1973-06-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the denial in the House on June 20, 1973, by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) that any order had been given to any firm regarding the preparation of plans for an additional sufferance warehouse in Vancouver and his statement that "there is no firm "in line" for a licence for a truck sufferance warehouse in Vancouver as there is no present intention of issuing any further such licence."
Based on these remarks, I believe the minister has misinformed the House. It is my understanding that both Arrow Transfer Limited and Ringsby United Limited were approached by the regional branch of the customs department in Vancouver and were asked to submit applications with supporting documentation as the government was considering a second sufferance warehouse in the Vancouver area. They were further informed that a decision would be made by the middle of July this year.
In addition, Thomas Lindsay Limited was approached by Mr. Catherwood of the Vancouver customs department to send copies of application and supporting documents to backup his application for the second licence.
I believe the Minister of National Revenue has misled the House on this entire issue. Information I have received indicates that Johnson Terminals has already been informed they will receive the second licence in Vancouver.
I believe the Minister of National Revenue owes it not only to members of the House but to those firms which have expended many thousands of dollars in preparing applications to clarify his statements, to admit that a second sufferance warehouse in Vancouver is not only planned but is in the advanced stages of receiving formal approval, and to apologize to the House for leaving the impression with members of the House that no such additional sufferance warehouse is contemplated.
This entire matter of an additional sufferance warehouse, which is much needed in the city of Vancouver, has been handled so badly and with so many contradictions that a foul smell has been left in the wake of the entire issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will agree with the Chair there is really not a question of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member. This is essentially a question of debate. I refer the hon. member to citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. . . . But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the basis on which this ruling is made. If the hon. member seeks additional information in relation to the question asked before, he is always at liberty to ask the question a second time provided, of course, he is recognized by the Chair for that purpose.

[ Transla t/on]



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the House the presence in the gallery of the President of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians, His Excellency Mr. Charles Helou. He is accompanied by the secretary of the Lebanese section of the French-speaking parliamentarians, Dr. Phillippe El Khazen and by Mr. Remi May-rand, deputy secretary general of the association. Mr. Helou is visiting Ottawa at the invitation of the Canadian section of the IAFP. Former Minister of External Affairs of his country and former President of Lebanon, newspaperman, jurist, statesman and man of letters, His Excellency Mr. Charles Helou brings to the presidency of the association a prestige which reflects on each member of the association.
We thank you, Mr. President, for your visit to Canada. We are extending to our distinguished guests and their wives our warmest welcome.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in the two official languages-Mr. Bechard (Bonaventure-IIes-de-la-Madeleine).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1973
House of Commons Prayer

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the Minister of Transport to inquire from the officers of Air Canada as to whether they have plans to centralize all finance and accounting procedures of the company in Montreal, thus displacing Air Canada workers now stationed in Winnipeg and Toronto, and if so to urge Air Canada in light of the Prime Minister's assurances of increased federal government work in western Canada to urge that such consolidation be considered to be directed to Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table in the two official languages the terms of reference for the independent board of examination related to the air transportation needs of the Toronto region.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke wish to be recognized on motions? The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


FORM OF PRAYER-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion in connection with the prayer which Your Honour recites each day. The last time the House dealt with the form of the prayer was in 1877. That fact alone suggests to me that the matter ought to be sent to a committee of the House for consideration.

With the unanimous consent of this House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move:

That a special committee of the House of Commons, comprised of members of all creeds, be instructed to examine and report on a prayer more in keeping with the ecumenical spirit of our times.


Mr. Speaker:: The House had heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion cannot therefore be put.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 dealing with a situation in my constituency which calls for an immediate assurance by the House. This can be done very briefly and without debate. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House reaffirm its confidence in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Howard:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the assessment Your Honour made of the response to your inquiry whether there was unanimous consent to the motion proposed by my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories, I point out that half the cabinet were applauding the motion and obviously they were not saying no. Perhaps Your Honour should test the motion again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Frank Howard: Then it was the other half of the cabinet that said no.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent necessity arising from yesterday's announcement by the Ford Motor Company of Canada of price increases for its 1974 models. In view of
June 21, 1973

the fact Ford's net profits after taxes for the first quarter of 1973 were up 62 per cent from the first quarter of last year whereas sales increased by only 27 per cent, indicating a much higher per unit profit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to meet forthwith with representatives of Ford of Canada to inform that company that a 25 per cent rate of return on equity is excessive, to urge a complete reconsideration of the announced price increases and to impress upon them the government's determination to eliminate the unjustified price differential between Canada and the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-200, to amend the Official Languages Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Official Languages Act does not have the effect, either directly or indirectly, of restricting or in any way limiting the current status or future growth of any of the minority languages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Paul Yewchuk: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that the Canadian Bill of Rights explicitly sets out and guarantees Canadians the absolute right to speak any languages they may wish, regardless of the universality of such languages, and to guarantee them the absolute right to adopt as a style of life any culture, or part thereof, contributing to the Canadian mosaic.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Oral Questions PENSION ACT

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, to amend the Pension Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the government support in principle the proposal that the government withdraw contracts from firms that do not offer women equal pay and equal employment opportunities, which was the subject matter of a resolution passed by the National Council of Women?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to' inquire as to that; I do not have the answer offhand.


Mr. Fairweather:: Would the government review its contracting policy to ensure that such practices do become in fact the policy of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly draw that very constructive suggestion to the attention of the Minister of Labour who is studying the whole area of the involvement of women in employment.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. gentleman, after that due deliberation and careful consideration he thinks the subject deserves, comes to the conclusion that the government should undertake such a policy, would he consider putting before the House a sense of the House resolution, the value of which he discovered in connection with the recent resolution concerning bilingualism which was dealt with by the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, having returned only a few days ago from the Northwest

June 21, 1973
Oral Questions
Territories, and in view of the widespread resentment among the people of my constituency, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he will now consider withdrawing the application for prohibition so that the claim of the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood will remain with the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the matter which was and still is before the courts involves questions relating to a caveat, and it has been our position that this is quite clearly a matter to be determined in the first instance by the judge designated for the purpose in the appropriate statute. The question of any claim, or its validity, against the Crown in the right of Canada is, by the law of parliament, to be determined in the Federal Court, and it is because of that law we are pursuing the course of action we are following in relation to prohibition.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, without entering into the legal explanation the minister has given, and without agreeing with it either, in view of the fact it is quite normal to have matters in a court of first instance go to appeal, even on the question of jurisdiction, in view of the fact either side to the case has the right of appeal, and bearing in mind the resentment of Mr. Justice Morrow and others at the action taken by the government, I should like to ask the minister whether he will not now see the value of withdrawing the application for prohibition instead of raising a storm that any sensitive person ought to try to avoid?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the particular reason for proceeding by way of prohibition was to determine as quickly as possible the question of jurisdiction rather than going through elaborate processes and procedures when we were of the view that jurisdiction in relation to these processes and procedures did not exist. That does seem to me today to be the proper and appropriate way. Any storm that is being caused is certainly not being caused by us. We have constantly reaffirmed, as the hon. member for Northwest Territories would like us to do, the complete competence and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, fully equivalent to that of a similar court elsewhere. I might add that I do not think the question of the reaction of Mr. Justice Morrow is relevant in this particular situation.


David Lewis: In view of the fact the Minister of Justice, who was a professor of law before he came here, is well aware that the question of jurisdiction can be and has been raised in many cases in a court of first instance, why is it impossible in this case for the question of jurisdiction to be argued before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, subject to the right of appeal which is there?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the course of action which was followed. The question of jurisdiction was argued and at that point it became apparent that the court proposed to deal with the substantive matter before dealing with the question of jurisdiction. It was at that point it seemed obvious to us that the question of jurisdiction should be finally settled before proceeding with the whole case.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would not bring this up but for the fact the hon. member for York South referred to the fact that the minister had been a law professor.


An hon. Member:: A very good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's the trouble.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask him whether, when he was in that position, he advised his student body that prerogative writs of prohibition ought not to be used where there was any other means of determining the situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not give them that advice.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It's a great pity you didn't.


Otto Emil Lang: I certainly did make clear to them that prerogative writs do not ordinarily lie in relation to matters before superior courts because jurisdiction there, by virtue of the nature of the court, is settled, but that they do lie in relation to persons acting as persona designata.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert on a supplementary and then I think we should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has all but admitted the facts I placed before him. I now ask him: Having regard to the serious interpretation that is being given by Indian and aboriginal peoples to this, unusual, if not the only, case in Canadian history in which a government has interfered to prevent the consideration of a case by applying for a writ of prohibition, does he not feel that, in the interest of national well-being, and in particular the reliance of the Indian peoples on the law of the Queen, this is one time he might back down from his position and thereby restore responsibility to the government and also fairness to the Indians?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have made it completely clear that in our view there is no suggestion of any comment upon the competence and full capability of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. I would indeed, on the other hand, ask that hon. members join in making sure that is understood instead of trying to take a narrow political advantage by spreading a different point of view.


John George Diefenbaker: Raising the question of political advantage is always the resort of those who are in trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the moment has arrived when we might call on the hon. member for Temiscamingue. If hon. members wish to pursue this matter later we can have further supplementaries. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Lewis: I do, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to take the time, but I think the minister's sanctimonious attitude cannot

Oral Questions
go unanswered. There is no attempt such as he indicates. There is an historical tradition in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon Territory about the position of their Superior Courts and it is that tradition that the minister has violated. If he does not have a sufficient understanding of Canada and the Canadian north, it is just too bad for this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will not suggest that is a point of order. It is further debate. The hon. member for Skeena wishes to pursue the debate as do other hon. members. The hon. member for Temiscamingue also has rights and I think hon. members should co-operate with the Chair and give him the opportunity to ask a question.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Yesterday, I asked the minister why the white people at Fort George were not granted the same advantages as the Indians in the same area, and the minister replied that Indians come under the jurisdiction of Ottawa, while white people come under that of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, is this not clearly a type of separatism between Indians and white people in the James Bay area, and does the minister intend to remedy the situation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to do anything about it because of the Constitution-Section 91(24) I believe-the Indians and their lands falling under federal jurisdiction. It is an old custom, and when, in 1969, we suggested that it be done away with, the Indians themselves said that they preferred to stay with the federal government rather than being transferred to provincial jurisdiction.


TARIFF ON MOTOR VEHICLES IMPORTED BY INDIVIDUALS-GOVERNMENT POSITION-DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES OF REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about the 15 per cent Canadian tariff on motor vehicles imported by individuals into Canada. Will the minister tell the House what the government's position is in respect of this tariff and whether reduction or elimination of the tariff is now under discussion with the United States?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add to the comments I have made on previous occasions concerning the talks that I think are now back on the rails with respect to the auto pact with the United States. In due course I hope I will have further information to add.


EFFECT OF PROPOSED CORPORATE TAX CUT ON CANADA-UNITED STATES MOTOR VEHICLE PRICE GAP-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF AUTO PACT TO COMMITTEE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question about the proposed measure to reduce corporate tax rates. Is it his position that this proposed tax reduction, if it becomes effective, will result in a reduction in the price gap between the price of motor vehicles in Canada and the United States and, if so, by how much approximately? I ask this question particularly in view of the statement of the president of the Ford Motor Company that he is uncertain whether the proposed corporate tax cut will in fact reduce the gap.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that I intend to hold the automobile companies to their commitment with respect to the 1973 model year and to their commitment to meet the government's objective of further narrowing the differential in the 1974 model year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I call the attention of the minister to the doubt expressed by the president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada that it will have that effect. I should like to ask the minister whether he is now prepared to refer the automotive pact to a parliamentary committee for a study which would include the extent and the causes of the continuing disparity in the price of motor vehicles between the two countries and would also elicit information as to the operation and effectiveness of the existing safeguards and the effectiveness and benefits of the auto pact in general?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that hon. members on both sides of the House have had an opportunity to discuss this question both in the House-as I recall there was a one-day debate on the matter-and in considerable detail in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-DATE FOR RESUMPTION OF TALKS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House if a specific date is being considered for the formal resumption of Canada-United States trade talks and, if so, does the minister consider that the Canadian government is sufficiently prepared now to enter into such talks?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have indicated to hon. members, I believe that as a result of the exploratory talks I had with

Oral Questions
Secretary Shultz very late in March of this year the talks with respect to the auto pact are now back on the rails.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What rails?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would expect that a further meeting will take place-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When?


Alastair William Gillespie: -at least at the official level in the very near future.


George Harris Hees: Has the government undertaken a study recently of Canadian taxes and price differentials on automobiles and, if so, does the minister intend to table such study?


Alastair William Gillespie: I know of no specific study in those terms but I do know, and I think hon. members know, that we are not satisfied with the differential and that we intend to see that the differential in wholesale prices between automobiles purchased in the two countries is narrowed.


FORD MOTOR COMPANY PRICE INCREASES IN 1974 MODELS-REDUCTION OF GAP BETWEEN PRICES IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the fact the president of the Ford Motor company acknowledged yesterday that he did not know if the price differential between the two countries would be reduced by his proposed increases, he considers this to be a violation of the commitment he has received from that company that the next price increase would in fact take into account the differential that exists and aim to reduce it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Without reading the transcript of the comments of the president of the Ford Motor Company I do not want to say any more than that perhaps some of his remarks about price levels in the United States were rather speculative. However, what is not speculative is the position of the government that we intend to hold, however difficult it may be, the company to its commitment to further narrow that differential.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary and then will see the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the announced increase of up to $200 per car will enable the company in this year to maintain a profit rate in excess of 25 per cent on investment, would the minister take steps now to approach the company and urge them to reconsider completely their announced price increases?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to enter into that kind of negotiation at this time. I do recognize, as I think all members will, that during the period of the price freeze in Canada there has been a build-up of costs with respect to the manufacture of automobiles, and there will be additional cost in the 1974 model year with respect to emission and safety controls.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
In light of the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Education, last June 8, cancelling previous directives setting higher priority for second language teaching, how do the federal government and the provinces supervise to make sure that the funds allotted by the federal government to the provinces are really used for second language teaching?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that is the subject of discussion now between myself and ministers of education across the country. I have had three meetings so far. We are concerned with developing a system of accountability which can respond totally and completely to the concerns expressed by the hon. member. These concerns have been expressed to me by other members of the House. I would point out, if I may, that under the terms of the previous agreement payments only go to the provinces in response to work actually taking place in the classroom.
[ Translation]


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State and ask him whether he can assure the House that the funds voted by the federal parliament to promote bilingualism are really being used in every province for second language teaching?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can give that assurance, but I would like to add that the provinces themselves are contributing substantially to the pursuit of the goals implicit in this program. It is not simply the federal government; it is both' levels of government that are doing it and they are doing it in a greater and more generous measure than before.


OIL AND GAS-REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF EXPLORATION PERMIT REGULATIONS
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, since some ministers may be confused about who has authority, I should like to direct my question either to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whichever one thinks he is in charge. In view of the concern about long-term energy reserves in Canada and the fact that Canada has large undiscovered energy reserves in frontier areas, will the minister please inform the House when the government will stop delaying and issue long-
June 21, 1973

promised permit regulations, thus allowing essential oil and gas exploration to continue?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer on behalf of my colleague, who is responsible for the regulation system north of the sixtieth parallel, and for myself as 1 am responsible for the offshore situation. As the hon. gentleman knows, there have been extensive discussions with the provincial governments with respect, among other things, to royalties to be established for the exploitation of continental shelf resources. This is one of the issues in which the provinces are most interested. We think this discussion should be brought to a successful conclusion before we make any further decision with respect to the royalties.


Peter Colwell Bawden: May I ask the minister whether, in view of the fact it is now three years since this delay was first instigated, he is now prepared to issue regulations covering lands in the northern part of Canada which are clearly within his jurisdiction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is interesting to note that the hon. gentleman refers to provincial consultation as delay. It seems to me that the federal pattern of economic rent should be a consistent one and that we should await the result of these consultations before announcing an over-all policy.

[ Translation]


POLLUTION
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of the Environment concerning the proposed supertanker port on the Lower St. Lawrence.
Since the department has elected to wait till the operating companies undertake studies on the environmental hazards inherent in this kind of projects, and in view of the fact that it seems there are several rival firms interested in these projects, would the minister have the intention of revising his policy so that these studies may be carried out by his department?
[ English]


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, several companies, as the hon. member has told the House, are involved. They are making environmental studies. So are the Quebec government and the federal government. When all the facts are in we will make our decision.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE-ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS- GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that a few weeks ago the Prime Minister took notice of my questions concerning this, is he now in a position to advise the House of the policy of his government concerning the construction of oil trans-shipment harbours in the Lower St. Lawrence River, and especially on the effects which may result on the environment and the economy of the province of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. member that, a few days ago, while answering a similar question, I indicated that the consultations between the two governments were progressing, and that the various federal departments involved were exchanging views. The policy will not be announced until these consultations are duly completed. As for us, the question remains open and the solution will be found during these consultations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Considering the continuing and very rapid raise of production costs for farmers, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, does the minister intend to announce soon a new increase in grants for industrial milk?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that is not my intention at the present time although I am meeting with the officials of both these boards this afternoon.


Léonel Beaudoin: I want to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us what measures the government intends to take immediately in order to put a check on the farmers' financial difficulties resulting from the constant raise in their production costs?


ALLEGED REQUEST BY PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA TO BUY CANADIAN WHEAT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the

June 21, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice. Could he inform the House and the country what answer he gave the Prime Minister of India to her request to buy seven million tons of wheat from Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was no such request.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr, Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Justice. Is he stating that the Prime Minister of India did not want to buy any wheat from Canada when she was in Ottawa recently?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not involved directly in discussions. So far as I know, the question of grain needs came up in a general way. Any specific request would not ordinarily be made on a prime ministerial level, whether on the Indian side or on ours, but would be directed to the Canadian Wheat Board. As of several days ago, in my last discussion with the Canadian Wheat Board about the subject, no specific request had been made.
The last discussions with India in any positive way in connection with purchasing grain were several months ago when a sale was made to India and when the Wheat Board offered India additional quantities which were not taken up.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary, but I have to remind hon. members that we are now asking questions and giving answers on the matter which is to be the order of the day. However, the hon. member is recognized for a supplementary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he inform the House whether or not in talks between himself and the Prime Minister of India any discussion took place concerning their desire to purchase additional grain, and what was the answer he gave?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm in exact terms the answer given by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The question was raised. The Prime Minister did discuss with me the possibility of their making such requests, but no specific and clear request was made for any purchase of wheat.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Now that the Solicitor General and the chairman of the National Parole Board have indicated that membership of the board is to be expanded, and since 10 per cent and in some provinces over 25 per cent of the inmates in federal penal institutions are of Indian ancestry, would the Solicitor General at least ensure that one of these new appointments to the Parole Board is a native person?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I already have that under consideration.


SHIPPING
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recently announced granting of an operating subsidy by the United States maritime administration to a U.S. carrier, this being the second Great Lakes bulk operator to receive such a subsidy, and in view of the fact that such a subsidy most certainly will place our Canadian Great Lake bulk carriers at a serious disadvantage, what action is the Canadian government planning to take to offset the thrust of this unilateral action by an agency of the United States government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is surely something that worries us. We are observing the situation to see what the impact will be on the Canadian trade and shipping industry, and as soon as we have enough information we will probably intervene.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the disastrous storm that struck Nova Scotia last Sunday and literally destroyed the means of livelihood of the vast majority of lobster fishermen in my constituency, many of whom were wiped out completely, would he use his influence with the Premier of Nova Scotia in order that the lobster fishermen will be declared residents of a disaster area and thereby become eligible for federal and provincial financial assistance?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, due to the storms over the weekend there has been considerable damage done to the gear and vessels of inshore fishermen in a number of provinces in the Atlantic region. The federal fisheries service is endeavouring to assess the extent of the damage and working with the provinces we will, hopefully, work out a solution.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his reply. In view of the seriousness of the situation I wish to direct my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that when earthquakes, floods, famine and tidal waves create disasters in other countries throughout the world they readily receive assistance from the Canadian government, would the right hon. gentleman take the initiative in seeing to it that similar recognition will be given to Canadians in my area
June 21, 1973

who have not only suffered a disastrous loss but one which prevents them earning their future livelihood?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed the previous series of questions, but just on the basis of the question I did hear the answer is yes. We always do give a very sympathetic hearing to any such request made by any government around the world, and I take it that if some government has made such a request we would give it such sympathetic consideration.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not care how rude and arrogant the Prime Minister is toward me personally, I just consider the source whence it comes, but surely we should not expect this from the leader of a country in reference to men and women who are starving, have no equipment and cannot fish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Robert Muir: This arrogance by him goes on all the time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am sure the hon. member did not notice but I was unable to follow the exchange on the subject which preceded the question to me. I was in another member's seat discussing a question relevant to another subject. I apologize if I was not able to follow the serious question asked by the hon. member, but I really see no ground for his accusing me of arrogance because I was not in my seat when he asked these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for South Western Nova on a supplementary and perhaps the hon. member for St. John's East later. After the hon. member for South Western Nova, I will see the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and return to this matter later.


LOSSES SUFFERED BY ATLANTIC REGION FISHERMEN FROM STORM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF FAILURE TO BROADCAST SUPPLEMENTARY WEATHER FORECAST
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of Fisheries to whom the first question was addressed. In view of the fact that the weather forecaster who was on duty in the Atlantic region on Saturday night or Saturday afternoon when the storm first approached indicated, during the course of an interview yesterday morning on CBH, that while a supplementary forecast had been issued it in fact was never broadcast until some ten or twelve hours later, and as earlier broadcasting would have given at least some warning to fishermen or others involved in the storm, would he undertake to investigate the means of distributing forecasts, particularly supplementary and corrected forecasts, in order that the public might be aware of changed conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister or, if he is not available, to the Minister of National Defence, either one or the other. In view of the federal government's recent announcement that it is willing to spend $33 million to acquire waterfront property on Lake Ontario to provide marine and park facilities for the city of Toronto, will the federal government grant the request of the Lower Mainland Parks Advisory Association, which includes Vancouver and 19 other municipalities, that the remaining 38 acres of Jericho defence lands be returned to the city of Vancouver for parks and public recreation purposes?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member knows that this matter is under negotiation with the city of Vancouver. Until those negotiations are completed it is not possible to make any announcement.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the fact we have been getting the same response for at least six months, to my certain knowledge, would the minister undertake before the rise for the holidays, whenever we do, to make a statement in the House about the present position of the negotiations?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will keep the House informed.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the minister. Would the minister inform the House just what particular difficulty these negotiations are encountering so far as the position of the government is concerned? It seems to me that the government knows exactly what it has to do to end these negotiations with respect to that property-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is arguing now. I believe the hon. member was recognized for a supplementary, which has been asked.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there is no difficulty as far as the government's position is concerned. We made an agreement, which was agreed to by the city. We were quite happy with it. The city now wishes to change it and we are trying to accommodate their wishes.
 * *


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. Secretary of State.
Since some members are showing concern about the grants paid to the provinces for the teaching of a second language, can the minister tell us if he has proof that some

June 21, 1973
Oral Questions
provinces have used those funds for other purposes and, if so, which would those provinces be?


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries who is in the House but not in his seat at the moment. It has to do with the fact that the same storm which caused so much damage in Nova Scotia over the weekend also destroyed many salmon nets in Newfoundland. As the department has in its possession and in storage salmon nets which it bought from fishermen, would the minister make those salmon nets available to the fishermen whose gear was destroyed so they can continue to take advantage of what appears to be a good salmon run this year?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been raised by several members from Newfoundland and I have promised them, as I will promise the hon. member, that we will look into that suggestion. It may be a good idea.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of continuing representations that are being made to the minister by farmers and farm organizations with respect to what they call the inequities in the retroactive taxation of farm marketing quotas, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to introduce legislation to reclassify these quotas as capital assets rather than as items of goodwill?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the relevant time to discuss that, and I would be prepared to discuss it, would be when Bill C-193 is at the committee stage.


ACTION TO PROTECT SOFT FRUIT GROWERS FROM CHEAP IMPORTS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would refer him to the recommendation of the Standing Commit-

tee on Agriculture by resolution with regard to the protection of the soft fruit growers of Canada from cheap imports that threaten to come in below their cost of production. Would the Prime Minister advise the House what action has been taken and what his intentions are in regard to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter on which the Minister of Agriculture speaks on behalf of the government.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister does not know of this resolution which was referred to the government and as the Minister of Agriculture has said he is sympathetic to the cause of the soft fruit growers, will the minister tell the House what action he has taken on their behalf?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, what I said I meant. We are sympathetic to their cause and if we are going to take action it will be announced in due course.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is it a fact that, as was recently reported in an article in the Globe and Mail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny statements which have appeared in newspapers. The question should be asked directly.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Is it a fact that, as a result of the review by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion of its various programs, the department has received a study report which states that the specially designated depressed area of Renfrew-Pembroke should not have its special designation continue past December 31, 1973?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the manner in which the hon. member has asked the question. I am at somewhat of a disadvantage, not having seen the item which we are not allowed to refer to, but I will be glad to investigate and report to the hon. member later.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that there would be few supplementaries as we are coming to the end of the question period. If we are to have five or six more questions there should not be any supplementaries.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the minister might read the Globe and Mail of June-
June 21, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fisheries arises from representations I have received and which the minister has indicated he has received about the storm that seriously affected the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and apparently Newfoundland. In light of the discussion we have had, is he prepared to recognize that, fisheries being under federal jurisdiction, a special program of assistance should be undertaken to assist those fishermen at his initiative?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may recall, a special program of the nature of insurance for gear was instituted a few years ago. The fishermen, however, did not see fit to pay the premiums, and so we are back to the usual argument as to who pays for damage after a loss has occurred.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and relates to his press statement last week outside the House regarding storefront consumer offices. The minister's enthusiasm must mean, of course, that he has received the evaluation reports with regard to the experimental offices in Renfrew, Cornwall and Winnipeg. As the minister undertook to send those evaluation reports to the provincial ministers involved, will he also do members of this House who are interested in this subject the courtesy of sending them copies of those reports as well?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall such a specific undertaking. I will check into it and try to do what is appropriate.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the minister's picture appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail alongside that of the uninvited guest who barged into the chamber of the House of Corn-
Oral Questions
mons yesterday, does this signify that the minister is in accord with and approves of this action or is he condemning it?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It deals with the brutal rape and robbery of a 70-year old woman in Edmonton last week. Since these subhuman acts are on the increase, will the minister consider bringing in amendments to the Criminal Code to institute some form of corporal punishment for such crimes as a deterrent to this type of criminal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding our abhorrence of this kind of activity it is still our position, as it was the position of a very large majority in the House several years ago, that corporal punishment in our penal institutions is not a desirable remedy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: With your approval, Mr. Speaker, my question will take the form of a serious point of order after the question period is finished.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. We have gone five minutes beyond the end of the question period so we will hear the hon. member's point of order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a serious point of order. It pertains to the question asked by the hon. member for Wellington and arises from the picture of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and from time to time Acting Prime Minister, and the illegal intruder upon the proceedings of the House yesterday that has appeared on the front pages of daily papers. This leaves the well-founded impression on the Canadian people that the minister and his party have no regard for the maintenance of order in the councils of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that is not a point of order. I am not sure how he can justify making that statement on a point of order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: It indicates they have no regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should have regard for the ruling of the Chair. I suggest that is not a point of order. The hon. member may think he has a question of privilege, about which he might have given notice. He might have had a question and I was prepared to recognize him for that purpose. But it is hardly a point

June 21, 1973
Oral Questions
of order. I do not know how the hon. member can reconcile that statement with one of the Standing Orders of this House.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I rise on a question of privilege which involves the privileges of members of this House. The daily papers stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he knows the rules of this House. He has to give notice. I know that one hon. member wanted to ask a question in relation to this matter and we did not get to him. I apologize to him. The hon. member could have asked a question. If he thinks it is important the matter can be raised by way of a question of privilege, but he has to give the usual notice as required under the Standing Order. The hon. member can do that and he will be heard by the Chair. Perhaps out of courtesy, the House might allow the Chair to recognize the Leader of the Opposition who has been seeking the floor for some time to ask a question.


NATIONAL PARKS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises out of the report of the government of Alberta in March, 1972, concerning self-government for Banff and Jasper. Does the minister intend, hopefully within the next few days, to announce any improvement in the capacity of these communities for self-government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question is under review by the department and we are having consultations with the advisory council, especially in Banff. If we have any progress to report to the House, we will do so in due course.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader about the business for this week and next and, in light of the fact there are two successive Mondays which will be parliamentary holidays, what we will be doing when we return after July 1. To save rising to ask another question, is the minister going to take steps to refer to this House the annual report of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways which his seatmate is quite anxious to have considered by the committee?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today is an opposition day. Tomorrow we will continue with second reading of the Immigration Appeal Board Act, followed by second

reading of the Summer Olympic Games bill. Tuesday will be another opposition day. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, we can deal with the committee of the whole stage on the income tax bills and, hopefully, third reading. This will be followed by the Summer Olympic Games bill if it is not completed on Friday, the Pension Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the amendment to the Parole Act, the Crop Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act and the customs tax act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister answer my question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the reference to the standing committee, I am conscious of the desire to have this further reference. I have it under consideration. In view of the advance in time of the session, it might be preferable to postpone or, indeed, not undertake the reference at this time. However, I do have it under consideration.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the government House leader. In view of the fact the bill to amend the Pension Act with regard to the basic rate of the war disability pension has to be passed by this House and the other place and given royal assent before the end of June if the payments are to be in effect beginning July 1, will consideration be given to the possibility of this bill being dealt with tomorrow, even if it is necessary to make arrangements either for a short debate on second reading or no debate at all?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If it is possible to dispense with the debate or confine it to very short speeches of praise for the minister, I will be happy to call the bill early tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister undertake to have a meeting with the usual persons this afternoon or sometime later today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fortin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the government House leader if he intends to put the following measures on his priority list: foreign investments, electoral expenses and capital punishment, in in order to have them considered before the summer recess?
I would also like to ask him where we stand as regards the steps or discussions-if there are still any-concerning offices within the electoral districts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it has been the intention of the government to secure the passage of the capital punishment bill before the summer adjournment. We have not reached any such position with regard to the election expenses bill. In connection with the last part of the question, I have no new information for my hon. friend, but I will keep him informed.
June 21, 1973


André-Gilles Fortin: As for the second part of the question, would the government house leader inform the House what steps he intends to take in the near future in relation to offices and secretarial staff in the electoral districts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it is well known to hon. members that the Commissioners of Internal Economy under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker passed a minute some time ago providing the authority to engage additional secretarial staff and to make office space available for members in their constituencies. However, my advice is that no vote exists at the present time from which such facilities can be provided unless we have recourse to the contingency fund, a course which does not seem to be an entirely popular one with the House. Therefore, the best I can do is assure hon. members that the first supplementary estimates which come before the House will make provision for such services. I have no other way of providing the money, even from my own limited resources.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Minister of Transport has left the House, but I rise on a point of order with respect to the action taken by him today in tabling papers with regard to the proposed airport at Pickering rather than making a statement on motions.
I think this is particularly regrettable, in view of the fact that the papers filed state there is to be an independent board of inquiry. The members are then listed as: Chairman, blank; Vice-Chairman, blank; Board members, blank. On January 30, the minister told the House that a report would be made within 12 months. We now see, from the papers which the minister tabled, that it is to be 12 months from the date the board is appointed, whatever that date may be.


Mr. Stanbury:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I should respond at the first opportunity to the question of privilege raised earlier, I understand, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. I would like to apologise to him if he feels misled by any answer I gave yesterday. It was certainly not my intention to mislead him. I think he will appreciate that there are certain limitations on the length of replies one can give in the House; there certainly were yesterday. I wish to reiterate what I have said outside the House; I have asked my officials not to issue further permission for highway sufference warehouses until some progress has been made on a general review of the policy followed in this respect. While I understand that my officials have been encountering pressure from several firms wishing to open such warehouses in Vancouver, I am advised they have not committed the department to any positive decision on the question of additional warehouses. They have simply indicated to the firms pressing the department on this subject that they would welcome any representations and presentations which those firms might like to make.
I think it is preferable that we follow this procedure, as was suggested yesterday by the hon. member for New Westminster, rather than continue to be satisfied, as we have been for so long, with simply taking the first firm that comes long.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's statement has been made by way of response to a question of privilege. Earlier, I suggested it was not a question of privilege, that it was rather a matter of debate between the hon. member and the minister. So perhaps I should not have allowed the minister to reply. But since I appear to have forgotten what my ruling was when the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta raised the matter, I suggest he might be allowed to ask a supplementary question.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take up much time. I thank the minister for getting himself off the hook in connection with his statement in the House yesterday. If he did not misinform the House, then his officials are misinforming him, because it was his own department which contacted two firms today and asked for their submissions. And they did not put any pressure on the department.


Richard J. Stanbury: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the hon. minister's proposed question of privilege relates to the statement just made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. I hope this will not go on all the afternoon.


Richard J. Stanbury: I hope so too, Your Honour. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta had followed the same procedure as the other hon. member interested in this matter, he would have discussed it thoroughly with me outside the House and had an opportunity to get all the details rather than use this chamber to make some kind of partisan point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Richard J. Stanbury: The department was responding to requests from those firms.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest we are continuing a debate between the minister and the hon. member. I hope that both hon. gentlemen might meet later in the afternoon, at their convenience and try to straighten the matter out. I do not think we can solve it by a series of alleged questions of privilege.


John Douglas Reynolds: I hesitate to say this, Mr. Speaker, but the minister stated that if I contacted him I would be given details. I have letters on my files on the same proposal. He is using the floor of this House to try to hose the people into believing that he is right. He is trying to hose the people of Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall not say what I was about to say. It might not have been charitable. I shall call orders of the day.

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

John (Jack) Henry Horner: This House condemns the government and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for failing to maximize wheat sales at top world prices and for otherwise failing to permit the Board to operate in a positive and efficient manner in the best interest of the Canadian wheat farmer; and this House deplores the government's failure to announce through the Board an immediate payment of 30 cents a bushel on all wheat sold in the 1972-73 crop year.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House breaks down into two parts, as can readily be seen. The first condemns the government and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board for interfering in the operations of the Board to the detriment of the Canadian farmer, and the western farmer in particular. The second part calls for an immediate increase in the price of wheat paid by the Board.
To deal with the first part, I have sat in this House and watched six ministers report to parliament for the Wheat Board over the last 15 years. Each of them did it a little differently, but all of them did it in a manner different from that of the present minister. The present minister attempts to control and run the Canadian Wheat Board to his own personal advantage and to the advantage of the political party to which he belongs. The Canadian Wheat Board was established to serve the western farmer in the areas designated. The cost of the administration and operations of the Board is paid for by the farmers themselves. Salaries and administration costs come out of money received for grain handled by the Board. The minister's job is to report to the House, but he has repeatedly attempted to interfere with the Board's operations.
In the short time available to me this afternoon I shall attempt to show how he has done this. First, on taking over responsibility for the Wheat Board, he devised a system whereby deliveries would be low so that the elevators could be emptied. Then, during the coming election, whenever it came up, it would be possible to fill the elevators and create a feeling of ebullience across the prairies as grain was being delivered.
The minister sold over 300 million bushels on international markets that year but allowed the farmers to deliver only 200 million bushels. This resulted in a direct loss to the farmers, forcing many of them out of business. I know that the minister will attempt to say that he devised the block system. Actually he did not; the block system was devised before he took over by the railroads and the Canadian Wheat Board. Then, many programs were instituted. After the block system we had Operation Lift, with the domestic price frozen at $1.95 a bushel. Then, we had an acreage payment and grain stabilization plan, but this did not go forward. Then, there was the acreage payment plan for the seeding of grasslands, and the minis-

ter also took a hand in making sales of wheat to Russia and China last summer.
One wonders where all these programs came from. Were they devised by the Canadian Wheat Board, or were they thoughts put forward by the western farmers? Sadly, Mr. Speaker, they were not. If you refer to the task force report on agriculture in the 1970's, among the recommendations appearing at pages 130 to 132 of the report, each one of these programs is suggested. Who were the people who constituted the task force? Of the five members of the task force on agriculture, only one was a westerner. Three came from Ontario, one from Quebec, and the fifth was a university professor in the city of Winnipeg.
How does this minister's handling of the Canadian Wheat Board compare with that of previous ministers? The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) at one time had responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board and reported to parliament on their behalf. As reported at page 1333 of Hansard for February 16, 1966 he said:
-I hope that all hon. members will support the Wheat Board in their endeavours to sell as much Canadian grain as possible. I hope they will never be criticized for their endeavours to find markets for our grain.
The minister stated quite clearly that it was the Canadian Wheat Board that sold our grain.
During the last election we were told that the present minister in charge of the Wheat Board is the best grain salesman that Canada has ever had.


Mr. Sharp:: Did Alvin sell any wheat?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When Mr. Pepin was in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, he said that western farmers are used to making their own decisions. Then, he said he understood there would be a reduction of 12 per cent in wheat acreage in the coming year. That is what he said in 1969, but he quite clearly stated that the western farmers ought to make their own decisions.
During another debate in this House on May 16, 1969 Mr. Pepin said, as reported at page 8818:
With regard to having a representative of the Wheat Board in China, this would be a matter of Canadian Wheat Board policy and in due course we will see what it is.
There, again, he left it up to the Canadian Wheat Board to make their own decision, since they are operating for the good of the farmers.
The Hon. Robert Winters used to report for the Canadian Wheat Board in this House, and this is what he said about the Wheat Board as reported at page 11,749 of Hansard for Friday, January 13, 1967:
I would like to pay particular tribute to the remarkable achievements of the Canadian Wheat Board. The efforts of the board on behalf of the western producer have benefited not only the grain producer but all Canadians.
So, Mr. Speaker, all previous ministers responsible for the Wheat Board have emphasized that the western producer should be served by the Canadian Wheat Board, not interfered with by programs such as Operation Lift and others. The present minister has stated quite clearly that he is in charge. When talking about the freeze on the domestic price of wheat, as reported at page 21:13 of the
June 21, 1973

report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for Wednesday, May 23 last he said:
It has no effect at all, because since the days when world prices moved away from the international grains range minimum of $1.95 the government has directed the Canadian Wheat Board to sell wheat basis first No. 1 northern and then No. 1 cw at $1.95 at Thunder Bay to Canadian millers.
In other words, the government directly interfered and told the Canadian Wheat Board to sell wheat to Canadian millers at a lower price than the world price. The government took a hand and interfered with the decision of the Canadian Wheat Board in its attempt to achieve results for the Canadian farmer, thus bringing about loss of revenue to western farmers.
I know the minister will rebut what I say with his argument about the two-price system, but I have had some correspondence with the Canadian Wheat Board in regard to the two-price system. In their letter they say this:
The first of these is the fact that the two-price payment was not a Wheat Board function and any explanations of policy must come from the responsible officials in Ottawa.
Clearly, the Wheat Board disclaims any responsibility for the two-price system.
Again, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board further interfered in the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. We all remember the famous grain income stabilization debate in the fall of 1971. During the agriculture committee hearings in June of 1971 questions were directed to the Wheat Board official, Mr. Treleaven, in regard to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the payments that were due to the board automatically. As reported at page 58:8 of the committee report Mr. Treleaven said:
I do not know whether I can comment on the liability or the responsibility or the duty of the government in this respect, but under the existing legislation, yes, the money is due to the Board until such time as the legislation is repealed.
The legislation has never been repealed, and of course history proved us right in this regard. That fall the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted that the government had broken the law, that it could only break the law for so long but could not break it any longer, and consequently the payments were made. A payment of something like 18 cents a bushel was made to the farmers shortly thereafter. Surely, that is evidence enough that there has been direct interference with the Canadian Wheat Board operations by the present minister, to the detriment of the very people the Wheat Board is to serve.
One can continue and mention at length the colossal burden that Operation Lift placed on the western farmer through the attempt at direct control in the supply-management of wheat. The minister sat in his ivory tower and said he could foresee the years ahead and that we must discourage the farmers from producing wheat. I have never had anything against marketing boards or against the Canadian Wheat Board, but I do have quite strong feelings about supply-management. In this respect also, the minister directly intervened to implement a form of supply-management through the quota system, and the Wheat Board was told to follow it up, to the detriment of the very people they attempt to serve, the Canadian farmers.
There are all kinds of other references that I could put on the record. For example, in a recent speech in Winnipeg
Wheat Sales
this is what the minister in charge of the Wheat Board
said:
The federal government got the prairie farmer out of the worst wheat crisis this country has ever known-
Then, he went on to say that, if he had his way, he would review the Crowsnest pass rates. But according to the minister, the federal government got the prairie farmers out of the worst wheat crisis they had ever known. If selling wheat is a crisis, then we are out of it because we do not have any to sell. It is evident today that we had to turn down an offer from India to buy-and I emphasize that word-about 70 million bushels of wheat at the going world price, which is a little better than $3 a bushel, because we did not have the wheat to sell. We had to tell them to come back when the crop is in this fall, that we might have the wheat then.
Ever since the minister has taken over the responsibility of reporting to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board, he has deliberately attempted to save the federal government money under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I say "deliberately" because I know it to be the fact. He has lowered stocks in country elevators and terminals, and I want the members of the House to realize that he has accomplished that objective. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act states that all wheat in storage over 178 million bushels will be subject to storage charges paid by the federal government. The minister has now got commercial storage below 178 million bushels. I see he shakes his head to indicate that is not so.
Let me refer to a James Richardson letter, No. 11, of June 14, which states in part:
More wheat is moving out of the country and being milled domestically than is currently being marketed by producers, and stocks in commercial storage and in transit are down to 178 million bushels of bread wheat and 34 million bushels of durums. This raises the question of how much is still on the farms and how willing producers will be to haul it to the elevators as delivery quotas are now wide open.


Otto Emil Lang: That adds up to 212.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One might ask why we have got ourselves in to this fix. I suggest it is directly as a result of interference by the minister. He deliberately sold wheat over a long period at the same price. We can see this by studying committee proceedings No. 5 of the Committee on Agriculture. Let us first refer to page 22. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was directing questions to Mr. Vogel, Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board. He asked:
During this period, are you being forced to disregard any offers to market grain?


Mr.   Vogel@: Yes, indeed. There is more grain that could be sold now if it were on hand.
In other words, the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board admits we have turned down wheat sales because we do not have grain on hand. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has succeeded in lowering the amount of stock on hand to such a dangerously low position we have to turn down sales.
It might be of interest to point out certain replies made by Mr. Vogel as they appear at page 15 of issue No. 5 of the

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
evidence before the Committee on Agriculture. At this point the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) was questioning Mr. Vogel as to what actually was being done to encourage the market, and Mr. Vogel replied:
with wheat in the supply and demand position it is, and with so much of the wheat from Canada moving now by means of directly negotiated contracts by the Board, that there is a very limited function and source of revenue for them.
He was referring to independent grain salesmen. In other words, most of our sales in recent years have been directly contracted by the board with Russia and China.
How were these prices arrived at, and over what period of time were the contracts to run? At page 43 of the same committee proceedings one can find the answer to this question in a reply to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). Perhaps I should read his question:
Where is the basic world price of wheat set, the Chicago market, the futures market?
The Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board replied:
The basic price of wheat for years has really been set by the American government subsidy. Now, it is no longer a factor. At the moment the American markets themselves are a very major factor, but they have been very speculative.
I should like to underline that word "speculative". The Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board realizes that prices today are no longer set by American subsidy, but rather by the American markets. Because the United States is reducing its subsidies on grain production the American market prices are very speculative, and I cannot over-emphasize that fact. I want everybody to clearly understand what this minister has done.
Let me refer to page 72 of the same committee proceedings where we find a series of questions asked by the hon. member for Dauphin as follows:
Can you in a general way say how you negotiate with China and Russia, without giving details? Can you give a general outline?
Mr. Vogel replies in part:
This is no reflection on the Chinese at all, it is simply a different society and a different way of doing business. However, if we are successful in a negotiation then the outcome is a contract for a quantity extending over a period of months ahead.
The hon. member then asked:
How long is the usual firm price? Do you negotiate for so many bushels over a six-month period?


Mr.   Vogel@: Sometimes as long as 12 months.


Mr. Ritchie:: Usually six months?


Mr.   Vogel@: No, I would say more usually 12 months.
Then, the hon. member for Dauphin asked:
You tend to negotiate on the world price at that particular time? Mr. Vogel: Yes, but we tend to negotiate on-


William Gordon Ritchie: Generally, you have no escalators or de-escalators in your contract?


Mr.   Vogel@: You will not have, and in my opinion, you cannot have if you want to deal with this type of market. Theirs is a planned economy. As buyer, they want to know and they insist on knowing, exactly what their position is going to be vis-a-vis supplies for the period ahead.
So, one can clearly see that rather than paying attention to our traditional markets, Japan, Great Britain and Europe, we have geared ourselves, under the direction of the present minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat

Board, to supplying these planned economies on a longterm basis, 12 months ahead, at a set price. Anyone knows that no matter what you are selling, if you are going into a rising market you would be foolish to sell at a set price for a 12-month period. That is, in fact, what has been done, and one may wonder why.
Let us cast our memories back to the spring and summer of 1972. There was an election in the offing and this minister wanted to make sales. Let me refer to a newspaper clipping from the Regina Leader-Post of February 28, 1972, where we find this statement:
Mr. Lang described the sale as a "tangible follow-up" to Prime Minister Trudeau's visit to Russia last spring and Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin's Canadian visit last October-
That appeared under the heading "185-Million Bushel Wheat Sale to Soviet". One can see how politics played a part in that interference with the Canadian Wheat Board. We sold wheat for a 12-month period at a fixed price, and the farmers were fearful they would not get much in final payments.
Let me refer to the Globe and Mail of June 3, 1972 where we find an article headed "Canada Concludes Large Wheat Sale to China Worth $100 Million". We find this stated:
There was quiet glee in Mr. Lang's voice as he told MPs of the sale-
He knew there was an election coming up and he thought this sale would do much to project his hopes for re-election and more control over the western farmer. There is no doubt in my mind that the government ignored our marketing principles, and disregarded our traditional customers, for the sake of the Liberal party in western Canada rather than for the benefit of western farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me refer again to page 22 of issue No. 5 of the proceedings of the same committee. Here, we find the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board answering the hon. member for Vegreville in the same manner he has answered other members. He said:
Yes, indeed. There is more grain that could be sold now if it were on hand.
That is clear and simple. We have not got the grain on hand, and we are losing sales. No one minds losing sales when the price is very low, but when the price of wheat is something like $3.15 a bushel at Thunder Bay, one can only conclude that the direct interference by the minister has not been of benefit to the western farmer, but rather has been done for the benefit of the Liberal government in western Canada.
Let me now refer to page 15 of issue No. 10 of the evidence before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I had pointed out quite clearly that we should look at the final, realized price of $1.59, the lowest in the last 20 years, and I asked the minister why he was trying to tell us he sold our wheat at the highest possible price in July, 1972. One need only look at the annual reports of the Canadian Wheat Board to see that this was the lowest realized price. On would have to go back a long time to find the price below $1.59. That was the realized price for 1971-72. The minister has this to say:
June 21, 1973

-we regretted the level of those prices. The current crop year in which the prices have been significantly better will only show up in returns to the farmer in a final way when the final payments are made, probably in about six or seven or eight months from now.
That is clear. He is saying the final payment will be significantly better than $1.59, but the farmers will have to wait six or seven months for it. What will be the loss to the farmers? The loss will result from the fact that we will continue to turn down sales at the highest international price for wheat which has existed for a number of years. Is it logical to expect that the international price will increase or will level off? The minister made the most honest gesture I have seen him make. He held up his hands indicating that he did not know.


Otto Emil Lang: I really meant, "You tell us".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In any case, one might look at the crop reports from Russia. There is an article in the Toronto Star of Monday, June 18 entitled "Soviet grain outlook rosy". From my own knowledge, I can say the Soviet seeded more acreage in wheat last fall and this spring than perhaps ever before, and if the outlook is rosy they will fare fairly well this year. If the Russians do not buy wheat on the international market, that will take some pressure off the demand for the coming year. The United States has had plenty of moisture and may have a good crop. In the Prairies, even if the acreage is reduced below what the minister told us it would be, we now know the crop will be average, if not better, depending on weather conditions. We should encourage the farmers to deliver as much as possible now so that the market demand can be met.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) made a statement not long ago that China had committed itself to be the primary buyer from Canada, and that it would come to Canada whenever it needed wheat. Last week China purchased nearly 80 million bushels from the United States. Why did we not get in on that sale? It was because we did not have the wheat to sell. Just last week India asked for grain and we did not have it to sell. This is all very clear.
The Canadian Wheat Board knew the situation into which we were heading. Back in December, 1972, the board wrote the producers and said:
. . . that every additional bushel of grain that can be made available will be needed . . . We need a reliable figure before we can determine how much grain we can commit for forward sales to take advantage of the higher price levels.
That is what the Canadian Wheat Board said. Then, we had interference from the minister. This is why I believe the minister should immediately authorize the Canadian Wheat Board to increase the initial price or make an interim payment of 30 cents a bushel to the western farmers. This would bring the price up to a point where it would be partly comparable to the domestic feed price for wheat now in western Canada.
Farmers are not delivering to the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not believe that the final payment will be as great as the minister suggests. An economist in the province of Alberta, Mr. Walker, said that the estimate of
Wheat Sales
20 cents to 25 cents for the final payment is right, and that it will be only that much. He goes on to say that it will mean the farmers will hold back their wheat and deliver it in the next crop year rather than deliver it this year. We are saying that if there is to be a final payment of some size, pay 30 cents of it now and encourage the farmers to make those deliveries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How does that compare with the prices the feed mills are paying now in western Canada? In a crop report put out by the Alberta Department of Agriculture for June 15, 1973, there is a list of the prices of feed grains throughout that province. The high bids in the Calgary district include wheat at $2.12. The report states that Edmonton buyers bid for wheat at $2.15 and in some places $2.20.
The price list of the Federated Co-op in the province of Saskatchewan for wheat-not necessarily the best grade of wheat and they are not particular about the dockage charge either-in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in the minister's own province, quotes $1.95 delivered at the mills. In Manitoba, the feed mills are paying $2. In Winnipeg, they are paying $2 for feed wheat. Today, if a farmer delivers to the Canadian Wheat Board for international sales, he receives at the time of his delivery something in the neighbourhood of $1.55, depending on where he is and how much it costs to move his grain to the lakehead. The initial price is $1.76 minus about 20 cents which comes back to about $1.55. A 30 cent payment on top of that would make his initial price $1.85 or $1.86, depending on where he lived in the prairies. This would make him reasonably hopeful that, coupled with the final payment, that would mean he would be receiving as much as he could from the feed mills and the feed lots today in western Canada.
One can readily see that this whole question of orderly marketing has become disorderly marketing. In fact, in a recent farm publication, the Free Press Weekly, there are two articles, one of which is entitled "Disorderly grain marketing". The whole purpose and concept of the Canadian Wheat Board was to set up an orderly marketing system. Who has caused it to appear disorderly? The minister with his direct interference in the orderly marketing.
Now, what about the price? The same Free Press Weekly report on farming dated June 2 contains an article entitled "The price to sell at". If I had time I would read it. However, it points out very vividly that in our over-anxiety to make big sales and big deliveries before the October election, we may well have sold at too low prices and for too long a period in the fall. When one looks at the records one can see that we did sell to Russia and China at prices a lot less than the international price this year.
I see my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker. I urge all members to vote for this resolution because if they do we will then have forced the government to pay the farmers the extra 30 cents, which should encourage them to make a maximum amount of deliveries between now and July 31. We would then be able to sell this grain for a portion of this year at the highest price possible. We sold for eight months below the international price and now perhaps we should make as many sales as possible at the highest possible price. Then, the final payment will not be too low
4984

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
and will give the farmer a price relatively close to what he can receive from the feeders.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I had for a time thought that the full year might go by without one opposition motion on grain and agriculture. It had become very common to have one approximately every week or so a few years ago. This year it took a long time for the opposition to decide they could, in fact, frame a motion adequate to their purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Having framed the motion, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) decided today to speak essentially about a rather different subject. I rechecked the order paper to be sure I had it right, and I see that he condemns the minister responsible and the government for failing to maximize wheat sales at top world prices.
Some hon. Mombers: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: But speaking to it today, he said that he was moving a motion criticizing us for interfering in the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. The interesting point about that, of course, is that the only way we could be active in maximizing wheat sales at top world prices would be by giving directions to the Canadian Wheat Board about selling, whereas it is our constant practice to leave the selling decisions to the board. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, they have the obligation to attempt to maximize benefits for the Canadian farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Intellectual socialism.


Otto Emil Lang: I would point out that having initially in his motion invited us to interfere, later in speaking he condemned us for interfering. Of course, the fact of the matter is that the motion is a thinly veiled continuation of the attack by certain members of the Conservative party upon the Canadian Wheat Board itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Crowfoot is rarely willing to come out and say flatly that he is an out and out open marketer, and that he would prefer the Canadian Wheat Board not to exist. He is afraid to say that, although I am not sure that his brother, who is in another legislature, is as afraid. That, of course, is a very interesting and fundamental fact about which farmers are concerned when they look at the agriculture program of the Conservative party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege. One cannot impute motives to others for what they say or what they do. If at any time I have said anything against the Canadian Wheat Board, I would like the minister to quote it to me. I have always stood up for the Wheat Board.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a point of debate. The minister has the floor, and perhaps he should be allowed to make his speech.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is destroying the Wheat Board by burrowing from without.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is never concerned about facts.


Mr. Woolliams:: Be truthful, Otto.


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Wheat Board has, by statute, the obligation to sell grain delivered to it by farmers and to attempt, in its best judgment and to the best of its ability, to obtain the best terms for farmers for that grain. This is the work that it has done, and so long as I have anything to do with it it will continue to do so in the interest of Canadian farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us about Operation Lift.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not what the farmers say.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Crowfoot, like so many members from his party, likes to be first and strongest with hindsight in saying that we should have known that an earlier price was not, in fact, the best possible price. This is where his insidious attack upon the Wheat Board's operations really comes in. I would like to point out to him that the extremely important judgment about when to sell grain, at what price, is the same difficult judgment whether it is made by the Wheat Board on behalf of all Canadian farmers or by individual farmers themselves. It is the judgment of the farmers of the prairie region that it is better to leave that important decision to the Canadian Wheat Board in the case of wheat, barley and oats than to take it themselves.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree.


Otto Emil Lang: That is also the case with oilseeds. I have said that to the hon. member for Crowfoot time and time again. We in this government have not, and will not, interfere with any of the decisions of the Canadian Wheat Board in relation to the selling of wheat on a particular contract, in relation to when it should sell it and at what prices it should sell it. Indeed, I will say to the hon. member more than that. I believe that the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board would not agree to function under circumstances in which that obligation placed upon them under the act was interfered with by us. When, from time to time, we are able to give direction to the Canadian Wheat Board upon their activities, we must do so by order in council under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I will remind hon. members that this kind of direction and comment in relation to certain Canadian Wheat Board activities has been quite common over the period of years. When the Conservatives were last in power the Bracken formula was devised as a matter of government policy, and imposed quite properly as a policy relating to something extraneous to the Wheat Board and Willingly accepted by them.
The question of the quota system was discussed in the parliamentary committee to determine whether sales to feed mills should or should not be under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Again this was a matter of policy. In the same way, many of the areas which are extremely important to the Wheat Board and which are matters of

government policy are determined by the government and we take the responsibility for them. When we saw that the quota system led to anomalous results, we set up a quota committee to try to come to a conclusion and an agreement on the kind of quota system which would be better for farmers and for their delivery pattern. That quota system has been well received by farmers over the recent years since it has been in force. This is the kind of policy matter which is the subject of governmental decision.
We did the same in many other cases where we tried to provide to the Canadian Wheat Board facilities which would allow them to do the job better. We provided credit facilities which had not existed before, and as a result of which the Wheat Board was able to make sales to markets in developing countries and to other markets in competition with other sellers. Without those facilities, the Wheat Board could not have made those sales. Those are right and proper actions for the government to take. We set up a market development fund to encourage the promotion of sales in many different ways. Study after study has emerged from that which can have long term good effects on the industry.
We felt that it was our responsibility to look at the question of how rapeseed should be marketed. It was our judgment that farmers did not have an adequate understanding of the alternatives before them in the circumstances, and we set up a rapeseed committee to analyse the marketing of rapeseed. The committee was composed of producers. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) thinks we are out of step in our view that there was not enough information. The rapeseed committee composed of at least two or three producers of rapeseed concluded that before a plebiscite could be held on the question of marketing more information should be prepared and developed for the rapeseed producers. That is what we did. We sent the committee back to work and they produced a document which has been generally well received as a balanced document analysing the pros and cons of the variety of marketing systems. We are proceeding to a plebiscite on the question of how rapeseed should be marketed.
These are the responsibilities of the government in trying to produce a general atmosphere in which the grain industry can develop properly. We took it as our responsibility to try to provide farmers with the maximum amount of information in connection with market prospects, to provide farmers with information on initial prices on March 1, again a step which has been universally accepted as a step forward in the operation of the grain system in Canada. These are the steps we took. We took steps to make sure that what has happened could happen. We have gone through three years of record sales, increasing each year, and I am confident that we will set another record, the third record, in the current crop year. We are presently at about 28 million bushels above last year.
These are things we can do and ought to do, but the hon. members opposite criticize the sales which were made at different prices. As I say, behind the attacks upon the sales I see, in effect, attacks upon the Canadian Wheat Board and on the Wheat Board system itself.
Wheat Sales
I would like to point out to hon. members that when they make these comparisons they have a golden opportunity for direct comparisons. We have to the south of us a great and open market system for wheat. How has it performed in recent times? For years, it operated on a subsidy system which allowed sales to be made at very low prices. The question which the Canadian Wheat Board had to meet constantly was whether to sell any wheat at all and let the Americans take over the market, with only the Australians in competition, or go ahead and sell at those prices which everybody knew were far too low? It was the Wheat Board's decision in such cases, and I know that the Canadian farmers were with them when they were selling barley at three bushels for a dollar. The farmer believed it was right for the Wheat Board to go into those markets at that time. As I say, we see the two systems selling side by side, and over that time, as I review the prices in the U.S. market and the Wheat Board market, the Wheat Board did a very good job indeed in obtaining a reasonable margin over the United States for the grain it was selling.
Hon. members opposite refer to recent sales. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) raised a question which I know he raised thinking it showed a direct relationship to current sales being made. He raised a question about grain being delivered to Russia and China in the first three months of this year at prices that seemed to be indicated by the export figures that were available at that time. The fact is that some of that grain was being delivered on contracts which had been signed some long time ago.
I remind hon. members of the earlier contract signed with the U.S.S.R. on February 28, 1972, for 129 million bushels. At that time, the Wheat Board's card prices were just over $1.68, but that was higher than the American price on that date. What do hon. members opposite say we should have done? Do they believe we should have said, "No, we have no wheat to sell to the Russians at this time. We will hold it, perhaps forever. We will plug up our elevators"-as they used to like to do-"and we will let the Russian market go to someone else." It was the Wheat Board's judgment that it was important to hold that market for the future, to hold the goodwill of the Russians, and so it entered into a direct contract for 129 million bushels. There was also an option in that contract for a further 59 million bushels, which was exercised by the Russians on July 18, 1972, when the price on the Wheat Board card stood at $1.72.
In the next few days, right around that same period, the U.S.S.R. purchased 400 million bushels from the United States, when the price was $1.63 on the open market in the United States.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An escalating price.


Otto Emil Lang: It was $1.63 firm, and that price is the price at which the grain is being delivered today, as it was in January, February and March, to the U.S.S.R. by the U.S. open market. And if I can throw in one additional point for the benefit of the hon. member, farmers in the United States did far less well than farmers in Canada, even proportionately at the price, and the trade in the U.S. did far better in terms of its commission, which does not go to the farmers in the U.S. Here, there is only a very small
4986

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
amount realized in commission. That is a thing the hon. member should remember.
I will ask the hon. member another question about when his hindsight would have begun to operate in a different way. What about the sale to China on April 9, 1973? We sold 55 million bushels of wheat to China. The Wheat Board card price at that time was $2.48-7/8 for 13'/2 per cent protein ICW, a price which at that time was making farmers all over the country rejoice, a price which none the less has been exceeded today by $1 a bushel. Would the hon. member have had the Wheat Board say to the Chinese, "We will not sell at that price," even though at that time U.S. listed prices were running 20 cents to 30 cents lower than that price? The reason the Chinese would even talk to us about our grain was that with the Wheat Board system, and the block system, and the co-ordinators at the terminals, all of which make our system efficient, and much of which has been improved in the last two or three years, they could be assured that we could deliver on a stated contract. There was no equivalent assurance at that stage from the United States. What does the hon. member say our negotiators should have done?
Let me tell him a little bit about buying and selling. The seller usually wants the best possible price, and the buyer usually thinks the price is too high. It should not be a surprise to the hon. member that that might happen even when the Canadian Wheat Board and the Chinese negotiators, with all the goodwill that has come to exist between them, are sitting down to determine what they believe to be the right price. The task they have is to determine a fair price that is satisfactory to both.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member, because he needs the instruction, that at that time the Wheat Board was quite prepared to offer to the buyer, the Chinese, more grain than the contract eventually called for, and it was because the buyer felt the price was too high that the exact price for the exact amount was negotiated. That was the nature of the judgment that could be made at that point in time about the prices.
But the hon. member for Crowfoot knows what prices are going to do. He says we are at the top, that the market is going to come down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not say it was at the top. I said it would be levelling off.


Otto Emil Lang: I presume the hon. member should be mortgaging his farm, his ranch, and putting everything he has in futures, because he is so sure of his position. Let me say to him that I am not that sure. I am not sure that today's prices are the top prices. To try to determine when prices are the top prices is indeed the very judgment for which the farmers wanted and have a Canadian Wheat Board. They want it to make that judgment.
There is one more judgment that the Wheat Board has to make, and that is in relation to our over-all customer situation. The hon. member for Crowfoot reported that the Board had said it was passing up some sales opportunities. What he fails to understand, and what the Wheat Board has said clearly, is that it is still selling wheat today. Last week they sold on a regular tender, in a regular way to the Japanese-I should say that this was in the first week of June-almost two million bushels of wheat. The card

prices then were $3.30, and that was the price paid at that particular time. They still are selling wheat, and they will go on selling to our traditional customers in the traditional way, and in view of the selling record over the last two years we have a lot more traditional customers that we have to keep in mind.
What the Wheat Board will not do today is sell to a completely new customer until the Board is absolutely sure that it is able to meet the demands, which are very extensive, of our traditional customers, in the traditional way, and until we are quite sure we have the capability of getting the grain out of the country. With crop conditions what they are, supply is ceasing to be a problem for the Canadian Wheat Board, but transportation and handling continue to be problems. The point that is really fundamental is that it is the Wheat Board which decides whether or not to sell wheat to new customers, except in very special circumstances. If those circumstances arise, we will use orders in council and it will be quite clear what policy is being used in that connection.
The other aspect of the hon. member's motion is the demand for immediate payment of 30 cents per bushel on all wheat sold in the 1972-73 crop year. I receive a very large volume of mail regularly from grain farmers and very, very few of them urge that kind of payment at this time. So far as I know, not any farm organization has made such a submission to me or to the Canadian Wheat Board, either through the advisory committee or directly. That has not been done. Farmers know that their money will come to them in their final payment. Perhaps they know or suspect that the final payment this year will be made earlier than last year. The final payment will be made as soon as the Wheat Board calculates that that can appropriately be done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister saying that it will be more than 30 cents per bushel?


Otto Emil Lang: The date on which the pools have closed has been earlier and earlier as, more and more, we have turned over one year's grain in one year. After all, for three years we have been disposing of more grain than was being produced. The challenge is now back with the farmer. It is up to him to see how much he can grow. He is using fertilizer to the fullest extent. He has put more acres into grain production, and has gone beyond most people's expectations in this regard. He is responding to the challenge and will produce grain. This year, because of our relatively current situation in terms of grain turnover, the final payment, as the Wheat Board tells me, is likely to be made by October at the latest. Therefore, some months from now a final determination in this respect can be made.
The hon. member's suggestion about requiring the Wheat Board to do further calculations with regard to wheat pools under the Wheat Board Act would entail further administrative expense, which would be charged to the farmer. While that money that is to be paid in October or earlier is in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board, it does, of course, produce for the farmers who will eventually receive it regular interest which is applied to
June 21, 1973

interest reduction with respect to other claims on the Wheat Board, because the Canadian Wheat Board is constantly buying on credit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But it is the farmer who has to
pay-


Otto Emil Lang: In a few months that money will be available to the farmer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is the final payment going to be, Otto?


Otto Emil Lang: Between September 1 and the present, prices for Canadian wheat, as compared with prices for equivalent American wheat, have tended to be between 20 cents and 30 cents higher. That has been the margin of Canadian wheat over American wheat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because ours is better wheat.


Otto Emil Lang: Perhaps I should not have said that because of the competitive aspects involved. Let me point out that, by about September 1, some hon. members opposite began to say that we were out of wheat. Since that time the Canadian Wheat Board has sold approximately 300 million bushels of wheat at this constantly rising price, to the great good and benefit of the Canadian farmer. There is no way around the basic and fundamental fact that, in a competitive world market, the Wheat Board does not exercise absolute control over the price at which grain can move. Nevertheless, it has been meeting competition squarely and fairly. For our part, we have attempted to provide it with tools, in terms of grain facilities and a transport system which can carry that grain to market effectively and well. The results are obvious.
This year the figures show that shipments from the west coast are setting records in terms of volume moved. Except for August, when there were labour difficulties, the month-by-month figures for shipments from the west coast show all time records. Our forward selling has been good. The position is not one of certainty. The world is not a certain place, when one considers grain prices. However, it is quite possible that grain prices will be significantly higher six or eight months from now. The Canadian Wheat Board will still be attempting throughout that period to use its best judgment. After discussions with its customers, and after judging what competitors will do, it will attempt to sell grain at the best possible price. Although there is a differential of between 20 cents and 30 cents per bushel between our wheat and American wheat, our wheat has been selling because of the greater certainty in our ability to deliver.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because our wheat was of a better quality, surely.


Otto Emil Lang: Apparently the hon. member for Crowfoot does not like these figures, but they relate to facts. He should face them and remember that they are a tremendous credit to the Canadian Wheat Board, to its judgment, and to the way in which over the years it has developed good will because of its ability to deliver grain. We have and will continue to enter into contracts to supply custom-
Wheat Sales
ers. There is every reason to think that we can go after another tremendous year in sales.
As a result of grain movements, net farm income on the Prairies, particularly in Saskatchewan, the largest of the grain provinces, has risen phenomenally. It was greater by $200 million in 1972 than it was in 1971, and will probably rise an equivalent amount in 1973, as compared with 1972. The increase in 1974, as compared with 1973, is almost certain to be as great again, as the full price effects are finally felt.
The hon. member for Crowfoot said something about deliveries and the need for deliveries. The truth is that the initial price is not the governing factor in whether a farmer will deliver his grain today. I am happy to say that deliveries are still coming in and that the Wheat Board has in commercial position something like 100 million bushels of wheat more than it will need for its commitments between now and the end of the crop year. Deliveries are coming in regularly, week by week. Now that seeding has been more or less completed, the amounts of grain coming in will increase. Some farmers, of course, are putting wheat in storage for delivery in the next crop year. That is a matter for their judgment and choice. That decision is based on the final price and no particular attention should be paid to the initial price. I think the hon. member knows that. If farmers misunderstand the position, we should try to explain it to them, rather than allow them to be under any misapprehension about it. Actually, more farmers write to me about their worries related to income tax. I have had more letters on that score, than on the score of their wanting an increase in price immediately. In short, they are more concerned about the total amount of income they are to receive in 1973 than how they can defer delivery. I am confident, at this stage, that they will continue delivering.
The hon. member for Crowfoot often manages to misunderstand what he is reading and attach an entirely different meaning to the subject matter. For instance, he referred to something that suggested I had said that the Crowsnest rate might come under review. He then said I was eager to have that review made. There is a slight difference there, which he does not see as being important. As well, he said that his figures show that there were fewer than 178 million bushels in storage. When I asked for the figures, he gave them, and the amount, according to his own figures, added up to 212 million bushels.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was talking about spring wheat, not durum.


Otto Emil Lang: In conclusion, it is a distinct possibility that, with the swift movement of grain which is to continue for the rest of the year, and with some farmers hesitating to deliver their grain before the next crop year, the amount in storage on July 31 will be less than 178 million bushels, although, of course, that is a hypothetical matter.
Let me say that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was never an ideal piece of legislation. I would be glad to come forward at an early date with a program which would help farmers much more than that program helped them, and I think this desire on our part is evidenced by the approach we have taken in attempting to make the grain industry of this country work effectively. Most farmers believe that

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
the whole structure of the grain industry has improved because of the operation of the Wheat Board, which has been made possible because of the facilities made available to it. I am referring of course not only to the operation of the Wheat Board, but to the Wheat Board Marketing Committee which was set up. Indeed, there is interest in the further study and development of this area.
The improvement in the operation of our whole grain industry is noticeable and very distinct today, when one compares it with the operation of several years ago. I think that is the general view. I am glad that it is still the general view that the Wheat Board is a useful and important instrument and one that we ought to defend. I trust that in future, when hon. members attack the judgment shown by the Wheat Board in selling, they will recognize that they are attacking the Wheat Board itself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to the minister's introductory remarks. I did not want to interrupt the minister, but he said, and it will be recorded in Hansard, that this party is against the Wheat Board and imputed motives. I remind the minister that when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister, our party created the Canadian Wheat Board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to accept the point. The hon. member should have raised it when the minister made the statement, not after he completed his speech. I presume the only way the hon. member would be permitted to do that now would be to make his own speech and put forward his opinion of the minister's speech during this debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said that was the rule. I have always tried to be courteous. I did not want to interrupt the minister when he was speaking. It would be against the rules to say that the minister deliberately misrepresented the facts, but he certainly misrepresented the facts this afternoon. As a member from western Canada, I have a right to correct the minister when he does not present the correct facts.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have had this exchange many times, and no doubt will have it many more times. I recognize the legislative steps which were taken when the Conservatives were in power and their complete lack of effectiveness until the Liberal government gave the Wheat Board some proper responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The whole point of my remarks was that most of the Conservative spokesmen from the Prairies know better than to come out plainly and openly state their position. Some do, but others do it in indirect ways, such as the motion now before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The remarks expressed following the point of order prove to the Chair and, I am sure, to hon. members, that this is not a point of order and we should not pursue the matter.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in his address to this chamber, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) pointed out that this is the first debate on agriculture and it had finally been initiated by the opposition. That is true. The reason is that the minister has in the wings at least two very important policies which he has not had the courage to bring before this House, despite repeated requests.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) does not think it is worth his time to be in the House this afternoon. The people who are running agriculture and directing the affairs of farmers in this country are a cash crop farmer from Ontario and a one-time Dean of Law from Saskatchewan. Neither minister has the courage to bring in legislation dealing with feed grains, despite requests I have made to the Minister of Justice in this House and to the Minister of Agriculture in committee. I finally pinned down the Minister of Agriculture and he said if there is any legislation, he will introduce it. The government stated it would introduce new policies with regard to the marketing of feed grains in Canada before August 1. We are well into the last half of the month of June. There is only July ahead of us. The government is afraid to tell the farmers what it is going to do.
I would not have bothered to initiate a debate on the subject which the official opposition has chosen to bring before us this afternoon. The motion attacks the minister in charge of the wheat board. That is not hard to do. He has made some monumental blunders. We have had the Lift program which deprived us of the possibility of having a large amount of grain in storage at this time. The grain stabilization program which the minister proposed would have knocked out our grain storage program if the minister had had his way. I do not blame the opposition for sounding off at the minister, but I cannot understand why in their motion they condemn the minister for, and I quote:
-failing to permit the Board to operate in a positive and efficient manner in the best interest of the Canadian wheat farmer;
They also deplore the government's failure to announce through the board an immediate payment of 30 cents a bushel. I have not received any letters from farmers indicating that they want an interim payment at this time. My impression is that they are willing to wait for the final payment. I have not received any letters from farmers indicating that the Wheat Board should be discontinued or that its operations are inefficient. Neither the Canadian Federation of Agriculture nor the National Farmers Union has told me to get on my horse and do something about an inefficient wheat board. I do not know why this suggestion should be the basis for a debate in this House.
I have checked a few figures. Last year, the Canadian Wheat Board operated the wheat pool at a cost of 1.024 cents per bushel. The figure for oats was .8119 per bushel and barley .9541 per bushel. This was the actual cost to the farmer for administrative charges. The total carrying charges for wheat in 1971-72, and I believe that was a partial year, were 8.326 cents per bushel. Under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, there was a contribution of 5.05 cents per bushel. Therefore, the actual carrying charges for the operation indicate that it was very effi-
June 21, 1973

cient. I cannot understand why they suggest that this is not an efficient operation.
The next question involves pricing. If I had the gift of second sight, I would be a rich man. I noticed an article in the Winnipeg Free Press about the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). He has a nice operation. The article stated the hon. member sold next year's rapeseed or flax crop at $5 a bushel. I have news for him. It is worth much more than that on today's market. No one should try to second guess the future's market. A lot of money has been lost doing that.


An hon. Member:: It is safer to play poker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Absolutely. I do not see how we can justifiably launch an attack on the Wheat Board for making a decision on pricing.


Mr. Korchinski:: Nobody is!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The Wheat Board is criticized in the motion for failing to maximize wheat sales at top world prices. I regard this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of the farmer in the Wheat Board system of marketing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: And I think that any individual or party which sets out to do this does a considerable disservice to the farmers of western Canada.
I saw one of the questions in the proceedings to which reference was made earlier. Mr. Vogel, the Chairman of the Board, answered a question with regard to the pricing of barley to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Stanley James Korchinski: Page 22.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then, he pointed out that the United States had been selling barley at a lower price, that the Wheat Board held off for a week in expectation of an increase in price and received it. To make a charge that better judgment could have been used is, in my opinion, an unfair attack.


Stanley James Korchinski: Nobody said that.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is a mistake, in my view, to suggest we should pay less attention to market in the Pacific rim countries than we have done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who said that?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is a very important market for us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I hear them chattering away down there.


Stanley James Korchinski: You have had a bad day.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have not had a bad day.
Wheat Sales


Stanley James Korchinski: You have now.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The problem with people over there is this: They really do not want to say they do not want a system of Wheat Board marketing. But they want to needle away. If they really wanted Wheat Board marketing, they would call for rapeseed and flax to be marketed by the Board. If this had been done, farmers out in the country would not have sold rapeseed for two dollars and half a bushel, only to find it selling later at five dollars a bushel. That is the kind of shellacking some of these farmers have taken. I do not understand why members who come from the same province as myself, and others from the Province of Alberta, are not demanding a fair shake for the men who are growing and selling rapeseed and flax.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member indicate to whom he was referring when he spoke of "these people"?


An hon. Member:: "People" may have been the wrong word.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the cap fits, wear it. If you want to make a speech later on, you can do something about it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I would be more pleased if the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) would get his party to agree to both flax and rapeseed being marketed by the Wheat Board, because his hon. friends chickened out when faced with this proposal.
We should not be saying to the minister: Don't do this, and don't do that. We should be saying: Get off your backside and do a decent job on behalf of the western farmer. This, he has not fully done. He should not be criticized for the way in which the Board is handling the grains it is charged with selling. He should be criticized for failing to do a complete job on behalf of western farmers engaged in the marketing of all grains.
I have no confidence that the Official Opposition would do any better than the minister is doing. In fact, they would do worse. Every once in a while they say: We are the people who set up the Wheat Board. Like fun! They scratched some words on a piece of paper. But the actual, effective operation of the Board did not come about until the time of the second world war, at the same time as the government wanted to control the price of wheat-and it fitted in very nicely with the prices control board at that time.


Mr. Douglas:: And prices went up.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You were around, too! So, let's not kid anybody. After the war it was the Conservatives who took the control of feed grain out of the hands of the Wheat Board in western Canada and turned it over to the dealers so that farmers have been selling barley as the minister said, at three bushels for a dollar. And that same minister is going to take action by order in council to introduce the same sort of a system in eastern Canada unless I miss my guess. I wonder when the minister is going to say what that Eastern feed policy will be. And I wonder how much income the western farmer will lose when that feed policy

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
is put into effect. I wonder how soon we shall see the western farmer watching the futures market for feed grains as he is watching it now for flax and rapeseed. It is about time the minister and his cohort, the Minister of Agriculture, put their policies on the line in this chamber instead of hiding behind orders in council.
I want, finally, to say something about the future of grain marketing. There is a great tendency, when wheat sales are slow, to believe that they will always be slow, and that when they begin to boom that they will always boom. I suggest to hon. members who are interested in the subject that they get a copy of Economic Planning and read it. They will find that Mr. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture for the United States says he is bringing 30 million acres into production, that United States agriculture is geared to produce more crops than can be sold at reasonable returns to farmers. In the same publication, they can read that the major exporters of wheat and coarse grains will likely find domestic consumption and exports markets increasing slower than production. If the minister can be charged with any failure to discharge his responsibilities, it is his failure to make a statement outlining how he sees the future of grain markets for Canadian farmers, for his failure to outline a storage program, a guaranteed price program and a policy of support for farmers. To date, farmers have not been given such an assurance.
We should have a policy that will give the farmers that assurance, and that is what we on this side of the House are asking for today. But again, the minister has failed to produce. He has failed to measure up to the demands of the farmers of western Canada. When he got a shellacking on his lousy stabilization bill, he did not have the courage, wit or ingenuity to come back to the House and present something that was really useful to the western farmers. Instead, he makes sly remarks and throws off statements about what he is going to do with the Crowsnest pass rates. All right, Mr. Speaker, what are he and his government going to do with the Crowsnest pass rates? Why does he not tell the House what he is going to do instead of making sly remarks in Winnipeg-and sly is what they were.
Why does the minister not get off his butt and tell us what he is going to do about a storage program for Canadian grain when we get into a full supply position once more? These are the answers for which we are waiting. I am not interested in the needling tactics used by the Conservative Party this afternoon regarding the pricing policy of the Canadian Wheat Board; that does not interest me at all. I know how the Canadian Wheat Board operates. I know the men who are there. They are honourable and able men and they will do the best job they can. If the minister interferes with them, whether it be the present minister or had it been the previous minister, the member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), I know they would resign their posts.
As a result of this brief debate today, which as the minister has said is the only chance we have had to discuss the subject-and I am grateful to the official opposition for at least bringing the debate about-perhaps the minister's ears will open and he will listen to some of the suggestions that are put forward, both in this House
[Mr. Gleave.j
and in the country. Because if the minister thinks everything is bland and easy in rural Saskatchewan, he is wrong. A lot of people are adding up the situation and asking themselves what comes next.
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to tell my hon. colleagues that long before I became a member of Parliament, I often had the opportunity of reading in the official report of the House, the many speeches dealing with wheat, and the problems of grain growing in the West.
I am not saying the question bored me; on the contrary, but I mean that the problem has existed for a very long time, that it should concern the whole population of Canada with a view to finding solutions that are really fair to both western and eastern producers.
I have here a newspaper article that deals most appropriately with the matter, and I quote;
(1)	Following the opening of the Canadian Prairies at the end of the last century, western farmers tried to improve their marketing system; this led to the setting up of the first grain marketing co-operative in 1906.
That was long before some of us came to this planet! And now back to the quotation:
(2)	The First World War led to a grains monopoly: a grain supervisors' commission was established.
Now, even at that time, there was a monopoly and exploiters took advantage of the situation, getting rich at the expense of grain producers. Things have not changed much because if we could go down to the crux of the problem, we would find enough to have parliamentarians trembling for having failed to study the problem and found solutions.
The third paragraph reads as follows, and I quote:
(3)	During the 20s, the co-operatives created their own marketing agency but found themselves in a difficult situation with the 1929-30 crisis.
Even though I was a young man at that time, I remember a most lively election campaign, that of 1930, while the Liberals were in office, under the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and when Mr. Bennett was the Conservative party leader. At that time I used to attend political meetings, because I have always been interested, and 1 heard everybody dealing with the grain problem, the problem of unsold wheat, and also of the dairy industry and of butter at 14 cents a pound. You will remember that the government was overthrown by the people and that the country's administration was entrusted to the Conservative party under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett who remained in office for five years.
The Canadian Wheat Board was created in 1935 to stabilize wheat prices. Now, this commission is operating, as all other commissions, with administrators who doubtlessly are doing their best to meet efficiently the requirements of the true "owners" of this commission who are, after all, the grain producers. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is responsible for this commission before Parliament.
But I must admit in all fairness that over the last few years, whatever the party in office, wheat sales have increased substantially. New horizons were opened at last and it was decided to trade with countries such as Russia,
June 21, 1973

and communist China. It was understood that even tho-rugh the ideologies of those people were opposed to ours, they had to eat even though the foodstuffs came from Canada.
In a speech he made on February 7, the Minister of Justice said this, and I quote:
The grain position is the best Canada has ever known in many years. In certain areas there are still problems but compared to recent years, this situation is tremendous and the prospects promising. Total exports of the six main grains or leguminous plants, namely wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed, exceeded 824 million bushels in 1971-72. Exports during the present crop year (1972-73) should set a new record for the third successive year. Up to now, exports amounted to 423.1 million bushels compared to 406 million bushels at the same date last year.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that we can export and enable our farmers to increase their acreages under crop. But it must be kept in mind that if there is a shortage of wheat throughout the world today, Canada is a little responsible for it. It will be recalled that barely three years ago, the Canadian government granted subsidies to western producers to abstain from sowing grain and, what is more ridiculous, at the very time when we were paying people not to sow their fertile land, in Newfoundland, the provincial government was making every effort to develop permanent pastures in the mountains where God did not even want a small fir to grow. And when the Standing Committee on Agriculture visited that place where a feed lot for cattle was to be set up, I specifically asked the responsible agronomist: "But where will the grass grow? There is no humus here." He made the following reply: "The soil will be carried from the shores to cover the rocks in order to develop a permanent pasture".
At the same time, Quebec and New Brunswick had hundreds of abandoned farms whose soil was quite rich. Now, this is what happened not long ago. That was quite recently and today we find that there is a problem, that production must be encouraged. We have however to seek the best prices on the world market. I entirely agree about that.
It remains that Canada has a very interesting market for the wheat producers of the Prairies, and it is to be found both in eastern Canada and British Columbia. It was to help the producers of eastern Canada and British Columbia that, at a certain moment, the government passed an act creating the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Well, these feed grains have been the cause of a problem for a great many years and a source of very great concern for the producers of eastern Canada. As representatives of the province of Quebec and eastern Canada, we agree that the grain producers of western Canada ought to be paid better. I want to be very clear on this.
A number of years ago, as I was visiting incognito the provinces of central Canada, I would take pleasure in meeting the grain producers there, in order to increase my awareness of their situation. I then understood more than ever that these people were right to establish such a body as the Canadian Wheat Board to secure the sale of their products. And I was very surprised to find out that many of them were not entirely satisfied with this body and
Wheat Sales
wanted it to be more within their reach and operate in such a way as to boost their income.
Well, it is the same for eastern farmers. We hope that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will do its job. That is why it was set up. I will quote the preamble of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board annual report, crop year 1971-72, which reads as follows:
The Canadian Livestock Feed Board is a Crown Corporation reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture. Established under the Livestock Feed Assistance Act in 1967, its objectives are to ensure: (a) the availability of feed grain in Eastern Canada and British Columbia, (b) the availability of adequate storage space in Eastern Canada, and (c) the reasonable stability and fair equalization of feed grain prices in Eastern Canada and in British Columbia.
We are still hoping that the board will achieve its objective not only as regards supplies but also prices, to give equal opportunities to all Canadian producers. Now and then we hear people talk about separatism, independence, all kinds of similar issues, but always at the political level.
But as regards feed grain, I feel that a kind of economic separatism is being exercised, and the federal government is responsible for introducing legislation in order to give all the regions of Canada equal opportunities in the area of economic affairs, as regards both agricultural products and other kinds of products.
Well, this is not the case. The opportunity gap between eastern and western producers of cattle, hog and eggs is unfair and western producers are not at fault. As I was saying, I quite agree that incomes should match the efforts made because they are people who have the right to live, but eastern producers have also that right.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an alarming situation. The dairy industry has experienced a sharp decrease in production. As an example, the president of the Cooperative Federee du Quebec, Mr. Pigeon, stated recently that the auction sale of dairy herds is disturbing, and there are reasons for that. Why do people give up this occupation? Because production costs are rising at an alarming rate.
Before coming into the House a moment ago, I telephoned a co-operative manager to ask him the price of feed grain for dairy herds. He told me that it was $119 a ton, that is $32 more than in October last. What is the current price of piglet starter feed? He told me $158 or $34 more than in October. The starter feed costs $164 or $36 more than in October, while the price of eggs has not changed very much.
In the dairy industry, precisely because of a difficult situation, a poor crop and heavy rains last fall, the winter has been difficult and the animals grew unhealthy because of improper feeding. A great many animals died in Quebec in my region, and that greatly affected the production of meat. And that same thing happened to our neighbours, which is why full vans of animals are exported over the border. They come and buy our heifers alive at $1, $1.15 and $1.20 a pound. Mr. Speaker, people complain that the price of beef is high and fear we might face shortages soon. But the situation will worsen for sure if no action is taken, if the necessary measures are not taken to give producers the possibility of obtaining feed grains at
4992

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
market prices so they can make enough profit to live and go on with their operations.
Mr. Speaker, it is a real disaster we are witnessing. And I refer to a newspaper article to establish a comparaison between the situation in 1972 and what is now going on.
In 1972, 367 auction sales announcements were published in the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous. That was on January 24. This year, from January till May, 124 announcements were published and up to now, 230 auction sales have taken place.
In my area, where the soil is rich, in Dorchester, in the parishes of Saint-Anselme, Saint-Gervais, Saint-Charles- all nice agricultural parishes-they publish, to my great concern, that the number of farms is decreasing very considerably, and I shall dispense with the figures.
I simply want to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice and of the government on the fact that we now live a dramatic situation. The people who leave their farms where they used to produce milk, hogs, eggs or poultry will be on the labour market. Will they find employment or will they live on welfare? This is What has to be considered. If they live on welfare and if the number of farms is reduced in the east, the market will also be reduced for western grain and feed grain producers. It is a chain; it is linked together.
It is well to seek markets overseas but we have a national market which could be well established and which would be able to absorb a good quantity of the grain products of our country, which are needed by our people. This would enable us to export processed products, grain transformed into pork or beef or into any other kind of food. Mr. Speaker, this is why I call the attention of the government on this serious problem and I think that the official opposition was well inspired today to raise the matter mentioned in the motion.
I hope indeed that they will consider the suggestions and remarks that we are making, so that in a very near future, not in five or ten years-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him by the Standing Order has expired. He could, however, continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: No. Mr. Speaker, there should not be any extra time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon, despite the comments made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), and despite the comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar made one of the weakest speeches I have ever heard him make when speaking about agriculture. It seemed to indicate that his party intends to support the government, even after he indicated various ways in which the government has not acted in the manner in which he would have liked to see it act. The minister's defence was somewhat strange, although not

unexpected. Since when is an attack on a minister responsible for the Wheat Board supposed to be an attack on the Wheat Board itself?
The minister made a colossal blunder three years ago with the introduction of the ridiculous Lift program, which was contrary to all the practices carried on in the past. In fact every economist in the department, and every newspaper editorial, indicated that the west must develop over the years. One can recall the bulldozers that went to work because the idea was to open up more land for development. After the last war, the idea was that one should buy larger equipment and acquire more land. Then along came the minister, a real genius, a lawyer, one of the best because he taught law, who told the farmers what to do. He reversed the whole idea. Everyone had borrowed money under the farm improvement loan program in order to purchase machinery, and then along comes the minister who introduces the Lift program.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to say, as a member of the bar, that I object to the way in which the hon. member described the Minister of Justice with regard to his practice at the bar. I think my standing in the profession would be sadly jeopardized otherwise.


Stanley James Korchinski: Since when is an attack on the minister supposed to be an attack on the Canadian Wheat Board? That is the statement made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Since when is mention of the fact that the minister was following that Liberal agricultural bible, the report of the task force on agriculture, supposed to be an attack on the Wheat Board. The fact is that the minister has drained the grain supplies to the point where the Wheat Board has had to turn down sales. Since when is an attack on some of those policies regarded as an attack on the Wheat Board. If this minister had not followed that green bible, the report of the task force on agriculture, so religiously and interfered with the operations of the Wheat Board which resulted in a drain on the grain from commercial position, the Wheat Board would not be in the position today of having to ask the farmers to deliver grain because there is a potential sale. The Wheat Board is in the position of having to say that it does not have the grain and of having to ask the producers to please deliver.
Since when is an opposition motion containing a suggestion to a government which will not act regarded by the NDP, of all people, as something ridiculously wrong. They suggest that we should be talking perhaps about a plebiscite. Why would we want to consider something like that at this particular time? We are trying to get the minister off his backside. We want to give him a few ideas. I know the member for Saskatoon-Biggar said he followed the Agriculture Committee reports very religiously. He said something about the price of barley. Who has mentioned anything about the price factor in respect of barley in relation to this motion? What we are asking in this motion is that there be an immediate increase in the initial payment of 30 cents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: I say to the minister that if he cannot get the farmers to deliver at the present price he should at
June 21, 1973

least have the confidence that the increase demanded will be equal to the price obtained, at least for the next month or two. Let us have that grant immediately. Right now there are many people on special permits, people who have retired, people like the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar who probably has some rapeseed, feed barley and so on on hand. Perhaps that is why he concentrated on that aspect. The fact is, however, that there are farmers who do have some grain. We have the ridiculous suggestion that farmers are holding back grain because of income tax.
The other day I asked the minister if he would at least provide the amount of money necessary to assure these farmers that they would receive the same amount of money next year as this year in the final payment. The minister would not give that assurance. If he does not want to pay out money in storage payments, he should give that assurance here and now. He did not want to do that in the House the other day when I asked the minister to indicate whether the final payment this year will be the same as last year. I asked him, if necessary, to give at least a supplementary payment and to give an assurance to those people so that they would provide delivery. He mentioned the income tax. Unfortunately the comment I made later was not recorded in Hansard, namely, that the income tax is the same whether the income is received in July, in August or September which is in the next crop year. For the minister to come out with such a statement is incredible. The total annual income is calculated from January 1 to the end of December-surely even the minister knows that.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said that he did not receive any letters from any farm organization requesting storage payments and he said "why do we have to get the minister to do something?" Obviously, the minister does not want to do anything. He does not want to come up with a storage policy. Even if he does come up with a storage policy at this late date, this would not reassure farmers. If the producer did not deliver grain at the time when the grain was needed, he would lose that storage payment which might have been an inducement for him to deliver. But the minister shies away from doing that because he is trying to save money for the Treasury. This is his so-called attempt to help the farmer.
What is he really doing? As the Liberal bible, the task force report, says, the minister is trying to get two out of three farmers off the farms. He was trying to save that money and as a result he got himself into a predicament. We had the prime minister of India, who comes from a country where they live, so to speak, from hand to mouth, a country which is in a very precarious situation coming at a time when world stocks of wheat are down to a country which is normally considered to be the bread basket of the world, and yet we cannot give her the assurance she seeks. We cannot get this minister to act.
Even the NDP will not act and will not come up with a non-confidence motion. They tell us "don't you dare" because it will embarrass them. That is the trouble. Since when is it wrong to give the farmers 30 cents over and above what they have been receiving? The minister announced a 30 cent payment last year on October 15, two
Wheat Sales
weeks before the election. It was not wrong then. He was pretty brave at that time. Brave or not, he was going to sink or swim, do or die. Do or die Otto. He said "we will give them 30 cents and we will see what happens". Do you know how safe he was? On July 8, the United States had signed a deal with Russia.


Otto Emil Lang: At $1.63.


Stanley James Korchinski: It does not matter what the price was, but let me tell the House what happened. As a result of that sale, the price went up from $1.57 to $1.90 in the world market. The price went up 33 cents, yet the minister handed out only 30 cents. Now, you see how careful he was. Even though the world price had gone up by 33 cents, he was not confident enough so he slipped the farmers only 30 cents.
I have here a report which I have not checked out today but it mentions the price of wheat as $3.40. We are asking for 30 cents over and above $1.76, which brings it up to $2.06. That is all. Will that break the Treasury, or is the Minister admitting that the price at which farmers have been selling is so low that perhaps the Treasury may have to put out one or two cents. Is that his concern? Perhaps he is afraid that farmers will make a few dollars, and then he will not be able to remove two out of three farmers immediately.
The motion before us is quite proper. In the Standing Committee on Agriculture the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked the pointblank question as to whether we are losing sales. The answer came in a very positive way that we could be making more sales if we had more grain. The prime minister of India was here the other day. This supports my contention. If we did not at this time put forward a non-confidence motion, we would be abdicating our responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I could survive.


Stanley James Korchinski: Several years ago the minister, in a headlong attempt to follow the bible of the Liberal party, the Liberal philosophy, reduced the number of farmers. The party over there forgets that every year we have about 40 million to 50 million more people to feed in the world. Yet, he wants to reduce the number of elevators to about 40 or 50. He said in a speech several years ago that that is all we need. He has tunnel vision, if anyone has. He is following the policy which he announced in a speech he made five or six years ago, and now he is determined not to change his mind. Had he pursued a proper course when he could manipulate the grain out of a commercial position, he would not now be in this situation. But he did not do so because he was determined to get rid of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and bring in the abortive stabilization bill. He was blundering. Even at this late date, he refuses our requests. I suspect that he will refuse all suggestions. He thinks he is right; he thinks that things will correct themselves.
He had evidence of what was going to happen here some time ago. As early as August 15 of last year there was an article in the Globe and Mail entitled "A Time for Reflection in the Grain Trade". It was an interesting article, and
4994


An hon. Member:: Better lawyers?


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes, he was a dean of law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. However, he could continue if there were unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, as a western Canadian familiar with the grains industry on the western prairies, I delight in participating in the debate this afternoon. Over many years I have seen first hand the failures and successes of prairie grain farmers. I lived through the desperate and frustrating years of 1968 and 1969 when our prairie grain elevators and grain terminals were chockfull to the rafters, when markets had dwindled, when prices were falling off, and when there was bitter frustration and anger among our prairie grain farmers.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote your speech?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: These are my own notes, and I do not repeat myself. At least I can make sense when I am speaking.
How very much different is the situation today, only three or four years after the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) took on responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. In each of the past three years we have set all-time Canadian records in exporting grain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: At what prices?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Prices are at their highest level ever. Prairie grain farmers are on the verge of the best year in Canadian history. The despair and frustration of 1968 have given way to the buoyancy and optimism of 1973. What a long way we have come in the grains industry in western Canada during these past four years.
It is strange indeed, with all that has been done in the past three or four years by the government and by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and with the buoyancy and optimism which exist across the Prairies today, that the Conservative Party should launch this bitter attack-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I hesitate to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but I think the hon. member for Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My point of order is that the hon. member spoke about prices being the highest ever, but he failed to quote the reference, whether it was that of the DBS, the Canadian Wheat Board figures, or just his own figures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is really a point of debate. I realize that this is one of the more exciting debates that
June 21, 1973

has been held in this chamber, and I am sure there will be opportunities for everybody to answer everybody else, but I do not think the person who has the floor should be answered by everybody else when he has the floor.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will wait until I am through to find out whether I am going to quote figures. After all that has been done in the past three or four years by the government and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, with the buoyancy and optimism which exist across the prairies today, it is strange that the Conservative Party should launch this bitter attack on a westerner who has done more for the grains industry of the Prairies than any other single individual in the country's history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Even the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who delights in the levels of grain sales when he was minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, has to concede, that is, if he has any appreciation for the truth, that grain sales in the present minister's poorest year were higher than they were in the best year under the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
The highest sales achieved by the Wheat Board in any one year under the Conservative government was in 195758 when grain sales amounted to 453 million bushels. In the present minister's poorest year, and I stress in his poorest sales year, 1969-70, the Canadian Wheat Board sold 488.8 million bushels. So, in fact, more grain was sold in the poorest year of 1969-70 than in the best Conservative year of 1957-58. The Conservatives still call the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain their supersalesman. Under the Conservatives from 1957 to 1963, five crop years, total grain exports amounted to approximately 2 billion bushels.
From 1969 to 1973, four crop years, grain exports are approaching 3 billion bushels-3 billion in four years compared with the Conservatives' 2 billion in five years. And yet hon. members opposite actively promote the myth that they were super grain salesmen. If their man was a super salesman, our man in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of the facts must be considered the greatest supersalesman ever. By comparison, our man stands out like Secretariat in a pasture of burros! Let hon. members opposite laugh that one off.
As I have said, we on the Prairies have come a tremendous distance in the past three or four years. The transformation from those dark and dismal days of 1968 to these bright and buoyant days of 1973 is no accident. This government and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board undertook in 1969 the first genuine, fundamental and thorough examination of the entire Prairies grain situation. From that start in 1969 until the present a host of imaginative and bold steps have been taken to cure the fundamental and basic ills of the industry. The results of these new policies are evident across the Prairies today. They will stand for years to come as part and parcel of the new foundation being built for a healthy and booming grains industry.
Wheat Sales
Hon. members opposite refer to Lift and the stabilization proposal. I will deal with these. Let me remind hon. members of the market development fund which this government established in 1969 and into which we have put $10 million a year to develop markets for our grains, to open up new markets and to develop new uses for our grain products. Let me remind them of the block system of shipping. Without the block system currently in effect and put in place by this government, we simply could not be achieving these current record export levels. We could not be moving to export these tremendous amounts of grain if that block system had not been introduced. Every farm organization in western Canada has hailed the block system as a major step forward in handling even greater amounts of grain for export in years to come.
Let me mention the purchase of 2,000 hopper cars. Again, the grain handling and transportation system could purely and simply never handle the unprecedented volumes of grain now moving to export market position unless this government had stepped in and bought for $42 million these 2,000 hopper cars to move grain from the Prairies.


An hon. Member:: The cars were bought at election time.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Let me refer to initial prices and quotas by March 1 of each year. Prior to 1971 initial prices and quotas were announced around August 1 of each year, at the beginning of each crop year. By this time, however, the crops were nearing harvest. Farmers for years had requested better and earlier information as to possible quotas and initial prices. Two years ago the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board announced that this government would provide farmers with guaranteed initial prices and guaranteed quotas on or before March 1 each year, that is, before seeding. There is not a farmer in western Canada who has not appreciated this. They wanted information in advance of seeding, not at harvest time, as to initial prices and quotas: this government is giving it to them.
Let me remind hon. members opposite of the new quota system. Two years ago a new quota system was implemented following recommendations by a committee established by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. That committee consisted of Mr. Boden, vice-president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Mr. W. G. Winslow, general manager of United Grain Growers Limited, and Dr. J. L. Leibfriend of the Canadian Wheat Board. The new quota system has given our prairie grain farmers a far better system and much more freedom in their planting and marketing decisions.
Let us again talk about the two-price wheat system. Mr. Speaker, for years, including the Diefenbaker years, farmers and farm organizations were pressing the federal government to establish a two-price system under which wheat for domestic purposes was at that time pegged at a higher price than the export price. For years, including the Diefenbaker years, these representations fell on deaf ears. But this is not the case with the present government and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In 1971 we announced the two-price system under which domestic grain now brings $3 a bushel. This year $57

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
million was paid to prairie grain farmers as a result of the two-price system.
Hon. members opposite keep referring to Lift. Are their memories so short or are they so unfamiliar with western grain problems that they forget the desperate situation which we faced in the spring of 1970? We had mountains of grain choking the system. There was a glut of wheat around the world. Farmers began to go into barley and rapeseed, and this was to be encouraged since there were potential barley markets and rapeseed markets which were not being filled. Pressures had built up across the west that were reaching the exploding point. In that situation the government introduced Lift.
Members opposite continually forget the payments that were made to western grain producers at a time when money was desperately short. Bins were full. Elevators and terminals were bursting. The farmer was without cash and many of them faced bankruptcy, as was mentioned before. Payments under Lift to the tune of $60 million represented a badly needed injection of cash into the prairie economy. Members opposite forget that many farmers received substantial Lift payments; hard cash which they so desperately needed. Members opposite conveniently forget, too, the diversification into barley and rapeseed which the Lift program encouraged. Production of barley and rapeseed has gone up substantially; it is being marketed readily, at good prices, and has become a major source of return to the western grain grower.
Let me talk about expanded credit facilities. In 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he would review and amend government credit facilities in order to improve the competitive position of Canadian grain on world markets. He kept that promise. The Canadian credit program was expanded to enable Canadian grain exporters to compete on an equal basis with our competitors. As a result of that undertaking and as a result of the Prime Minister's following through on it, in the 1970-71 crop year fully one-third of our export of wheat was made possible by the expanded credit program of this government. Sales of all grain on credit in that crop year totalled a record 154 million bushels.
I could go on with what has been done in the past three or four years in virtually revolutionizing the total grains industry. But western farmers-and this is something members of the Conservative Party have yet to learn-are far more interested in what is being done today and what will be done tomorrow than in what was done yesterday.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) suggested that I should say something about grain. I am attempting to do that now. Today we are preparing for a plebiscite among rapeseed growers to let them determine the marketing system that they want for marketing their product. In time to come, if western grain farmers want a similar plebiscite on flax and rapeseed I am sure we will look favourably at such a request.
We are determined to face up to and come to grips with one of the most serious problems that has plagued farmers for decades. I refer to the chronic cycle of boom and bust. One of the most urgent and major worries facing farmers every year is whether next year will bring disaster or success. Every farmer on the Prairies knows that inevitably he will have two, three or more years of success, high

prices and good delivery opportunities, followed by three or four years of poor delivery opportunities, low prices and general economic malaise. This chronic problem which has torn our farmers for generation after generation has to be solved and will be solved by this government. Western farm families must be provided with insurance against these massive shifts from poor to good and from good to poor. And this government-I repeat, this government-is dedicated to bringing that about.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was appointed in 1969. In that year cash receipts for the six principal grains totaled $312 million. By 1972 cash receipts had gone up to $504 million and will rise to approximately $1,400 million in the next calendar year. Western Canadian grain farmers are today looking at their best year in history. We can handle more grain than ever; we will sell more than ever before; we will get higher prices than ever before. No wonder, then, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was selected in 1971 as Saskatchewan's salesman of the year, joining such distinguished past award winners as the late premier, Ross Thatcher, Charlie Gibbins, former president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and others. No wonder, too, that on March 16 this year Saskatchewan's Luther College presented to the minister an outstanding achievement award. I quote from the award:
In recognition of his personal achievements, distinguished contributions to the public life and meritorious service to the province and the nation.
That award has been given to only two other persons, Saskatchewan's premier of 20 years, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and a former Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Western grain farmers, irrespective of their political inclinations, know the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has worked unceasingly and effectively on their behalf, has done and is doing an outstanding job. They know that he will continue to do so. They will not be deceived by the sordid attack launched today by the Conservative Party on this great western Canadian. Rather, they will be angered by this politically motivated attack on an outstanding western Canadian and on an outstanding four-year record in the grains industry which will continue for many years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay): he read his speech exactly as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) wrote it for him. I have not seen so many bouquets passed out for a long time. If the situation is so rosy, in terms of the view of western farmers toward the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the hon. member for St. Boniface ought to take another look at the results of last October's election.
I wish to express considerable concern about the motion before us today. I will be as blunt as I can with the mover of the motion and the party he represents. To attack the Canadian Wheat Board as has been done today by the
June 21, 1973

Conservative Party is outrageous because of the job the Wheat Board is doing. Those of us who support orderly marketing will not support a motion that will bring this parliament to an end today because of the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. That would be ridiculous.


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives blew it again.


William George Knight: I cannot conceive why anyone who has attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture would want to bring this parliament to an end without ensuring that farmers in western Canada receive a reduction in their premiums under the crop insurance program. The committee has been trying to get a bill back to the House and passed by it in order to reduce premiums for western farmers. That shows the irresponsibility of the Conservative Party toward western farmers. It is ridiculous and outrageous. I would not cross the border of my constituency if I voted for a motion to bring this parliament to an end on the basis of the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the most outrageous and ridiculous suggestion I have heard for a long time. I cannot follow the arguments presented today by the Conservative Party.


An hon. Member:: We understand.


William George Knight: The Tories ought to understand. If they think that I, as a representative of the farmers in Assiniboia, will vote to defeat the government on a motion attacking the Canadian Wheat Board, I have news for them. If the Conservative Party sincerely wanted to deal with the problems facing western farmers they would have introduced a motion calling upon the government to put flax, rye and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board in order to bring orderly marketing to these grains. They will not do that because of their friends in the private grain industry. They want to build up and defend the open market system.
Let there be no mistake about the motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). In his speech the hon. member for Crowfoot made the ridiculous comment that if this motion is passed, 30 cents a bushel will be paid to the farmers. The hon. member knows full well that if this motion passes, at 9.45 tonight this place will shut down: there is no way the farmer will get 30 cents a bushel. The hon. member for Crowfoot is playing games. How can the western farmer get such a payment if this place is shut down? The hon. member is crazy. Some members in the Conservative Party should talk to the farmers in their ridings. Maybe they should go to Wey-burn. I would not go to Weyburn if I supported a motion attacking the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, the only thing that ever worked for western farmers.
I am pleased to see a debate initiated on farming and agriculture. This is the place to air the matter. However, I could not believe my eyes when I read this motion on the order paper. I am a supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am always amazed when I hear the minister in charge of the Wheat Board announcing what he did and the member for St. Boniface saying what he did, and nobody placing the credit where credit is due. The credit rests with the Canadian Wheat Board which carries on the orderly marketing of grain, and it has nothing to do with
Wheat Sales
the politicians of the Tory party, the Liberal Party or the NDP. I do not intend to support a motion which is a direct attack upon the Canadian Wheat Board.
There are a number of things of which the minister ought to be aware. There is no need for us to bring up the question of the Lift program again.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go ahead.


William George Knight: There is no need to point out again how stupid that was. Here we sit at this time of year when we could be exporting another 200 million bushels of grain. They are not there-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because the minister interfered with the Wheat Board.


William George Knight: This is where the minister's policy has been away off base. Think of what the sale of 200 million bushels of wheat would have meant to the western farmer, even at $2 a bushel. That is not the fault of the Canadian Wheat Board; it is the minister's fault.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Exactly. That is what the motion is all about.


William George Knight: That's right. I agree on that one point. But the motion reads as a direct attack on the Wheat Board. Perhaps the hon. member for Crowfoot ought to read it again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have said that seven times already.


William George Knight: I have to repeat it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does repetition make it the truth?


William George Knight: In my opinion the minister interfered on a number of occasions by making policy decisions which were detrimental to the west. Lift is a prime example. The hon. member for Crowfoot mentioned the grain income stabilization program. This policy was rejected by western farmers. A by-election was fought in Assiniboia on the question. When it came to the crunch in terms of opposition to that bill, where was the Tory party? Their leader stood up in the House of Commons and said he would allow the bill to go through. I know what was said because I read the record. I read it to the voters of Assiniboia, That is why I am here.
Now we get this crazy motion from the Tories. In those two areas the government was away off base. I will now pass on some information that some of the new members may not have heard. The Liberals sent out a slip to farmers before the Assiniboia by-election saying farmers would receive an acreage payment of so many dollars. This is the kind of nonsense you get from Liberal politicians. That slip went out to every western producer with a permit book. The Wheat Board only found out the minister was doing it when a farmer mailed in a copy of the letter asking what it was all about. That kind of nonsense by a Liberal minister, or a Tory minister-

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales


An hon. Member:: Or an NDP minister.


William George Knight: -is what hurts the Canadian Wheat Board. There is another program which has nothing to do with the Wheat Board and which has been mentioned in the debate. It is the so-called two-price system for wheat. This program was undertaken as a result of a decision made by the minister. It is not really a two-price system for wheat; it is the old acreage payment. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) advocated an acreage payment once in a while, I believe.


An hon. member:: Every other year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not with the farmers' money.


William George Knight: That is right, not with the farmers' money. But this two-price system is nothing more than an acreage payment. It is based on all six grains up to a maximum number of acres, on an acreage basis. It is not based on a bushel of wheat. It is, in a sense, a subsidy. In terms of the policy enunciated by the minister, who is not here right now-


Otto Emil Lang: I suppose the hon. member cannot see.


William George Knight: Oh, he is back. I welcome him back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: Farmers in my area are getting $1.95 VS>
a bushel, basis Thunder Bay, for their wheat-wheat used domestically.


Stanley James Korchinski: Thanks for the support, Bill.


William George Knight: You are welcome, Stan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the element of private conversation which seems to have entered the hon. member's speech is out of order. I would ask him to proceed in a normal way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have normal order, then.


William George Knight: Or maybe continue in an abnormal way. Farmers are receiving $1.95Vi, when the international price is ranging anywhere from $2.68 a bushel. The wheat farmer is therefore subsidizing the consumer, and the acreage payment of between $1.95 Vi and $3 has really no relation to a true two-price system. In my view a two-price system for wheat should be related to wheat. We should move into the area of guaranteed minimum prices for the other grains as well. To alleviate some of the concern felt by those in the northern parts of Saskatchewan, I say it should be on the basis, for example, of the first 2,000 bushels. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board sent out a questionnaire to western farmers in which he loaded the answers.


An hon. Member:: You mean the questions, surely.


William George Knight: He loaded the answers that had to be given. Everybody had to opt for acreage payments, the way the questionnaire was written. When I pointed out what he was offering to the people of Assiniboia and I asked

whether they wanted it on the first 2,000 bushels or strictly on bushels in the constituency, the reaction of the farmers-when they were given a clear, concise choice

was to opt for the first 2,000 bushels. They were very heavily in favour of that. That kind of decision has to be taken when making policy, not by a motion put in this House which if it were passed tonight would mean we could not pass the crop insurance amendments to reduce premiums for the western farmers, which would mean there would be no payment of 30 cents a bushel talked about in the motion because this Parliament would be brought to an end. How can one support a motion attacking the Wheat Board when sales have never been higher and when the board is doing a good job, in spite of the minister who is in charge of it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: It is the most ridiculous idea I have heard in a long time, and I do not think the Tory party-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if he has finished his speech or whether he merely wishes to call it six o'clock.


William George Knight: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was enunciating my position on the motion of the Conservative Party relating to the Canadian Wheat Board. I should like to deal with two matters of concern to me. I raise these issues because of my respect for the hon. member for Crowfoot and some of the ideas that he has put forward.
I am concerned about that part of his speech which referred to long-term commitments to our wheat customers. I am very surprised that a member of a major party in this country would take the kind of critical position the hon. member took, if I interpreted his remarks correctly, on long-term commitments to our known customers. Above all else, the Canadian Wheat Board needs committed customers who will buy our grain. My farmers want to know who is going to buy their wheat and whether we have any committed customers. We are lucky to have the U.S.S.R., the People's Republic of China and some other countries buying our grain, and we are glad to meet our commitments. I think the hon. member's comments about our making long-term commitments with such countries carry with them very serious implications. After all, these commitments are the very foundation on which we build sales and these customers are extremely important.
I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has just entered the chamber and joined us and I hope he listens well. I understand he wants to be in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He always wants to be in charge of the Wheat Board when things are going well. So, as I say, I
June 21, 1973

question the comments of the hon. member for Crowfoot and perhaps at some future time he will expand on his criticism of known commitments.


Mr. Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Do you want us to give it away to the communists?


William George Knight: The remark made by the hon. member's brother is a ridiculous one and not worth commenting on.


Norval Alic Horner: Are you voting against the motion?


William George Knight: Yes, I am voting against it, in case hon. gentlemen to my left are not clear where I stand. The motion condemns the government for failing to maximize wheat sales at top world prices and for otherwise failing to permit the board to operate in a positive and efficient manner in the best interest of the Canadian wheat farmer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who says they are not attacking the Wheat Board?


William George Knight: The Canadian Wheat Board is in charge of selling and pricing and it trys to get the best price it can for western producers. The chairman of the board has already said that they have to protect the interests of western producers. To my mind, this motion is one of non-confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board and I find that outrageous and indefensible. I do not think this parliament should end at this time on the basis of an attack by the Conservative Party on the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to participate in this debate, especially following some of the comments made by one whom I used to think was my honourable friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), though I am not sure right now. There has been what I consider to be a certain amount of untruth injected into this debate. The motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) reads in part as follows:
This House condemns the government and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for failing to maximize wheat sales at top world prices and for otherwise failing to permit the board to operate in a positive and efficient manner in the best interest of the Canadian wheat farmer-
I realize the hon. member for Assiniboia is not a farmer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: None of the party is.


Jack Burnett Murta: I suppose you would call him an academic, and if he is an academic he should at least be able to read and to interpret properly a motion that is presented to the House of Commons.
There have also been insinuations that we in the Conservative Party would like to see the Wheat Board destroyed. That is completely untrue. I think it would be proper to say, though, that we on this side of the House, as well as most farmers in western Canada, I think-


Mr. Alexander:: Order back there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think we should carry on the debate with more order. It is
Wheat Sales
hard for the Chair to follow the speech of the hon. member, and I wish we could have order in the House.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I think that the Conservative Party, as well as most western farmers, believe in the concept of the Canadian Wheat Board, but there are certain changes that can be made.


Mr. Benjamin:: Like what?


Jack Burnett Murta: Nothing is perfect. I think there could be a lot of changes made both domestically, within the Wheat Board itself, and also from the international point of view, and I believe this is something we should be looking at. The motion before the House does not refer to this. However, when it is said that we are against the Wheat Board's marketing system, that is completely wrong. It has been said that we would perhaps like to see some changes made, such as a freer movement of grain within Canada and other changes to our marketing approach, and in this regard I think we are in tune with the feelings of most farmers, in western Canada at least.
The point we are trying to convey to the Liberal Party and the NDP is that we believe the Wheat Board has been selling grain at a low price compared with its own asking price. We are saying very simply that we would like this parliament to give the western wheat producers an extra 30 cents a bushel for their grain sold in the 1972-73 crop year.
I think we are on firm ground in saying that the Wheat Board has sold grain too cheaply. About two weeks ago I directed a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and cited the prices at which we had sold grain in the first quarter of 1973. To some extent the minister confirmed those prices. I have the prices before me and I will run through them very quickly.
In March we sold wheat to the United Kingdom at $2.42 a bushel when the asking price was $2.97. We sold wheat to the U.S.S.R. at $1.73 when the asking price was $2.96. We sold wheat to the People's Republic of China at $1.97 when the asking price was $2.92. We sold wheat to Japan at $2.67 a bushel when the asking price at that time was $3.01. We were selling wheat at that time to 24 countries at an average loss of 79 cents per bushel over the Wheat Board's own asking price at Vancouver.
The figures I have given were taken from a report issued by Statistics Canada. On checking them further I find they are based on Customs documents signed either by the Wheat Board or the country which purchased the wheat. They are also based on grade statistics from the Canada Grains Commission. There is no point in talking about volume unless you are also talking about an approximate grade. This is another reason we feel it is in the best interests of western farmers for the Wheat Board to pay another 30 cents per bushel for wheat produced in the 1972-73 crop year. It might also be noted that as far as Drum wheat is concerned-and we have not touched on this- the average contract price of the Wheat Board at that time was 75 cents a bushel below the Wheat Board's own asking price.

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
If my friends in the NDP feel this is acceptable, I suppose that is their decision and they will have to live with it. But I feel that those who think they are truly representing western constituencies in which agriculture is the main occupation will have to answer a lot of very serious questions. For whatever reason they vote with the government on this motion, that is fine; but we in this party believe that what our motion calls for is the right thing to do at this point in time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: We believe this motion is acceptable because the Canadian Wheat Board has the funds out of which to pay an extra 30 cents a bushel at the present time, and they should do so. To back up our argument in support of paying an extra 30 cents a bushel, let me point out that at the present time we are facing rapidly rising costs in agriculture. I should like to read part of an editorial that appeared in the Free Press Weekly. I feel this is a relatively objective article, which reads in part:
They would like to see some form of price controls. But price controls would be grossly unfair without wage controls as well, and this is an issue which government, so far, has refused to tackle. Until it does, the inflation spiral will continue. There is no point (on the issue of farm products) in blaming the farmer. According to the most recent report from Statistics Canada, the farmer, like everybody else, must have more for his product. His costs are spiralling too.
Farm costs, according to the report, went up 6.1 per cent in the first three months of this year (4.4 per cent in western Canada, 7.6 per cent in the east). The increase was largely due to increases of 18 per cent for livestock feed, 15.3 per cent for feeder cattle, 31.1 per cent for seed. At the same time food prices (including farm products) rose by 3.5 per cent.
The point is that the farmer, like everybody else, is caught in the inflation bind. He is not profiteering from a situation designed for his benefit. He is as much a victim of that situation as anyone else. Indeed, compared to people in many other lines of endeavour, he has much more of which to complain. The increase in his income has not matched the increase in his costs.
For him, as for the public at large, there can be no solution to his problem until government tackles not just one phase of the inflation issue but all of it-wages, profits and prices alike.
The farmer is caught in a form of cost-price squeeze because of rising costs. This is another reason we believe there is a need for the injection of cash into western Canada. Once again, if the NDP does not believe this, that is their problem and they will have to live with it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is their funeral.


Jack Burnett Murta: We have discussed this afternoon the method used by the Wheat Board in selling grain. We had a situation which has been cited many times-it is well known in the grain trade-in which barley was sold, was picked up by Italian grain traders and resold by them at considerable profit. This is the kind of thing our motion is designed to stop.
We are also concerned about the quantity of grain on the farms. At the present time there is a need to increase deliveries of grain off the farms. Deliveries are slowing down because farmers are holding back their grain, and rightly so, until after the end of this crop year when they will very likely receive a higher final price. It is interesting to note that the quantity of wheat being delivered off farms is falling drastically at this time compared to last

year. Perhaps part of the reason is that farmers are seeding; but they were also seeding at this time last year.
Let me give some comparisons. On April 2, off-farm grain deliveries were 7.2 million bushels in 1973, whereas in 1972 they were 11.2 million bushels. On may 16, 1973, off-farm deliveries amounted to 6.2 million bushels, while in 1972 they amounted to 9.2 million bushels. On May 30, which is the last date in respect of which I have been able to obtain information, the figure dropped to 3.9 million bushels, compared to 6.5 million bushels in 1972. This is an indication of a very great reluctance by farmers to deliver wheat at this time because of apprehension that there will not be a high enough final payment as a result of the Wheat Board being caught with long-term contracts having failed to read the market in the proper way when grain prices started to rise.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board gave us some prices this afternoon which I think probably have never been given in the House of Commons before. He cited grain shipments to Russia in 1972. His figures are very likely accurate and I do not think anyone quarrels with them, but I question the fact that all grain sold in March, 1973, as recorded by Statistics Canada under exports by commodities was sold under long-term contract. The minister did not mention that, but picked out one selective figure and used it.
If the NDP dispute the fact that farmers are not making deliveries and do not believe they should receive a higher price at the present time to compensate for the losses they have suffered-the mechanism is there, and the money is certainly their own-then I would very much question the sincerity of the two speakers of the NDP and the true motive behind their intention to vote against our motion. I believe our party is trying to present something positive for the farmers in order to give them a decent standard of living. This is the sole purpose of the presentation of our motion.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board, as I mentioned before, has indicated some figures that very likely will be helpful. I certainly hope he can continue giving the farmers of western Canada some indication of what really is going on in their own industry. I consider that an appalling thing happened this spring. The Wheat Board conducted a survey to determine how much grain was on the farms in western Canada. They refused to release the figures of the amount of grain on hand at that time.
This is an indication of the kind of isolation in which the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is working. At times he seems to want to become an all-encompassing power, having complete authority for the direction of the body that was set up primarily for the benefit of the western farmer. I am critical, as I am sure are other members, as well as a great many farmers, of the way the Wheat Board has been used for the minister's own purposes and for those of the Liberal Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: An indication of this-and we have heard about it time and time again-is Operation Lift. This was
June 21, 1973

not a decision made by the Canadian Wheat Board. Also, the two-price system was not a decision of the Canadian Wheat Board. With high world prices, we really have a three-price system which is unacceptable at the present time. Even though the vote was conducted and the indication at that time was given to the minister by the farmers in western Canada, there are ways to get these reports through a plebiscite. As I mentioned before, the secrecy which surrounds the operations of the Wheat Board should come into question. Whether or not members in this House of Commons realize it, it is certainly realized by the farmers of western Canada.
This kind of debate opens up certain avenues which we have not explored before. It airs some of the frustrations, aspirations and wants of a good many members of this House of Commons, whether or not they are in favour of giving additional money to the farmers. In closing, I should like to say I firmly believe this is a good motion. It is a good motion at this time because it deals with the amount of money involved in so far as the sale of our grain is concerned. I believe more money should be given to the farmers. This is really what we are asking.
In the motion we are asking the House of Commons to bring the return to prairie farmers more in line with grain prices on world markets at this time. We have the means to do this. I therefore hope the House of Commons will agree to the motion presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak tonight in support of the motion presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and to deal with this issue which affects so vitally all those who live in western Canada. I was quite surprised to hear the speeches of hon. members on the opposite side of the House and those to my left. I have never heard so much praise as I heard from the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and so little evidence presented to support that praise. Obviously, the hon. member for St. Boniface has not been tuned in on the same wavelength as members on this side of the House.
I was also surprised at the wiggling and waffling we have heard from members to my left. Again they are up to the old trick of speaking very fervently one way and in the final analysis voting the opposite way. I do not know why they are bound and determined to say that this motion is a condemnation of the Wheat Board. There is nothing whatsoever in the motion to indicate that this is the case, and certainly no member on this side of the House has supported that contention. The other ridiculous argument they have used to justify the way they intend to vote in saying that if the government should be defeated on this motion, there would be no money paid to our farmers in any event. Surely the members to my left know it is the Wheat Board that is called upon to make this payment, and not the government. The defeat of the government on this issue would not in any way affect the possibility of the Wheat Board making a much needed payment to the farmers.
This motion indicates that the interest of the farmers of western Canada is best served by providing them with the most advantageous return for the crops they have pro-
Wheat Sales
duced. One thing that has been overlooked in this debate is the advantage which accrues to the farmers of western Canada by using one of our greatest inland ports, namely, the port of Churchill. It is the port of Churchill with which I want to deal very briefly this evening.
The port of Churchill long has been a vital part of the commerce not just in the north but in the whole prairie region. Until the first part of this century, prairie grain could be exported only by the way of ports on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and the Atlantic seaboard. Prairie farmers looked for a more reasonable route and they have found it in the port of Churchill. Pressure from the farmers of western Canada resulted in the port commencing operations in 1931. It has been utilized ever since. I say "utilized", although it has not been utilized in the way it could be and should be. At present, according to the National Harbours Board figures, there is a wharf some 2,800 feet in length which provides berths for four large grain ships. The existing berths are dredged to a depth of about 32 feet, with a turning basin of approximately 800 feet in width. There is some five million bushels of storage capacity, along with the trackage, which allows for a considerable amount of additional trackage and storage.
As you know, the great bulk of the wheat grown in Canada is grown on the Prairies. During the crop year 1971-72, according to the Wheat Board's annual report for that period almost 210 million bushels of wheat and wheat flour were exported to Europe. To bring this figure into perspective one must consider the Wheat Board's figures with regard to the volume of wheat generally exported by way of the various ports. Almost 204 million bushels were exported by way of the St. Lawrence ports. More than 34 million bushels went by way of the Atlantic ports, and 5.7 million bushels by way of the Lakes' ports. This means that the port of Churchill is available for the shipment of a tremendous quantity of wheat should the government and the Wheat Board decide to make full use of it.
Due to ice conditions in the last year which were unusual, and the restrictive insurance coverage, the shipping season for the port of Churchill over the past five years has averaged about 88 days annually. Last year something over 25 million bushels of prairie grain was shipped out of the port, over 20 million bushels of which, according to the Canadian Wheat Board, was wheat.
I have cited on earlier occasions a report for the 1971-72 crop year issued by the office of the Minister of Agriculture. In that report there is a comparison of the estimated average forwarding cost of prairie wheat bound for Antwerp by way of the various ports. The cost cited in that report for using maritime ports was over 59 cents per bushel. The cost of shipping by way of Thunder Bay was about 441/2 cents a bushel. Shipping by way of the St. Lawrence ports cost something over 46 cents a bushel. The cost of shipping by way of the port of Churchill by comparison was substantially less than any of these figures, namely, 36.652 cents per bushel, to be exact.
Why, then, does the government choose to utilize the St. Lawrence ports ten times more than the port of Churchill? That makes an interesting question, especially when, with regard to wheat exports to Europe at least, it is almost a

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
dime cheaper on every bushel to use the port of Churchill. Of course, I realize that not all wheat exported by way of the St. Lawrence ports is bound for Europe, but I am quite confident that most of it is.
When you consider that the savings involved in using the port of Churchill for such operations is almost $1 on ten bushels, and that we are talking here of hundreds of millions of bushels every year, it is absolutely astounding that the government does not do all it possibly can to make sure that every bit of Europe-bound wheat is exported by way of Churchill. In fact, the situation is even more startling than that. Last year over 154 million bushels of barley were exported from this country. And how much went by Churchill? Less than 5 million bushels of over 150 million bushels.
The government would have us believe that all is well with regard to its handling of the port of Churchill. On June 19 last the minister responsible for the Wheat Board told the House that the Canadian Wheat Board has an outstanding record with regard to the port of Churchill. He told the House that the most recent negotiations up to that time with the Russians by the Wheat Board had resulted in a firm commitment by the Russians to ship some grain by the port of Churchill for the first time. Despite what the minister stated, the use of the port of Churchill by the Russians is nothing new. According to the National Harbours Board, between 1966 and 1968 over
75,000	short tons of grain was shipped to Russia by way of the port of Churchill. But notwithstanding that fact, I think it should be very clear by now that the Wheat Board's use of the port has been anything but outstanding.
The port of Churchill has yet to even draw within sight of its potential. The government itself effectively demonstrated an appreciation of that fact when it announced, ostensibly to achieve this end, that it would embark upon a $5 million program to rejuvenate the port. Of this amount, $2 million was put in the estimates of the National Harbours Board to be spent this year. Even that $5 million, however, is ridiculous. Mr. Taylor, chairman of the National Harbours Board, told the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on May 22 last that even he believed-
-$5 million will not likely do anything of great consequence in Churchill.
He said, further, that even at that time it was unlikely that $2 million worth of work can be done to the port of Churchill this year. There must be sufficient lead time before the work can begin, and even now it might be too late to do any work this year. That is why it is imperative that operations begin immediately.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) seems to have a set pattern of considering the matter for many months, waiting for reports for a few more months and then deciding that it is too late to do anything substantial. Then he finds that March 31 rolls around and the estimated amount of money to be spent is no longer available to him. This seems to go on year after year.
Why has nothing been done? The Minister of Transport knows the answer best. Up to a few weeks ago he said he was waiting for a report on how proposed expenditures on the port could best be made. However, when Mr. Taylor told the Standing Committee on Transport and Communi-

cations at its meeting on May 22 that the report was indeed complete, the minister acknowledged that fact in the House. But there was a problem. The minister found several aspects of the report unsatisfactory and for that reason returned it to the marine administration of his department for further comments. Of course, the question arises as to why the Minister of Transport would commission a report in the first place if he was not willing to accept it when it was completed. The answer to this question, as well, is best known to the Minister of Transport. Nevertheless, we are now waiting for the report on the report and valuable time is passing. Another point to be noted is that the $2 million proposed expenditure is not definitely allocated, and if it is not mentioned in next year's estimates nothing can be done.
There is a great deal that can be done to increase the capacity of the port of Churchill. The harbour next to the wharf should be deepened. The turn around basin should be deepened. The grain galleries should be lengthened and modernized to suit the larger ships now using the port. There should also be increases in the grain storage capacity. Moreover, there seems little reason why the shipping season cannot be lengthened. Statements by Dr. Arthur Mauro when he was chairman of the Manitoba royal commission inquiry into northern transportation have been cited as typical of several reports on the subject. Dr. Mauro stated that the season for unstrengthened vessels could be increased to 113 days, and for such vessels assisted by ice breakers, to 214 days.
The institution of such practices, coupled with improved facilities, should make nothing but good sense to the Minister of Transport and, as I have said, even if the season is not lengthened the volume of grain sent to the port of Churchill can be greatly increased. Apparently, however, the minister has chosen to ignore these facts. We still await that report on the report and the game goes on.
One thing we can learn from all this, however, is that apparent, skilful political manoeuvres do not make for skilful government. The government has taught that lesson with its handling of the port of Churchill and the people of the north, as well as the people of the entire prairie region, are the worse for it. Development of the port of Churchill is absolutely essential to the continued well-being of and the maximum return to farmers for their agricultural and other products produced in the west. I submit that the motion presented to this House deserves the support of all hon. members who have any regard for the welfare of western Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, out west we do a lot of curling. In fact, out west there is hardly a town or village in any province where we do not do a lot of curling. But every winter while we are curling we have a lot of other people who sit around behind the glass. It is called curling behind the glass-and that is where the best curlers are. They can call all the shots and tell how they should have been made, after they were made. They can call all the strategy, after it has been done. That is what we have had today, Mr. Speaker, from members of the official opposition, the mover of the motion and those who followed him. They have been the best curlers
June 21, 1973

behind the glass I have seen for many winters. I do not understand how they can have it both ways.
I recall in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 members of the Conservative Party and members of the NDP raising Cain about the necessity for increased sales by the Canadian Wheat Board, and the prices were not very good. I think the Conservative Party and the NDP members in this House can take credit for some results finally being achieved. The government smartened up. The two ministers that we had in charge of the Wheat Board got off their butts and started to do some of the things that members of the Conservative Party and of our party were advocating in those three years, and the Wheat Board began making sales. Now, however, the members of the Conservative Party say that we sold it too cheaply. Well, Mr. Speaker, this curling behind the glass in terms of grain sales does not wash with farmers whom I know in Saskatchewan, and I know a few in Alberta and in Manitoba as well.
For the first time in many years we feel we are getting some results in terms of moving grain. For the first time in many years the price under the most recent contracts is somewhat improved over what we were putting up with two and three years ago. But I wish some member of the official opposition would explain to me how, if you signed a contract six or eight months ago that was to last for 12 months, and the buyer insisted on a price in the contract that was good for the whole 12 months, you could get today's price under the contract. If any more Conservatives will be speaking tonight I would like them to explain that to me, unless they are playing with a marked deck; and if they are, they are not going to keep many buyers around for very long. But if it is just a case of their wanting to curl behind the glass, they leave me with no other choice than to take this motion for what it is, that is, with a grain of salt.
The Conservatives have protested greatly today that their motion is not an attack on the Wheat Board. Right after that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said, "The Wheat Board sold wheat too cheaply." Mr. Speaker, I am not a fan of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board; that is not a reputation I have established around here for the last 4 V2 years, going on to five years next week. But the hon. member for Lisgar and the mover of this motion both know that the Wheat Board handled all those negotiations, handled all those contracts and dealt with the customers, some of them with contracts for 12 months and delivery over 18 months. But oh no, Mr. Speaker, they are not attacking the Wheat Board although the hon. member for Lisgar said, "The Wheat Board sold wheat too cheaply."
The hon. member for Lisgar also says there should be some changes in the Wheat Board. I listened very carefully to hear what changes he had in mind. He did vaguely mention something about more freedom for farmers, but he did not explain what he meant by that. However, it sounded like some of the fellows from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange whom I have heard ad nauseam since I was knee-high to a blade of grass: it sounded very familiar. I would be very interested to hear what changes the Conservative Party envisages for the Canadian Wheat Board and for the whole principle of orderly marketing.
Wheat Sales
Mr. Speaker, if I were anxious to bring the government down tonight I would have been delighted to help the official opposition draft a motion that I would have had to vote for. I would like to enumerate some things that could have been and should have been in a motion of this kind. I find it very strange that the Tories sit around blowing their chances. They have a golden opportunity. They are really hungry. And, of course, they want us to help them. I do not mind people being helpless, but this is ridiculous. This motion was drafted in this way for two reasons, (1) to attack the whole concept of orderly public marketing of grain, and (2) so as not to bring about the defeat of the government. A psychopathic moron could read the motion and realize that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And you did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And I did. Mr. Speaker, something that could have been in this motion which the NDP would have found almost impossible to vote against would have been a resolution demanding that the government bring flax, rye and rapeseed-and reinstated feed grains-under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is something that I should vote for even if the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had to hogtie me to try to get me out of here. That is a motion of non-confidence I could have voted for, Mr. Speaker.
All the crocodile tears and the lip service the old-line parties have paid to the orderly marketing of grain since 1935 leaves me cold. If they really believe in the concept, why would the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board decide that we must have some more studies to inform the farmers about the pros and cons of bringing flax, rye and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board? Of course, the hon. member for Lisgar just reinforces my argument, and I can include him with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in this context, because if you really supported, believed in and were committed to orderly marketing and in bringing those grains under the Canadian Wheat Board, why would the minister or the official opposition have to help those who are against the concept present their arguments?
I am quite sure that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, some people in the Palliser Wheat Growers, some people in the Conservative Party, some people in the Liberal Party, some people with grain shipping interests and some people in the CPR, can quite capably present the arguments as to why those grains should not be under the Canadian Wheat Board. I wish that once and for all someone would answer this question. I have asked it every year, and this is the beginning of my fifth year here. Where do the Conservatives stand on bringing flax, rye and rapeseed, and on reinstating feed grains, under the Canadian Wheat Board? Are you for it or are you against it?


An hon. Member:: Where do you stand?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are for it. It is NDP policy, supported by every member of our caucus, to bring all those grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have no ifs, ands or buts about it. And where is the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) or any other Liberal over there who paid lip service to the concept and principle of orderly marketing of grain under the Canadian Wheat Board? The minister is going to send out questionnaires, take more surveys and, learn the reasons hopefully, for not having them under the Canadian Wheat Board. There is not a word of complaint from the Tories and not a word of complaint from the Liberals. I think the gentlemen in those two old-line parties can reasonably rely on the opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board to present their case. We have a right to know the policy of the Liberal Party on this.


Eugene Whelan: We are for democracy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is the policy of the Conservative Party? Mr. Speaker, these people are like Mackenzie King who said, "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription." I will change that to, "Flax, rye and rape-seed under the Canadian Wheat Board if necessary, but not necessarily under the Canadian Wheat Board."


Eugene Whelan: They will come under the board if the producers want it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The government is running around trying to be half pregnant. Why is there this delay? Why did the Tories not say in their motion that these grains should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board? If they had done that, they might have seen a different ball game around here tonight.
Mention was made of the two-price system, so called. I recall the months of debate on the grain stabilization bill and the four conditions that the New Democratic Party said should be met before that bill could pass. First, benefits should be related to net income rather than gross income and, second, if PFAA were done away with it should be replaced with much more input by the federal government into crop insurance. Third, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, if it were to be repealed, was to be replaced by government legislation which would do a more thorough job in maintaining a pantry of grain in Canada, and that the nation as a whole should pay the cost of that storage. Fourth, the two-price system was to apply to all six grains.
Then we came to October, 1971. There was a by-election in Assiniboia and four farmers took the then minister of finance to court. And who was it who got up in this House and said that he and his supporters would no longer oppose or delay that bill? It was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The Conservative Party cut and run; it chickened out. We will haunt them with that for many more years to come, Mr. Speaker. Despite the chagrin and embarrassment of prairie members of the Conservative Party, the party as a whole cut and run.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board then said, "I had better do something quickly to make sure the farmers are not so angry at the Liberals." I will give him full marks; he did not remain completely stubborn. He provided substantial additional amounts of money for the crop insurance program, which meant a substantial reduction in the premiums of the average Canadian farmer. The bill to amend the Crop Insurance Act that the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) mentioned this afternoon would

never see the light of day around here if the Tories had their way, because the government would be defeated tonight. But they are the ones who protest that they want that bill to pass quickly. At the same time, they want parliament to be dissolved tonight. Again the official opposition wants it both ways.
One of the four conditions put forward in 1970-71 was adopted. Then the government came along with a so-called two-price system, which has nothing to do with a real two-price system. As my friend for Assiniboia said, it does not remotely resemble a two-price system but bastardizes the whole principle of the two-price system. The minister used the formula for the two-price system in order to arrive at an amount of money he could push through cabinet and Treasury Board and use to pay out on the basis of acres. What a payment per acre has to do with the price per bushel I have yet to hear from the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. We still put forward the proposition that there should be a two-price system, and if the official opposition in its motion had included the two-price system for all six grains, I for one would have voted in favour of their motion tonight. If it is logical for the government to adopt as policy a two-price system for wheat domestically consumed, I suggest it is equally logical to do the same with the other five grains. We are waiting for that to be done.
Mention was made of Operation Lift. I will not say much about it because the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) says he hates people who say, "I told you so." If members of the government and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board want to hate me, I am sorry; but I must say, "I told you so." Member after member in this House, including members of the Liberal Party, warned the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the government about implementing that program. We said, "So what, if we have one billion bushels of grain? It is like money in the bank. It is food for the world and a grain pantry for Canada. It will only take one average or poor crop, and increased sales, and in 15 months we could run out of grain." And that idiot tried to buy off the farmers with $60 million, by persuading them to do an immoral act-to not grow food in a hungry world.


An hon. Member:: What idiot?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well, take your pick.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On which side of the House?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On your side, too. If the official opposition really meant business and really had a farm policy- really I am reciting the NDP farm program-it would say in its motion that the nation as a whole should pay a share of the cost of grain storage with respect to all six grains. They could have included a clause in the motion providing for the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. But, Mr. Speaker, my friends to the right want us to bail them out again. They blew it, Mr. Speaker, and now they want me to rewrite their motion for them.


An hon. Member:: Bail out the Conservative Party?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No way. When I look at what is on the government side and what is beside us, I am reminded
June 21, 1973

that we must choose between the lesser of two evils. It seems to me that in this instance we prefer the evil over there, on the government side, to the evil that is over here.


Eugene Whelan: And you are the purest one involved in this debate!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But the hon. member who moved the motion did not include in it a clause providing that the nation as a whole would bear a share of the cost of grain storage. Instead he took the minister to task, quite rightly, for keeping country elevators and terminals half filled month after month in order to save the government money. But there was nothing in his motion about that.
The minister bragged today about hopper cars. Have I used up my time, Mr. Speaker? There is a great deal more I want to say, but I know I will not be given an extension. I close by supporting what the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Assiniboia said-that my party cannot be expected to support a motion that attacks the orderly marketing of grains coming under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was out of the House when his colleague for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said, "We need some changes. Farmers must have more freedom."


Jack Burnett Murta: That was not an attack.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suggest that was an attack on the principle of orderly marketing. Mr. Speaker, a motion that I consider to be an attack on the principle of orderly marketing of grains coming under the authority of the Wheat Board is not worthy of the support of the New Democratic Party. A motion that seeks to dissolve this House before we can grapple with important items now before us concerning veterans and farmers is not worthy of support. Therefore, I cannot support the motion.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, since coming to this House I have listened to a lot of balderdash but what I heard this afternoon and this evening from the Liberals and the New Democratic Party has to take the cake. I wonder how many permit book holders there are in the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. How many people in those parties even have their names in permit books? I have never heard such nonsense.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) wants to know why we cannot adjust a long-term contract. I suggest to him that maybe we can write in an escalation clause if the world price varies by 10 per cent. He also wondered what changes this party envisages in the Canadian Wheat Board. The changes envisaged by this party are set out in the resolution, namely, to get the minister off the back of the Wheat Board and allow it to do what it knows best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Wheat Sales


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: If the
hon. member is concerned about defeating the government tonight, I suggest that is the fastest way to get 30 cents a bushel for the farmers. It was the last election that got them the 30 cent increase in their initial payment.
The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) talked about the bright and buoyant days of 1973 being no accident for the western farmer. If he can take credit for disasters, shortages, hunger and malnutrition around the world, of course it is no accident. I have said before in this House that the buoyant conditions are due to politics of hunger, not politics of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
the grains group, Rod Bryden, started to appear in Winnipeg more and more. They held a meeting every Monday. Finally the minister and his officials panicked. Orders were passed down from on high, to use the minister's words, to dispose of the grain.
We all know what happened in 1970. Our grain was fire-saled around the world. It was common knowledge in the grain trade in those days that the Canadian Wheat Board did not have the right to make a decision. That is another reason this resolution is before the House today. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board ordered a reduction in commercial stocks of some 200 million bushels without any compensation to the producers. This is what led to the five consecutive drops in farm deliveries. The minister purposely set about scaring the pants off western farmers. Change and confusion reigned supreme. All he did was stir the pot.
Virtually nothing was done overseas to promote markets. That is where the real changes were. There were quota changes, boxcar allocation changes, a block system was set up, a rapeseed committee, the whole works. It was not until disaster struck in eastern Europe and Asia that western farmers were bailed out of their difficulties-no thanks to the minister and the grains group. All they proved was that Canada could give away her grain.
I wish to quote Mr. A. M. Runciman, president of United Grain Growers. He is probably one of the most respected men in the grain business in Canada. He was commenting on the conclusion in the Canadian Wheat Board report and said:
One cannot criticize the Canadian Wheat Board for selling the grain offered it by farmers at the best competitive prices. It is the board's job to sell grain and the government's to create policies and programs that will enhance farmers' incomes. . . . And we could be highly critical of a government that, outside of its $68 million "two-price wheat" program, provided little in the way of income support to prairie grain growers.
A turmoil of farm policies, muddied by political rhetoric and conflicting views of farm organizations, carried over from the previous year. A National Farm Products Marketing Council was finally established and this inward-looking legislation was accompanied by conflicting government publicity-
He made reference to the two-price wheat subsidy. The so-called wheat payment often went to people who never produced a bushel of grain. He said nothing was done overseas to promote the sale of our grain. There are two overseas offices, one in Tokyo and one in London. We used to have an office in the Common Market, in Brussels, but it was closed. This was the biggest slap in the face to the Common Market that Canada could have delivered. It was finally reopened last year.
The minister commented on the fact that we have 208 million bushels of wheat in storage. That was the amount on June 6. We still have seven weeks to go until the end of the crop year, at which time the minister said there will be 100 million bushels available. The new crop will not start coming in until around October 1. From my vantage point, this makes the picture look a little desperate.
The minister likes to compare Canadian wheat prices with American wheat prices. That is like comparing apples with oranges. You cannot compare Canadian wheat with American wheat, and the minister knows it. I remember when France started dumping grain on the world market

in 1962. The Wheat Board received some real direction from the government. They were ordered not to match the French price cuts. The Americans agreed to go along with that. We held back. The result was that in the next year we had record sales and record high prices. This is the type of direction the Canadian Wheat Board needs. We have had nothing but stopgap measures, when what we need is national programs. The minister was nothing more than a front man for a bunch of civil servants.
Some mention was made of the 2,000 hopper cars. Over the last 15 years the average increase in Canadian grain exports has been less than 2 per cent per year. I suggest the 2,000 hopper cars are welcome, but I still say they were purchased for political reasons. I should like to think that the Canadian Wheat Board is now doing all right, that it is coming out of its slump along with the minister. The theory of supply-management appeared along with the Lift program in 1976, with the marketing bill in 1970-71, with the stabilization bill of 1971 and the adjustment program of the same year. Members of the NDP and the Eiberal Party were in support of the principles of those four programs. I believe in supply-management, but I believe in it at the farm or ranch gate where decisions can be made by 250,000 farmers rather than by a handful of bureaucrats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: I suggest to my NDP friends that a vote for this government is a vote in approval of LIFT and supply-management, a vote in approval of the sale of grain below the cost of production. This is a resolution which western members will oppose at their peril. No matter what the outcome of this debate, western farmers will remain on their land, using their skills; and they can hold their own in world markets against any fair competition.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: I will try to be very careful tonight, Mr. Speaker, because I have had the privilege for a few months of being the chairman of the agricultural committee. During that time I have had nothing but the greatest co-operation from my friends in the official opposition, in the NDP and the Social Credit party. I think one of the reasons for that co-operation is that I have attempted to the best of my ability to run the committee in a completely unbiased fashion, being as fair as possible. I assure you that this is my intention tonight: I want to be fair and unbiased. I will simply bring to the attention of hon. members some of the facts as I see them.
I speak of the western problems as an outsider but as one who has been there and studied the situation as much as possible. I intend to present the facts as fairly as I can. In order to do so I think we should go back to 1969 when as a member of the committee on agriculture I had the privilege of visiting western Canada with a number of other members from both sides of the House. At the time that part of the country was in a crisis; there is no other way to describe it. If I needed to underline that fact, all I would have to do is refer to the speeches made by hon. members from western Canada, members of the Conserva-

tive Party and the NDP. There was a crisis in western Canada at that time, and something had to be done.
With that as a background, we went out to western Canada. The committee was split into pairs and I travelled with the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). We visited a number of grain farms in western Canada, and I must say that anyone who was there must have experienced a feeling of compassion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Have you heard the story about the gophers?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) most of the afternoon. He asked for some advice. Now he is not listening but is giving advice. If he will just keep quiet, as I did for him this afternoon, we will get along very well. One of the few faults of that hon. member becomes apparent whenever he opens his mouth. For a few minutes tonight I hope the hon. member will be quiet, as I was this afternoon.
In 1969 the grain farmers in western Canada were experiencing a crisis. On our visit we found wheat in the barns, in the garages, in the sheds and on many farms on the ground. We found grain lying on the ground, contained by plywood and covered by tarpaulins. As most of us know, one billion bushels of wheat was on hand in western Canada at that time. People from the cities, be it Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or wherever, cannot imagine what a billion bushels of wheat looks like. They cannot really appreciate the critical situation in western Canada at that time.
Let me read a sentence from the supplementary report of the Canadian Wheat Board dated August 31, 1971: Canada's carryover as at July 31, 1970 also reached a new record of 1,009 million bushels, which was 157 million bushels greater than the previous year's record, 852 million bushels.
I am sure people who live in the cities cannot realize what a billion of bushels of grain means to western agriculture, particularly when nothing can be done about it. Quite rightly, in my opinion, the farmers looked to the government and to the Canadian Wheat Board to do something to sell that wheat somewhere. I remember attending a meeting with the hon. member for Kent-Essex and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, at Humboldt, Saskatchewan. I remember being somewhat critical, thinking to myself that the government should get out into the markets all over the world and sell this wheat in order to help these people who desperately needed help.
During our visit we talked to members of Chambers of Commerce of various towns, village and cities in western Canada. They pleaded with us to go back to Ottawa and tell the government it must do something because trade was slowing down and the farmers were going to lose their farms. The banks moved in and unfortunately many farmers did lose their land. This was a crisis if ever I saw one.
My friends have the right to criticize today, but I suggest they cannot criticize the fact the government has too much grain on hand. Their main criticism lies in the fact that the government did too good a job of disposing of the surplus wheat. Hon. members say this grain was disposed of at fire-sale prices and they blame the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I am satisfied that if the
Wheat Sales
minister could have sold the wheat at higher prices but did not, he would deserve that criticism.
From what I have read, and so far as I can see, there is no justification whatever for saying that the farmers were sold down the river, or that grain grown in Canada was sold across the world at fire-sale prices. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, when farmers did sell at fire-sale prices, and that is when they were selling from farmer to farmer in western Canada. This was because they did not have enough money to put clothing on their children's backs and did not have enough money to buy proper food for their children. So they sold three bushels of barley for $1 in western Canada. That was a fire-sale price.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where and when?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That wheat was not sold by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board but by the farmers themselves, and those are prices that western Canada can keep. Judy LaMarsh once described the hon. member for Crowfoot as one of those noisy holler boys, and he is certainly exemplifying that description tonight.
Because of the fact that Canada had to meet the world market price, we had to sell wheat cheaply. Was wheat sold below production cost?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: To be fair, I do not know whether it was or was not, but possibly it was sold below production cost. If that was the case, it was because the farmers of western Canada demanded that the government sell it. It was because the Tories across the way demanded that it be sold, and even I as a Liberal demanded it be sold. Because when you are almost starving to death, some money is a whole lot better than none at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I heard the speech of the hon. member for Crowfoot this afternoon. I always listen to him most attentively, even though sometimes he is most boring. In the way that we describe it in the farmlands of Ontario, he gave the minister responsible for the Wheat Board the "real blazes" for many things. For one thing, he blamed th minister for the two-price system of wheat that is now in operation in Canada. He said that the Canadian Wheat Board did not want it. Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, am an easterner. I come from the province of Ontario and I represent a farming area. Would you believe me, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -if I told you that there are many farmers in the agricultural areas of Canada who think that western agriculture is getting too much. All of Ontario, all of Newfoundland, all of the province of Quebec and all of Nova Scotia were not in favour of a two-price system because, although people in western Canada had been demanding a two-price system since 1867, the first year it was in operation some $56 million was deposited into the bank accounts of western agriculture.

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The farmers' own money.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Paid for-and rightly so, since I believe in the two-price system-by all of the citizens of Canada, including the farmers of Newfoundland, the farmers of Nova Scotia, people in Halifax, the city of Montreal, New Brunswick and every other place in Canada.
I see my time is passing very quickly, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes we do have to go back into past debates and read what happened. When I heard the official opposition this afternoon say that they were opposed to the two-price system, I went back to Hansard for June 17, 1969. As reported at page 10280, this is what one of the hon. gentlemen opposite said:
I wish to put forward nine programs that the government could launch and which would put cash into the farmers' pockets.
That is what I said just now; they had to have cash.
The first is the establishment of a two-piece system for wheat.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Who said that?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. McNamara of the Canadian Wheat Board said we are fully capable of launching such a system.
The author? The hon. member for Crowfoot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not say it should come out of the wheat farmers' pockets.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This is the same hon. gentleman who stood this afternoon and said that we are not doing anything for western agriculture, when in reality we did exactly what he asked us to do some three years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, there is another thing that the hon. member said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I cannot hear what the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is rising on, and that in itself is a rare occurrence. The hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is always a pleasure to know that one's speeches are read, but it should be pointed out that the two-piece system I asked for at that time I felt should be financed by the federal treasury, not come out of the farmers' pockets, as did the last payments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That, again, is a point for debate. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher).


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will deduct that wasted minute from my time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your time hath cometh.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This afternoon I heard criticism of the Lift program, which was put into effect at a time when we had so much wheat in Canada we did not know what to do with it. I can quote member after member on the opposition side, particularly those in the Conservative party, who said that somewhere along the line we had to stop, that we had too much wheat on hand. I think the figure put forward at that time was one billion bushels. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we had one billion bushels of wheat on hand when the Lift program came into operation. In a way, I do not blame hon. members of the New Democratic Party for being opposed to the Lift program, because they were opposed to it from the day it was proposed.
I happened to find on the same page of Hansard something else that was said by a certain member of the official opposition and it is this:
Thus my third suggestion is that the government make payments to promote summer fallow and the production of grassland, which might encourage farmers to go into other lines of production.
The author? The hon. member for Crowfoot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: So you cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You cannot stand in this chamber, face the people of Canada, your constituents and the farmers of western Canada and say that a two-price system is a good thing, that the Lift program is a good thing, that we should put all the acreage we can into summer fallow and raise more cattle or hogs, and then three years later, namely, today, stand in this House and for political reasons blame the minister for doing all of these things.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The same hon. member has made speech after speech after speech, and if I had the time tonight I could spend from now until tomorrow night showing how on one occasion the hon. member for Crowfoot talked through his mouth and on another occasion talked through something else.
Times have indeed changed since 1969 when there was so much wheat and grain in western Canada. I have not always agreed with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. The hon. member for Crowfoot to whom I speak with a twinkle in my eye because, although we have been fighting for years, we have also played a lot together for years-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Please explain.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He knows full well that I have not always agreed with the minister. As a matter of fact, on numerous occasions I have given him the very blazes for not getting out and selling wheat around the world. I am not one to quote from biblical sources very much, unfortunately, but this afternoon a certain member of the opposition gave me a verse from St. Matthew. It is:
Ask, and ye shall receive. Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
June 21, 1973

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board took it in reverse. He certainly knocked. When the hon. member for Crowfoot and myself and other members of this chamber told him to get off his fanny and go out into the world and sell wheat, he got off it and he did a job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let me quote from the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for 1971-72. There are accounts here of 110 different countries to which Canada, through the initiative of the Wheat Board, guided by the minister responsible for the same, sold wheat. There are scores of other countries on which the Wheat Board and the minister called but were not successful.
As an easterner, I felt hurt sometimes when I saw what had happened as far as western agriculture and the selling of wheat is concerned. For years and years the people of western Canada asked for a two-price system. Who was responsible for that system? The minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt is the one man in the House of Commons who can say, "I did it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I have sometimes disagreed with him. I know that what happens in caucus is very secret. We sometimes have little fights. I know you Conservatives never have them, but in our party we do. I remember fighting with him when it was announced they were going to supply 2,000 extra hopper cars for western Canada, costing to the tune of $46 million. I asked myself: Who are these cars for? Are they for the cattlemen of Bruce county? Are they for the dairy producers of Quebec? Will they help anybody down in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island? And the answer came thus: No, they are going to help western agriculture, courtesy Otto Lang.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I know that for political reasons the opposition must be opposed to the government. I know that the reason this motion was presented today was not with the idea-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him, plus an extra minute, has expired. If the House gives unanimous consent he may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear a voice say no. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave).


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my point.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like, for the benefit of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), to make one comment about the three bushels for $1 barley situation. I think this argument
Wheat Sales
should be laid to rest once and for all. If barley was so plentiful, and the price so attractive, I wonder why the hon. member wasn't out there with all his friends trying to buy it.


Otto Emil Lang: And ship it where?


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I was involved in using some of that so-called cheap barley. It was never that cheap. And I would like to say that anybody who ever fed barley did not come through the experience in any way which was a credit to him or to the industry. It was not worth while. Any feeder will tell you that, whether he is feeding cattle or hogs. They do much better on grain at a uniform and higher price. This is the reason the new feed grain policy we are all expecting is so important.
In the short time allotted to me tonight it is not my intention to deal specifically with wheat or wheat marketing. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the close relationship between the beef cattle industry and the grain industry in Canada. The term "grain industry" refers primarily to feed grain as far as I am concerned. But wheat, of course, is also a feed grain. This week in western Canada Canadian feed lots were buying non-board wheat at between $2 and $2.20 a bushel, and barley from $1.05 to $1.25.
Let me bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a brief outline of the condition of the cattle industry in Canada today, after the first quarter of 1973. This is important in the context of the present debate because for too long the cattle industry, the feed grains group and the feeding industry as a whole have been poor relations, the country cousins of the wheat industry. To put it another way, they have provided a residual market for the Wheat Board after export requirements have been satisfied. The beef cattle industry today is the largest single agricultural commodity group in Canada in terms of dollar sales. We sometimes forget this. It is responsible for annual farm gate cash sales amounting to $1.2 billion. This represents one quarter of the total Canadian farm cash receipts.
Our national beef cattle herd has more than doubled since 1950 to over 12,000,000 head. Starting in the fall of 1951, the Canadian cattle industry received its first meaningful pay raise in 20 years. The year 1951 was the last peak in the cattle cycle prior to last year. Until about a month ago the cattle industry enjoyed the highest price levels in its history. These maximum prices at the retail level coincided with other peak prices for almost all food commodities. We were not alone in that respect. But beef prices made the headlines in all the comments on the cost of living, because beef is such a popular part of our national diet.
There are two fundamental reasons for the present level of beef prices, and these reasons are not generally understood by consumers or even by our own special committee inquiring into food costs. They are high because of what happened or, more properly in my opinion, because of what failed to happen three to five years ago. This was the period in our present cattle cycle when farmers failed to increase their breeding herds. Farmers should not be faulted too seriously for this decision. They did so for one simple reason: there was not a buck in it. Producer cattle prices had not changed substantially at least in some 17 or

June 21, 1973
Wheat Sales
18 years, and it is no wonder they did not want to get more heavily involved in this area. It was not until the fall of 1971 when calf prices took a firm upturn that farmers started to increase their breeding herds which would produce more beef three to five years hence.
The second reason is the global supply-demand situation in respect of all red meats, particularly beef. As Dr. Gordon MacEachern of the Canadian Agriculture Economic Research Council so aptly put it, the world is on a meat buying spree; there is a very definite world shortfall of beef. In many countries of the world, including a good many emerging countries with higher standards of living the people are eating meat and beef for the first time, and they like it.
There is now a reasonably clear indication of more generous supplies of feeding cattle for next year in Canada, as shown by the rapid increase in our breeding herds. Our Canadian cattle industry is tied very closely with the United States cattle industry. We share the same total North American economy in this respect. While there are higher world markets for beef, the North American market, transportation costs considered, is essentially our only market. Historically, Canada has generally enjoyed a favourable trade balance with the United States. For example, Canada has exported more beef, both live cattle and dressed products, than she has imported.
During the first quarter of 1973 this situation changed dramatically. Our import-export position for live and slaughtered cattle was about in balance between Canada and the United States, with about 4,300 cattle moving each way. However, there was a significant increase in feeder cattle exported during the first quarter of this year to the United States, of some 36,000 compared to less than 1,000 a year ago.
I have given some further details of the import-export situation to show the implication of a change in trade balance for our industry. We have a situation whereby feeder cattle, mostly from western Canada, are being exported in increasing numbers while carcass beef and beef cuts are being imported in greater quantities into eastern Canada. This, of course, is not a healthy situation for our Canadian packing industry or our growing feeding industry.
I personally do not object to United States buyers buying our feeder cattle. They are outbidding our buyers on a free market and that is the way it should be. Why can United States buyers pay more for feeder cattle on our markets? The competition between United States and Canadian cattlemen producing for the same North American market is somewhat more favourable to United States producers for the following reasons: the United States fat steer market may rise as much as $4 above ours, but never drop any lower, transportation costs considered, due to the recent one-way tariff change. Starting in 1972, our basic herd provision was removed under the new tax laws.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt

these proceedings and put forwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being after ten o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. tomorrow.
At 10.09 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 22, 1973