless in the world market place of today and in a market that has become, and is likely to remain in the foreseeable future, a buyer's market.
This is clearly demonstrated by considering the process by which Canadian grain is
January 20, 1370

shipped and exported, which demonstrates that Canada's marketing facility consists of four large foreign firms, two controlled by French capital and two controlled by United States capital. Let me illustrate this simply by quoting a few paragraphs from an article by John Schmidt, agricultural editor of the Calgary Herald. In it he expresses some interesting facts about Canada's international wheat sales:
Is it really a serious matter that Canada has no major exporting firm selling any volume of Canadian grain?
The answer is yes.
And the reason is that if any large import order by a major wheat user was put up for tender tomorrow Canada would probably get last chance at supplying the order.
This is because four major international trading companies perform most of the shipping and exporting arrangements for the Canadian Wheat Board. They are Dreyfus and Bunge (controlled by French capital) and Cargill and Continental Grain Company (controlled by American capital).
It was Dreyfus and Company which got wind of the Russian wheat shortage in 1961. This company's representatives undertook to dig up wheat supplies for Russia.
The first move was to buy all the surplus French wheat.
That wasn't enough so Dreyfus sold the Russians all they could buy of the remainder of a short Argentine crop.
Then the company picked up a significant portion of the Australian crop.
Fourthly, it came to Canada for what was left of the Ontario winter wheat crop.
And finally-after all other supplies were exhausted-they came to Western Canada because Dreyfus knew the Canadian Wheat Board would give it the smallest working margin for shipping insurance, credit arrangements and delivery dates for acting on its behalf. The only point at which the wheat board entered the negotiations was in setting the price at which it would sell Canadian wheat.
Most commercial sales of Canadian grain are made by these shipping and exporting companies- or rather it would be true to say that they go around and dig up the orders.
Even when the wheat board signs a sales contract with a government importing agency of a buying country (in the case of countries where free enterprise has been eradicated) the final arrangements are left to either Bunge, Dreyfus, Continental or Cargill.
Naturally the Canadian Wheat Board would give the business to a Canadian company if there was a Canadian company now in this business. Canada has no merchant princes who want to work at the small margins the wheat board offers.
This may explain why France, for instance, is cutting into Canada's barley market in Japan.
With all our know-how and ingenuity Canadians could surely set up such a selling 21611-27i
Business of Supply
agency of their own. Mr. Schmidt has suggested a consortium of all the private and co-operative handling companies together with the banks. Whatever form it might take, it would be a great improvement on our present system of subletting our sales prerogative to disinterested, profit-conscious foreign firms. Another thing that is desperately needed in my estimation is establishment of a close liaison between the market-wise scouts and salesmen of Canadian grain and the primary producer, the farmer.
It seems to me it is vital to have a swift and direct channel of market information by means of which the Canadian producer can be made aware of what types of crops and what quantities are in demand around the world. The weekly Richardson letter on the grain trade for January 15 states that we have lost and are continuing to lose sale after sale of crops such as barley, flax and rapeseed because the physical crop was not available at the ports for shipping.
This market demand must have been foreseen months ago, yet lack of liaison and dissemination of pertinent information prevented adequate supplies being moved to suitable sites in time for sales. This letter, incidentally, mentioned the loss of any possible share of this month's Japanese tender for 180,000 tons of wheat because the Wheat Board raised the price | of a cent only a day before the tender. According to the Richardson letter, the Japanese buyers were more offended by the act than by the price increase. The result was that Canada lost every bushel of that large sale of about 9 million bushels to Australia and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, through you may I ask the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) how we can explain this scandalous blunder to those farmers who are being forced to sell their wheat at the present time for 60 cents or 50 cents a bushel?
I would adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) in respect of overseas storage. Then we would not be restricted to the sale of grain in boatload quantities. This would enable the operation to be more flexible.
I believe a very good place at which to start a general overhaul of our system would be cleaning up the confusion that exists within the government concerning which minister is responsible for what particular phase of agriculture. There is no sense subdividing responsibility and having the Minister

January 20, 1970
Business of Supply
without Portfolio responsible for the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture responsible for other aspects of the industry. Neither one, in my view, is capable of the action required to bring the system up to modem standards. One is beguiled by the idea of an efficient handling and storage system, and the other by the idea of trying to convince his party colleagues that he is really a Liberal. While the former, apparently, is at least trying to do something constructive, albeit in a very coldblooded manner, neither appears to be at all concerned with solving the basic problem, which is selling wheat.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Speaking of efficiency, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he considers it efficient to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of bushels of grain lying exposed to the elements and deteriorating while millions of bushels of storage space is lying idle at the Lakehead.
The stubborn refusal of the government to recognize the just claims which the agricultural community has upon the rest of the country is baffling. It is well established today that the west feels it has been disinherited by the government. This feeling is even more pronounced among western farmers who have waited in vain for a few crumbs from the government's table which has been laden with good things for Quebec and Ontario. As an example, one might point to the recent $125 million write-off, in one day, in respect to the Expo Corporation which, by the way, equals three annual acreage payments made by the former Conservative administration to western farmers.
Canada's agricultural community has begun to realize it has been declared expendable by the government. Members of that community are becoming suspicious that they are being used cynically and callously by the government to carry the main burden of the fight against inflation. Many farmers now believe that the government is deliberately withholding action to stimulate the sale of grain, in order to cool-off the economy of the west and, eventually, the economy of the country as a whole. It is hard to find a more logical explanation. If there is one, I am sure the people of western Canada would like to be let in on the secret.
Much more could be said on this question, Mr. Speaker, but if the government's ears are
[Mr. Schumacher.l
wilfully closed to all advice and exhortation, it will profit us little to belabour the point. I would simply say in closing that the need for immediate and drastic action in regard to our whole process of handling and selling grain is clearly apparent. Suggestions have been made over and over again by many people knowledgeable in the field, and these are readily available. All that is required is government backing and leadership. The government has a clear responsibility to act, and a duty to act quickly and effectively to preserve an historic, valuable and necessary segment of Canada's social and economic life.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members who have kindly helped the member from Bellechasse get an apportunity to say at least a few words.
The matter we are now examining is so important, in my opinion, that it should be approached in an unbiased way. When we were dealing with the problems of Canadian farmers, whether in western or in eastern Canada, I always felt that they should be given serious consideration in order that we could recommend solutions to the government.
Last spring, the Committee on Agriculture travelled throughout Canada primarily for the purpose of examining the important problems of western farmers and in order to determine whether the representations of the members for those regions were really justified. I deeply regret that the report of the committee has not yet been put before the House for lack of some highly important briefs as yet not submitted, although the solutions they offer are likely to correct the situation to a certain extent.
I am not a feed grain producer, but I must say that in my constituency large quantities of western grain are used. Co-operative milling plants import more than two million bushels of feed grain a year.
Were the movement of grain from western to eastern Canada made by ship-in accordance with the proposals of certain studies which have been made-thousands of dollars could be saved.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that it is 9.45. I would not wish to delay the question unduly. Perhaps we will have another opportunity to
January 20, 1970

express the views of Quebec farmers on the problem of western feed grain. I do hope I shall then be able to inform you of the suggestions made by eastern flour mills and the Federated Co-operative, and explain the advantages stemming from co-operation, because the consumption of feed grain is highest in the province of Quebec.
In fact, we are interesting customers for western farmers and they can be sure of our full co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9:45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58 and put every question necessary to dispose of the business now before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.

January 20, 1970
NAYS Messrs:
Division


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the vote without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.19 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, January 21, 1970