1971-05-17

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Peddle: How many derailments of CN trains were there in Newfoundland since January 1, 1965 (a) on what dates (b) at what locations in each case (c) were there personal injuries sustained in each case (d) what is the estimate of total property damage in each case?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
During the period January 1965 to December 1970 there were 24 derailments as follows:
(a) Date
(6) Location
(d) Estimated
(c) Personal damage to Injuries	Property
March	27/65	M. 528.0	Port aux Basques	Nil	$ 12,150February	26/66	M.473.1	Port aux Basques	Nil	3,708March	15/66	M. 397.0	Bishop's Falls	Nil	8,271April	29/66	M. 410.0	Port aux Basques	Nil	64,093February	27/67	M.368.5	Bishop's Falls	Nil	1,402July	20/67	M.133.	Clarenville	Nil	12,765May	25/68	11.335.7	Bishop's Falls	Nil	61,830June	13/68	M.299.3	Bishop's Falls	Nil	20,883September	14/68	M. 132.0	Clarenville	Nil	1,456October	17/68	M. 282.5	Bishop's Falls	Nil	2,402December	7/68	M. 15.8	Bonavista	Nil	27,791December	10/68	M.281.0	Bishop's Falls	Nil	1,798December	23/68	M. 415.0	Port aux Basques	Nil	5,596February	22/69	M.432.8	Port aux Basques	Nil	29,902March	15/69	M. 284.34	Bishop's Falls	Nil	64,653May	1/69	M.413.0	Port aux Basques	Nil	3,047July	12/69	11.338.7	Bishop's Falls	Nil	43,634July	27/69	M. 86.5	St. John's	Nil	16,082July	30/69	M. 494.0	Port aux Basques	Nil	134,724January	26/70	M. 539.0	Post aux Basques	Nil	2,657February	12/70	11.371.8	Bishop's Falls	Nil	73,385April	19/70	11.334.81	Bishop's Falls	Nil	6,816May	28/70	11.389.8	Bishop's Falls	1	67,101July	17/70	M.310.0	Bishop's Falls	Nil	1,509September	26/70	11.408.0	Port aux Basques	Nil	23,346October	13/70	11.195.0	Clarenville	Nil	12,794December	9/70	M. 194.0	Clarenville	Nil	32,743


PROVINCIAL BORROWINGS FROM $160 MILLION LOAN FUND
Mr. Comeau: 1.	How much money has been borrowed by each province out of the $160 million loan fund provided to finance job-creating public works?
2. How many jobs are being created in each case?
3. How many of these loans have been refused on the basis that the province involved has not submitted a proposal which is sufficiently job-creative?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. As of
May 3, 1971 all provinces except Ontario and Saskatchewan have applied and received approvals for loans to
the full amount of their allocations from the Special
Program in the following	amounts:
Newfoundland	$ 6,300,000
Prince Edward Island	1,000,000
Nova Scotia	4,000,000
New Brunswick	5,000,000
Quebec	70,300,000
Manitoba	8,000,000
Alberta	6,400,000
British Columbia	37,000,000
Total	$138,000,000

May 17, 1971
Questions
Saskatchewan has advised it does not intend to use its allocation of $5,000,000. Ontario has announced its intention ' to borrow its allocation of $17,000,000 for distribution on a loan basis to its municipalities, but no application has yet been received. Actual loan disbursements to date total $21,800,000, all to the Province of Quebec.
2. The additional direct employment being created has been estimated on the basis of information received
from the provinces as follows:	Man-Years
Newfoundland	774
Prince Edward Island	98
Nova Scotia	477
New Brunswick	286
Quebec	6,515
Manitoba	575
Alberta	864
British Columbia	2,661
Total	12,250
It is also estimated that the indirect employment being created nationally from the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies and engineering services will total about 16,900 for a direct and indirect employment effect of 29,150 man-years. No estimates are available as to subsequent employment multiplier effects.
3.	None.


FORMER EMPLOYEES OF G. LAPALME LTD.
Mr. McBride: 1.	Is the privilege of parking on Parliament Hill extended to every citizen or group of citizens and, if not, for what reason has such privilege been extended to former Lapalme employees?
2 Has the Government of Canada at any time offered employment to those former employees of G. Lapalme Limited and, if so, on how many occasions?
3.	Has the government or any officer of the government met with those employees in order to make a fair presentation of the government position with respect to their grievance in relation to direction given them by their union officials?
4.	Is it the government's intention to assign a specialist in communications to assure that these men understand what action the Government of Canada has taken to secure their employment?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. This matter is the responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons and inquiries should be directed to him privately.
2.	Yes, twice.
3.	Yes, the Hon. Charles Mills Drury on April 14, 1970.
4.	No.


WYNYARD, SASK.-PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT
Mr. Burton: 1.	Did the Town of Wynyard submit an application for a public housing project under Section 35(a) of the National Housing
Act and, if so (a) on what date (b) how many housing units were requested in the application (c) what was the estimated cost of the project?
2.	Was the project approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so, on what date?
3 On what date was participation in the project approved by the Government of Saskatchewan and on what date was this approval communicated to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
4.	On what date was the Town of Wynyard informed of the approval for the project and who communicated this information?
5.	What is the estimated cost to each governmental authority
involved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: l(a)Cb). The Town of Wynyard made application to the Province of Saskatchewan in 1969 for the investigation of a 38-unit public housing project under Section 35A of the National Housing Act. The Province requested approval from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in September, 1969. A study was then undertaken by the Province to determine the relationship of the communities of the area. This study was completed and on October 20, 1970, the Committee of the Partnership agreed to a recommendation for the construction of 10 units, subject to the concurrence of the Provincial Minister. (c) Cost did not form a part of the application at this stage.
2.	On September 16, 1969, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved an investigation to determine the need for a housing project.
3.	The Minister of Municipal Affairs, on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan, approved construction of 10 housing units, and this approval was received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on February 12, 1971.
4.	The Minister of Municipal Affairs, on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan, advised the Town of Wynyard on February 10, 1971, of the approval of a 10-unit project.
5.	The estimated costs are not yet known. A technical committee made up of representatives of the three levels of government are selecting serviced lots for the project and, when negotiations are completed and the sites determined, an estimate of costs will be prepared.


PUBLIC SERVICE-INTRODUCTION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK
Mr. Yewchukr: 1.	Prior to the expenditure guidelines which reduced or froze positions in the Public Service, did the government consider, as an alternative policy, the introduction of the four-day workweek?
2.	Has the government calculated the possible cost to the country if a four-day work-week were introduced in the Public Service and, if so, how many employees in the Public Service would not have been dismissed or positions frozen?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	No. Collective agreements with employees provide

May 17, 1971

for a five day week. The employer did not consider such a course of action.
2.	No.


ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOLUNTARY FINGERPRINT BANK
Mr. Coales: Has the government given consideration to the establishment of a voluntary fingerprint bank that would be available to those people who desire to have their fingerprints filed in case of the need of possible identification at some future date?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


DOUGLAS POINT NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has AECL or the government amortized the construction cost of the Douglas Point Nuclear Power Project and, if so (a) on what basis (b) over what number of years (c) at what interest rate?
2.	How much of the $89,637,000 that the power project cost has been repaid?
3.	What was the total operating cost for the Douglas Point Nuclear Power Project in the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?
4.	(a) How much power was generated in each of the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 (b) of that amount in each year, how much was sold to the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and at what return in dollars?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Douglas Point Reactor is a prototype station and no amortization of construction cost has been recorded by AECL or the Government.
2.	The agreement with the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario provides for purchase of the station after it has been established to be a safe and dependable source of power.
3.	Operating costs, including commissioning and training of staff for committed stations, are recorded on a fiscal year basis as follows:
(Millions)
1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71*$3.6	$6.4	$6.0	$7.8
* Eleven months actual plus one month estimated.
4.	Net power generated is sold to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
(a) Net Power generated (millions of kilowatt hours)
1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71270	689	393	933
Cb) Revenues on a fiscal year basis are as follows: (Millions)
1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71*$1.6	$3.9	$2.4	$5.3
Eleven months actual plus one month estimated.
Questions


STUDIES RELATING TO CORRELATION BETWEEN JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Soulham: 1.	Has the government established a study to decide on the actual correlation between job opportunities and educational qualifications e.g., the value of a B.A. in business?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to establish such a study?


James Alexander Jerome: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration carries out a number of studies related to this correlation between job opportunities and educational qualifications. Regular publications entitled "Supply and Demand of New University Graduates" and "Requirements and Average Starting Salaries" contain sample results on the labour market status of new university graduates. Projections of requirements for Managerial, Professional and Technical classes are contained in the publication "A Projection of Manpower Requirements by Occupation in 1975". Another publication "Canada's Highly Qualified Manpower Resources" indicates the education and employment patterns of scientists and engineers.
2. No.


PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES UNDER FEDERAL MEDICARE PLAN, 1971-72
Mr. Harding: 1.	What is the estimated total cost to the government of payments to the provinces under the federal Medicare plan for the 1971-72 fiscal year?
2.	What provinces, to date, have come under the federal Medicare plan, and what is the estimated payment to each for the 1971-72 fiscal year?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The total estimated cost of federal payments to the provinces, under the Medical Care program, in the fiscal year 1971-72 amounts to $576,430,800.
2. All provinces and the Northwest Territories are now participating under the federal Medical Care program, and it is estimated that federal payments in the fiscal year 1971-72 will be as follows:
Province	Payments
Newfoundland	$ 14,342,500
Prince Edward Island	2,888,100
Nova Scotia	20,646,000
New Brunswick	16,158,600
Quebec	159,782,700
Ontario	204,450,200
Manitoba	26,766,300
Saskatchewan	25,510,200
Alberta	44,994,700
British Columbia	60,027,100
Northwest Territories	914,400

May 17, 1971
Questions


* CBC-USE OF SATELLITE TO PROVIDE TELEVISION SERVICE TO NORTH
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	Does the CBC plan to use a satellite to provide television service to the people of the North and, if so, in what manner?
2.	Will the programs be the same as those now broadcast or will programs be especially prepared to meet the tastes and needs of the people of the North particularly the Indians, Eskimos and Metis?
3.	Will such programs be made in the North by the people living there including the native peoples?
4.	Have the people of the North, particularly the native peoples, been consulted about the kind of television programs they would like to receive by satellite?
5.	Are there any plans for a television production centre in the Northern Region similar to the centres existing in all the other regions of CBC, which would produce programs for satellite transmission?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliameniary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. The Corporation plans to use the Telesat satellite to transmit CBC English and French network services for ground reception and broadcasting by existing and planned stations in the north.
2.	The full live network service will be transmitted, instead of the four-hour program package now available on a delayed basis. There are no present plans for programs especially prepared for northerners, but it is possible that such a regional service could be developed in the future for scheduling in time periods when national network service is not scheduled. Work is being done with this objective in mind.
3.	Not initially.
4.	Yes. The views of people who live in the North were expressed at a Conference on Northern Communications held at Yellowknife in September 1970.
5.	At present there are no plans for such a TV production centre in the north.


'AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND QUEBEC RELATING TO TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1. When was the first agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec entered into in relation to the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway (a) what were the nature and terms of the agreement (b) has it been renewed and, if so, in what year and when does it end?
2 What was the federal contribution to the Province of Quebec during 1970?
3.	Has the Government of Canada received a request from the Government of the Province of Quebec to extend the Trans-Canada Highway agreement and, if so, what was the reply?
4.	What amount does the government intend to grant for this purpose?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have the reply to this question and it is rather lengthy. I wonder whether there might be unanimous consent that it be tabled and that it be printed in Hansard, as though it had been read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The abovementioned answer reads as follows:]
1.	October 27, 1960. (a) The Trans-Canada Highway Agreement provided that Canada would contribute to the cost of construction of an equivalent two-lane highway on the basis of 50 p. cent of the costs on 90 p. cent of the mileage within the province and 90 p. cent of the costs on the remaining 10 p. cent of the mileage. It also specified the termination date of construction as Decem-cer 31, 1963, that is, work done to and including this date would be eligible for federal contributions, (b) The second Agreement was executed on March 31, 1965, which extended the termination date of construction to December 31, 1967. The third Agreement was executed on September 18, 1967, which extended the termination date of construction to December 31, 1970.
2.	The estimated federal contribution for the fiscal year 1970-71 is $13.6 million.
3.	Yes. The reply stated that the federal government's decision to terminate the Trans-Canada Highway program was based on a number of factors, one being the extended length of time the program has been in force. The original legislation was enacted in 1949 and participation under it was available to all provinces since the first Agreement was offered to the provinces in 1950, with termination at that time being 1956. A number of extensions were granted by subsequent legislation to the December, 1970 date, thus providing a 21 year construction period. Other factors were the rapidly rising costs to the federal government, particularly by assistance to the provinces in the fields of health, education and regional expansion.
4.	There will be no federal contributions under the Trans-Canada Highway program for any work carried out after December 31, 1970.



INFORMATION BY REGION ON OUTSTANDING BANK LOANS AND MONEY SUPPLY

['Mr. Speaker, questions are always simple but it turns out sometimes that replies can be unduly complex. We are trying to keep the average above 80 per cent, which we have been able to achieve to the present moment. I will look into this question to see whether we cannot answer it as soon as possible.', 'May 17, 1971\nInquiries of the Ministry']
Edgar John Benson: In so far
as the Bank of Canada is concerned: The regional domicile of the bank loans and bank deposits of nationwide enterprises which deal with nationwide banks is not meaningful; loans arranged in one region are frequently drawn on for us in other regions, and similarly deposit balances carried in one region may arise from operations in, or be destined for disbursement in, other regions. Consequently, collecting or estimating figures for total money supply and bank loans on a regional basis would not provide information useful for the analysis of regional economic problems.

May 17, 1971



Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many elevators have been licensed this year that do not have a full-time agent in each of the Prairie provinces?
2.	What companies own such elevators in each province?
3.	What is the location and number of elevators, owned by each company, in each province?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Manitoba, 133; Saskatchewan, 782; Alberta, 463.
2. Manitoba: Federal Grain Limited, Inter-Ocean Grain Co. Ltd., Manitoba Pool Elevators, National Grain (1968)
Questions
Ltd., N. M. Paterson & Sons Ltd., United Grain Growers Ltd.
Saskatchewan: Federal Grain Limited, Inter-Ocean Grain Co. Ltd., National Grain (1968) Ltd., Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., N. M. Paterson & Son Ltd., Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd., Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers Ltd.
Alberta: Alberta Wheat Pool, Ellison Milling and Elevator Co. Ltd., Federal Grain Ltd., National Grain (1968) Ltd., Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd., United Grain Growers Ltd.
3.	Grain Company
Alberta Wheat Pool Ellison Mil. and Elv. Co. Federal Grain Ltd. Inter-Ocean Grain Co.
Man. Pool Elevators Nat. Grain (1968) Ltd. Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. N. M. Paterson & Sons Ltd. Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool United Grain Growers
Manitoba	Saskatchewan	AlbertaTotal	With Agent	Total-	-	--	-	-69	58	5645	4	20325	246	-31	27	1834	4	3042	35	534	4	329-	-	1,222142	114	315With Agent	Total	With Agent510	418-	18	16374	465	27618	-	--	-	-132	89	6225	27	2344	2	1246	102	80880	-	-216	348	223
Location information is not available.


QUEBEC-OLD AGE SECURITY PENSION AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Mather: What was the amount of money paid as (a) Old Age Security Pensions (b) Family Allowances to residents of the Province of Quebec in 1970?


John Carr Munro: (a)	$458,573,498 (This figure includes
Guaranteed Income Supplement payments), (b) $240,029,289.


PIPELINE RESEARCH
Mr. Harding: 1.	Is the government involved in any aspect of pipeline research being conducted in the study at Inuvik by Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Limited and, if so, to what extent?
2.	Is an ecologist taking part in this study?
3.	On what date can the results of such study be expected?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. No.
2.	There are several ecologists involved in the study.
3.	The results of the study are scheduled for completion by the year end.


LOANS MADE BY FARM CREDIT CORPORATION TO ASSIST INDIAN GROUPS
Mr. Yewchuk: For the years 1969 and 1970, how many loans were made by the Farm Credit Corporation to assist Indian groups or individuals in the Provinces of (a)	British Columbia	(b) Alberta(c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba	(e) Ontario and (f)	Quebec?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm
Credit Corporation advises that the following loans were		
approved:	Fiscal	Fiscal
	Year	Year
	1969-70	1970-71
(a) British Columbia	8	4(b) Alberta	12	5(c) Saskatchewan	16	10(d) Manitoba	10	2(e) Ontario	6	1(f) Quebec	1	1


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Question No. 540 has been on the order paper in my name since November 26. It was also on for several months during the last session. It is a very simple question and in my opinion should only take about five minutes to provide an answer. I am wondering if and when I will get an answer, whether I should remove it from the order paper, or what I should do.


An hon. Member:: Give up.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, questions are always simple but it turns out sometimes that replies can be unduly complex. We are trying to keep the average above 80 per cent, which we have been able to achieve to the present moment. I will look into this question to see whether we cannot answer it as soon as possible.

May 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has now had an opportunity to reflect upon the unemployment figures issued last week and no doubt has had consultation about them, I should like to ask whether these figures have changed in any way his forecast of a steadily diminishing rate of unemployment throughout the year?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Financed No, Mr. Speaker, I think this will happen over the whole year. The seasonally adjusted rate will show a decline on the basis of the whole year from the fourth quarter of 1970.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may we assume from what the minister has just said that his estimate in the budget he will present in June as to the appropriate fiscal stance of the government for the balance of the fiscal year will be based upon his previous forecast and will not make any allowance for the possible significance of the figures released last week?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course the budget will depend upon all the figures we have seen, including this figure, up to the time the budget is produced.



PROVISION OF SHORT-RANGE ECONOMIC FORECASTING ORGANIZATION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is now prepared to act upon the recommendation made many times by the Economic Council that a short-term economic forecasting unit be established with the assistance of the government in order that the minister can be prevented from acting on wrong forecasts which could have serious effects for the country with respect to the budget? In addition, such an economic forecasting unit might prevent the minister from making a fool of himself.


An hon. Member:: It would take more than that.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the latter might be difficult to do, as is the case with my hon. friend. However, I would say there are units in Canada doing economic forecasting. I am sure my hon. friend knows of the one at the University of Toronto where economic forecasts for the year are substantially the same as those of the government.



UNEMPLOYMENT-EXPLANATION FOR APRIL INCREASE

Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, when the figures were given the other day indicating an abnormally high increase in the unemployment rate the minister
expressed his surprise and his ignorance as to the causes of that increase. Has he had a chance to consult with the people in his department and has he found an explanation for the extraordinary increase in the unemployment figures?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the explanation can be found in the figures produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Max Saltsman: Since there does not seem to be any explanation there at all, will the minister consider providing an explanation rather than making phony excuses to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether, when he introduces his budget in June, he will introduce a full-fledged tax reform bill rather than a collection of intentions as to tax reform in the form of another white paper?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the tax reform to be introduced in June will be in the form of legislation.


John Howard Lundrigan: In order to try to reduce the uncertainty in the economy at the present time, will the minister consider introducing at the earliest possible date, hopefully in the next few days, a tax reform bill in lieu of the budgetary statement in the middle of June?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norfh):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether officials of his department or of the Department of Manpower have been in consultation with the various regions in which there is particularly high employment, such as the Mari-times, concerning the prospects for the coming months because, according to reports, less building is projected there for the coming months than in recent years and therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply briefly, but when the hon. member asks a general question in which he invites the minister to make a forecast about the situation in a particular part of the country I doubt whether he should be allowed

May 17, 1971

to do so at this time. However, the minister might be allowed to reply briefly and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member tor York South.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might have been more properly addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who has offices all over the country. I would like to state that the April housing figures, if extended, show 250,000 housing starts which is the highest in Canada's history.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-COMPLETION OF CABINET STUDY-POLICY STATEMENT-PUBLICATION OF REPORT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. I know that the question has been asked on previous occasions, but I should like to know whether the Acting Prime Minister can tell the House if the Cabinet has completed or almost completed the study of the report by the Minister of National Revenue on foreign ownership and whether the House may expect a statement of policy on that important question before the end of June?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Revenue has not yet submitted a report to cabinet.


David Lewis: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he can give the House any idea as to the timetable in the government's mind with regard to the receipt of the report and the statement of policy to follow it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Minister of National Revenue has threatened to keep the cabinet busy all July discussing this question.


Mr. Baldwin:: God help the country.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that both the Minister of National Revenue and the Prime Minister have stated that this report of the Minister of National Revenue is a cabinet document and will not be made public. If my understanding is right, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether reconsideration of this decision is likely to be made by the cabinet and, if not, whether the cabinet will consider the question of publishing at least the information contained in the report of the Minister of National Revenue, if not the policy suggestions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think what the public has a right to expect, and it is our intention to supply it, is a statement of government policy in this area. I will take under consideration and refer to my colleagues the suggestion that some of the background information might, with profit, be published.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the hon. minister tell the House whether aid for industrial economic expansion of major centres will be continued, extending the agreement due to expire within a few months?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of which agreement the hon. member is referring to as there are several. Could he be a little more explicit?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are agreements with major centres, such as the City of Montreal, for instance, expiring within a few months, covering aid for industrial economic development of such centres. That is what I am inquiring about.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the decision was taken when it was announced in this House that the aid program would be for a two-year period only and that it would then be discontinued.


Henry P. Latulippe: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House whether he is considering the possibility of maintaining the aid granted to industries, through some conditions established under a decentralization program which could serve as incentive to designated regions outside metropolitan areas?


Jean Marchand: I suppose so, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the cost of living has increased during the past three months at an annual rate of 7.2 per cent, showing that inflation has not been licked but is growing at a steadily increasing rate, is it the intention of the government to have the Prices and Incomes Commission reintroduce voluntary guidelines, as it did 18 months ago, or does the government have some other plan in mind for checking this rising inflation?


Edgar John Benson: I think that if my hon. friend looks at his figures again he will find that the year to year increase up to the end of April was 1.9 per cent, not 7.2 per cent. What he is doing is making the obvious error he often makes of taking the three months figure, multiplying it by four and saying that this is the annual figure, which just does not happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware that the cost of living has been rising at an annual rate of 7.2 per cent a

May 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
year during the three months period, a very important part of the year, and has been steadily increasing month by month for the past three months? What is he going to do about it? Is he going to continue doing nothing?


Edgar John Benson: All I can do is to say that my hon. friend is wrong again.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this will be a supplementary question. The second question asked by the hon. gentleman was substantially the same as his first question. Certainly he has a right to ask a supplementary and will be recognized for that purpose.


George Harris Hees: My supplementary question is on behalf of the Canadian people. Are the minister and the government going to do something to try to check inflation, or does the minister, like the Prime Minister, consider that it has been licked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Finance very seriously-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think it is important that we know, Mr. Speaker. Is it the view of the Minister of Finance that inflation is licked?


Edgar John Benson: It is nice to have a serious question from the opposite side. I do not think that inflation can ever be assumed to be licked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ALLEGED CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS-OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION

John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. It has now become public knowledge that the government has a contingency plan for price and wage controls. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the nature of this plan will be made public and also if in fact it has been made known to the provinces so that proper discussion can take place at that level?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
know what the authority is for my hon. friend's preamble to the question. We have of course been studying the question of price and wage controls if those should become necessary. The implication of the question is that we have a cut and dried plan for this purpose. This is not so. There are various alternatives that could be employed if the circumstances arose.


Gerald William Baldwin: A new government would help.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I might have prefaced my question by saying that the Prime Minister made this
public last evening on the national television network. The Acting Prime Minister might be looking for a job when his boss returns from Moscow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not make a statement before asking his supplementary; he should ask the supplementary question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, you have got to inform these ministers. May I ask if the contingency plan which was made public knowledge last evening by the Prime Minister will be sprung on the country like the War Measures Act, or will some means of consultation be brought about so we can talk about the plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INFLATION-PRICES' FORECAST FOR 1971

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance perhaps an even more serious question. To follow the line that we have been following, I wish to ask him whether he or his advisers have made the kind of study that would give them a notion of the forecast of the likely curve of prices in Canada for the remainder of 1971? Can he inform the House what they anticipate happening, from all the evidence they have now, in the next six or seven months?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be doing exactly that in my budget.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of reports that a million and a half refugees have crossed from East Pakistan into West Bengal and India, and that the number of such refugees is estimated as likely to rise to five million, and in view of the impossibility of the government of India coping with this influx, has the government of Canada communicated or, if not, will it communicate at once with the government of India and offer relief in the form of cash, relief materials and urgently needed transport facilities, to be administered by the Indian government or by such agencies as the International Red Cross or Oxfam of Canada so that this immense tragedy can be alleviated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the Indian government. Indeed, this morning I received the High Commissioner of India, who once again brought to our attention the great tragedy that has taken place in that subcontinent. I indicated to him, as I have to the House, that the Canadian government is prepared to offer assistance in the care of these refugees.

May 17, 1971

However, it is my understanding that at the present time the Indian government is directing its requests for assistance primarily to multilateral agencies. The United Nations high commissioner for refugees is visiting India to assess the nature and extent of the refugee problem, and we are awaiting a report.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has the government communicated with the United Nations high commissioner in charge of refugees and intimated its willingness to make practical assistance avialable?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our general attitude is known to all of the international agencies. We have already offered token help through the Canadian Red Cross. We indicated to that organization that this was simply an indication that we are prepared to help as soon as we have requests indicating how we can best provide assistance. I want to assure the House, and I am sure that in this the government has the support of all hon. members, that we do stand ready to help substantially in this great tragedy.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question regarding the offer of assistance through the International Red Cross. I believe the Canadian government offered some $50,000. I also understand that the International Red Cross has not been able to operate in Pakistan. I now want to ask the minister how that money is going to be used, and through what agencies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said, and if I did I would like to correct it, that we have made any assistance available through the International Red Cross. I understand that agency has not been operative in the area. We made our assistance available through the Canadian Red Cross. It is clear that the national Red Cross societies will be able to be effective, but not at the moment the International Red Cross.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if the Canadian Red Cross is operating in East Pakistan, or for that matter in West Pakistan, and whether or not the Canadian government intends to increase the amount of money which it is prepared to make available for refugee work in that area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House the other day, and as those who have followed the exchange of correspondence between the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of Pakistan will have noted, the government of Pakistan has not yet indicated the extent of the need in Pakistan itself but has indicated that if any relief is to be distributed it is to be distributed through the Pakistan government itself. The help we have offered so far, and which was referred to by the previous questioner, is in relation to the refugees situated in India. This is the kind of relief on which everyone is concentrating at the moment.
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ONTARIO PROTEST CONCERNING INFRINGEMENT OF JURISDICTION BY LEGAL AID PROJECT
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has received a complaint from the Attorney General of the province of Ontario protesting that certain projects under the Opportunities for Youth program constitute an intervention into exclusively provincial matters and that there has been no prior consultation with the provincial government or its agencies?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I have received a letter from the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that some grants have been made by several federal departments and agencies to individual groups, involving legal aid. I recognize also that this involves the question of federal-provincial relations and the issue of the appropriate controls to be exercised over students participating in neighbourhood legal aid services. I am in the course of writing to all Attorneys General of all the provinces for the purpose of exploring what role the federal government should assume in the matter of legal aid. The letter received from the Attorney General of Ontario will be dealt with within that context.


OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BY QUEBEC
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Can the minister advise if he has an arrangement with the province of Quebec whereby all such projects which involve exclusive provincial jurisdiction within the province must first be approved by that province and/or its agencies before they become effective?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am not
sure that I have understood the question, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. member referring to the Opportunities for Youth program?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Pelletier: In that case, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are there such arrangements with provinces other than Quebec?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

May 17, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


STEPS TO MAINTAIN EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX OF WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE RECIPIENTS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that our war veterans who are entitled to receive war veterans allowance are exempt from income tax but effective April 1 this year they are expected to receive the major portion of their payments as old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement, both of which are taxable, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that our veterans will continue to enjoy the exemption they have so justly merited?


Edgar John Benson: I am considering a recommendation made to me by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Having in mind the action taken recently by two provincial governments,. Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, is any consideration being given at the federal level to earmarking a specific portion of the tremendous revenue received from the sale of alcohol to be used to combat alcoholism and promote temperance in the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is very general in scope and that it is the kind of question which normally ought to be placed on the order paper or it could be discussed at the time of adjournment or considered as a representation to the minister.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SINGLE AND MARRIED PEOPLE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern of the average working person and the proposals put forward by many people, when bringing down his budget will the minister give consideration to increasing the exemptions from income tax for single and married people?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this was a proposal in the white paper we brought forward over a year ago.
^


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the House if the Unemployment Insurance Commission is giving consideration to establishing offices in addition to those now available in Nova Scotia, and will one of those new offices be located in Cumberland County?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the re-organization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will necessitate the opening of about 60 to 65 new offices across Canada, five of which I think, from memory, will be in the province of Nova Scotia. The instruction to the Unemployment Insurance Commission is to establish them in those centres where the maximum good can be done for the public and not to take into consideration political partisanship in the least.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EDUCATION
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambfon-Kent):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In light of the importance of business and managerial skill to the independent and technological development of the country, is the government, by way of the Gray report or otherwise, going to take a position on federal assistance and encouragement for business administration programs or courses in the universities and in industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, we now pay half the operating costs of all higher education in Canada.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Accepting the fact that education is a provincial responsibility, will the government meet with the provinces and industry with a view to improving the number and quality of business administration courses?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the aim of the Canadian government, of course, to increase the efficiency of business enterprise. I am sure that my colleagues who are-more concerned with these matters do try to support, in one way or another, the schools of business administration. I am sure my hon. friend would agree that one of the best ways we can do this is by continuing the policy we have now of paying half the cost of such schools.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, my question has now changed to a supplemen-
May 17, 1971

tary to the Minister of Labour about the new Unemployment Insurance Commission offices. In view of the fact that some cities, such as Saint John, New Brunswick, will have a serious reduction of staff, when will the minister be making a formal announcement so that we may judge whether some of these reductions will bring about a very serious decrease in facilities for the public?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do intend to make a full report in a few weeks time. Proof of the fact that re-organization will be done on a non-political basis is the fact that there will be an office in the riding of the hon. gentleman who raised the question earlier.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give an assurance that there will not be any changes or transfers of staff until the announcement is made?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot give the assurance that there will be no change in staff, Mr. Speaker, but I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that the UIC staff is being kept informed through its representatives in the trade unions and every protection is being given to the present staff. There will be no diminution in the size of the staff but it would be naive to assume that there will not be some disruption. We will expect some of the staff, in light of our desire to make our service more effective, to accept movement from one office to another.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In the absence of the Prime Minister, would he use all his influence on his cabinet colleagues to give the unemployment situation in this country top priority inasmuch as he can substantiate his argument very well by the fact that he has announced the opening of 65 new unemployment insurance offices across the country?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I asked the minister if he would announce at the latest by Tuesday what plans, if any, the government intends to implement to compensate for the cessation of seasonal unemployment insurance benefits and he said he would have something to announce by Tuesday. He will not be in the House tomorrow so I wonder whether he is prepared to say something today or will he be prepared to make an announcement on Wednesday?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I should prefer to make it on Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has no objection in view of the fact that he first brought the question to the attention of the House.
Inquiries of the Ministry


NUMBER OUT OF WORK MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS WHO ARE RECEIVING BENEFITS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. When the minister makes his statement with regard to unemployment insurance, would he give the House an estimate of the proportion of the massive number of 348,000 Canadians reported to have been out of work for more than four months as of the middle of April who receive unemployment insurance benefits and those to whom such benefits are not available?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I shall try to be as factual as possible on Wednesday when I make the statement, Mr. Speaker.
i
MANPOWER	s


SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF STAFF FROM IMMIGRATION TO MANPOWER
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the great number of people seeking employment through manpower offices across Canada and in view of the decline in the number of immigrants coming to Canada, which means less work and overstaffing in the immigration offices, does the minister intend to transfer some staff from immigration to manpower offices to help with the extremely heavy load in those offices?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, constantly, examining the best location of the staff available to the department as a whole. Although there has been some decline in applications for immigration, this certainly has in no way reduced the load to the point where we can seriously consider reducing staff to any significant extent.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Communications. Since it is several weeks since the former Minister of Communications tabled the telecommunications report, can the minister inform the House what is happening and what action is to be taken with regard to that report?


Gérard Pelletier: The telecommission report, Mr. Speaker, will be discussed at various levels and especially with the provinces, in the very near future.

May 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Information Canada. In view of the complaints received by Information Canada that in some cases tax information for new Canadians has not been available in English, will the minister say whether this has been brought to the attention of the Department of National Revenue?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question ought to be addressed to the minister responsible for Information Canada. If we were to follow the lead given by the hon. member, perhaps all questions might be directed to the minister in his capacity as Information Canada. This Chamber would become "Information House of Commons". I would not think that is the minister's responsibility.


PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-ACTION FOLLOWING MEETING OF UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN OFFICIALS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the discussions which were held some two weeks ago between officials of his department and officials of the government of the United States concerning the danger of ecological damage arising out of the TAPS program. Have any decisions been taken as a result of this exchange of opinions, and what initiatives does the Canadian government now intend to take following these discussions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know no decisions have yet been made in the United States on whether they will proceed with the TAPS program. I will be visiting Washington on June 10 to meet with my counterpart, the Secretary of State, in order to discuss the general question of pollution and I will be following the matter up at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Although the minister has made several protests in the House and on Canadian television, has he made any formal representations to the United States government regarding Canadian concern about the proposed TAPS route? Would he also be prepared to table such a letter of protest, if one exists?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I reported in the House at some length on the representations made by the Canadian government to the United States government recently and I set out there exactly the position that we took with respect to the dangers of ecological damage arising out of the building of that line.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering the lack of balance of our economy, could the minister who has a great experience and knowledge of economic matters tell us if we are at the beginning of a new period of economic expansion or if we are faced with an outlook of unduly long economic decline?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement of a rather general nature. I suggest that such a statement should be made on motions.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister last night on the television program "Weekend" that "the Canadian dollar is so strong indeed that it is hurting our export trade because people are finding it cheaper to import goods and more difficult to sell them abroad," is the government planning to take action in the forthcoming budget to restore the former competitive position of, in particular, our labour-intensive export industries?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, for an answer to that question I think my hon. friend will have to wait for the budget. The question of the value of the Canadian dollar is a very complicated one, as he well knows.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister now advise the House when the budget will be brought down? On what day?


An hon. Member:: All is confusion. He doesn't know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.




Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the deep concern felt in this country over the nature of some of the trials of Jewish citizens that are still taking place in the Soviet Union, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the Prime Minister is to discuss this matter with the Soviet authorities while he is in Moscow?
May 17, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Almost the last words I had with the Prime Minister before he left on his aircraft last night were confirmation that he intended to do so.
*
* *


MANPOWER
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has his department been conducting any advertising campaigns indicating the availability of jobs in the fruit picking industry and in the mines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the question of exactly what advertisements are used in regard to each of these. In a general way, of course, we bring to the attention of potential workers openings which generally exist in mines and specific agricultural opportunities. I am not sure of the openings existing at the moment beyond the ones in our own offices.


Max Saltsman: While the minister is checking into that matter, would he also look into the statement by the Prime Minister that Canadians do not want to do this work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* *
*


OVERSEAS STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM-APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND APPROVED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question regarding the overseas student exchange program announced some time ago. Approximately how many applications have been received from students and how many have been approved?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to get up to date figures for the Leader of the Opposition. In a general way the program has been oversubscribed for most countries, but I would have to ascertain up to the moment how many students have been accepted by host countries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When the minister gives that information the next time he is in the House, will he also advise the House whether the program will get off on schedule and whether there have been any changes in its administration?
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


FORECAST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR 1971
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made on Thursday by the Minister of Finance that the government is going to achieve a rate of real growth for 1971 of between 5 and 5.5 per cent, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House specifically what unemployment rate the government anticipates for the same period, 1971?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has indicated that he expects there will be a decline in the rate of seasonal unemployment throughout the year-


George Harris Hees: He has been saying that for months.


Mitchell William Sharp: -as a
economy.
result of a steadily expanding


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader. In order that Parliament as well as the government may have direct access to the views of the hon. members for Trinity and Duvernay by means other than the news media, can the House leader tell us whether he will be appointing those two hon. members to any standing committees of the House and, if so, to what standing committees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PROPOSED MORAN HYDROELECTRIC DAM ON FRASER RIVER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It concerns the proposal to build a hydro-the Moran Dam-on the Fraser River. Has the government taken any position regarding this mooted dam? If so, what is the position of the government?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Because this very large dam would be built on an important salmon river which is also navigable, I am sure the federal government would be concerned about its construction.


Mark Willson Rose: Can the minister tell us whether he or his department has entered into discussions with the government of British Columbia concerning this matter?


John (Jack) Davis: We have appointed several of our officials who are knowledgeable in these matters to work with the British Columbia Energy Board on studies involving the development of all of the Fraser River system, including dams at various sites, such as the Moran Dam.

May 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES


GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION PROGRAM DAMS- FEDERAL SHARE OF COST
Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the minister advise the House what percentage oi the cost of the dams which are to be built under the Grand River conservation program will be borne by the federal government?


John (Jack) Davis: Under the new Canada Water Act the percentage is not set out under the legislation. It will be a figure negotiated by the federal government and the province concerned.
* * #


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Perhaps he could take it as notice. Could the hon. gentleman ascertain, and report to the House tomorrow either on motions or during the question period, what plans the government has to elicit a response from the general public and the provinces concerning the contingency plan the government has in mind in connection with wage and price controls in order that it will not be sprung on the Canadian people in view of the very great concern today about over-involvement of government in the economy?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it would be appropriate to hold consultations of that kind at this time. The provinces could, of course, at any time, if they wished, establish price or wage controls. They have the constitutional right to do so. The federal government can only operate in this field, I should think, during periods of some emergency. I therefore do not believe consultations of the kind suggested would be appropriate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Have the provinces been advised of the option, with any suggestion that they should impose price and wage controls?


Mitchell William Sharp: The provinces are very well aware of their constitutional authority.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John L. Skoherg (Moose Jaw):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. It is based on the practice of hiring pipeline welders in Edmonton or Winnipeg only for a Trans-Canada construction job in Saskatchewan, a practice which effectively prevents the hiring of welders from Saskatchewan. Would the minister investigate such hiring procedures and determine whether Saskatchewan welders are not entitled to a fair chance of such job opportunities?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not
sure if this is a question I can answer adequately. Perhaps it should be directed to the Minister of Manpower. But it seems very likely to be a problem coming within provincial jurisdiction since it concerns hiring arrangements.


John Leroy Skoberg: Could I ask the Minister of Manpower if he has any indication whether any Saskatchewan welders could be hired for work on this project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-238, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: The bill before us contains a number of items designed to take account of certain changes and special situations affecting the grains industry.
The Canadian Wheat Board is, of course, experiencing a very successful year in sales and in the movement of grain to export markets with the co-operation of all sectors of the agricultural community. Sales figures are extremely heartening after several years of difficulty, largely as a result of the world market situation. Trade was reduced and the exports of many countries were affected. Special difficulty attached to Canadian grain exports, particularly of wheat, because of the desire on the part of the Wheat Board, in full consultation with the producers of western Canada, to lend stability to the international market in the hope that the International Grains Arrangement now coming to an end would be ratified and would be fully effective. In the end, this attempt to secure this objective, one in which we very strongly believed, came to nought, and it was necessary for the Wheat Board to move vigorously in competition with our fellow exporters to obtain a greater share of the world wheat market, as well as to gain a share of the course grains market larger than we had enjoyed previously. These attempts are now proving successful and we see our grain exports achieving levels which tend to show promise of a record year in terms of total bushels of grain exported.
The changes proposed in the biE have to do with a number of special issues arising from developments which have been necessary to keep our grain competitive and our system operating as effectively as possible. We have, of course, seen changes in the Canada Grains Act which permits Canadian wheat to be sold in markets abroad on a protein graded basis. These resulted in the

May 17, 1971

basic grades for wheat being changed as of the beginning of the next crop year from the former Canadian No. 1 Northern, No. 2 Northern and No. 1 Hard to the new grade, No. 1 Canada Western. This necessitated changes being made in the Act to allow the initial price for wheat to be set on the basis of the new grade instead of on the basis of the previous standard grade. In order to deal with the possibility that from year to year in the future modifications may have to be made to the grading, or a new grade introduced in response to customer requirements, the bill before us will allow more flexibility in determining which grade of a particular grain shall be used as the hallmark for the initial price in a particular crop year. In addition, the bill recognizes the changes in the grading system which are taking place.
In the last few months the Wheat Board has outlined to producers a new quota system under which the producers themselves may assign their eligible acres to the grain of their choice for sales purposes without relation to planting practices. This measure of additional flexibility is recognized in the small changes the bill proposes with regard to the quota system.
The bill also contains a proposal under which, in certain circumstances, the crop year could be extended for the purpose of receiving grain, principally to equalize delivery opportunities as between producers. Some difficulty has arisen in the past with regard to this. Though desirous of extending the crop year with respect to the delivery of certain amounts of grain we found our hands tied by the law as it now stands. In these circumstances, the price in the subsequent crop year had to be applied to the balance of the grain delivered. It will now be possible to extend the crop year under arrangements which would allow the current price to continue for the balance of the amount outstanding. This provision will, I am sure, be recognized by hon. members as introducing additional equity to the quota system.
The bill before us also proposes some improvement in regard to the penalties applicable under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is of interest to every producer that the rules which are set out in the act, and which are designed essentially to provide equity between producers, be adhered to. It is a disadvantage to any producer if these rules are broken at his expense, in the interests of some other person who is trying to obtain a greater share of the market or otherwise and who thus ignores the principle of orderly marketing. Producer organizations have generally requested this improvement, this strengthening of the act, in terms of enforcement, and we propose to do this in the bill.
At the same time, it is proposed to allow for some summary procedures to be used in those cases where, as so often will happen, the producer has no interest in disputing his liability or his breach of the regulations. In such cases, without the formality of court procedures it will be possible to complete the process of enforcing the appropriate penalty. To safeguard the rights of the producer and his interests in case he should protest his innocence or otherwise want to defend himself against allegations made against him, he will be able to transfer the case into one of the kind we have known before,
Canadian Wheat Board Act namely one where the full protection of the court and of due process will be available to him.
While I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about the bill and the general changes that are made in it, perhaps I should say a few additional words about one further change in the bill, one that has received a good deal of attention. This is the proposal to permit at some later date, should it become desirable, an extension of the act to one or any of the crops of rape-seed, rye and flax.
When the Canadian Wheat Board Act was before Parliament some years ago, such extension was allowed for barley and oats, and later on the act was extented to them. In placing the power to so extend the act before Parliament, I do so recognizing that there are some fairly strong feelings on both sides of the issue throughout the prairie region. There are many who become much excited at the very suggestion of an extension. There are others, I must say including most of the major producer groups, who have asked for some years now for the extension of board marketing to these grains.
It is my view that a good deal of discussion and an increase in the amount of information available about the impact of the marketing systems is required before any final decision can be taken on this very important question. Once again, I want to emphasize the fact that these enabling provisions contained in the bill do not indicate any intention one way or the other in regard to changing the marketing system; they are simply in the bill in order that, if a decision is taken, one that has the full support of the producers, we will be in a position to act on it thereafter in orderly fashion.
Producers are concerned about a number of things in the existing marketing system. One problem that they have always had before them, I think, is price changes from day to day in the non-board marketed grains. Frequently, producers express the desire to have an average price or pooled price available to them. In discussion with the producers the question has arisen whether this can be obtained in any one way or whether in fact there are a number of ways of providing for a pooling solution to what they consider to be a problem.
The other serious problem that afflicts some of these non-board marketed grains is whether the price is set in a manner that is fair to the producers or whether some returns are retained elsewhere in the system at their expense. This is a further question that requires constant study and consideration.
Concerned about the marketing of oil seeds in particular, last year I appointed a committee to study the question and report back on an appropriate marketing system for oil seeds. The committee was composed of distinguished representatives of the rapeseed industry, including two well-known farmers who themselves were growers of rapeseed. This committee reported in June of 1970 and indicated that, in its view, not enough information was available to producers at the present time upon which a final or appropriate decision could be made about the kind of marketing system that should be applicable to these grains. The committee suggested that once sufficient

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
information became available to the producers, the producers should be given the chance by means of plebiscite to determine the best possible system. The immediate challenge that this posed to us was the obtaining of additional information for producers; and we have proceeded by asking the same committee to continue its work in an attempt to develop the appropriate information. It was with this background that the enabling sections were placed into the act.
At the same time, my concern about the rapeseed marketing system in particular led me to have frequent discussions with the Canadian Rapeseed Association and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange regarding the problems that existed, or seemed to exist, in the futures market and the spreads that could exist between the price received by the farmer and the apparent end marketing price.
I should like to pay tribute to these two organizations for the co-operation that they have given in attempting to locate difficulties in the market system and pricing mechanisms as they affect the individual farmer. I also thank them for the action they have taken in gaining the co-operation of all sections of the industry in putting into place a number of improvements to the marketing system. This kind of co-operation is certainly welcome, is very much in the interests of the producers, and should be known and understood by them.
In dealing with the legislation before the House, it is my hope that what we will try to do is to continue to give to the producers the maximum amount of information about the difficulties in the various marketing systems; that we will continue to maintain an atmosphere where the emphasis is on information rather than recrimination on trying to understand the merits of the systems that may be available. It is my clear view that no change in regard to any of the grains should be made without the fullest producer consent. Indeed, it would be folly to do otherwise. Sections of the trade other than the producers would not want any such change made, and I do not understand why anyone would want to make a change except with the fullest consent and understanding of the producers. Certainly, I would be happy to make clear my view that the consent of the producers should be obtained in the clearest possible fashion before any change is contemplated. I might also say that my view is that the very fact that we want to talk about finding the best possible system of marketing should in no way lead one to the judgment that the system is going to be changed.
I think the changes contained in this bill will improve the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to continue its strenuous efforts to maximize the return to the Canadian producer by obtaining, in the most effective way possible, the best price and the best-sized market available to him in the world. I urge hon. members to give their support to these amendments and to assist in seeing that they become law in order that the Wheat Board is thus given additional ability and power to help the Canadian farmers. I, therefore, have the pleasure of moving the adoption of this bill on second reading and its referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. R. R. Soufham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can join with other members of this House, particularly those in the official opposition, in. welcoming the introduction of this measure to the House of Commons. Anything that can be done to enhance the economic welfare of the agricultural industry is always welcome. The government has introduced Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, today for second reading and, as the minister says, referral to the committee for further study.
In introducing this bill in the Commons for first reading on April 21, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board also tabled a statement as to why certain changes should be made in the act. His statement started off by referring to the fact that the changes take into consideration the introduction of protein grading. This is good as the farmers and the grain trade are all in favour of the protein grading of wheat as outlined in our new Bill C-175, an act respecting grain.
The next part of his statement refers to the possible extension of the board system of marketing to rapeseed,, rye and flaxseed. This suggestion, as farmers and members of the grain trade know, has stirred up another hornet's nest as this government seems prone to do from time to time, and I will have more to say about that matter a little later in my remarks. The minister went on to outline several other reasons for amending the act, including the fact that the quota delivery base has to be adjusted to the assignable acreage feature in the new quota system.
With the introduction of a pre-seeding announcement, of minimum quota levels for an ensuing year, it has become necessary to make allowance for those years in which the minimum quota levels may not be achieved and it may be necessary to allow farmers to deliver the balance of the announced quota levels after the crop year has ended. This is an area that can become somewhat complicated and frustrating to our farmers. However, this government seems good at that.
The final area of concern in the minister's April 21 statement in relation to this bill dealt with the producers having stressed the desirability of the effective administration of the act with regard to grain deliveries. To this end, it was considered desirable to revise the penalty clauses in the act.
I think it would be proper at this point to suggest that it is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of a great many farmers and people connected with the grain trade, that it is high time we had a debate in the House of Commons on the present status of the Canadian Wheat Board; its record, what can be done to improve its functions in relation to Canada's very important grain industry and, in general, to defend the Wheat Board against some of the unwarranted attacks made against it in recent months. Like private industry, federal or provincial governments, the field of education and so on, we have to take stock periodically as to whether policies, functions and general administration in each of these

May 17, 1971

areas are meeting with approval of the public and providing the service that is necessary in this very competitive world.
Crown corporations such as the Wheat Board should be no exception. So, it was with a great deal of general satisfaction, I believe, that the public responded to the statement of the board some time ago that they would welcome a committee being established to do a complete survey or analysis of the present operations of the Wheat Board and come up with suggestions for improvements. This committee was set up on the initiative of the *Canadian Wheat Board and was headed by Mr. Merril W. Menzies, one of the most knowledgeable men in the grain trade. Mr. A. T. Baker of the Alberta pool and Dr. J. L. Liebfried of the Canadian Wheat Board were two more of the committee members and, just to give it an international scope, two other experts, one from the United [DOT]States and one from Europe, were added to the committee. The committee known as the Canadian Marketing Review Committee was established in July, 1970 and brought down its report in January, 1971.
Several of the main recommendations of the committee were that the Canadian Wheat Board should continue to be an integral part of our Canadian grain marketing system, that a permanent grains policy group should be established with the chief commissioner of the Wheat Board as vice-chairman, with producer appointed members making up the majority of membership in this group. The report went on to emphasize protein grading, which has already been established and which came into effect April 1, this year. Other suggestions of course dealt with improvements to our transportation, of grain storage, and related matters too numerous to mention here. Suffice to say it was not a whitewash job, as some critics of the Canadian Wheat Board are prone to think, but a very comprehensive but belated study and review of the whole grain marketing situation.
I should like to interrupt my general remarks at this point to quote from an article which appeared on the editorial page of the Western Producer for May 13, under the heading "Report on Canadian grain marketing". It reads:
For a number of reasons, the recent report of the Canadian Grain Marketing Review Committee which was considered in a general way in this column in a recent issue merits more detailed appraisal. Perhaps first among the reasons is the fact that this review of Canadian grain marketing was really the first public examination of this important subject since the Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935. The six-man review committee took its assignment seriously and subjected the many aspects of Canadian grain marketing to a piercing examination and produced a report which is both frank and challenging.
In this and subsequent issues The Western Producer intends to discuss the review committee's report under four headings: the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board, the development of Canadian grain policy, grain quantity and quality, and fii-nally, salesmanship.
The assignment was "to evaluate Canada's system of selling grain under changing world conditions." The committee itself put the assignment in a more detailed way in the first paragraph of its 52-page report when it said: "The Canadian Grain Marketing Review Committee was established to make an extensive examination of Canada's grain marketing system with
Canadian Wheat Board Act
special reference to wheat, and to recommend specific changes designed to increase the effectiveness of Canadian grain marketing, starting from the premise that the Canadian Wheat Board system of centralized selling would continue in effect".
The article goes on in a laudatory manner to support the premise of this report on the Wheat Board. I might say, in looking around the Commons, that I am disappointed there are not more members on the government side to listen to and take part in this debate regarding one of our most important Crown corporations.


Mr. MacEachen:: You have just six on your own side.


Richard Russell Southam: It should be mentioned in passing, Mr. Speaker, that, going back over the years, the Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the main cornerstones in the general structure of the marketing of farmers' grains. The prairie pools, the private line elevators, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and last but not least the practically now defunct International Wheat Agreement being the others.
It must be said that the Canadian Wheat Board's measure of success is actually no better or worse than the government's policies that are established in the area of international trade, because it has to be remembered that Canada has to export roughly 75 per cent of her average grain crops in order for farmers to survive, and at a price that should be commensurate with the cost of production. The current lapse in the International Wheat Agreement has caused untold grievous harm to our grain farmers in this respect.
The Wheat Board was first established in the early thirties by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett's Conservative administration with a lot of opposition from the private grain trade. When the Liberals took office under Prime Minister Mackenzie King they threw out the Canadian Wheat Board. However, such a hue and cry went up from farmers that it was quickly re-established.
It is very interesting to note however that over the years, and with the change of governments from time to time, it seems in reviewing the history of the board that it ran into most trouble when the Liberals were in office. For instance, in addition to the instance I mentioned a moment ago when the Grits tried to disband the board early in its history, I believe it was about August 1, 1946, the then Liberal government signed a British preferential wheat agreement, to last over a four-year period, under which Canadian farmers were asked to take roughly a dollar per bushel less than world market prices. This cost our grain industry approximately $600 million. The government of the day tried, under the late Hon. James Gardiner, to pacify farmers by putting a token payment of $65 million into the annual pool. However, the reaction among farmers was bad and this did not enhance the Canadian Wheat Board image in any way. Furthermore it was felt, as expressed by the United Grain Growers at the time, that the farmer, to a much greater extent than other interests, contributed both toward keeping down the cost of living in Canada and providing cheap food for Britain. A payment much larger than $65 million would have been necessary to offset this undue $600 million contribution by our Canadian farmers.

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Following a prairie-wide campaign in 1949, oats and barley were brought under control of the Wheat Board. However, there were still grave problems in the international grain market and, after some 12 years of discussion behind the scenes, the International Wheat Agreement was consummated bringing together between 50 and 60 importing and exporting nations in grains marketing. This was a major breakthrough and worked very successfully for 18 long years until it was allowed to lapse in the spring of 1967. Again, a Liberal government had a part to play in the lapsing of this agreement.
From 1949 to 1954, when the Korean War came into the picture, the Wheat Board did not experience too much trouble. However, Canada began to build up wheat surpluses amounting to some 850 million bushels by 1957. At this time in history it was fortunate that the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker took over the reins of government and our party immediately set to work to relieve the situation, much to the gratification of the Canadian Wheat Board, by establishing a positive trading relationship with Japan, particularly in the field of textile import quotas. Then came the major breakthrough into the Chinese market as a result of the government policy of establishing large credits to the Chinese government over a three-year period. The first major sale of wheat in this instance amounted to $428 million.
By stepping up sales to other countries through better trading relations, by the new international wheat price agreement of 1961 which raised the price of wheat by 12 cents per bushel, and by the Conservative policy of revaluing the Canadian dollar which gave the farmer another 15 cents per bushel, the Canadian Wheat Board was able to pay the western farmer the biggest final payment in Wheat Board history in 1962, and also get the quotas wide open for the first time in ten years.
From 1963 to 1967 things went along more or less smoothly in grain marketing under the Board with the present government cashing in on our trade and credit policies. However, the big catastrophe came in the spring of 1967 at .Geneva when our government, in conjunction with the U.S.A. and several other major exporters of wheat, decided to allow the International Wheat Agreement to lapse for 11 months, allegedly under the pretense that a gentleman's agreement had been reached that oats, barley and rye would be brought into a new International Grains Arrangement along with wheat on July 1, 1968.
I might interject here to mention something of interest. In the early part of this year, I believe in February, when the Federation of Agriculture for Canada was meeting at the Skyline Hotel, one of the guest speakers was Mr. Tony Dechant, President of the United States National Farm Union. This is one of the most responsible farm organizations in the United States. During his address to our Federation of Agriculture, he finally admitted that following the Geneva Conference in 1967 it was the United States which first broke the gentleman's agreement and set the pattern for the downward trend in pricing in world markets, especially in respect of wheat. This was very interesting. I mention it because I feel, as
a result of following this very closely as a member of the Agriculture Committee, that our friends across the way were responsible not only for damaging the general wellbeing of Canadian farmers but also farmers in other major exporting countries. I am not suggesting we should be anti-American, but I do suggest that this is an area in which the Canadian government, through the intervention of some of the cabinet ministers, should have held discussions with their counterparts in the United States such as President Johnson, the Secretary for Agriculture in the United States and others, with a view to curtailing the price cutting. Canada has been in trouble ever since and the loss to our Canadian grain farmers has been a sad, sad story.
Going back to February 1965 the Wheat Board, under the direction of the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, the minister then responsible for the Board, ran into difficulties when he ordered it to cut wheat prices in competition with the United States cuts, thus causing our farmers a loss of some $90 million in the annual pool returns.
Coming up to 1969, in April, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was forced to advise the Canadian Wheat Board to cut prices to compete with our U.S. neighbours. Canada still continued to lose out on sales, and quotas went down from six bushels to five, then to four and, in some cases farmers were only able to deliver three bushels. All during this period of time since 1967, the present government, instead of taking the blame for the mismanagement of grain selling, has allowed resentment in the farming community to grow and has allowed those who are seemingly not too familiar with the situation, or their own Liberal supporters who are only too ready to find a scapegoat, to continue to take pot shots at the Board rather than coming to the Board's defence as they should. Sure at times the Board may have been smug and a little careless perhaps, but by and large it had done a remarkably good job in spite of this government, and I trust this bill will assist them in doing even a better job.
Coming back to one particular section of the bill, namely the provision to allow rapeseed, flax and rye to be brought under the jurisdiction of the board at this time, I may say this is a very debatable provision. It is my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the government should give serious consideration to holding a plebiscite among the grain producers of western Canada on this issue. There have been far too many occasions in the past when this government has jumped in with various proposed policies relative to agriculture without first getting an authentic consensus. Illustrations of this point would be the Lift program, the present debate over the grains stabilization program under Bill C-244 or, the most aggravating of all, Bill C-176. If a vote were taken among bona fide producers, I am sure it would quickly settle the argument and take the government off the political hook at the same time.
There are many conflicting opinions about the control of oilseeds in the market place at the moment. Mr. E. K. Turner, President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and Mr. J. O. Wright, Secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat

May 17, 1971

Pool, seem to favour the six major grains being brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. On the other hand, Mr. Walter Nelson, President of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association, an organization in the middle of our Saskatchewan pool area, takes a dim view of rye, flax and rapeseed being brought under the Board. He states that it would be a discouraging step in the wrong direction.
I must say that many farmers feel these are special cash crops over which they should have control in order to supplement their other annual income from time to time. Personally, I believe the government is in a bind on this issue since, because of its proposed grain stabilization policy, it may feel it is necessary to force the farmers, one and all, to place these grains under the Canadian Wheat Board for administration of the stabilization program if for no other reason. As I suggested earlier, I feel this issue should be settled by a plebiscite. There are many more comments I could make in respect of this bill but I am sure there are other western members, and my colleagues in particular, who will want an opportunity to discuss this piece of legislation in the House before it goes to the committee.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think some of the things proposed in this bill are of a routine or housekeeping nature. For example, there are the changes in grades to accommodate the new procedures which are made possible under the new grains act, if that is the right term and I believe it is. These changes would make it possible to put in place a pricing mechanism which would fit in with the new grading procedures under the new act. Of course, this was to be expected.
I should like to say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad he is proceeding expeditiously in this regard so that maximum advantage may be attained. I think we will have to wait and see how the new pricing system, the opportunity to be more flexible, will work out. I do not think we can say at this point whether this will be a bad or a good thing. This has been done to some extent in that we have changed the initial price of a particular grain in mid-year to fit circumstances which were not foreseen at the beginning of the year. If the flexibility helps us to sell and reflects fairly the value of the grain, then surely that is the objective of the pricing system, whether it is operated by the Wheat Board or by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. The yardstick by which you measure such an operation is how effectively it works and how fairly it reflects the demands that exist within the market to which we have access.
We will have to wait and see how the changes in the quota system work. I can foresee some difficulties when farmers try to adjust to this new system, when they try to decide in the spring what they will deliver, and when they try to establish the base upon which they will deliver during a full crop year. There might be some difficulty and some hardship, unless at some point in time the farmer can review his position. If the crop does not turn out as he expected, he will have to try to adjust to
Canadian Wheat Board Act
the circumstances in which he finds himself. Sooner or later, that fact will have to be recognized under the new quota system.
The extension of the crop year is a possibility which should be considered; in fact, it has been done before officially. In this way, the needs will be recognized. I hope we can attain the objectives which we have set for ourselves in this regard. Again, this bill will permit us to do what has to be done. A really difficult provision is the one regarding penalties under the Wheat Board Act and the manner in which those penalties are assessed. There is no question that if we are to have a quota system under the Wheat Board, this system must be observed because if it is not observed by the total community it will not work. If enough people break the rules and refuse to abide by them, we will have to go back to the old catch as catch can system and we will find ourselves running around with a truckload of grain from one elevator to another. If we do so, we will spend as much time trying to deliver grain as we spend on planting, which would be an unfortunate situation. I think that the penalties proposed by the minister are designed to forestall this possibility. I do not think any of us want to see them applied too severely, but again I say that we must do the job that must be done.
The bill also provides for the inclusion of flax, rye and rapeseed, but I do not know at what point in time. The minister is very ambivalent in this respect. He says in one breath that he will do it and in the next breath that perhaps we had better wait a bit and think that over. Perhaps some of the discussions which he had in Winnipeg with officials of the trade may have had some effect on his attitude. In the last press release the Minister issued in May, he stated:
There have been producer representations made on this subject and it was for this reason that the enabling clause was included in the amendment to the act.
But he also said:
But I repeat, the government has no immediate plan to change the marketing system for these grains. And I assure producers that before any such change is contemplated there will be thorough discussions with everyone involved.
I wonder what effect the minister thinks the stabilization program will have on the income of the individual farmer when a large part of his income will actually not be taken into account in the Wheat Board figures. One can see that this plan might work, although rather badly, when wheat, oats and barley are included, since these crops are pooled and since every farmer is going to receive the same price during the crop year. However, this situation will not necessarily apply to other major grains such as flax and rapeseed. In fact, the probability is that there will be a wide difference in what each producer receives. I, personally, have seen the price of flax fluctuate $1 a bushel between September and January or October and November of a given year. Rapeseed moves in the same fashion. As a matter of fact, the Vancouver future price moved between $3.41 a bushel and $2.87J a bushel between April 1 and April 2 of this year. The minister has never quite explained to the House how equity will be established under the stabiliza-

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
tion plan between farmers who caught the high point of the market and ones who caught the low point of the market.
When the minister brought in this proposal, I thought one of his objectives in bringing these grains under the Canadian Wheat Board was to equalize the returns of farmers under the stabilization plan. This is the only real justification for a stabilization plan. But on May 11, he assured us that he had no intention whatsoever of doing it for that reason. I almost hesitate to ask him if he is introducing this proposal as a threat against the grains trade, so that some time in the future he can say to the companies involved, "Look, boys, if your price to the producer is not fair, there is a provision in the legislation which I can use." Is this a fair assumption to make?
In a press release on April 28 Mr. Atkinson, President of the National Farmers Union, said it had been the practice of grain companies dealing in rapeseed to take a premium at times of 25 cents to 50 cents a bushel, in addition to their regular commission. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Atkinson is a little extravagant in that statement. Last winter I made a rather thorough investigation. In November, I started to keep careful track of prices paid to producers and to the futures market. Of course, one cannot come up with an exact figure, but I have come to the conclusion that the figure involved here is around 30 cents. As I say, I think Mr. Atkinson is a bit high, but still 30 cents is a pretty good bite. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to get an exact figure because you do not know when an importer is buying in Vancouver against future delivery, whether he is buying the near future, the next future, or so on. But I would agree with a statement made by one of the commentators on the farm broadcast last week that those companies which will have to produce figures of their earnings of this particular crop at the end of the crop year will show rather handsome earnings. In fact, I think they will be somewhat embarrassed when they are reporting to their own producers.
I thought the minister was concerned about two things in connection with this proposal. The first one was to create proper conditions for the stabilization plan, and the second was his concern about the method of pricing. But I want to tell him that he should not really be concerned if the Wheat Board, as sole marketer, takes over the pricing of rapeseed and flaxseed. Some people may think that these grains should be left on what we might call an open market, but I have received a letter from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange in which they informed me I was wrong to assume that the Exchange set the prices for rapeseed. They said this was quite erroneous in that street prices are established by a committee. I am not going to name the companies concerned because I do not believe I am at liberty to do so, but I am at liberty to say that the prices for this particular grain are set by committees of grain companies. The grain companies meet in committee and agree on what will be paid to the producer.
[Mr. Gleave.l
If Mr. Atkinson is right and the grain companies have been picking up this kind of margin in addition to their normal commission for performing a service to the producer, then the minister should be concerned. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister was concerned, because some time ago I asked him a number of questions about it. The minister had to write to officials in the trade, but I will not bother to quote that correspondence. However, these officials assured him that there were, shall we say, some inadequacies in the system and that they would do their best to correct them. I do not know how the minister will be able to determine whether they have been corrected, unless he intends to tell the trade, "Boys, these grains are now under the act so you had better stay in line."
There have been some marvellous spreads between the Vancouver market that is the near future, and the prices paid to the farmers. I can pick one date when the future price was $3.26 and the cash price was $2.92. In fact, I could quote the figures for many dates, but someone in the Grain Exchange could well reply, "We were not working on the near future, we were working on the one for the next month." In that way, one can sure get a lot of different answers. Really, all we can do is wait until the end of the crop year when some of these grain companies produce their reports. Then, we will know the answers.
I did some digging to find out how the grain companies set the prices they are going to pay the producer. I came up with a figure of about 36 cents a bushel. This was the amount they figured they needed to get a bushel of rape-seed from a point in Alberta into the hands of a buyer out on the west coast. I thought 36 cents a bushel was a pretty nice margin, considering that the freight cost runs around 16 cents. The other 20 cents is made up of elevation charges, and various other charges.
The grain companies included one item which I found rather intriguing. It was half of one cent for invisible losses. I think an invisible loss is a lovely thing. Whoever thought up that term should be given an extra dollar or two by the companies. I asked members of the Board of Grain Commissioners when they appeared before the committee the other day if they knew there was supposed to be an invisible loss. They replied, no, they did not think there was supposed to be any invisible loss. Of course, every grain company that buys grain is legitimately entitled to take a shrinkage allowance to cover loss in shipment whether through handling, in grain elevators or in freight cars. That allowance has remained stable over a great many years, and it has been agreed between the producers and the grain companies that it is sufficient. But these people thought they needed compensation for an invisible loss in order to get at this 36 cents. They charged for weighing and inspection and they charged the farmer for the liner they put in the boxcars. They did not miss a trick. They charged for hauling the dockage out and they then sold it to somebody else.
When the Board of Grain Commissioners appeared before the committee I asked how many cars they
May 17, 1971

allowed to individual shippers, but they could not give me the answer then. I know that under the block system producers have difficulty getting individual cars, and this is inherent in the system. I am sure the minister would agree that we must see to it that the individual shipper has some assurance of rights to boxcars under the block system. I think that both the Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners are willing to work this out. This is a factor which makes this matter we are talking about extremely important, Mr. Speaker.
If during the crop year a farmer could walk into a station and say, "I want a boxcar for my rapeseed or flaxseed as I am going to ship it to the head of the lakes or the west coast", then he would have an alternative to any pricing system set up by the grain companies. This is an important point. He could consign his produce to Thunder Bay or Vancouver and instruct his agent to get him the spot price at that point. This price would cover what it actually cost to move the grain and would be related to what the importer would pay.
I do not necessarily get starry-eyed about any particular method of doing anything, Mr. Speaker, but I insist that the producer has a right to the highest price that the market will stand and I do not think that is what he gets. I would have been much happier if the minister had said this afternoon that, regardless of the type of system used, the farmer would receive the highest price that the market would stand; but he did not say this. Through the correspondence which he made available to the House he knows that, during the last crop years, the pricing system has not been working to the satisfaction of the producer. He knows that and I know it, because I took the time and trouble to document it. That is what we are really looking at in the final analysis.
If the people responsible for the grain exchange operation tell me that they are not responsible for the street price that is set or for the elevator system today, I am prepared to accept that they are not. If what you may call the free and open market is not going to be a mechanism for setting the price the farmer will get in the market place, then I say to the minister that, under those circumstances, it had better be the Wheat Board. As a farmer I am prepared to accept, and over the years I have accepted, a marketing system which works and which I am confident will bring me a return equal to what the market will stand. I am not prepared to accept a marketing system which will not do that, which is subject to manipulation, subject to a little bit off for invisible losses and all that sort of thing. Who do they think they are kidding?
Perhaps the minister will reply at the end of this debate and be a little more specific. If he wants to hold a plebiscite or ask the farmers to hold a plebiscite in order to find out what they want, I can tell him it would not be the first time that has been done. It is a democratic way of approaching the problem. However, when he says he really does not know if he will do anything at all, then he will have to answer for the situation that exists in this crop year. He will have to answer for that situation or divorce himself from responsibility for marketing those particular crops. I do not think the minister can 24107-21
Canadian Wheat Board Act
stand aside as an observer. He cannot say that it is no concern of his and it is up to the farmers and the companies to see that the inequities and malfunctions of this system are corrected. I think it has to be one way or the other.
The "Pool Broadcast" of April 28, 1971 reads in its opening paragraph:
A bill that may extend the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system to include rye, flax and rapeseed was introduced in the House of Commons last week.
Then, somebody got Mr. E. K. Turner, President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool before a microphone and he said:
Well, the legislation is certainly not dangerous because it doesn't do anything. It just makes it possible to do something, and, of course, their concern is that it will remove from them the opportunity to make handsome profits on the sale of these grains.
That is the assessment of the Saskatchewan pool, that it is not dangerous because it does not do anything. They probably have come to the conclusion that it does not intend to do anything.
Perhaps the minister will have something further to say on these two points: first, if the stabilization program is to have any chance to actually reflect the average income of farmers for three years, then in a year when the minister decides there is a shortfall in the industry, for two grains as important as rapeseed and flaxseed, the percentage paid will have to relate to what the producer received for them. I do not see how the minister can achieve this unless there is a pool price. If he is not going to do this he should take these three grains out of the stabilization fund and only attempt to operate it on the grains on which he can establish a price, unless he is not interested in the farmer but is only interested in stabilizing the economy. The alternative is to consider ways and means of ensuring a stable price for the producer.
I heard the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) talking about rapeseed as an important product. It is an important part of our agricultural industry, and I agree with him. For many years, Mr. Speaker, I have been growing rapeseed. At one time you could not deliver it to the elevators, because the elevator companies could not be bothered with it. You could only sell rape-seed if you grew enough to load a boxcar and shipped it yourself. I have sold it under contract, as the hon. member for Peace River described. I have handled it often enough and marketed it through enough channels to have some idea of what is involved. I am sure that the minister has advisers in his group who like to tell him about these things. We have not seen the recommendations of the oil seeds groups. I think the minister should make these available to us when the bill goes before the committee. If the report is available, I have not seen it. It ought to be available to enable us to make an intelligent judgment about what should be done. I know some of the members of that committee. They should be able to come to grips with the problem that is involved here.

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, this bill incorporates housekeeping amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It changes some terminology and some regulations. Instead of talking about Fort William and Port Arthur, we are now to talk about Thunder Bay. With respect to clause 4, we are told that the amendment would allow the board, in special circumstances, "to authorize the delivery of grain after the end of the crop year, for inclusion in deliveries for the expired crop year." I think there is considerable merit in these proposals, especially when we take into consideration some of our experience in the past with deliveries and transportation, when it was not possible for all quotas to be equalized over the year.
I think the basic concern that most of us will express when speaking on the bill relates to the possible inclusion of rapeseed, rye and flax under the selling authority of the Wheat Board. I think it is fairly well accepted that, by and large, the Wheat Board up to now has done a good selling job. Nevertheless, there have been indications in the last few years that some of their selling methods should be reviewed. I think they are being reviewed at present. When you consider the board's past performance, I think you could say that some of the board's programs have not worked out as well as they might have, largely as a result of government intervention. That is why their performance in the sales field has been less than spectacular in recent years. The majority of producers feel that until there is adequate proof that the board is doing the best possible job selling the grains that come under its authority at present, the three additional grains mentioned should not come within the ambit of the board.
A few years ago, possibly, more producers were in favour of including these other grains under the board. Now, in view of what has happened and in view of the decline of the percentage of world trade held by Canadian grain producers, there is some doubt on this. I think that before flax, rye and rapeseed are put under the authority of the Wheat Board, a plebiscite of producers ought to be taken. I think a fairly simple plebiscite might be held, possibly through the agency of the elevator companies. It could involve permit holders coming under the Wheat Board. We need an indication from producers that they want this to be done. I should hate to see these grains coming under the ambit of the Wheat Board if this positive indication is not given by the producers.
It seems to me that the association of private entrepreneurs involved with rapeseed has been doing a pretty fair job in the marketing of that commodity. May I quote a few words from the Edmonton Journal of Thursday, April 1. Mr. Hamilton, former chief commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners, said in part:
Rapeseed-our most successful crop-is the one that has had the least government control and interference; that should cause us to ponder. I have watched with growing concern Ottawa's determination to become associated with the rapeseed success story of Western Canada.
He talks about private and public relations in the field of international selling, and says:
The best public relations job I've seen for Canadian grain? When a Farm Union group from Canada visited China several years ago. I was in China about one year after this group and they had certainly paved the way for us. I am sure this is one of the best ways to promote Canadian grain in such markets.
The Leader Post of February 25, 1971, carries this report on the successful merchandising techniques of the rapeseed industry:
The rapeseed association has been so successful selling rape-seed and rapeseed products that it staggers the imagination.
In his report to the rapeseed association's annual meeting in Edmonton recently, Mr. McAnsh discussed six areas where association rapeseed staff' has been active-Japan, Taiwan, Europe, Mexico and Latin America.
'Within the first year or so of its existence,' he reported, 'the association mounted an eight-man mission to go to Japan-
'The prime interest of the mission was to promote the use of rapeseed meal in animal feed formulations, in order to obtain a share in a very large market in Japan for feeding stuffs.'
A two-man team was sent to Taiwan in June, 1969, for consultation with oilseed processors. Shortly after, Taiwan bought 1.8 million bushels of Canadian rapeseed.
Early in 1970, a rapeseed mission visited Holland, West Germany, Italy, Spain, France and the United Kingdom.
'It soon became apparent that hesitancy on the part of animal feed formulators to include rapeseed in their mixes was a barrier to the sale of rapeseed.'
The article goes on:
The association sent a four-man mission in January to visit Mexico, Ecuador, Peru and Chile. On the heels of this mission came a second of three men to visit El Salvador, Costa Rica,-[DOT]
And other countries in the area. We can see the kind of job that the rapeseed growers are doing in promoting the sale of rapeseed internationally.
The Globe and Mail of April 29 reported the views of Mr. A. M. Runciman, chairman of the Canada Grains Council. According to the article:
* (4:10p.m.)
Mr. Runciman said that in its 35 years of existence the Canadian Wheat Board had never experimented with the opening of overseas offices. "So we are simply looking at the possibility of establishing a non-profit, non-government trade agency for the grain industry."
In my opinion, our present diplomatic staffs and missions ought in many cases to be replaced in part, at least, by sales-oriented personnel and organizations.
I should like the House to consider how effective some of these government marketing agencies really are. We were fortunate enough on Tuesday last in the Finance Committee to be given the benefit of the firsthand knowledge of a gentleman who is himself engaged in the export field, a Montreal exporter by name of Mr. George Schafer. I should like to read from the brief which Mr. Schafer presented to the committee since it illustrates exactly what we are getting into. This is to be found in issue No. 40 of the proceedings of the committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
This year, after a world wide decrease in production versus demand, there is a shortage of milk powder and the E.E.C. has

May 17, 1971

abolished dairy products subsidies. Knowing that Mexico needs this year wheat as well as milk powder, we suggested that they buy both from Canada. On April 6th we informed the Canadian Dairy Commission of this.
We had solid indication that Mexico was ready to pay more than $200-higher per ton for milk powder than the February price of the C.D.C. but $12-$17 less per ton for the wheat than the cheapest available from Canada.
In other words, they were willing to pay $200 per ton more for milk powder but $12-$17 per ton less for the wheat. The brief continued:
As an independent commodities trading company we felt this called for a combination deal in such proportion that Mexico would buy both from Canada-at least ten times the quantity of wheat-for the good of the country as a whole. But the Canadian Wheat Board sells only through its own agents. The CDC proceeded to sell the milk powder below the price the Mexicans were ready to pay and without selling one ounce of wheat.
The CDC's chairman no doubt feels pleased with himself when, not through his own merit but due to advances in world prices, he obtained a higher price than last year even though this price is below that which Mexico already paid to France the week of March 29, and it does not move any grain.
A typical example of the way State Enterprise operates. At the same time it takes away the livelihood of private firms by excluding them from the actual sales.
In the end, the Dairy Commission did not negotiate and sold the milk powder at less than they might have obtained. No attempt was made to get together with the other selling agency, the Wheat Board, to work out, for instance, an arrangement under which both agencies might have received an equitable return. To continue from Mr. Schafer's submission:
If I were sitting in your place, I would move to abolish the CDC's power to transact export sales.
Government Agencies, Boards and Commissions should handle market regulation, the arrangements for shipping the merchandise, and paper work, but all sales should remain the domain of private enterprise; not the other way around. Sales must be negotiated by private firms not government officials. It does not create a healthy, vigorous, aggressive private sector if the agreements are already handed to them. This is part of the trouble with our grain sales.
This is not an isolated example. We put in years of pioneering effort to promote the sale of milk powder to the Mexican government purchasing organization, CONASUPO. In 1968 they wired us an invitation to their tender for 55 million pounds of milk powder. The Canadian Dairy Commission refused to give us a quotation, wishing to offer one themselves. The CDC refused even after we received a second telegram urging us to participate in the tender. The CDC did not get the business for Canada-it went to the U.S.A. The CDC ended up selling the surplus milk powder at almost half the price we had indicated to them we could reach in Mexico.
Again, the CDC sold the product at half the price the Mexicans had indicated they were willing to pay.
The following year, when we were finally able to participate in the tender, we secured the business for Canada.
Do you think this State Enterprise was able to tell us what merchandise in its inventories met the buyers' requirements? No, gentlemen. We had to employ surveyors to go to more than ten different warehouses and open sample bags from many lots to find the types the buyers wanted at considerable unnecessary expense. Can you imagine a private firm going after a contract from one of the world's largest buyers not knowing where in its inventory is the merchandise that the buyer wants?
So, in one year the CDC would not permit a private firm to handle the contract, and in the next, when the 24107-2H
Canadian Wheat Board Act
private firm finally secured this business, the CDC did not even know where to find the particular types of product the Mexicans had requested. This is a typical example of what is going on in connection with the sales of our farm products abroad. There is no denying the facts I have put on record. The minister can check the details with the firm of George R. Schafer in Montreal and corroborate their accuracy. He can ascertain for himself the inefficiency of our state enterprises in this field, particularly of our international sales agencies. No attempt is made to co-ordinate sales policies.
a (4:20 p.m.)
For this reason, I say we should be extremely cautious before bringing three more grains within the ambit of the Wheat Board. At least we should not do so until the Board has mastered the selling of the products currently under its jurisdiction. The government is attempting to force too many of its projects on producers at the present time. Bill C-176 is an example. As we went across the country hearing evidence from organizations and individuals concerned, it was difficult to find out who had actually requested this type of legislation. To be sure, there were some people who wanted it. People engaged in the poultry industry, for example, felt strongly about it. Perhaps they could and should have had the legislation had the government seen fit to exclude from the ambit of the act those who wish to be excluded. We should not try to force producers into a situation with which they totally disagree.
It seems to me that if these grains are brought under the control of the Wheat Board, the government would be getting into agriculture more and more. We have had ample evidence given during the stabilization bill debate last week that, unfortunately, the government is becoming more and more involved in the regulation of agriculture and less and less involved in financial support. In other words, the government wants to control agriculture even further but is withdrawing its financial support.
I suggest the minister cannot deny that when the stabilization program does go into effect, with the withdrawal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, PFAA and other measures, and with the government's non-support of deficits in grain pool accounts, it is obvious, the government is withdrawing its financial support and increasing its regulatory control. If this course is pursued, in the long run the agricultural segment of the population will, be under the thumb of the government. We shall return to a feudal system where the farmers are serfs of the state. Ample evidence that this is the situation in which people find themselves exists in many of the countries that have completely socialized their industry and agriculture. It soon becomes evident to these countries that workers do not work for the state in the same way that they work for themselves. A prime example of this fact can be found in Russia where Russian peasants produced more per acre from their own garden than they did on the great communal farms. As a result, I suggest we should be very cautious in allowing the government to dominate agriculture in this country.

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, since the changes in this legislation are largely designed to reflect in the Canadian Wheat Board Act principles and changes that have already been brought forward in other legislation that has come before the House both in this session and in the previous session, I do not feel particularly moved to go over all the changes in great detail. Their substance has been debated at considerable length on other occasions.
When I mention that this is largely a housekeeping bill, I do so not in criticism of it but simply to explain why my remarks will be largely restricted to one topic. Before I get to that topic, may I mention in passing my approval of the provisions of this bill that allow for extension of the crop year under certain circumstances. I think this provision will meet with the universal approbation of the farming community.
What I do want to spend some time on are the provisions permitting the marketing under the Canadian Wheat Board Act of flax, rye and rapeseed. I am a little disturbed that, after three years in office, the government has not yet discovered a way to determine the will, in this area, of the farming community. I think it is necessary that we end speculation in the matter of pricing farm products if we are to bring any stability to the incomes of Canadian farmers. The bringing of flax, rye and rapeseed within the regulations of the Wheat Board will do this, in effect, for three very important commodities.
The legislation before the House, as the minister pointed out in his remarks, is only enabling legislation. He has left the House somewhat in doubt whether it will ever be employed and, if so, under what circumstances. The minister suggested to the House that there is no information yet available to him, and to the people who will be affected, to enable him to make a rational decision regarding bringing these grains within the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The three major pools, the National Farmers Union and the Federation of Agriculture have for some time been expressing their opinion that each of these grains should be marketed through the Wheat Board. This is a very substantial indication of opinion within the farming community. Indeed, short of a plebiscite I fail to see how the minister could expect to obtain a much more definitive indication of the will of the farming community.
I hope that when he brings this debate to a close the minister will give the House some more precise indication of the tactic that he intends to employ to determine the will of the people who produce these commodities, since the minister did indicate that he wanted such information before he finally decided whether to employ the power to market flax, rye and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
If it is the intention of the minister, through this legislation, solely and simply to have a club to wave to overcome some of the major problems associated with the current system of marketing flax, rye and rapeseed, then he is not engaging in a particularly good legislative practice. Legislation is intended to be used. If we do not

intend to use it, other means are available to us to influence groups we want to influence. Simply putting legislation on the books to use as a weapon to ensure good behaviour is not a practice I should like to see followed in Canada.
We should like the minister to give the House an indication how he intends to obtain the opinions of the farming community as to the value of proclaiming this particular part of the bill; what procedures he intends to use to obtain either consent or denial; when he intends to attempt to obtain this consent or denial; and when we can expect a final statement from him indicating one way or the other whether he is going to use these provisions. It is very important that we obtain this information from the minister before the bill goes to committee so that commodity groups coming before the committee have some idea what they are talking about. As I say, I do not like the idea of leaving this whole section of the bill in limbo so that nobody knows just what is going to be done with it. Judging from his remarks this afternoon not even the minister knows. This kind of ambiguous situation should be ended as soon as possible, and I hope the minister will give us a clear indication of his intentions when he concludes this debate.
I think I need say nothing more than that, Mr. Speaker. We in this party have advocated for some years the inclusion of flax, rye and rapeseed within the regulations and that these be marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. We hope that the minister's final decision will be to use these provisions which he has placed in the bill. We hope that this decision will be reached after consultation with the commodity groups concerned before the beginning of this crop year. I should like some assurance from the minister that he is moving rapidly in this direction and that he can expect to receive the information which he considers necessary for that decision before the beginning of this crop year.


Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, I should like to say at the outset that until a few weeks ago I could have supported the general terms of these amendments proposed by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. That was before these amendments included flax, rye and rapeseed. I cannot in any way, shape or form support this kind of an inclusion. By bringing flax, rye and especially rapeseed, under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, the government and the minister are completely disregarding the wants, the needs and the feelings of the majority of producers and others engaged in this segment of our agricultural industry.
I should like to say that over the past few years, with the exception of some years of crop failures in other parts of the world, the Wheat Board's handling of the grain industry has been incredibly inefficient. For the most part, attempts to sell our grain on the international market have not been aggressive enough. We have not been selling grain in world markets and the Wheat Board
May 17, 1971

has not been looking for new markets we should have found years ago.
In the last two or three years, Canada has lost a great many markets and customers because of the lack of aggressiveness on the part of the Wheat Board to seek markets for the Canadian grain produced in western Canada. A constant supply of a quality product is what the market demands, and it has been seen that if we cannot supply this product other countries will do so. As a result the farmers in western Canada have taken home less in their pockets.
The government must also realize that farmers have a right to a reasonable margin of profit if they are to share in the national wealth. With the surplus of wheat and incentives last year not to grow grain, I find it difficult to comprehend why buyers would be turned away because of a lack of supply. This has happened at a time when the prairie economy is in need of every possible dollar from sales to bolster the sagging incomes of grain producers.
It has been said that the prairie region continues to be like a sack of grain tied at both ends, one end at Thunder Bay and the other at Vancouver. The strings are in the hands of the people who regulate the supply, while the grower usually pays the bill. We cannot continue to leave the producers' lifelines in someone else's hands. I, for one, am an advocate of less government control in this segment of agriculture, and less intervention by the government in the affairs of western producers. I see this as a necessity before we will really become efficient and able to compete in the marketplace with other countries of the world. Unfortunately, this government sees fit to move the other way. Through revisions to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, although in part they are good, the Canadian Wheat Board is becoming more of an extension of the arm of the government or of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.
In the matter of the Canadian Wheat Board and grain policy, I believe if we are going to become more progressive and a more constant supplier to our export sources we must start thinking in terms of enlarging the storage capacities of the terminals in our export ports, and also possibly in ports such as Rotterdam and in Asia. This is something the government must begin to consider. The fact that we are proposing to hold down our grain stocks is in part, commendable. I believe this will enable a greater throughput through the so-called grain pipeline. On the other hand, if strikes are called, and we have to be realistic and assume that they will occur, we will be caught as we were a few months ago with an inadequate supply of grain to meet our export commitment. Once we cannot fulfil our commitments we will lose markets and they are very hard to recover. As soon as we lose them some other country picks them up.
New terminals have been criticized by some people as being too costly. They may well be expensive but the question we should ask ourselves is, how much would it cost not to build new terminals? Perhaps we did not need the Lift program as badly as we needed an improved marketing system. In the 1960's we learned how to produce, and in the late 1960's our traditional markets
Canadian Wheat Board Act
became saturated. In the 1970's we found more new markets and now, at times, ships sit in the harbours because we cannot move our product to the marketplace. As I see the situation right now, one of the greatest problems facing the grain industry today results from the lack of a fully integrated system to convey grain from the field to the boat.
One of the most welcomed developments to come along in recent years was the inclusion in this legislation of the protein grading system. It is true that Canada was late in implementing such a system. It has been long overdue, and I think it will be generally welcomed by agricultural producers and people in the grain trade across western Canada. Countries no longer buy grain on straight grades, but because of new refined processes in milling, such as a Chorlywood process, countries now buying our grain must know and want to know the protein content of that grain in order to mix it with other substances to make acceptable loaves of bread in other countries, particularly the developing countries. The importance of guaranteed protein content to be included in wheat grading under the new Wheat Board Act regulations becomes very obvious in light of bread and milling developments throughout the world.
In the latest copy of the Free Press Weekly dated May 15, 1971, there appeared a short article regarding Germany's wheat need. It states that a guaranteed protein content of not less than 13 per cent is required. To sell them wheat with a lower content is an impossibility. They are not interested in it at any price because they must support the price of their local wheat. Apparently the local wheat is used to mix with our grain. The lower the prote'n the more the need for the mix, so they want northern spring wheat of a high protein type. That is the kind of wheat we produce in western Canada. The importance of protein grading being included in a wheat grading system cannot be underestimated. The wheat that is used will have to be of a guaranteed protein quality or these countries will not buy from us. A case in point is that article regarding the requirements of Germany.
The revision of the quota system does have some merit for the over-all movement of grain. It does enable the proper kinds of grain to be hauled at various times under a non-cumulative quota and then moved out to export positions as the Wheat Board sees fit. This will get us away from the disastrous plug-ups we have had in our grain handling system at various times in the past few years. I believe in 1960 and again in 1969, we had a glut of grain in the so-called grain pipeline.
The non-cumulative quota will, on the other hand, be more difficult for the producer. The producer could very conceivably, through no fault of his own, be locked out of a certain quota system for grain. We could take the example of an area such as the Red River Valley of Manitoba. Because of a late fall, and this area quite often has a late fall because of wet weather, if there were a quota for barley in August the producers would lose their quotas as a result of being unable to harvest their crops. This is also going to be unsatisfactory for producers who

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
have to go to granaries and haul a one or two-bushel quota in the middle of winter instead of waiting until a satisfactory quota is obtained, making it worthwhile opening the granaries and going to the work and expense of hauling that grain.
At this stage in the debate I wish to say that I am in general agreement with the revision of the quota system and also protein grading, although I believe this locks the producer into a segment of his industry. I also believe, as I mentioned before, that this would make the Wheat Board more an arm of government rather than an agency for the producers as it should be. In dealing with this kind of legislation, I believe we must weigh the merits of what would happen to producers under these changes against the need to streamline our grain handling and gra n exporting system.
Then, we come to the amendment which has been included in the past few weeks by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to which I am totally opposed. I refer to the inclusion of flaxseed, rye and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe the legislation provides for the extension of the Wheat Board marketing system in respect of flax, rye and rapeseed without the usual safeguards, including the benefit of public debate and decision making, especially by the producer segment of the agr; cultural industry which will be most directly affected.
In his opening remarks this afternoon, the minister mentioned he would not apply such legislation unless it should be needed. The minister may have very good intentions in this regard, but I suggest that another minister responsible for the Wheat Board or another government might feel differently, and since the legislation would be on the books it could be used at any particular time. If we are to consider such legislation, I believe some form of a producer plebiscite should be contemplated before the matter goes to the committee so that we might know whether or not the producers really want this form of legislation. If this were done afterward, it might be too late because possibly the damage would be done. The min!ster responsible for the Wheat Board has never really clarified his own position on the subject. I hope that sometime during this debate he will tell the Canadian people, the Canadian grain producers and rapeseed producers just where he stands on this subject. He said this is to be enabling legislation that would not necessarily be used. Then, he turned around and said to the rape-seed producers or rapeseed associations that the marketing of rapeseed is generally in good hands and that he sees no need for change. If this is the case, I would ask the minister why this provision was ever included in the legislation.
The main fault I find with the inclusion of rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board is the fact that rape-seed will not be marketed through the futures market by our grain exchanges. Mr. J. J. Danfield, the Executive Vice President of the Canadian Rapeseed Processors, who
is also President of the Canadian Rapeseed Association,
said:
It is absolutely imperative that the futures market trading be continued to permit our company to continue operations allowing processing and marketing of oil and meal products both for domestic consumption and export.
He also said that if rapeseed is included under the Canadian Wheat Board, they will have to cancel negotiations in respect of a 30,000 ton export of rapeseed meal. I believe the placing of rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board would mean the kiss of death for a crop which could be and has been very beneficial to western Canadian farmers. From my talks with various people in the Canadian rapeseed industry there would seem to be a strong feeling that the motive behind the minister's amendment is to try to recoup some of the heavy deficit incurred by the board in its operations in respect of the wheat, oats and barley pool. In other words, the rapeseed growers who have been selling at a profit would be charged with the losses in respect of other crops by being included in this legislation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question.


Jack Burnett Murta: Certainly.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that under the existing legislation the grains are kept separate so that his suggestion would not be applicable in any case.


Jack Burnett Murta: Well, from talking to various people in the trade my understanding is that if this provision, were enacted there is a strong possibility that could be the result. On the other side of the coin is the fact that the importers of rapeseed, rapeseed oil and meal around the world repeatedly have warned that they would not be interested in Canadian rapeseed unless grain exchange facilities are available to enable them to hedge their purchases. I believe that if rapeseed were brought under the Canadian Wheat Board, this possibility would be denied to the importers in other countries. It is interesting to note that a leading British importer of oilseeds, and a leading authority on marketing, estimated that in the next ten years Canada could probably build an export market for 500 million bushels of rapeseed. That is as much rapeseed as the total amount of wheat we have exported this year. The potential of this crop is terrific. He also warned that this could be accomplished only under an open market with grain exchange facilities.
I believe that before the minister's amendment concerning rapeseed, flax and rye is passed he should explain to the rapeseed growers in Canada why he thinks the board would be better able to market their crop. With an open market, the grower can elect to sell his rapeseed crop for cash to an elevator company or to seed crushers without incurring storage charges or paying indirectly the interest charges that the Wheat Board would have to incur in buying his crop. He can also load a car of rapeseed, ship it to a terminal and sell it on track for the

May 17, 1971

going cash price of the day. These options which will be closed to the producer if the crop is placed under the board. He will have to assume the cost of storage, interest on borrowing, demurrage charges, charges in respect of the operation of the Wheat Board and so on. In addition, the board does not have any merchandising facilities or the personnel to move a sophisticated crop like rapeseed.
It has been mentioned previously this afternoon that the Wheat Board is heavily bogged down with regard to selling the grains for which it is now responsible. I believe we would be making another mistake by bringing rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under a Wheat Board that is already loaded with responsibility. No one really needs Canad an rapeseed. Edible oil and meal producers in Canada supply only a minute part of the world's needs. Other oils could easily fill the gap. Only through tough bargaining, good promotion, knowledgeable merchandising and open markets can we maintain and expand Canada's position in the oil seed market. The mere threat of having this crop controlled by the Wheat Board has created uncertainty in our export markets. Total inclusion would leave the crop stranded in elevator storage and there would be a further deficit to be borne by the federal treasury.
As I mentioned before, I wonder why this legislation has been introduced. If it was introduced in order to sound out public concern on the issue, then it was certainly successful. I believe, however, that the same reaction could have been brought about by a lot less drastic method. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board, in effect, has asked that Parliament pass the amendment and has given the assurance that the question-and I quote-"has been under study and consideration, both by farm organizations and by a group under my direction for some time, but certainly there is no imminent inclusion in this regard." Then, he added the surprising afterthought that the rapeseed market has, in fact, been working rather well in its existing shape. Since Canada's rye crop is comparatively small and unimportant, and since flaxseed appears to have caused little concern under the present marketing system, it must be presumed that the whole issue revolves around rapeseed which has been of increasing interest to prairie farmers over the past few years. It promises to be an even more important crop in the future. When you consider the results that would flow from the possible sale of 500 million bushels of rapeseed, you can certainly see that this is well borne out.
One thing which I would like to stress at this point is that there is a wide spectrum of opinions on the whole matter of extending board controls. Since this is the case, it would appear to be a dangerous move to approve the amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act as it now stands. Since there is such a valid controversy over the extension of the powers of the Wheat Board, I suggest to the minister that he withdraw this amendment until such time as a plebiscite of rapeseed producers is held to find out whether they want to have their grain included under the Wheat Board. If this is the case, then the idea
Canadian Wheat Board Act
of including this legislation under the Wheat Board is a valid and practical solution.
I would, once again, like to stress the importance of the futures market in the distribution of rapeseed. This is of great importance when we talk about the inclusion of the three crops under the Wheat Board. I would like to quote from a letter from James Richardson and Sons Limited, one of the foremost exporting firms in Canada. It reads:
. . . that the futures market has been one of the most important factors in the development and fantastic growth of our rape-seed production. Until trading in rapeseed futures was instituted, many years ago the producer had little or no knowledge of what the crop was worth. In the last several years of progressively greater production the producer has been able to market his crop at generally very good prices providing him with much needed cash when other grains were depressed and generally in a mess. To the best of our knowledge, the Rapeseed Association of Canada, all the provincial and rapeseed associations representing producers, and all crushers in western Canada are against the Wheat Board taking over the marketing of this increasingly acceptable oilseed; in addition, Japanese exporters and crushers -our most important market-are emphatically opposed and while we are sure that these facts are known to Mr. Lang, why he should include it in the amendment is beyond our comprehension.
In summing up I should like to say that some changes to the Wheat Board Act are acceptable. I am thinking now in terms of protein grading and, to a lesser extent, the noncumulative quota that is also being introduced by the minister. But I think, in light of the fact that the government's intention is to introduce legislation to put rapeseed, flax and rye under the Wheat Board, we should either buy the whole package or none at all. I will not be able to support this kind of legislation. I hope the minister will see fit to withdraw the latter part of the legislation and possibly let us deal with it at some future time when we are sure what the industry really needs.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: In view of the fact that we are very close to five o'clock, I wonder if it might be agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, that we call it five o'clock and continue afterwards.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the wish of the House that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Norman Thompson: I really do not mind speaking two times on this bill. In fact, it gives me a second opportunity to catch my wind because I think this bill is not only one of the most unnecessary pieces of legislation as it relates to the growers of what we classify as edible oil seeds, but it is one which has caused great concern to the western farmer. Furthermore, I regard this legislation as potentially dangerous to the growing segment of the agricultural industry producing edible oil seeds, particularly in the west. I must express my protest against this type of bill, although the part of the bill which relates to routine amendments to the Wheat Board Act is acceptable. I would go along with the previous speaker in supporting those parts of the bill.
However, that part of the bill which would place rape-seed, flax and rye under the Wheat Board auspices is completely undesirable. I fail to understand why the

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
minister responsible for this piece of legislation should have introduced the related amendments which are before the House now. It is interesting to note that since this bill was introduced, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board has clearly said that the present marketing systems for these grains are not to be included under the Wheat Board now. To quote him specifically, he said:
... if it should be deemed desirable at a future date.
This is what he said outside the House in answer to the questioning of the press. I fail to understand why he has been motivated to include these amendments if he does not consider it necessary at this time to include these grains under the Wheat Board. It has been indicated that a number of farm organizations have been asking for legislation which would bring these particular grains under the Wheat Board, but I fail to hear this kind of request from the producers themselves. In fact, the other day the president of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association said something far different from what the minister said to justify his action. He said on April 25, in Regina:
The Board's sales record in the last decade has not been good in a competitive world market. It's been a record of lost and declining sales in an increasing market-a history of costly storage and interest charges and unsold wheat amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, while the Americans forged ahead in record breaking exports of wheat and in farm income.
Surely these facts are sufficient to question the Board's ability as a sales agency.
On the positive side, he said:
All efforts should be concentrated-
Referring to the government.
[DOT]-on incorporating proper incentives and business management into the board to save the fast-drowning wheat industry, rather than attempt to pull the buoyant oilseed industry down with the drowning wheat.
The statement that farm organizations want flax and rape on the CWB does not necessarily reflect the desires of flax and rapeseed growers. Some of those in favour are obviously elevator companies who speak for the syndicate at the top and not for the average producer.
I can only agree, Mr. Speaker. May I call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Public Service-Clyne Committee recommendation for withdrawal of right to bargain collectively from certain employees; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Manpower-Measures to assist science and engineering graduates to obtain appropriate employment-Stimulation of research and development; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Grain- Wheat-Addition of unused portion of Lift program funds to transitional payments.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the expediency of entering into discussion with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec on the terms under which a National Capital Region Transit Authority could be created and incorporated by federal charter bearing in mind (a) the inadequacy of public transportation facilities in the National Capital Region (b) the restriction by charter of transit services, both publicly and privately owned, to municipal boundaries (c) the need for long-term planning of an integrated system of rail rapid transit, bus and other means of urban transit (d) the crises developed by the unfair competition provided by public subsidies on behalf of private vehicles (e) the contribution by an efficient, low-cost public transportation system to the balanced economic and social development of the whole National Capital Region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say will be brief. The last time this motion was presented there was an excellent debate in the House which can be found in the Hansard report of March 6, 1970, pages 4494 to 4504. At that point I indicated the reasons for the motion, what I hoped could be achieved, and argued that within the area which we hope will be designated, by an amendment to Article 16 of the Constitution of Canada, as the National Capital Region to include part of the province of Quebec and part of the province of Ontario, we could use the authority of the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and of the municipalities affected, to develop a rational pattern of public transportation for a growing and important metropolitan area.
There have been a few developments since that time which I will just briefly set on the record. One is the announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) that Ottawa and Montreal are to be chosen as the first places in Canada for experimentation with the short take off and landing, the STOL, type of aircraft. This is a product in which Canada hopes to specialize, and which we hope we will develop for a world market. We hope there will be a demonstration between Ottawa and Montreal of the practical feasibility of this type of transportation between two large urban communities. Of course, if we can solve the problem of moving people between communities it is all the more important that we come to some rational means of solving the problem of the movement of people within a metropolitan area.
The second development to which I call attention is the decision of the government of Canada to create a more

May 17, 1971

important presence in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the city of Hull.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my colleague from Hull (Mr. Isabelle) is not here at this time, because the last time we discussed the problems of urban transit, he made a very interesting speech.

I am very pleased, however, to note the development, and I am sure all hon. members-


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like the hon. member for Ottawa West to explain why the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) is not present in the House, that the public might not get the impression the member for Hull is no longer interested in this matter. Would my hon. colleague therefore tell us why our colleague from Hull is not here right now?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I particularly noted that what our colleague from Hull had said then was most interesting. At this time, he is representing Canada to the World Health Organization in Geneva, but I had no intention of leaving the impression that he did not have a good reason to be absent. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that he has been interested in that matter for a long time.

The third reason I think we have to consider this matter is our increasing concern with pollution. It is absolutely imperative that in one of the larger cities of North America a lead be given to finding other means of bringing large numbers of people to the central work area than by the private automobile. The private automobile clearly is an inefficient and costly means of moving people. But in addition to that, it contributes through the oxides which go into the air compounds which come from lead fuels, all of it very toxic material which creates very serious problems of pollution. It is clear that the answer to this has to be found in other means of transportation. A great deal of research has to be done. I note that my colleagues who spoke on the previous occasion mentioned the work of the Canadian Transport Commission and the interest that the chairman of that commission is showing in conducting research in this area.
With these three brief comments on the development of the STOL aircraft program, the increased federal presence across the river creating even greater hazards of movement between the two cities, and our increasing concern about air pollution in this region, I think the motion I have the honour of presenting to the House, and which was debated in March, 1970, is even more important today than it was then. I hope hon. members will be able to support it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has mentioned the STOL
National Capital Region
aircraft, I want to take the opportunity of putting on the record a question that for the last couple of days I have been wishing to ask of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). I do not expect an answer now. I just want the minister to see the question so that he will know it is coming one of these days when he is in the House.
I want to know if there was full research done by the Department of Transport in connection with this whole STOL operation. I would like to know what percentage of the population will benefit from it, what percentage of the population will be the potential users of this projected service between Ottawa and Montreal. I also want to know if there are good results from it will it bring about reduced fares for other members of the travelling public, those who use the conventional airplanes.
As a final question, I am just wondering if the minister can project the future for service between Toronto and Montreal. Will there be similar services provided in Toronto and Montreal? These are my only comments with respect to this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, from the brevity of the speeches thus far, I get the impression that there may be a disposition to let this motion come to a vote. I hope that is the case. I also hope that if this does take place it will be a pattern to be followed on other occasions.
I would like to indicate my general support for what the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is asking through this motion. Even though his remarks were brief, I think he made a good case. This is the national capital. I think it is inportant that we solve the problems of transportation and pollution in this area, otherwise what ought to be one of the finest and most beautiful urban areas in Canada could be spoiled. Let us keep it a place of which we can be proud as a nation from coast to coast. We will not do that if we let problems such as congestion, a confusion of transportation and pollution overtake us. For the sake of this area itself, therefore, as the capital of Canada I think that this kind of problem should be given the serious consideration suggested by the hon. member in his motion.
I want also to support the argument that he used to the effect that this is a problem confronting all our cities. We must start somewhere and I think there is no better place than right here. If we can find solutions to these problems in this urban area, then perchance we can apply some of those solutions to the same problems in other urban areas in Canada.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this motion before us. I commend him for the brevity of his remarks. We are all following suit and I hope this means that the motion will be passed and that the request contained therein will be placed on the desk of the government.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise again this year to support this motion of my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). I entirely agree with the remarks of

May 17, 1971
National Capital Region
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we should not kill this motion by praising it too much or too long.
Since the motion was presented last year, the problem of urban transportation in this area has worsened. The public concern and awareness of this problem has grown and developed. I thought it might be of interest to the House to know that one survey has been conducted in Nepean township, which I represent, which lies to the south and west of Ottawa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A very important area.


Duncan Gordon Blair: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passing of the measure should the majority of members so desire. I intend to make a few comments only.
The hon. member who proposed this motion is no doubt aware of the fact that Quebec provincial authorities have appointed a Commission last fall to inquire into the public transportation problem in the Outaouais regional community. I hope that the federal government will decide to consult Quebec and Ontario authorises on the studies which have been completed or which are underway. If I am not mistaken, a study of public transportation on the Quebec side of the Ottawa Biver had already been conducted by the Dorion Commission.
There is no doubt in my mind that a reform of the public transportation scheme in the National Capital area is required. Hon. members know that the National Capital area does not include only the municipalities on the Ontario side but also those on the Quebec side; it also includes part of the constituency which I have the pleasure to represent in the House. Should the federal government decide to finance out of public funds a survey of public transportation in the National Capital area, I am sure that work already performed will be taken into consideration.
As far as I am concerned, I do not see why I should not support the motion from my hon. colleague from Ottawa West.

May 17, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we not move to something else, carry it, and do a really good day's work? Could we not take Motion No. 13 on page 27 of the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Do hon. members agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I have not much to say. I have been taken by surprise. Having listened to a debate on transportation, I am still of the same opinion as I was the other day. If you want to enjoy life and satisfactory transportation, go on foot.
At 5.25 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-238, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if the minister responsible for the Wheat Board really meant it when he said that rapeseed, flaxseed and rye would only be brought under the jurisdiction of the Board when it was deemed desirable at some future date, why he would not have omitted this provision from the bill altogether. By making the statement he did, he admitted it was not advisable at this time, unless of course he was trying to placate those who are opposing this part of the bill. It disturbs me that this approach should be taken, seeking authority for the government in
24107-22^
Canadian Wheat Board Act
its own time to implement what this bill would allow without even consulting the producers of these grains on whether they wished such a course to be followed.
There are aspects of the bill one can readily support. The legislation takes account of changes in government policies which have already been put into effect. It updates the whole procedure of grading grain, linking grades with protein content, and it provides for different qualities of grain within specific grades and for varying rates of payment. However, since amendments of this type are coupled with the much more doubtful proposal to which I referred earlier, we find ourselves in a very difficult position. We are, in effect, being asked to support propositions which we agree are reasonable at the same time as we are asked to support other policies with which we cannot agree. It is this omnibus approach to legislation on completely different aspects of particular subject matters that makes it very difficult for us to support what is of a positive nature and at the same time constructively to oppose that with which we cannot agree.
If rye, rapeseed and flaxseed compared in any way to the wheat situation, I think the minister would have some justification for bringing in this legislation. But these three grains are in an entirely different category. When we talk about flaxseed and rapeseed we are talking about products of the edible oils industry. From these grains most edible oils are obtained, at least as far as Canadian agricultural production is concerned.
Even though our export sales of wheat in world markets have declined in recent years, Canada still retains a substantial portion of the world wheat export market, perhaps as much as 20 per cent of that market this year. The situation is entirely different for edible oils; we have only a very small fraction of the world market. In fact, total production of edible oil seeds in Canada represents only 1.8 per cent of world markets. Approximately half of the edible oil seeds produced in Canada are consumed in the home market, and thus rapeseed and flaxseed represent only 0.8 per cent of world exports. In other words, we have only a minute fraction of the total world market for edible oils.
We have learned from our most substantial market, Japan, that the Japanese are not interested in dealing with a government agency like the Wheat Board with regard to rapeseed exports. They have found it necessary as purchasers of Canadian edible oil seeds to ask for the same facilities as the grain exchange offers, and this they will not have if these grains are brought under the control of the Wheat Board. We are told in no uncertain terms by some of the major export consumers of Canadian edible oil that if they have to contend with the type of marketing that would of necessity be that which the Wheat Board uses when it sells wheat, they will go elsewhere for their supply of edible oil seeds.
I should like to ask who is kidding whom. It seems to me that if the government really wanted to help this part of the agricultural industry, it would seek ways and


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last we were treated to an exchange in the House of Commons between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the opposition about getting work done and the important bills that are not being passed. I suggest to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that this is a bill one part of which at least could well have been left in abeyance. I refer to the part concerning rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. This provision is not necessary and should not be passed until much more consultation is carried out with the trade, the farmers and the overseas buyers. This policy has created a great deal of confusion, particularly in the rapeseed market and forward sales up to November have dropped drastically. Until the situation is made clear exporters are reluctant to put themselves in a risk

May 17, 1971

position: they do not know what will happen to rapeseed or what the situation will be this fall.
This is the only part of the bill that is controversial, and it could well have been left in abeyance. Had that been done, we might have passed this small bill without too much trouble. With regard to the announcement of the possibility of putting rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board I refer to James Richardson and Sons' Grain Letter No. 10 dated April 22, 1971. It reads in part:
-a bombshell hit the trade this week when the federal min-itser responsible for the Wheat Board the honourable Otto Lang announced in the House of Commons that he would introduce an amendment to the Wheat Board Act which would give the board jurisdiction over the sale of flaxseed, rye and rapeseed. Later on, the minister assured the grains industry that any consideration of changing the system of marketing rapeseed would be subject to thorough discussion with all parties concerned before any action was taken, and that the government at this time has made no decision to change the present marketing system. This, in our opinion, is far from reassuring and of little consolation to the industry as, once this amendment is passed and on the statute books, either this government, or any succeeding government, can implement it when and if they choose by Order in Council and without reference to Parliament. If Mr. Lang had considered the damage this publicity has already caused our image in the international markets for oilseeds, he would have consulted the industry before introducing this measure.
Speaking specifically of rapeseed, we believe-and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange have issued a press release to this effect- that the futures market has been one of the most important factors in the development and fantastic growth of our rapeseed production. Until trading in rapeseed futures was instituted, many years ago the producer had little or no knowledge of what the crop was worth. In the last several years of progressively greater production the producer has been able to market his crop at generally very good prices providing him with much needed cash when other grains were depressed and generally in a mess. To the best of our knowledge, the Rapeseed Association of Canada, all the provincial rapeseed associations representing producers, and all crushers in western Canada are against the Wheat Board taking over the marketing of this increasingly acceptable oilseed; in addition, Japanese exporters and crushers-our most important market-are emphatically opposed and while we are sure that these facts are known to Mr. Lang, why he should include it in the amendment is beyond our comprehension.
The same story may well apply to flaxseed which has been marketed through the open market for as long as this writer can remember except for a brief period after the Second World War when the Wheat Board took it over with dubious results. In all these years the crop has been marketed very efficiently through the open market, with cash returns to farmers generally very satisfactory, subject to the supply and demand picture as all markets ultimately are. The rye crop is a small one and unimportant in the over-all picture with much of it disappearing on the farms and we are sure that nothing would be gained by putting this crop under the control of the Wheat Board.
The reaction to the announcement to bring rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under the Wheat Board at this time has not been good and it prompted the minister to issue a press release dated May 11, 1971, which reads in part as follows:
"Because cash advances will not be available on rapeseed, flaxseed and rye in the near future, the government does not plan any action to bring the marketing of these grains under control of the Canadian Wheat Board at this time," the honourable Otto Lang, minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, said today.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
If the minister did not intend to bring these under the Wheat Board at this time, what was his purpose in introducing this disconcerting amendment which has caused such consternation in all quarters? The minister's press release continued, in the last paragraph:
"But I repeat the government has no immediate plan to change the marketing system for these grains. And I assure producers that before any such change is contemplated there will be thorough discussions with everyone involved," Mr. Lang said.
Perhaps we should look at what the Wheat Board has been able to do in the past few months, keeping in mind what might happen if this amendment is passed and eventually put into effect. There have been predictions by the minister that there will be record grain sales this year amounting to 700 million bushels, of which he has estimated 500 million bushels could be wheat. This seems to be a little optimistic. The grain export figure to April 24 was estimated at 423 million bushels, or an average of 12 million bushels per week. With 16 weeks to go in the crop year, based on the average to date our grain exports would total around 600 million bushels of which approximately 400 million bushels would be wheat. At the end of the 1970-71 crop year there would still be an estimated 750 million bushels in storage.
We had a very late shipping season on the Great Lakes. An estimated 25 million bushels to 30 million bushels less than what would normally have been shipped have been bandied about.


Otto Emil Lang: It is going to be a record.


William Gordon Ritchie: May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
between grains, particularly rapeseed and wheat. There has been a prolonged dry season in Oklahoma and Texas. This might mean an increase in wheat sales. The United States, however, has been selling as much as 100 million bushels of wheat to Japan, compared with 30 million bushels sold by Canada and less than 30 million bushels sold by Australia, which by many is not considered to be a large contender.
Then we have the China problem. We have been selling wheat to China. Our recognition of Red China in a diplomatic way should increase our sales there, but we must remember that the United States and Peking have been warming up and it would seem quite likely that the United States, which has embarked upon a strong agricultural drive in respect of exports with a goal as high as $10 billion, could seriously intrude into this market and some of the sales to China might be taken away from us.
Then in respect of the Soviet Union we are talking about a country which has had a record crop of wheat estimated at 98 million tons, which is an increase of 600 million bushels in the past crop year. Therefore the Soviet Union, to whom we have sold wheat, will be prepared to sell wheat in western Europe, particularly in West Germany, Britain and France. It would seem unlikely that we will be selling much wheat to the Soviet Union, which was one of our main markets in the 1960s. Even the sales of flour to Cuba may not continue.
Rye, flaxseed and rapeseed should not be included in this legislation until all interested parties have been heard. So far rapeseed has been moving very well, with an estimated record crop of 62 million bushels as of August 1. Forty-seven million bushels have been delivered up to the present, which represents about 75 per cent. In respect of flaxseed 46 per cent has been delivered out of a record crop for last year. Sales this year have not been very good. In respect of rye, there was a small crop which is hardly significant.
In respect of flour milling, the report of the grain marketing review committee submitted to the Canadian Wheat Board on January 12, 1971, stresses the difficulties of the flour milling industry which has been a voice in the wilderness. The report met with a deaf ear from the federal government and the Wheat Board. The industry now feels that the board will take some action on its own committee's recommendations, which were as follows:
It is regrettable that the Canadian flour milling industry has been at a serious disadvantage in competing for foreign flour markets quite apart from subsidies granted by other exporting countries. This is the practical result of the present rigid rules governing purchases by Canadian mills for export.
Existing rules regarding wheat purchases should be amended so that flour millers would be able to obtain wheat for later flour export at the board's export prices. Millers should also be eligible for discounts, bonuses, deferred pricing, credit, or opportunities to sell In local currencies when any of these devices are being used in connection with wheat sales, and when flour sales would probably be additional. Millers should have the opportunity to take positions in the wheat markets even though no actual flour sales have been made, provided the position taken in wheat is turned into actual exportation of flour within a reasonable time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an indication that we must have action and that the Wheat Board has its hands full, without having forced on it the added problem of how to deal with rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. What about the situation in so far as marketing of rapeseed is concerned? In an article entitled "More control on prairie grains?" the Winnipeg Tribune of May 13 has this to say:
Ottawa is considering whether to remove rapeseed, flaxseed and rye from the open market to give the Canadian Wheat Board a virtual monopoly on prairie grains. The board now has control of wheat, oats and barley in the Prairies. All these grains must be marketed through the board.
It continues:
Oil seeds, however, are in a different league than the grains now controlled by the Wheat Board. It's a more complex and volatile market. Rapeseed represents only 2 per cent of the oilseed production in the world. It is In competition with many substitutes and requires quicker response to the market. It is entirely different than wheat, which has static markets.
Rapeseed oil is in competition with animal fats, marine oils, soybean oil, groundnuts and with many tropical oils such as coconut oil, and so on. In respect of sales, the record of rapeseed has been quite good. Only three years ago sales were in the neighbourhood of 17 million bushels. Last year the figure was 35 million bushels. It is estimated that this year 70 million bushels will be produced. So far this product has been moving at a very good rate and has provided much needed cash on the farms when other grains have not moved very well. It is expected that this year 40 million bushels will be exported. Much of the credit for this phenomenon, I believe, belongs to the private grain trade and the rapeseed producers themselves who have developed the market. It is not clear how the Canadian Wheat Board will sell rapeseed, whether the Winnipeg Grain Exchange futures will be continued or whether they will use other futures markets around the world, possibly the Chicago market. The rapeseed market follows the soybean market very closely and a movement in the soybean market is reflected almost simultaneously in the rapeseed market.
From the farmer's point of view, the marketing of rapeseed, rye and flaxseed under the Canadian Wheat Board has been a bone of contention. It has not been all black and white. In my experience most of the complaint seems to involve farmers being caught in the quota system because the capacity of the elevators and the transportation system to move rapeseed quickly has been reduced due to too much grain, particularly wheat, being in the system. It has happened that the quota given a producer in one area is different from that given in another area. This, however, is mainly due to the defects in the transportation system and not in the selling system to which rapeseed has been subjected.
e (8:40 p.m.)
The following possibilities seem to be open for selling rapeseed. One is to continue an open market under the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. Another is to close the market and to have the Wheat Board take over all sales. The Wheat Board would then be charged with the duty of selling rapeseed and it would have to develop its own

May 17, 1971

sales force. It seems doubtful that it could use a futures market. In any case, before anything is decided it would be Wise to know what sort of selling mechanism the Wheat Board will use to dispose of rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. There is another system which would involve pooling, whereby the Wheat Board would allow selling on the open market and would give an average price to the farmer.
This is a very important bill dealing with these three grains, but particularly with regard to rapeseed. It seems most important that farmers, especially rapeseed producers, be heard and that our exporters be heard. There is evidence that the Japanese have seriously questioned our ability to sell in this way and have indicated that they view it with considerable alarm. In any case, the action on the market in the last few weeks since the minister made his announcement has not been favourable to the trade, and unless a good system is evolved we may well lose sales and some of the advantages we have gained over the years in respect of this product.
Therefore, before this amendment becomes law-once it is implemented there will be no further opportunity for consultation with the rapeseed producers or the trade-I think it is most important that widescale hearings be held. I hope an amendment will be introduced in the committee whereby this portion of Bill C-238 will be deleted until further study is carried out and it is ascertained that the placing of these three grains under the Wheat Board will be advantageous to the producers.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, first, that I am sure many of us paid great attention to the letter from James Richardson and Sons which was read by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). When I think of James Richardson and Sons criticizing the placing of rape, flax and rye under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, I wonder whether we should not be concerned about who is going to be raped by whom in this regard.
It seems to me it is only proper that we consider the people and organizations which have expressed opinions regarding placing these grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. I would quote the most recent article in the pool broadcast of April 28 suggesting that "it has been a long-stated request by farm organizations for many years, and while the legislation itself does not mean that automatically these grains will come under the Wheat Board, it is a necessary first step to allow this to happen." It continues:
In the past we have been concerned about the marketing of these grains based only on the futures market, because this does not tend to lend stability to price or assure a continuity of supply to purchasers, and in discussions that we have had with importers of Canadian rapeseed in particular, namely the Japanese, they have requested that we bring more stability into the marketing of that grain and have urged us to adopt a system similar to that used for marketing wheat. So, I believe, that this step is a useful step in developing long-term markets for rape-seed.
It appears to me that whether or not we agree that rapeseed, flax and rye should come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, this legislation spells out a
Canadian Wheat Board Act
permissive attitude by placing these grains under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. At the same time we have to find out whether there is any orderly marketing of grains of the kind we should expect in this country.
I believe that one of the concerns with which all of us here have been confronted in the last three years deals with the auctioning of grain at various auction marts across the country. Not long ago I wrote a letter to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) asking whether he was aware that grain was being auctioned off at various auction marts across the country. I asked whether it was permissible under the Canadian Wheat Board's regulations to accept wheat or other grains as part or full payment for such items as were listed in a sales notice which I enclosed with my letter. The sales notice was from an area of western Canada which accepted grain in trade.
In reply the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated that there was nothing illegal in the acceptance within the province of origin of wheat or other grains in full or part payment of goods sold. He said that the Canadian Wheat Board Act authorizes the Canadian Wheat Board to control prices for grain delivered by the producer to country elevators. In this context, other than for grain sales from country elevators there is no provincial or federal legislation controlling grain prices for sales within a province.
At that time thousands of bushels were moving from province to province, and thousands of bushels were being sold at fire-sale prices throughout western Canada because people had to sell their grain and obtain dollars in order to survive. They were compelled to do so. However, I am sure that most hon. members realize that this cannot be considered an orderly marketing of grain. This matter should be seriously considered if we are concerned about the producer receiving a fair return for his grain. We do not want to put him in the position of having to sell his grain at less than the cost of producing it, in order to buy a loaf of bread.
Some time later another situation came to my attention regarding an advertisement which appeared in a newspaper in western Canada. It read:
Required immediately, 1,000,000 bu. No. 2 hard wheat. Will pay 17 cents cash per bu. Delivered to nearest elevator.
In reply to a question of mine in the House, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said he would appreciate my sending him a copy of the newspaper advertisement, which I did. I thought it was in order for the minister to ask for it at that time. In his reply he suggested that he had been in touch with the Wheat Board regarding the advertisement and wrote:
-they advise me that they made a full investigation immediately it appeared. They state that in so far as they are concerned there is no evidence of any illegal activities involved in this offer.
I saw the wheat being delivered into storage in reply to this advertisement and I saw the hundreds of trucks heading for the Alberta border and going into Alberta with grain at fire-sale prices-grain which was being moved from province to province. At that time many

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
questions were asked in the House about the policing that was being carried out in order to discover whether grain was being moved illegally from Saskatchewan to Alberta. The reply which we received from the government was that they had investigated the situation and found that nothing illegal was happening in regard to the movement of grain. We knew differently.
That is why we now see provision being made for the orderly marketing of this type of grain in the legislation before us. It seems to me too many statements have been made in the House condemning the Wheat Board for its failure in the field of orderly marketing. In my humble opinion the board has not been given the right to go about the orderly marketing of grain in such a way that the producers in western Canada can receive a fair return on their investment.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that I wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture just about two years ago, in May, 1969, on this subject. I believe it was on May 17 of that year and I think it will be of interest to hon. members if I quote the letter that I addressed to him. I wrote:
I have received many letters requesting the placing of feed grains, rye and flax under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I believe you will agree that this is a matter of serious concern, particularly in view of the fact that there appears to be an increase in the acreage of rye, flax and rape.
It would be appreciated if your department would give serious consideration to this developing situation, as the farmer is finding himself in a precarious position.
Thanking you for the consideration shown in the past.
Many hon. members have suggested in this debate that the sale of rapeseed and flaxseed should not necessarily be placed within the responsibility of the Wheat Board, but I point out that two years ago these grains were becoming a surplus on the market, to the extent that I wrote the government asking that it take action to bring about orderly marketing of these grains. On May 22, 1969, the Minister of Agriculture replied to my letter as follows:
I have your letter of May 21 pertaining to the placing of feed grains, rye and flax under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Fundamentally, the Canadian Wheat Board is a producers' marketing board, operating under federal legislation but overcoming the constitutional problem of jurisdiction by the enabling legislation passed by the provincial governments. The acts passed by Manitoba and Alberta cover only wheat, oats and barley. Thus it would not be possible for the Wheat Board to add the other grains to its coverage without legislative action by these provincial governments.
Even if the niceties of the legal side were satisfied, there is still the question of how much better off the producers would be if these other grains were brought under the jurisdiction of the board. There is evidence that less of each would be sold, and I understand that the board believes such might well be the case. Indeed I am sure that you have heard the increasing clamour to have even oats and barley regulations relaxed in order to move more of these grains. Marketing experts believe that while a pooling operation such as the Wheat Board's works well for a commodity like wheat, it is not suitable to Canadian oilseed crops because of their vulnerability to the competition
from other oil seed crops produced in abundance throughout the world. The cost of marketing specialty crop grains through the Wheat Board could lower the returns to the producer.
Many western farmers insist on having access to a cash crop market, and count on their sales of rye, flaxseed and rapeseed for cash income when the regulated market for wheat, oats and barley is closed to them. With all grains under the Board a situation could easily arise where producers would not be able to make any deliveries at all. You can easily guess what the result would be.
It is unfortunate that these grains have to use the same transporting, handling and sorting facilities as do the Board grains. Because this is the case the Wheat Board must regulate their movement through the system by means of delivery quotas, arbitrary stock levels, etc. This, to my mind, provides the major basis for producers in their demands that the board merchandise these grains for them. It is a problem that I would hope the Canada Grains Council will be able to tackle and solve, soon.
These are some of my thoughts on this matter. I try to review them periodically so as to not to become stuck with outmoded ideas, but so far I am not at all enamoured with this notion that rye, flaxseed and rapeseed marketing belongs in the Wheat Board orbit.


Mr. McIntosh:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) has quoted from these two letters, I wonder if he would now table them.


Mr. Speaker:: Our Standing Orders do not provide for the tabling of documents by private members.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, if there were unanimous consent I would be only too pleased to table them. In any event, hon. members can read them in Hansard tomorrow. It appears that the Minister of Agriculture has moved from the position he adopted two years ago and has not remained stuck with an outmoded idea. But it is strange that two years ago when these grains were in a surplus position he did not have great concern for the situation. I think the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has an obligation to explain this to the House in his closing statement. Perhaps he will tell us if the Minister of Agriculture was somewhat outmoded two years ago.
The fact remains that there is a feeling throughout the country that these grains should not have to come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope the minister in charge of the board realizes he must consult directly with the people involved in the marketing and producing of these grains, to see if they can make a living as entrepreneurs in the present laissez faire system surrounding the marketing of them.
I would be highly suspicious reading anything from James Richardson and Sons that would indicate they were very excited about futures so far as the three grains in question are concerned. As the hon. member for Saskatoon- Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said earlier today, it will be interesting to see at the end of the crop year how the futures market has operated in the selling of these grains and whether producers who sold in the futures market were, in effect, raped by that type of trading. As the National Farmers Union and the pools have indicated, time will provide the answer.
A year ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to tour Central and East Africa and in Lusaka met the President

May 17, 1971

of Zambia and some of his ministers, in particular his Minister of Agriculture. I asked him what he thought about the prospects for agricultural exports from Canada. It was disheartening to find out that we did not have any exchange of missions with Zambia, and we still do not have such an exchange. The Zambian Minister of Agriculture said his country would be only too pleased to do business with Canada. We are recognized in that part of the world-as a matter of fact, throughout the Commonwealth-as one of the most trustworthy partners in the Commonwealth. But, Mr. Speaker, we do nothing to improve our export of grains to those countries. There is a way to bring about a proper exchange of missions but to date we have done nothing about it.
In the Montreal Star of July 20, 1970, there was an excellent article which spelled out where we stand in relation to United States markets. In part it reads:
An example frequently used is the United States. With 20 times the population of Canada and thus many more mouths to feed, that country exported 75 per cent more wheat than Canada in 1968.
The U.S. has climbed from a pre-war period of practically no wheat exports to become the largest exporter in the world. The 1968 figures show the U.S. cornered 33.2 per cent of the world market while Canada had 19 per cent.
Wheat Board officials argue that this does not mean the Americans are better wheat salesmen. A large percentage of U.S. exports are made under aid programs and are government subsidized to varying degrees. The U.S. grain trade is also allowed to buy on the domestic market on an almost daily basis.
Further on it reads:
The board says its reason for using exporting firms in the sale of wheat is because the firms are well established in the business and have contacts throughout the world. The private traders also have control of some shipping and because they are competitive the cost per bushel is small.
I think this is a clear indication that Canada has fallen down on concessional sales. In the publication "North American Agr.culture in the New World," put out by the Canadian American committee in March, 1970, it is spelled out that Canada lost world markets by not entering into concessional sales. The United States immediately moved into concessional sales and, of course, commercial sales followed. This is a complete break from the type of salesmanship that the Canadian Wheat Board could have entered into if the government had allowed more concessional sales. It would follow that we could have picked up more commercial sales, but we did not.
About a year ago Canada finally moved into more concessional sales, but only time will tell whether we can pick up lost ground. In the meantime the agricultural producer of this country suffered tremendously both socially and economically through having a government that was not concerned about allowing concessional sales along the fines of those the U.S. government made at that time. In fact, it appears that at that time the United States had a 2 per cent interest. All they wanted was the concessional sale with the commercial sale. History will show that this is what happened regarding Canada's loss of sales.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
If this country goes into long-term credit, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will be able to regain markets, but we will not regain them in the agricultural economy unless we go into that type of salesmanship as other countries have done. We know that we could establish a line of credit with a number of countries. We know that many countries would do business with Canada if they could do so in their present economic situation. Unfortunately, it appears that we can think of many other areas that do not concern the basic industry of Canada where we can grant large concessions, whereas agricultural concessions to these countries could be of the utmost importance.
We should look at some of the local problems, Mr. Speaker, and if you will permit I shall become very very parochial. Today I received a letter about a simple situation. The elevator men at this location were concerned because they could not receive the market quotations broadcast which was available to others. Apparently because of their location there was a problem of fade-out. I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to look at this market quotations service which is supplied throughout the western provinces and to make sure that it is available on all networks. We have had complaints about people in various departments getting "hung up" on radio and television broadcasting and ignoring newspaper advertising when it comes to letting the people of the country know what is going on. It is necessary that the broadcasting of market quotations be made available to elevator people so that they may know exactly what is going on.
Another area that requires attention is in connection with deferred delivery and over-delivery. Not long ago we asked the minister and the government to institute deferred delivery of grain based on the previous crop year's prices. I hope that the legislation before us will provide for over-delivery or deferred delivery. If the elevator space does not permit delivery in the crop year, then the farmers should receive the same price as for the grain they were able to deliver. I hope there is provision for this in the legislation. The minister should take this matter into consideration because it is most important to the people of western Canada.
In Canada there are a number of inland terminal elevators. They are located at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Calgary, Edmonton, Prince-Rupert, Churchill and Vancouver and have a combined capacity of 19,350,000 bushels. It appears that these elevators are not being used to full capacity. I realize that many of them should retain a little space, but as inland elevators it is difficult to see why any appreciable amount of space is left. Less than two years ago there was an emergency on the west coast with No. 2 Northern grain. Moose Jaw was filled to capacity with it, but no trains were moving at that time. Finally, a debate in this House resulted in trains moving out of that terminal hauling No. 2 Northern to ships that were waiting in Vancouver. Surely this situation should not be allowed to exist while we have the inland elevators. Surely they should be used to full capacity. They could be used for drying grain, which was necessary less than two years ago, and for other purposes. The main thing is that they should not be standing empty when

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
farmers are without the means of storing grain on their farms.
I understand there has been a change at the ports, and if the minister is responsible for it then it is only proper that he should be congratulated. In conversation with people at the port of Vancouver I found out that they are now leaving cars in blocks of 50. The track will also be able to switch-out the cars. They move the cars in and change the waybills at a later date. Why could this not have been done earlier? All it will require is putting the grain in, unloading that particular grade of grain and exchanging the waybills or bills of lading. If we had used this method in the past two or three years we could have unloaded a great many more bushels of grain. I hope that this type of operation at the port of Vancouver will prove to be successful. I understand it will be a success. I hope the government will provide more storage at Vancouver and other ports, because it is absolutely necessary.
Some of us think that the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board should be widened to give the board jurisdiction not over Canadian grain but over the operation of all grain handling facilities. These should come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This is necessary if the board is to operate successfully in this day and age. We think that the cost of storing all grains should be paid by the federal government. Under this legislation, under previous legislation and under legislation still to be introduced-here it is hard to say which came first, the chicken or the egg-the farmer will still get the thin end of the wedge.
We do not hesitate in saying that the Canadian Wheat Board can do a good job in this area. The Wheat Board is facing difficulties because we are telling them, "You must do the job," at the same time we are telling international brokerage firms, "You do the job." As one speaker said, some of these firms also have an interest in shipping companies. In no way, I suggest, is it possible for international brokerage firms with an interest in shipping companies to be greatly concerned about the shipment of Canadian wheat. They will ship from the countries where their ships are at berth.
Therein lies one of the problems still facing our agricultural economy. It affects the orderly marketing and movement of grains from our shores. The international brokerage firms want their cut of the farmer's income. They want to make sure they get their slice of the pie. They have an interest in ships, and they sell grain to various countries. I assure you that if a ship belonging to an international brokerage firm were in Australia, the firm would rather fill that ship with Australian grain than send it empty to Canada in order to move our grain to Japan or wherever it may be.
As I say, this is one of the great problems besetting our agricultural economy. I hope the minister will look at the situation and make sure that if the Canadian Wheat Board is to do a job in this area it is given the tools with which to do it. Let us not give somebody else a slice of the pie in that manner. If we are truly concerned about
this situation we must make sure that there is complete and orderly marketing of the kind that has been referred to. That involves, of course, the selling of grain, the placing of fresh grains out on futures and the handling of grains by international brokerage firms. Also, the Canadian Wheat Board must be responsible for the full operation of the western prairie producer.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to ask a couple of questions about Bill C-238. I notice that it is designed to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Actually, there are two amendments in the bill. The first had to do with the grading of grain and the other with the inclusion of rapeseed, and so on, under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Many hon. members have talked about this matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is the hon. member in favour of that, or not?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will tell the hon. member that I am not in favour of his party; that is certain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: The people on my left speak one way here, and when they go out to the Prairies they speak differently. I am not afraid to take up the challenge thrown out tonight by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg). I will certainly challenge the Wheat Board if they are not doing the job. I have been doing that ever since I came here. The one job they are not doing today is selling grain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why does the hon. member say that?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will tell the hon. member why.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think I know why.


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, the hon. member does not. They are not selling grain.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Does the hon. member appreciate that this year their total sales of Canadian grain may achieve a record?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes.


Mr. Horner:: Is it "may" or "shall"?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am very pleased that the minister asked me that question. I had intended referring to some of his statements along that line. I was amazed when he rose in the House while another hon. member was dealing with this matter and said that this year there have been record sales of grain. May I ask the minister a question? Is he aware of present economic conditions on the Prairies? I say that if this is the best we can do, with conditions as serious as they are on the Prairies something must be drastically wrong with this government's program.
Let me repeat something I said about the government's agricultural program. Its entire agricultural program is

May 17, 1971

based on the reduction of everything-the reduction of production, grain, cattle and even the number of farmers on the farm. They want to take 200,000 of our 430,000 farmers off the farm. That is their entire program. The minister knows that as well as I do. The minister knows as well as any prairie businessman that farming conditions are terrible and that prairie economic conditions are terrible. Farmers cannot pay debts, cannot sell produce and have produce piled up to the eaves, as I said before.
Speaking on an agricultural bill last night, the minister said as reported at page 5835 of Hansard:
I have been very disturbed by the tactics of some hon. members in connection with the legislation previously before the House.
I was concerned that was some indication that they would hold up legislation without regard to the good of the farmers in western Canada.
He is not the only one who is disturbed; he is not the only one who is concerned. If he had listened to the speeches of hon. members on this side of the House, he would know why farmers are disturbed and concerned. We are disturbed as a result of the issue he himself raised. Although he suggests that there will be record sales of grain, the economy of the Prairies has not been at a lower ebb for years and years. I think the minister will admit this.
What is the trouble? I am not criticizing the minister personally. I only wish he would do what he is asking us to do, that is, listen. The minister may say that according to all indications our present grain exporting system is working to capacity and that we are losing sales because we cannot meet delivery requirements. He might go on to say that if we had another $25 million of sales we could not make delivery.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister says that is not true. Ever since he has occupied this portfolio the minister has made excuses when we have criticized the government because grain has not been in position on the west coast, or because not enough grain has been in position. At one time it was too cold for the trains to haul the grain. Another time labour was to blame; there was a strike. In any event, the railways did not have the grain in position. There were always excuses. When reading the paper the other day I noticed that they are preparing us for another situation that may develop at the Lakehead. They are now saying that because of the late opening of the Great Lakes, they may not be able to make their promised deliveries during the shipping season.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: God is at fault, too!


John (Jack) McIntosh: If our system is not adequate, let us start at the beginning and change it. What is the matter? The minister speaks of record sales, yet the economy of the Prairies is at its lowest ebb. Something is radically wrong. Let us all get together and not fight like this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canadian Wheat Board Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister also told us that a great deal has been said by some farm leaders and people in politics which was most regrettable; these people had only caused fear among farmers who wanted to make a success of farming. It was the intention of the government to help them as much as possible by putting the system into the best possible shape. But he would surely give us on this side of the House, and the farm leaders of whom he was speaking, at least some credit for being disturbed about conditions on the Prairies, otherwise we would not be wasting our time standing up here talking to deaf ears.
The minster should analyse the position further. In a democracy there ought to be a free flow of information. One of the reasons we are standing up asking these questions is that the minister fails to answer them during the day to day question period. If he would look back on some of his answers he would see how political they were. Then he would not get up and make statements like the one I have mentioned. He is not endowed with any more gifts than the rest of us in this House, or than the leaders of farm organizations. He is not the only one who knows what is good for agriculture. Cannot he take advice? Apparently he is taking advice from the wrong people.
If I were in his place I would listen to what his Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said. What is participatory democracy? Are we to participate in it, or not? The first person who used that phrase, as I understand it, was Mao Tse-tung. Does the minister want us to follow that line of thinking? Is that what he is doing by trying to get
200,000	farmers off the land? Is he trying to establish complete control over production and everything else connected with the industry? Some of my friends think this is the case. In other words, he is going further to the left than some of those in the party sitting to my left. He is out-socializing the socialists, and that is hard to do.
This bill actually contains two distinct propositions. The first we shall not quarrel with. We are all in favour of protein grading and we give the minister full marks for bringing in the provisions dealing with this matter. But why was it necessary to include clauses making it possible to bring rapeseed, and so on, under the control of the Wheat Board? Was it to bait us? If so, he has succeeded, because every member on this side of the House who has spoken in the debate so far has criticized those provisions as unnecessary.
If protein grading is what our customers want, we can meet their requirements because we have some of the best protein graded wheat in the world. Had the minister confined the bill to those provisions, the measure would have gone through the House in an hour. But the minister had to make it a package deal. He puts a carrot in it, then he goes on the radio and blasts the farm leaders and the opposition for not going along with him.


Mark Willson Rose: He is a law professor.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Did they teach him everything about agriculture?


Mark Willson Rose: Lawyers are endowed with all the answers.

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: He may have sold the CCF on this idea, but he has not sold the Conservative party.


Mark Willson Rose: Or Mao Tse-tung.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the NDP.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I just said he was out-socializing the socialists, and that is hard to do.


An hon, Member:: Look under your bed, Jack, and there will be Mao Tse-tung.


Mr. Perrault:: On with the speech.
*


John (Jack) McIntosh: If you knew where I stay, I had better look up than down.


Mark Willson Rose: I guess he is above you.


An hon. Member:: Where are you?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I don't know. I don't have any place to go from there.
We on this side are tired of the minister's pleas on television and radio. We are tired of his lecturing us as he did last evening. He would get 100 per cent co-operation if he would use his learning as a law professor to analyse the situation which exists and relate the fact that a record amount of grain has been sold to the economic situation on the Prairies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: The farmers on the Prairies cannot eat records: they must have money to eat. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) is another who is familiar with the effects of agriculture policies on the Prairies. I do not know the source of his information or knowledge, but he must have been closely associated with the minister at one time or another because their thoughts are very much on the same lines. They contend that farm leaders and others who try to give them good ideas and suggest ways of getting their legislation through the House in an easy manner are raising unnecessary fears.
They know we can support some part of the bills they bring forward, and if we do not support the whole of the legislation they condemn us on radio and television. It is too bad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is not here tonight. I say to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board that those tactics are not going over in western Canada. If he does not know it now he will certainly know it shortly, judging by the number of coupons which are coming in to our offices, if they are any indication of the disturbance being created out there by the tactics these people are trying to employ.
Like other members on this side, I commend the minister for bringing in these provisions making changes in the grading system. This is something which has been needed for a long time, something our customers have wanted. But with regard to the inclusion of rapeseed, and so on, I say he would be well advised to listen to the suggestions which have been made to him and drop those
particular provisions from the bill. As he says, they are not to be used right now; there is no need for them right now; as long as he is minister they will not be used. Why, then, is such a provision made in the legislation? The minister forgets he may not be responsible for the Wheat Board for very long. Indeed, he may not be a member from the Prairies for very long.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: According to Doug Fisher.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is beside the point. I cannot understand how he believed we would buy a package such as this; how he can tell those who will be directly affected by this legislation that it will never be used. If it will never be used, why put it in the bill in the first place? Why not wait until we hear more from the people concerned? We know there is an argument on both sides, but I do not think anyone can as yet determine whether or not these other products should be under the control of the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rose to take part in this debate thinking that I would not be recognized, but I should like to give expression to some thoughts that passed through my mind this afternoon and during the earlier part of this evening in regard to just which of the government or official opposition parties is on the side of the angels, and which is not. One gets the impression that they are on both sides.
Clause 5 of this bill repeals section 35 of the act and substitues therefor the following:
35. (1) The Governor in Council may by regulation extend the application of Part III or Part IV or of both Parts III and IV to any or all of oats, barley, rye, flaxseed or rapeseed or to all of them.
I gather that means that the minister and his colleagues in the government may or may not bring these products under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This afternoon the minister agreed that the major farm organizations representing the grain producers support the provisions of the bill and agree that the Canadian Wheat Board should have jurisdiction over rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. Then the minister proceeded to say that a plebiscite should be held, that there should be a thorough investigation made and all questions that need to be asked should be asked and answers given before we decide whether these three grains should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
I suggest the minister cannot have it both ways. Neither can the official opposition. Either they are in favour of a compulsory, universal, or whatever you may call it, orderly system of marketing grain or they are not, and 1 think it is time they said which it is. You can hold plebiscites and referendums all you want. The fact remains that the three prairie Wheat Pools, the Federations of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union and the provincial branches thereof, plus-as an afterthought- the CCF and New Democratic Party since 1935 have been saying that these grains should be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.

May 17. 1971

We have both the government and the official opposition being half-pregnant, and that is not easy. They say there should be a plebiscite on this question. The three prairie pools, the three prairie federations of agriculture through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the National Farmers Union have submitted briefs and resolutions to this government, and to the Tory government before it, asking that these three grams be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system. They have made this request for the last 25 years, yet both the government and the official opposition are still saying, "Well, let us be careful; let us not rush into this. After all, we have to have a plebiscite to figure out how the grain growers feel about it". They have been putting off the grain growers and giving them the run-around since both parties have tried to take credit for the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1935. The only difference between these two parties is that when one of them is in, the other is out. Neither has introduced a measure in which the party believed in principle-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may put a question if the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) agrees to accept it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would appreciate that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member has gone on at length about what may or may not have been the various positions of the government party and the official opposition, but could he clearly state the position of the NDP on rapeseed, flaxseed and rye being included within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would be delighted to state the position of our party. I think it has been pretty well unequivocal, even though it may have cost us some seats. We have never strayed from the principle of an orderly, public marketing system for our grains. We have never strayed from the contention that parasites have been riding the backs of the grain growers, rapeseed, flaxseed and rye, exploiting the farmers of these three products to this day.
My colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) was too kind to the minister this afternoon, I think-he wasn't even mean to the official opposition-when he illustrated chapter and verse the kind of margin that exists in the grain trade as far as rapeseed is concerned. I hope either the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) or the minister will explain to the House the reason for a 36 cents margin on rapeseed. Who is getting this 36 cents, and what is it for? I hope the hon. member for Crowfoot and some of his colleagues will explain to the House the mysterious disappearance of rapeseed, with half of one cent going into the private grain trade. I am sure all the rapeseed growers in Alberta and Saskatchewan would like an explanation and would also like to know why there is a 36 cents margin per bushel of rapeseed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you believe storage?
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This mysterious disappearance is over and above storage. I have mentioned the three prairie pools, and there are Tories, Liberals and NDP'ers and a few others besides who are members of those three pools, as they are of the National Farmers Union, the federations of agriculture and the various branches. For 25 cotton-picking years they have been unanimous in their request for an orderly, public marketing system for all grains under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Now the minister says he is going to have it both ways.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Which way are you going to have it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Surely all grains should be under the Wheat Board or none of them should. This is what the minister faces and he knows it. He can drag this question out for another six or ten years, and if he is lucky the Tories will get into power and then they will be able to drag it out for another six or ten years and we will never get the question resolved. This is what has been happening since 1935 when you and I, Mr. Speaker, were just kids.


Donald MacInnis: Would	the	hon. member permit a
question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would love to.


Donald MacInnis: Would	the	hon. member draw his
remarks, which eliminated any possibility of the NDP ever forming the government, to the attention of his new leader tomorrow?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is	an	assumption that my hon.friend	has made.	In spite	of	the fact that they do not
grow a bushel of-


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I inform the hon member that I made no such assumption. All I did was put back on the record what the hon. member himself placed there when he called attention to the fact that only Liberals or Conservatives would form the government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member has a good point there, and I did not make myself clear. I am glad he has drawn it to my attention and I will correct that statement right now. If and when all we are faced with is a Liberal or a Tory government, each will take turns every six or ten years holding plebiscites and trying to be on both sides of the question whether or not we will have a government-operated, producer-represented marketing board in control of the marketing of all grains.
This government has the organizational genius for having it both ways, and their position has been perpetuated by the official opposition. If the three pools to which I have referred, along with the federations of agriculture and the National Farmers Union-I admit there is some duplication of membership there

do not

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
represent something over three-quarters of our grain growers in the three prairie provinces, then I have missed my guess. The minister has talked about plebiscites for how many years? He can count them up. They have asked, demanded and pleaded in briefs and resolutions that these grains be brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Whether it is the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, so to speak, the private grain trade or the grain trade as a whole, including farmers' own companies, none by itself can work in the best interests of grain producers in terms of the maximum price for the product. Only a government-operated board could do this.
a (9:40 p.m.)
The minister has to decide which way he is going to go on this. He is invited to put his proposals to the grain growers in the three prairie provinces, and that is the majority. They have submitted views year after year asking that these grains be brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
We hear a great deal about the block system and the switching of cars. I might say for the edification of my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), that the minister finally agreed that farmer-owned grain companies should not be penalized for the spotting of cars that they load on the Prairies to be moved to terminals owned by the private grain trade by not being reimbursed for their costs and given their share of the market. I hope the minister is not trying to tell me that question did not enter the discussions. I hope the minister is not trying to say that was not taken into consideration when the agreement was arrived at to spot cars loaded by the Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba wheat pools at the terminals of private companies. If he does try to tell us that, I am going to ask some of the officials of the three pools to give us their side of the argument.
The grain growers in the three prairie provinces have been asking for the provisions, which are only permissive in this legislation, since the 1940s-and we have had governments of the two old line parties since that time. All these governments have failed to acquiesce to the demands of the grain growers, and this government still fails to do so. The minister can sit there from now until the day he is finished as a minister, however long that may be, and never move the grain in the interests of the producers until it is done under the Canadian Wheat Board. I submit that it would be more efficient and more representative of the grain interests, not only to the producers but also to the handlers of grain, if they were all working under one jurisdiction, the Canadian Wheat Board.
This would save the grain producers money and the minister a lot of headaches. This may not be all that good for those who want to speculate and be parasites; and there are still some hangers-on from as far back as the dirty thirties. They want their day, and want their marbles without doing a day's work. There are still those who want to speculate on futures by being dealers rather than buyers and sellers of Canadian grain.
It seems to me the minister should invite the grain trade and the producers to operate under the jurisdiction of a national marketing grain agency, namely the Canadian Wheat Board. In this way he could prove once and for all that he means business and that this is one area where private enterprise has no cotton-picking business. He could even put his friends in the official opposition on the spot, as they in turn could put the minister on the spot.
We find this situation very amusing at the moment because members on both sides of the House are on both sides of the question. They do not believe entirely in an orderly, public grain marketing system. They talk about plebiscites. Any old line party could organize a plebiscite in relation to the private grain business, the livestock business or anything else. You can put coupons in the newspapers and incite and organize anybody and everybody to write in against something. I wish just for a change one of these parties would organize the people in Canada in favour of something.
It is easy to cook the books beforehand and bring in a red herring such as a plebiscite, as the minister did this afternoon. He has had the results of a plebiscite from the grain growers in the three Prairie Provinces for the last 25 years. This represents the overwhelming majority of grain producers. Some of my relatives who are not members of the NDP are sick, tired and fed up with the old expression-


An hon. Member:: They are even more so now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You can choose your friends but you are stuck with your relatives. Even some of them are fed up with what is happening in relation to the grain trade, the grain exchange and the industry as a whole. The minister had better make up his mind which way he is going to move. He cannot be for the grain producers on the one hand and against them on the other. I suspect he is even conning his colleagues in the cabinet, who would not know a bushel of anything from their backsides, into going in with him because he has not the nerve to do one thing or the other. He is not the first. All his predecessors in Liberal and Tory governments have not had the nerve to move one way or the other in respect of the demands of the grain producers in the three Prairie Provinces.
The NDP is in the same position as usual in respect of a bill such as this when the government, Liberal or Tory, goes only so far. They are afraid to go the whole way and do what they are talking about. They never do what they say. They talk a good fight and put in all the words that mean orderly marketing. They are all in favour of the Wheat Board. You could not get a Liberal or a Tory in this place to say a word against the Wheat Board. Ask any one of them to give the Canadian Wheat Board the kind of policy that will allow them to function with complete authority in the interests of the grain producers and they will say, "Oh, no. Wait a minute. We have to be careful before we do this. We must hold a plebiscite. We have to think this over some more." My God, we have been thinking it over since 1935. The government said it is not sure yet whether it wants an orderly marketing

May 17, 1971

system. I hope my friends from both of the old parties will come to Regina-Lake Centre or any riding in Saskatchewan and try to sell the half-pregnant idea that they are working in their interests.


An hon. Member:: We have been successful for 14 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about
Ass;niboia?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) could not find a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool member or delegate anywhere in his riding who would agree with his position tonight. I hope he will make the same speech in his riding and give all that jazz about these three grains not being under the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) will talk the same way in his riding and in mine as he does here. How much longer does the government intend to put off the grain producer? What more do they need than the request from-


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. minister rising to ask a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member is willing to answer one. Does he not agree that more rapeseed is grown in my riding than in his riding and the riding of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek put together? It may make some difference if we know whether the hon. member is talking about growers of rapeseed or just growers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is perfectly true. There is more rapeseed grown in the minister's riding than in the ridings of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and mine put together. I do not know what the minister has been hearing from the rapeseed growers in his riding, but I have been hearing from them and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has been hearing from them. I do not know whether the minister has quit reading his mail or whether people have just quit writing him. It may be the latter.
This minister displays a stubbornness and arrogance of a kind not known even to Jimmy Gardiner. He has received representations time after time from the majority of producers in the three Prairie provinces, yet he refuses to listen to one thing they have asked. He chickened out on a couple of things in the stabilization program because these producers were so bloody mad that even his own colleagues would not go along with him. He had only one colleague from Saskatchewan, and we really miss him now.
The minister betrays the grain growers and those who side half-way with him or against him by not bringing these three grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. He also betrays the grain producers in the three Prairie provinces. He had better make up his mind, because this is what it's all about. This is what we will point out
Canadian Wheat Board Act
when we are back home in the hills. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot fool the people any longer.
The minister is part of the government. In which way does he want it? He cannot have it both ways any longer. He cannot fob us off with plebiscites. All he need do is take a quick look at all the submissions, briefs and resolutions he has had. I would remind my colleagues in the official opposition to pay a little attention to the grain growers in the three prairie provinces who have been waiting since the end of the Second World War. Then we might have an end to this damned nonsense about the minister may or may not, or the Governor in Council may or may not, put some of these grains under the Canadian Wheat Board.
Why do we need a Winnipeg Grain Exchange? What, in the name of common sense or efficiency or in the name of better returns for farmers, do we need a private grain trade for, jockeying back and forth on prices? That has nothing to do with the welfare and good order of the grain growers. We do not need them. The minister can put representatives of those people on the Canadian Wheat Board if he wishes. Also, he can give the Canadian Wheat Board complete jurisdiction over those three grains. He knows that, but he chooses to be friends to both sides. Well, that is fine; he can try to be friends of those who reside in Winnipeg or occupy the multistoried buildings in that city, but I hope he will come out to Nokomis, Watrous and some of the other places in Saskatchewan and tell the grain producers there about how he brought in legislation which did not fulfil their requests which go back for many years. It will be an interesting exercise to hear him try to explain that. He has not explained it in this House. All he has done is put off the question.
The official opposition now starts the same old hysterical scare-campaign. They say, "Be careful; this minister could almost be considered to be next door to a communist if you are not careful. The very fact that this is permissive legislation might mean that when the bill passes he will place these three grains under the Wheat Board the very next day." Mr. Speaker, to hear them tell it, this guy would make Khrushchev look like a Conservative. Really, most of these outfits would stretch anybody's credibility. To hear them tell it, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is a wild-eyed, raging leftwinger. That ought to send any mild Socialist into hysterics.
The members of the official opposition had better make up their minds once and for all-let us all put our cards on the table-whether they are in favour of a public-controlled or state-controlled, I will use that word because it will suit them better, public marketing system of grains in the territory covered by the Canadian Wheat Board. Let us divide it along those lines so we can see which way the sheep go and which way the goats go.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You still would not believe it.

May 17, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Coming from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek I probably wouldn't; but I would like to know which way he goes. I am sure the grain growers in Swift Current-Maple Creek would like to know. You see, it is a little easier to get away with the jazz about livestock or hogs, because there are not so many. It is a little easier to get away with that. You can gallop around on either side of the question ad nauseum, but the grain question is a little different. That will be a little tougher for these boys to handle.
If you want a Canadian Wheat Board which has some authority and some policies, then you should not handcuff it. You should allow it to do a job for the benefit of the grain producers of Canada, with the national strength of Canada behind its operation in the international market. You should not diffuse or weaken it by allowing a lot of parasites to get their hands in the till as well. If this is what you want, you will not allow a lot of people who do not do much work on grain production or selling to get a piece of the action. You will preserve this for the grain producers and for the national interest, and you will quit allowing the grain trade in its multiplicity of numbers, or the grain exchange-these parasites who never did an honest day's work in their lives and who speculate on the work and labour of other men-to become involved in this area.
I believe this is where the nuts and bolts of the operation are. I believe there is more to this bill than meets the eye. It is not as nice and mild as the minister would have us think. It is not as the official opposition would have us believe. They would have us believe the minister will bring about state control in respect of all these grains automatically. Mr. Speaker, I would bet that if this bill passes, you and I will not live long enough to see the minister put these three grains under the Canadian Wheat Board, because he does not really mean it. He does not really believe it. I question whether he really believes in a government-operated, producer-controlled, public, orderly marketing system for grains. If he did, he would not horse around with futures markets for flaxseed or rapeseed. If he really believed what he is talking about in this bill, he would not try to kid the official opposition which at least would like to be on one side. He will not let them.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the members from the two old line parties will get up and once and for all say what they stand for, instead of trying to be on both sides of this question. The New Democratic Party has favoured public marketing of grains under the Canadian Wheat Board since 1935. We have never wavered from that. I hope some of the figures the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar threw at the minister this afternoon will give him pause and cause him to think about what is happening to the rapeseed growers and how many cents a bushel they have been done out of in the past three years.
If the minister will think this over a little, perhaps he will say that the bill needs amending in order to make it a little stronger than it is. Then perhaps once and for all the grain producers of the three Prairie provinces will get what they have been begging for for years. They are by far the majority. If the minister wants to have a
really good plebiscite he had better call one tomorrow so that those who throw their money, their interests, and their prejudices behind outfits like the private grain trade and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange will not be able to flood the weekly newspapers with misrepresenting half-truths such as we have had in the past few weeks.
I hope the minister will say that the day this bill is passed there will be a plebiscite so that the grain producers can speak without being saturated with a propaganda campaign the like of which reminds me of medicare and several other fights the people of this country have fought for years and years and then had to wait while the old line parties tried to be all things to all people.


An hon. Member:: Old Lang!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Auld Lang parties might be a better way to say it. It is not Auld Lang Syne, although I hope to sing that song to the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members in the old line parties will say whether or not they are in favour of a government-operated, producer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board with all grains under it. When they do that it will be an edification for all the people of the three Prairie provinces.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 11, as recorded in Hansard at page 5688, and on Wednesday, May 12, as recorded at page 5735, I put questions to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) concerning a certain recommendation in the most recent report of the Clyne committee. The recommendation in question is the one to the effect that a large number of senior public servants should be removed from the area of collective bargaining.
I asked the President of the Treasury Board to give the assurance that the government would not support this retrogressive recommendation. On both of the days to which I referred, the reply of the President of the Treasury Board was to the effect that I was asking him to prejudge the study of a committee which is considering the whole question of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
This matter really goes back to Monday, April 26, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rose in this House and tabled two or three documents, one of which attracted more interest than the others, namely, the one having to do with increasing the pay of Members of Parliament. I am afraid that because of the attention that

May 17, 1971

was given to that matter, less attention than they deserved was given to the recommendations of the Clyne committee which the Prime Minister tabled at the same time. It seems to have taken some time for those concerned to become aware of the significance of the recommendations of the Clyne committee, but I submit that some of them are very serious and, as a matter of fact, all of them are of significance.
The point I wish to make in support of my pressing again tonight the question I asked on May 11 and 12 is that when the Prime Minister tabled the Clyne committee report on April 26 he picked out one recommendation in it which, he said, the government refused to accept. There was no suggestion that that amounted to a prejudging of the study of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The government took its position and made it clear there was one recommendation which it refused to accept. There were certain other recommendations which it said it was prepared to accept. There were one or two which it said it had already put into effect. As for this question of removing senior public servants from the provisions of collective bargaining, the Prime Minister said that that could well be studied by the committee which is operating under the aegis of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang).
It is my contention that the government, having identified clearly the portion of the Clyne report to which it was opposed has, by implication, accepted the rest of that report. To tell us that it has been referred for study when it is not willing to take a position on it in public as it did on one matter is, as I see it, to imply a readiness to accept that recommendation.
It is my observation that many public servants in the area affected are quite concerned about this. The organizations that represent them are expressing that concern. This is true in particular of the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers. These two staff associations would be most affected if the Clyne recommendation were carried out. But even though the two organizations most affected are the two that I have indicated, the Public Service Alliance of Canada has also taken the same view. It has come to the aid of its sister associations in urging that the government come clean with respect to this matter.
I submit it is not good enough just to tell us that to ask for a statement is to ask for a prejudging of the recommendation of the special committee. We have been through this kind of thing before. If we sit back and say nothing, the government can well come along and accept the Clyne recommendation and thousands of these senior public servants will be removed from the area of collective bargaining.
Maybe the government is not in a position to say at this point that under no condition will it agree with the Clyne recommendation, but it ought at least to refrain from accepting it in advance; it ought to make it clear that its mind is open on the matter. The impression I get is that its mind is not open, that it has in effect accepted all of the Clyne report except the one point; and that
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion leaves the whole matter in a very unsatisfactory situation. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gillespie) is here tonight to answer on behalf of the minister. I hope he will have something much more hopeful for us than has yet been given during the question period by the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Alaslair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he, in his introductory remarks, recited the circumstances which gave rise to this particular question I do not think it necessary to go over that ground again. I think there were three citations, two questions that he put to the minister, and a third the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 26.
It seems to me that the hon. member is doing two things. First of all he is speculating about what may be in the government's mind, and second he is trying to adduce a certain logic from the position taken by the government. He has stated, in effect, that because the government has accepted a number of the proposals of the Clyne committee and because it has refused to accept one other proposal, therefore in saying that it is going to give consideration to a third, somehow or other it has already prejudged the issue. I would draw his attention to the section of the Prime Minister's remarks when he said:
The advisory group recommends that the managerial group excluded from collective bargaining should be more clearly identified and enlarged-
Here is the key part
-and the government is prepared to have this matter studied further in conjunction with the review of legislation affecting collective bargaining.
Surely this is clear. The government has said it is a matter it will take under consideration. It is not prejudging the issue. It formed a committee to undertake this particular review and it is assigning this particular recommendation of the Clyne committee to that committee. For the minister or anybody else at this time to state an opinion would be prejudging the issue. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not in a position to add anything more to what has already been said by the minister on this matter.



MANPOWER-MEASURES TO ASSIST SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING GRADUATES TO OBTAIN APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT-STIMULATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 the Science Council of Canada made public a background report which revealed that Canadian graduates in science and engineering are now experiencing, and could expect to continue to experience for some time in the future, considerable difficulty in obtaining employment related to their training. It is absolutely appalling to me that this country is unable to employ the talents of these people. In human terms, how can we say to these people that

May 17, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
they have spent tour, five, six, seven or eight years acquiring training and talents for which the country has no use? What does that do to young men or women, and how can we accept the necessity to make that statement?
In social terms, the waste represented in not having appropriate employment available for our engineering and science graduates is of a magnitude that makes the Bonaventure debacle pale into total insignificance. The losses, in terms of the employment these people would generate if properly employed and in terms of technological developments forever unrealized, are incalculable. How can we as a society afford to lose the productive capacity that these people, properly employed, would represent?
The Science Council background paper suggested that one of the ways to meet the need to find suitable employment for graduates in science and engineering, and at the same time to provide maximum benefit to society, would be to place greater emphasis on expanding the research and development capacity of this country. A number of suggestions on how such an expansion might be managed were put forward. When I questioned the ministers involved about their intentions with respect to the suggestions, their replies were to the effect that all recommendations would be studied.
My main purpose in speaking tonight is to suggest to the government yet another possible avenue for encouraging the expansion of this country's R and D capacity. In order to place the suggestion in context it might be worth while to devote a few seconds to examining the reasons for our failure to develop an R and D establishment equal to Canadian needs and matching our capability to such activity. Obviously, in seven minutes I cannot touch on all factors but two predominate. Firstly, our industry is dominated by the branch plants of international, especially American, corporations with the result that expansion in our industrial capacity has not meant a concomitant increase in our R and D capacity, as would normally be the case. The bulk of the research and product development for most foreign-owned corporations, predictably, takes place outside Canada. We have as a result, with some all too rare but notable and important exceptions, become copiers rather than innovators in industry.
Secondly, the vast majority of domestically-owned corporations, with a few and obvious exceptions, are too small to support their own research establishments. Presumably, re-establishing Canadian control over our economy would have salutary effects on this situation. Of greater immediate impact, I suggest, would be the creation by the government of a research and development establishment which would make its services and facilities available to Canadian industries on a fee for service basis. Industries not large enough to themselves undertake the development and testing of product improvements and new inventions could then go to the government research establishment, which would possess the necessary capacity, and ask it to undertake research into
product improvement and the testing and development of new products. Financing arrangements could be flexible enough to permit either a fiat fee, a royalty arrangement or a combination of the two.
The creation of such a government-operated research and development establishment oriented toward industry, toward product development and improvement, toward the market rather than toward pure research could do much to place Canadian industry in the forefront of technological development, improve our export position and at the same time provide appropriate and fulfilling employment for some of our science and engineering graduates.
I hope that in studying the implications for government action in the Science Council background paper the government will give consideration to the suggestion I have made this evening.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks this evening the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) has touched on a number of important items covering this vast area of public policy. It will not be possible for me, in 2J minutes, to do much more than highlight one or two of those items. His suggestions with respect to the improvement of development of innovative capacity in Canada will be well received in government circles, I am sure. I think his concern that the branch plant could discourage Canadian innovative capacity might be overstated. As I recall, studies that have been done in this area indicate that foreign-controlled plants in Canada do as much in the way of R and D as Canadian-owned corporations in Canada. That is not to say that Canadian corporations do as much as corporations in other countries. What I am trying to suggest is that he may be overstating the ownership aspect.
There are three things I want to touch on quickly with respect to the manpower aspect of the hon. member's suggestions. The National Research Council introduced quite recently post-doctoral industrial fellowships aimed at assisting small companies over what might be described as the transitional stage. 1 am talking about small companies that cannot afford the expense, say, of PhD assistance. The post-doctoral industrial fellowship is a step in that direction. Similarly, the Industrial Research Assistance Program, or the IRA program, is designed to help small companies or those not using R and D to develop R and D capability.
The last point the hon. member talked about had to do with creating new R and D establishments. Perhaps the hon. member knows that the National Research Council at present does some testing. It does some testing on a fee for service basis. It does testing, for instance, on products for the building trades and some that is connected with the mechanical engineering trades. It also does testing in the general area of the National Aeronautical Establishment capabilities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.

May 17, 1971



GRAIN-WHEAT-ADDITIONS OF UNUSED PORTION OF LIFT PROGRAM FUNDS TO TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: May 17, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
being the fullest possible potential of the program as envisaged.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the beginning in connection with the Lift program that the number of dollars available to farmers would be paid on the basis of $6 per acre in the case of forage and $10 per acre taken out of wheat and transferred to non-production or forage. When we expressed satisfaction with the performance under the Lift program it was done essentially against a background of gloom and prophesies of complete noncooperation from farmers which the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and his hon. friends had been making for many days at the time the program was announced.
Indeed, but for their sowing confusion about the nature of the program and the desirability of farmers participating in it, the amount spent under the program would probably have been higher. It would also have meant greater benefit to the Prairie farmers. Hon. members opposite have it on their conscience when they mislead some farmers into growing wheat instead of either selling
their surplus, if they had one, or planting other crops if that was the logical alternative.
In fact, the total amount of money that will be spent under the Lift program when it is concluded will likely be in the neighbourhood of $65 million. Some $57.7 million and a few more dollars has now been spent; $65 million will likely be the total. There was never any promise of money apart from the program, but an amount of $100 million was put into the estimates since we thought it was a realistic figure, though on the high side. Since then we have put $40 million into the program for forage incentives over a three-year period, but the hon. member ignores that. We put $10 million a year into marketing development, as I have indicated. We will put another $10 million a year into marketing development, but the hon. member ignores that.
The truth of the matter is that in every program we devise, we try in every way we know to help farmers of the Prairie region receive more cash for their efforts and to have a more prosperous future.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, May 18, 1971