1974-10-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Gaston Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from
fnnoiitn ctotoc


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Coates: 1. What was the cost to the taxpayer for the federal election of July 8, 1974?
2.	Of that total amount, how much was required for (a) the operations of the Chief Electoral Officer (b) the production of the various forms, including ballots, used in the election (c) the payment of returning officers and their staffs (d) the hiring of enumerators and other similar type officials (e) advance poll and election day staff?
3.	Of the total number of candidates involved in the July 8 federal election, how many lost their deposits (a) by political party (b) by province?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: The answer in so far as the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is concerned is: 1. The firm figure will not be available for several weeks but is estimated to be of the order of $29,000,000.
2.	Pending a compilation of a firm figure respecting Part 1 of the question, no meaningful estimate can be made respecting this Part of the question.
3.	(a) Liberal 25; Progressive Conservative 86; N.D.P. 211; Social Credit 135; Communist Party 69; Marxist-Leni-nist Party 107; Independent 59; No affiliation 31. (b) Ontario 222; Quebec 258; Nova Scotia 22; New Brunswick 22; Newfoundland 11; Prince Edward Island 5; Manitoba 38; British Columbia 54; Saskatchewan 22; Alberta 68; Yukon Territory 1 and Northwest Territories 0.
COST OF SUPPLIES FOR GROSSE iLE QUARANTINE STATION


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Is the government buying food and loose straw for the Grosse lie quarantine station in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) are these purchases made through tenders (b) was the lowest submission accepted (c) how much hay, grain, feed and loose straw was bought for each year 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 (d) what was the total cost each year (e) what were the names of the suppliers each year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Hay, grain and straw is purchased by the Department of the Grosse lie, Quebec quarantine station, (a) and (b) Yes.
1 lay	(t;) Tons (trains	Straw	(d) Total Cost $	(e) Suppliers1968	
425	250	160	33,024	Paul Godbout, Quebec, P.Q.1909	
450	210	100	30,290	J. Fortin & Fils, Quebec P.Q.1970	
450	245	155	39,954	P. Dumaine, St. Hughes, P.Q1971	
420	270	155	44,090	W. Harder, Woodstock. X B.1972	
400	270	160	52,669	P. Dumaine, St. Hughes, P.Q1973	
.. . .	
350	220	155	47,413	P. Dumaine, St. Hughes, P.Q
28.305-561/2

October 30, 1974
Questions on the Order Paper GRANTS TO THE SOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Council on Social Sciences Research and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital for the Council at the time it was created or at some later stage of its development?


James Hugh Faulkner: (a)
The Canada Council has subsidized the Social Science Research Council since the fiscal year 1957-58. (b) Not applicable, (c) The figures available to the council are for fiscal years ending March 31: 1971-72, $347,468; 1972-73, $465,412; 1973-1764, $522,961. (d) No.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Veterans Affairs received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) 147; (b) 96; (c) 1.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the members of the National Energy Board and (a) what are the academic qualifications of each of the members (b) what was their business experience before becoming members of the National Energy Board (c) have any of the members of the National Energy Board had any experience in the fields of economics, ecology or the environment?
2.	Do any of the employees of the National Energy Board have training in economics, ecology or the environment and, if so, what are their names and what is the academic record and/or experience of each of these employees?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, because of the length of the answer, perhaps it might be printed in Hansard as having been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above answer follows]
National Energy Board reports: (a) 1. Marshall A. Crowe, Chairman, B.A.; Douglas M. Fraser, Vice-Chairman, B.A., and graduate studies in economics and political science; Jack G. Stabback, Associate Vice-Chairman, B.Sc. (Chemical Eng.), P. Eng.; A. Cossette Trudel, Member, B.Eng., B.Eng. (Mechanical), P.Eng.; C. Geoffrey Edge, Member, B.Sc. (Honours in Economics), RIA: Ralph F. Brooks, Member, B.Sc. (Electrical Eng.), P.Eng.; William A. Scotland, Member, B.Sc. (Chemical Eng.); Jacques Farmer, Member B.A., B.Sc. (Appl. Sc.) graduate studies in Industrial relations and Business Administration, (b) This part is in the nature of personal information which may be disclosed by the individuals concerned. However, as a matter of principle, information on personnel files has been regarded as not returnable by the government, (c) Yes.
2. The Staff of the National Energy Board includes 36 employees who have training in economics, ecology or environment and who occupy positions classified accordingly within the Scientific and Professional category. Several other employees of the Board have also had training relative to the aforementioned fields but fill positions in other occupational categories. Consequently, a large, complex amount of work would be required to identify each such individual and provide an accurate return.


Mr. Herbert: Is the government considering the reintroduction of legislation to prohibit interlocking directorships where it is satisfied that such interlocking directorships have or are likely to have the effect of significantly lessening competition?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The government is proceeding with the revision of competition policy in two stages. Bill C-2 represents the first stage. In the second stage, consideration will be given to the reintroduction of legislation relating to interlocking directorships.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What is the estimated number of veterans in the Okanagan Boundary receiving (a) war veterans allowance (b) disability pension (c) civilian war allowance?
2.	Under the Veterans' Land Act, if both husband and wife are veterans, does the certification of one signify the eligibility of the other?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Statistics are not maintained by the census division on the numbers of veterans receiving War Veterans Allowance, Civilian War Allowance and Disability Pension. According to the 1971 census, there were an estimated 3,435 veterans resident in the Okanagan-Similk-ameen census division. This represents 3% of the estimated veteran population of the department's Vancouver district office. At August 31, 1974, in this district, there were 6,237 persons in receipt of War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Allowance and 15,075 veterans in receipt of disability pension.
2. No. It was necessary for a veteran, on an individual basis, to apply for and be certified as qualified on or before October 31, 1968.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the total cost of the July 8, 1974 election to the government for the constituency of Simcoe North?
2.	What was the salary paid to the Returning Officer?
3.	What was the total amount of expenses of the office of the Returning Officer, including clerical staff?
4.	What was the total amount paid all enumerators and other similar type officials?
5.	What was the total amount paid to all (a) Deputy Returning Officers (b) poll clerks?

October 30, 1974

6.	What was the amount paid for all advance polls including rent, agents and other staff?
7.	What was the total cost of the July 8, 1974 election to the taxpayer?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer in so far as the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is concerned is: 1. $109,810.18
Note: This amount includes the following amounts not shown elsewhere in the answers to this question: Rental respecting polls, $8,680; Appointment of constables at all polls, $993; Rental of revising offices, $570.
2.	$4,041.92.
3.	$34,537.62 (Excluding payment for personal services of returning officer as set out in Part 2 of this answer).
4.	$41,617.64 respecting enumerators, revising officers, revising agents and clerical staff of revising officers.
5.	Ordinary Polls; (a) $9,920; (b) $7,440. Advance Polls: (a) $720; (b) $660.
6.	$630 rent plus $1,380 paid to deputy returning officers and poll clerks of advance polls as set out in Part 5 of this answer.
7.	See reply to Part 1 of Question No. 44 answered this day.


Mr. Diefenbaher:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for more than a month I have endeavoured to get an answer to question 544. From time to time I have communicated with the minister's office, on each occasion being promised an early reply. Finally, because I could not get any answer, I placed this question concerning the commissioning of statues of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and Right Hon. Arthur Mcighcn on the order p?per	wppk acm T again Dlaced
this matter on the order paper as a starred question. I cannot understand why the government has no record of this or is unable to furnish an answer. I understand that for the last several years these statues have been in storage. I wonder why they are there, and also why, although the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was prime minister before Mr. King, Mr. King's statue is on Parliament Hill, but not Mr. Meighen's. It is impossible, apparently, to secure information concerning the whereabouts of these two statues. I hope that the department will pay some attention to this because I know the scriptural admonition "seek and ye shall find" will certainly bring results.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the production of papers No. 5 is acceptable to the government.
Oral Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the new designs for passport covers.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of what the Minister of Agriculture told the press outside the House yesterday when he said he is not sure of the division of authority and responsibility as between himself, the National Farm Products Marketing Council and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, will the Acting Prime Minister make available to the Minister of Agriculture all necessary legal advice so that the minister may be provided with all facts relating to this authority and responsibilities.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficulties the minister must be experiencing and in view of the gray area which may exist, from the point of view of the minister-


Mr. Hees:: And that doesn't mean Herb, either.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -what steps does the Acting Prime Minister propose, to make certain that the Minister of Agriculture receives proper advice on the subject.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is performing magnificently in his portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: I know the opposition wants to downgrade him, but I do not think that will happen.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask Mrs. Plumptre.

October 30, 1974
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR STUDY OF COMMITTEE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE COMMITTED OFFENCE UNDER CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Will he examine the evidence presented yesterday to the special committee on egg marketing, to determine whether his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has committed an offence under section 115 of the Criminal Code dealing with disobeying a federal statute.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to look at the reports of that interesting committee.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Labour, may I direct my question to the government House leader. It concerns a report to the effect that in the community of Can-Tung, in the southern part of the Northwest Territories, which is a company town run by Canadian Tungsten Company, provisions have been cut off for those in the community who were involved in a labour dispute and evictions have taken place. Will the minister assure the House that the department which licences these companies and permits them to operate in the Northwest Territories will require of them elementary standards of decency and humanity in the operation of these communities.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this question is brought to the attention of the minister.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister but, in his absence, I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: He is at the conference.


David Réal Caouette: I see. He may be at the
conference, I do not blame him.
During the last election campaign, while we had recommended it years ago, the Liberal candidates promised to grant the old age pension to spouses at age 60. Recently, while answering a question I put to him the Prime minister said that we would have until the 1st of August of 1975 to pass this legislation in the House of Commons. Since we receive a great many letters on this subject from all parts of the country, is the minister in a position to tell us

whether if it is passed in July or before the 1st of August 1975, this legislation will be retroactive to July 8, 1974?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the legislation is brought down, the hon. member will have the answer to his question.


REASON FOR ALLEGED DECLINE IN EXPORTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As exports increased by 28 per cent during the first nine months of this year compared with the same period a year ago-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Just wait until you get the bad news.-and the prices of those same products increased by no less than 37 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Harris Hees: -leaving a decrease of 6 per cent in the volume of exports during the first nine months of this year, does the government intend to do anything to reverse this accelerating trend and, if so, what and when?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the first eight months of this year, Canada's exports of end products were 5.1 per cent higher than for the same period a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Second, the largest increase in physical volume, as distinct from value, has taken place in end products, excluding automobiles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not make any attempt to answer my question. He dealt with a specific type of export over an eight month period whereas the nine month figures are available to him. His answer made clear his indifference to this whole question. What has happened to the former determination and ability of this department to overcome difficult situations, which characterized its operations under a former regime?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member that the government's priority given to the Export Development Corporation indicates the very high priority we are placing on assisting Canadian exporters to remain internationally competitive.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary. Is the minister not aware that the principles employed by the Export Development Corporation are those which were initiated by the government of which I just spoke and have been developed by his government following our
October 30, 1974

very excellent example. All this is nothing new. It is simply following the principles started by the minister's predecessor.


Mr. Chretien:: When you were a minister, I was still in college. That was a long time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Despite the fact there is great liberty during the oral question period, there must be some sense of the present somewhere in the question.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Has the post office yet located the ashes of the late Michael Klochko which were lost in the mail two months ago while making the 50 mile trip from Grimsby to Toronto?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: No, unfortunately. However, the parcel would have been made safer for the sake of another 90 cents. That is why we have had registered mail for over 100 years.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the widespread famine in India, the worst for decades, may I ask whether the government of India has made any request to the government of Canada for food aid?


Hon. Allan MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: There has been no formal request with respect to food aid. Yesterday, however, I did have occasion to speak briefly with the Indian High Commissioner and the question was raised in a particular context.


William Gordon Ritchie: Has the government of India indicated that Canada should request to supply food to the starving people, as was indicated to Mr. Kissinger that the U.S.A. should request to supply such food on his visit to New Delhi?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kissinger was not mentioned.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


CRASH OF ARMED FORCES PLANE IN MIDDLE EAST-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary provided me with some information about the unfortunate crash of a Buffalo aircraft assigned to UNEF and I wish to follow up this matter. Do both the Canadian and the United Nations reports on the incident disclose that there was a gap of some two and a half minutes in the communications tape between the Damascus control tower and the aircraft? When may one expect the United Nations' report and our own NDHQ report to be made public so that the families of the men who were killed might have some reassurance about this tragedy?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The reports to which the hon. member refers are in the process of being studied. However, the United Nations' Report has not reached us and I cannot name a date for its arrival.


Mr. Fairweather:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not often raise questions of privilege, as Your Honour knows, but I think the Minister of National Defence would like an opportunity to correct the incorrect answer he gave me. My information from his parliamentary secretary is that the United Nations' Report has, in fact, been received. I know the minister has been away, but I would like the record to be straight. This is a very grave matter and there are unpleasant aspects to it that I think should be cleared up.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I have been informed that the United Nations report has very recently been received and is now being studied, together wttn our own repoi i.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and it arises from the present sizeable build-up of turkeys in storage in Canada. What does the government intend to do about managing these turkeys stocks? I ask this question because during the first part of October there were some 77 million pounds of turkeys in storage as compared with some 46 million pounds in storage in October of last year and 16 million pounds in September of last year.


Eugene Whelan: Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with one of the people who is concerned about turkey storage. As we know, many turkeys were sold over the Thanksgiving weekend-I do not have the figures with me. I know that some were sold as loss leaders below cost. Many birds were sold at lower prices than they were ten years ago,

October 30, 1974
Oral Questions
enabling people to benefit from this excellent source of protein. I would point out that the trade owns most of these birds. The National Turkey Marketing Agency does not own any at all. I understand they are all in good cold storage and that there are no signs of deterioration. They could be used in many different programs.


Jack Burnett Murta: Can the minister advise the House what could be an acceptable figure for surpluses of turkey products in Canada as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned?


Eugene Whelan: I look upon the supply position in this way: it is better to have a surplus position than a deficit. A surplus ensures that we are able to supply our people at reasonable prices and participate in world food programs.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In reply to a question yesterday concerning the 16,000 lay-offs in the forestry industry of British Columbia and equivalent lay-offs coming into New Brunswick and Quebec, the minister stated that his department had effected certain sales to countries like Iceland and Cuba. I should like the minister to be more specific. Was he suggesting that recent sales to those countries were going to affect lay-offs in any significant way and, if so, in what way? I should also like to ask him what he is doing in addition to deal with this situation.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the active participation of my department in seeking new export markets for the products of the forest industries of Canada. I identified some of these markets in my remarks yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: But have you made any sales?


Alastair William Gillespie: I was not suggesting that there would be an immediate short-term benefit. For that reason we have been examining other options which might sustain production during the winter.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the House what the other options are so that we, and more particularly the people directly involved in these lay-offs which are taking place right through northern Canada now, will have some idea what to expect in the coming months?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the study has not yet been completed. As soon as it has been completed I will be making an announcement.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I put a final supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs this question. Given the lay-offs in the lumbering industry, and also given the report this morning that Premier Davis, that well known radical from Ontario, has suggested that the government involve itself in providing mortgage money at lower interest rates so that more houses can be constructed in his province, is the government finally going to do something to bring down mortgage rates and, if so, when?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly I welcome the bold initiative of the premier of Ontario in suggesting more mortgage money at lower rates would be helpful. I think this is very much in line with our innovative housing program. We have been doing this, of course, to the tune of $1,350 million during the past year. I would very much welcome any innovative thinking on how to bring down mortgage interest rates without spending still more money. However, we are spending that money; we have spent it, and we intend to continue to stimulate housing construction. Our expenditures on housing have increased each and every year, and the effect of that spending, as a result of programs introduced by my predecessor and as a result of present programs, will have an even greater impact on the market next year.


ALLEGED REQUEST FOR SOQUIP TO ASSOCIATE WITH PANARCTIC-REASON FOR REFUSAL
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources being absent, I shall put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Panarctic Oils Limited is a joint venture of the federal government and the private sector which conducts explorations for oil, and that a corporation called Soquip has similar operations in Quebec, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if he is aware of the fact that Soquip presented a request in order to become member of the Panartic Oils Ltd. consortium? If he is, how was that request answered?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question, as I recall it, related to an interest by Soquip in buying shares in Panarctic Corporation, and the government indicated that this would not be in accordance with government policy.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
October 30, 1974

Is it true, as newspapers indicate, that the request was dismissed in order to avoid political conflicts between Ottawa and Quebec, and that the real interest of Canadians in this field have been ignored?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it was not especially related to Quebec; it is the general policy of the Canadian government that the present distribution of shares, 45 per cent to the federal government and 55 per cent in the hands of the private corporations, should not be disturbed.


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of state responsible for housing following his answer to the leader of the NDP. As housing starts are down 24 per cent, will the minister now explore with officials of provincial corporations responsible for housing and officials of the CMHC the idea of obtaining a federal-provincial agreement under which one body would pour money into housing, rather than having the conflict that exists between provincial and federal bodies, always used as an excuse by the minister responsible for housing in this House?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have used that as an excuse. I do look for co-operation and, indeed, I obtain it. We have agreements and we hold meetings with the provinces, and the fact that we will have something like 255,000 housing completions this year is an indication of that CC operatic"	in mir nrnurams.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on that as the minister did not answer my question. I asked first of all whether he had or would explore the idea suggested by the Premier of Ontario of preparing an agreement between federal and provincial bodies in order that we might have one housing body responsible for housing. I asked that question in view of the fact that every construction company and construction worker knows that housing starts are down in this country. There is no point in looking at last year when we are living in
1974.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we are living in 1974 and planning for 1975. Certainly, I would explore any positive avenue which would help improve the situation to the greatest possible extent. I am not convinced that having one vehicle in each province is the only answer. I think coordination of programs is extremely important. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that it is very important when funds at one level are being spent by another that there be a high degree of accountability and a recognition of where these funds come from, particularly for the governments that have to provide them.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


STUDY ON COMPETITION BETWEEN CARRIERS IN MARITIMES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON APPLICATION OF CP AIR
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, last March a series of air transport hearings were held in the Atlantic area dealing in part with competition and the entry of CP Air into that region. Could the Minister of Transport now indicate the status of the report, what stage it has reached and when he expects to hear from the air transport committee as to its conclusion reached following these hearings and studies?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the committee held very fruitful meetings with the ministers of the governments as well as with other groups in the Maritimes, and are now on the way toward improving services to the Maritimes. I hope that the hon. gentleman will be satisfied with the work that has been done.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would give an answer to my more direct question? Is it the intention of the government to allow CP Air to operate between Montreal and Halifax and/or Halifax, Montreal and points west?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is a part of the question I missed for obvious reasons. Is the hon. gentleman referring to one particular airline?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, I was referring to CP Air.


Jean Marchand: Surely, the hon. member will allow me not to give an answer at this moment.


TKANSPUKT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know that we can always get a clear and definite answer from the Minister of Transport. In view of the aroused public opinion in the prairie provinces over the suggestion that the Crowsnest Pass rates are to be abolished, now that the minister is here again may I ask whether he can give the assurance that such is not the case?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that the right hon. gentleman posed exactly the same question over six months ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That's right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And you gave the same answer.


Jean Marchand: If my memory serves me well, the way he put it then was that if ever we touched the Crowsnest Pass rates it would be worse than an atomic bomb exploding in the west.


John George Diefenbaker: That's right, that's what I said.

October 30, 1974
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: So the bomb is still there and it has not exploded.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that a minister can remember with such exactitude what has been asked, and answer with such indefiniteness. Regardless of the bomb not having exploded to date, has the minister or his department given consideration to the removal of the Crowsnest Pass rates?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can state this afternoon, and I think this is very important, is that the only matters which are under consideration by the department or the ministry are those matters which have been submitted to the ministers of transport for the western provinces, and we are satisfied that the agenda really corresponds to the problems that exist.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know how deeply concerned the minister is. Let us now have a little definiteness rather than this playing around with the House of Commons. Is the minister or is he not going to remove the Crowsnest Pass rates, or is he giving consideration thereto? I can only conclude that unless he answers he intends to.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman already has the answer. He knows very well that if the Crowsnest Past rates had been put on the agenda for our meetings in the west he would have heard about it and the press would have heard about it, so that means this is not the problem with which we are concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Good. Tell the Minister of Justice.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relating to comments made by the minister of fisheries to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on October 17, at which time he expresssed certain reservations regarding seal hunting regulations and how they should be applied. Would the minister indicate to the House whether he is contemplating any changes in the sealing fisheries regulations?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I did say to the committee that whenever people's livelihood and incomes were involved I was ready to review and have a second look at anything, and I maintain that position. Yesterday at a luncheon meeting with Dr. Ronald, who is chairman of the advisory committee which advises the minister on this particular issue, I received his report. I intend to read it carefully and discuss it with Cabinet. Thankfully this is an area in which we have some lead time since the season does not open until March. I will obviously undertake to consult with the committee on any decision concerning any new regulations.


POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF PRICE SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRY
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister met yesterday with the Newfoundland fisheries minister along with other officials and people connected with the fishing industry, and that one of the matters discussed was price support for the industry. Can the minister tell the House if it is the government's intention to extend the price support? I think originally it was planned for a four month's period.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this matter will be discussed at . this week's cabinet meeting, following which I will inform the hon. member.


INABILITY OF FISHERMEN TO FILL QUOTAS BECAUSE OF STRIKE AT PLANT OF FRESHWATER FISH CORPORATION-ELIGIBILITY OF FISHERMEN FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, and with your permission, I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Selkirk regarding the effects of the strike by the Freshwater Fish Corporation employees in Transcona on fishermen who have not yet filled their quotas. It is my understanding that the majority of fishermen from the Lake Winnipeg area had caught most of their quota before the strike began. I am advised that it will take some time before the province of Manitoba and the corporation will have sufficiently detailed information to determine how many fishermen had in fact reached their quota. As for the problem of UIC and the Canada Pension Plan, these matters are being actively discussed in the departments involved, as I indicated yesterday.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Solicitor General.
Following the report presented yesterday on the CBC French network about the infiltration into Canada, and particularly into Quebec, of the C.I.A., with supporting proof and evidence, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions about the extent of those intelligence activities which our country apparently does not escape and inform the House of the government's position on that matter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, last night I did not see the broadcast referred to, but I have asked for a text of what was said on the broadcast. I will investigate the charges made there and report to the House.
October 30, 1974


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of this answer, will the minister, after having examined the report of the interview, inform the House as to whether the C.I.A. operates with the knowledge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or on a parallel basis without the RCMP being aware of its activities?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, neither the CIA nor any other foreign police agency operates in Canada without the knowledge of the RCMP. From time to time foreign police agencies continue cases in Canada, but they do so with the consent of the RCMP and there is always an RCMP officer present as they carry out their work in Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. With respect to the public meetings held in the Atlantic region by the Air Transport Commission earlier this year-a matter which was already brought up during the question period today-as a result of recommendations made and arising therefrom, will the minister arrange a meeting with the Atlantic provinces' members of parliament regarding air services in the Atlantic region and the roles of Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Airlines and Eastern Provincial Airlines?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I think I have a permanent problem; I did not hear the hon. member. He spoke before I used the earpiece. May I ask him please to repeat his question with your permission?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was asking whether the minister could arrange a meeting with the Atlantic provinces' members about air service for the Atlantic provinces.


Leonard C. Jones: Would the minister like me to repeat my question? My question is with respect to the public meetings in the Atlantic region by the Air Transport Commission earlier this year. As the result of recommendations arising therefrom, would the minister be prepared to arrange a meeting with Atlantic provinces members of parliament with respect to air service in the Atlantic region and the roles of Air Canada, CP Air and Eastern Provincial Airlines?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice to see whether this is really the best way to proceed in order to give the best service to the Atlantic provinces.
Oral Questions HOUSING


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF LUMBER BANK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the current depression in lumber prices, will the minister give consideration to setting up lumber banks along the lines of land banks to provide a flow of low cost lumber for housing in the future and at the same time to provide relief and employment in the depressed regions of the country?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it is a very imaginative suggestion which I should like to take under consideration. Obviously, it poses some knotty problems which we will have to work out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REDUCTION IN HOUSING STARTS-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO INCREASE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The minister has stated that he has been planning for 1975. Now that a University of Toronto affiliated institute has substantially confirmed the Conference Board's earlier forecast that housing starts will be down 35 per cent, or
96,000	units next year compared with last year, would the minister indicate what new steps, if any, his department intends to take to avert this slump?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Certainly I treat the reports of the Conference Board and other such reputable bodies with great respect. That would be the case if they did not have an alert and energetic government. I will be introducing and announcing legislation with reference to new steps to the House at the appropriate time, and I can assure the hon. member they will be steps which I think will be appropriate to rectify what would be an unacceptable situation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I take it from his comments that he is challenging the forecast and the predictions made by these two reputable bodies. If so, would the minister kindly indicate to what extent he believes housing starts will be down in the first quarter of 1975 compared with the first quarter of 1974?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am not challenging those figures. Those are projections by reputable bodies, as I said before. But it is my job to prove them wrong, if I can.

October 30, 1974
Oral Questions REDISTRIBUTION


PROPOSED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF SEATS ALLOTTED QUEBEC AND ONTARIO BUT NOT BRITISH COLUMBIA- REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: have a question for the government House leader involving redistribution of seats. As the government House leader knows, in the last session we delayed it, but under that program the province of British Columbia would have obtained three more seats, the province of Ontario three more, and the province of Quebec would have lost two. We understand that under the bill to be presented next week, the province of British Columbia will still gain three seats but the province of Ontario will gain seven and Quebec will gain one. We wonder why, if these two provinces have had their seats increased, Ontario by four and Quebec by three, British Columbia is not having the number of its seats increased.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question clearly anticipates not only government policy but, by its very nature, what will be before the House in the form of legislation for debate next week. Therefore, I cannot allow the question to be asked.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister kindly advise us as to when he proposes to table the Hermann report which he told us would be tabled immediately after the resumption of this session and is now well over a month old?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, I can table the Hermann report soon. The reason it has not yet been tabled is that we have been very busy in the Veteran Affairs Committee. However, it will be tabled shortly.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister inform the House if the purpose of the government subsidy of 24 cents per pound on skim milk powder was and is to give a lower price to the consumer?


André Ouellet: I think it would be better if the hon. member put the question to the Minister of Agriculture who is administering these subsidies.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, may I direct that question now to the Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the latest report I have came yesterday. Every retail outlet was passing this saving on to the consumers except for one, and yesterday they thought they would be doing it. I have not received a report on that this morning.


SUBSIDY ON SKIM MILK POWDER-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONSUMERS RECEIVE BENEFIT
John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is directed now to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the irresponsible position which the Retail Council of Canada has taken in this situation by informing retailers that they are not obliged to pass on the government subsidy to the consumer, will the minister inform the House if he intends to continue to license the theft of public funds by the retailers?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the reply the hon. Minister has just made clearly indicates that the greater majority of retailers-with only one exception-have passed on the subsidy to consumers. Having discussed the matter with him, I know that he was ready to cancel this subsidy, should retailers refuse to pass it on to consumers.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. It was the minister's own Food Prices Review Board which reported retailers and processors were not passing on the government subsidy to the consumer. In effect, his own board has informed us that this is not being done.


André Ouellet: The answer is that, at the present time, not only is the subsidy passed on to consumers, but I have been advised that in some cases, prices have been reduced, to compensate for the inconveniences of the previous situation, when the subsidy was not passed on. I feel that the hon. member wants to start a storm in a tea-cup, although he has received every assurance that this subsidy is actually passed on to consumers and that the Minister of Agriculture intends to deal severely with those who, once again, would not pass on this subsidy to consumers.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. For the recent meeting of international soil scientists in the Soviet Union that country issued a commemorative stamp. Canada will be honoured in 1978 when the meeting of international soil scientists takes place in Edmonton. This will require about 8,000 letters to organize it and will bring 3,000 to 4,000 international guests to this country. Can the minister assure the House that Canada will issue a commemorative stamp to mark the occasion?
October 30, 1974


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for getting his bid in for a commemorative stamp for 1978. I can assure him that his request will be given due consideration along with the many other requests I have on my desk of a similar nature.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the minister has put himself above politics, I wonder if he has had time to examine a suggestion I made about a month ago that Canada take the lead in adding oil as a new dimension to our foreign aid programs to help relieve the balance of payments difficulties of the underdeveloped world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat offended at the suggestion that I have risen above politics! I want to assure the hon. member that I have given consideration to his suggestion but have concluded that oil would not be a suitable commodity for aid purposes and that probably it would be in our best interests to rely on commodities in which we have a comparative advantage over other suppliers.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED OPERATION OF CAPE BRETON COAL MINES BY CONSORTIUM REQUEST FOP. TAPI 1 *'1 ror rrport ON PROPOSED STEEL COMPLEX
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who reports to the House for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. May I ask if he or any officials of his department or the government have held discussions with the Nova Scotia government on the possibility of the Cape Breton coal mines being turned over to a company or consortium of companies to operate them?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no discussions of the nature outlined by the hon. member. I am aware, of course, that a proposal has been discussed at some non-governmental meetings. Indeed, I made reference to it as recently as this morning in conversation with Premier Regan but there is not any substance to it in terms of immediate action.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister to tread very softly on that point. Is he aware that the Nova Scotia minister of finance is quoted as having said in New York that coal mines in Cape Breton will be operated by a consortium in connection with a possible new steel company? Can the minister
Oral Questions
assure the House that, as he promised, he will release the report of Canstel on the proposal for a steel complex? I realize that the Prime Minister has said that when members of this House get a few yards away from the Hill we are nobodies, but I do not think the minister holds that view so would he make sure that this House is advised of any proposals of such a nature?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to reply briefly. Let me say without any qualification that we have not in any sense discussed any change in the status of Devco or the coal mining operation either with Devco or the government of Nova Scotia. The only reference to it was a passing one during a recent meeting. I was not aware there was one in New York but I did know such a comment had been made. On the question of the Canstel report, I am prepared to table it at the earliest possible time but there are two restrictions. One is the translation which is necessary under the House rules, and the other is deletion of-I do not think it is important, but nevertheless it is confidential information. I hope to do that within a week or ten days, as soon as the translators are through.


URANIUM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE SUPPLIES FOR CANADIAN NEEDS
Mr. Ross Milne (Pell-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, perhaps I can put a question to his parliamentary secretary. Concerns have been expressed recently about the adequacy of uranium resources in many countries of the world, particularly the United States. Can the hon. member assure the House that there are adequate supplies of uranium in Canada and will Canada protect her own long term needs in view of the fact that some very lucrative long term contracts are likely to Decome available?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there are adequate supplies for the present nuclear generating capacity. It is recognized, however, that the demand for uranium will increase fourfold or sixfold in the next decade. That is why the government last month announced its policy of requiring that ongoing reserves be maintained for domestic reactors for 30 years.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the very difficult situation of the Quebec beef producers, and since the Quebec Minister of Agriculture,

October 30, 1974
Oral Questions
Mr. Toupin, has disclosed yesterday what he intends to do in this respect and since the measure contemplated is far from being sufficient to allow those producers to operate at full capacity next winter due to the high cost of grain, could the hon. minister advise us whether he intends to communicate with Mr. Toupin in order to develop a real federal-provincial assistance policy in favour of those producers which would allow them to survive and maintain their production levels?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have just seen the program that the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec has stated he is going to put into force and I think it is one of the best in Canada aimed at aiding farmers or cow-calf operators at the present time. The hon. member will have to be patient and wait to see what I am going to do.


PROPOSALS TO PROVINCES FOR CONTROL OF MEDICAL COSTS-GOVERNMENT INTENTION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that the provinces have recently turned down the federal government proposals for controlling the cost of medicare and health care, I want to know whether the minister intends to meet the provincial authorities in the near future to solve that problem as soon as possible.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am to meet the health ministers early in 1975. Now, I am not sure whether that matter will be on the agenda which has not yet been drawn up definitively with my colleagues. Naturally, the review of cost sharing has been discussed at length in the past few years and at least several more months of discussion will probably be required before we can ascertain whether there are better solutions to the present situation for improving health services.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the keen interest shown yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Liberal backbenchers in the crisis in the forest industry facing Canada today, particularly in British Columbia, will the minister tell the House what stage his discussions with that province have reached subsequent to the umbrella agreement signed on March 28, and how are the regional agreements coming along?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible for me to go into full details in the time available. I may say that from our point of view we are most anxious to conclude these agreements, particularly those relating to areas of the hon. member's concern, as quickly as possible. Within recent weeks we have instituted further talks with the government of British Columbia, in an attempt to speed up this process. For our part, we are ready to go ahead quickly and I will be prepared to sign as soon as the documentation is completed. Largely, however, the question itself at this period of time will probably have to be answered by the government of British Columbia.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier today I directed a question to the government House leader in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As that minister is now present in the House, I wonder if he could be given an opportunity to answer my question, which is of some importance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the statement the minister made on motions last week respecting new regulations for immigration, what new steps is the department taking to recruit French speaking immigrants?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in a reply to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I indicated that we are working in a co-operative fashion with the government of Quebec to establish offices and other facilities in Francophone countries. These will work with our officers abroad and will encourage, recruit and search out Francophone immigrants who wish to come to this country, but all of this will be done within the constraints of the regulations which are applicable to all prospective immigrants, no matter from what source.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General. Because of my sympathy for the problems of post
October 30, 1974

office employees, I am wearing one of their boycott buttons. I referred to these earlier this week in the House. I want to assure the minister that a boycott of the postal code by postal employees is in progress. My question is this: Is the minister now prepared to take steps to overcome the grievances of postal workers in this respect, perhaps by suggesting some alteration to the code system, or are we to assume that the minister is content with general mail delivery in Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if there is any boycott of the postal code in Toronto, it is not reflected in the efficiency figures for Toronto. Second, it is difficult to straighten out these problems so long as there is not a union with which I can bargain. Third, I am glad the hon. member identified the button, because when he first stood up I thought he was advertising a new athletic support.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Some time ago I asked the minister to table in this House a copy of contingency plans for spills of oil on the west coast. I have in my hand a document entitled "Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Other Noxious Substances". Is this the document which the minister said at the time was dinicuii to iabie:


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed difficult to table a contingency plan because it is difficult to know what plans are to be implemented before we know the nature of the accident.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: These plans are contained in our retrieval system. If the hon. gentleman is interested, I can get from that retrieval system the information he requests.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Otto John Jelinek: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back briefly to the answer given by the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
Wheat Payments



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-19, to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to conclude my remarks on this bill last night and am pleased to have this further opportunity to speak. I wonder how this bill, if passed, would stand up in court if the competition bill presented by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) becomes law. Misrepresentations have been made concerning this bill, and in the next few minutes I propose, for the benefit of producers and consumers, to reveal facts and figures which will show exactly what is taking place.
The minister suggested-this is significant-that this bill, once passed, will keep bread prices down by five cents a loaf. The consumer will benefit, according to the minister. He did not say that the Canadian producer of Red Spring wheat-that is, the producer in western Canada and, to some degree, in Ontario-is to subsidize the price of bread to the tune of three cents a loaf. The bill does not mention this fact, either. We must recognize that the western grain producer has just emerged from one of his most difficult periods in history because of low selling prices of wheat.
The recent strike of grain handlers on the west coast may not have affected very much the amount of grain used domesticallv in Canada, but it did affect the economic well-being of the grain producer. During that strike tne minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who is supposed to protect and work for the interests of producers, told western Canadian farm organizations to settle the strike with the grain handlers' union on the basis of the Perry report. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had also thrown their weight behind that report. Clearly, the minister was trying to get his colleagues off the hook. The prairie producer is to be commended for not taking the bait of the minister.
Now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is on the hook because the government forced the producers to settle for a 61 per cent increase to the grain handlers and Treasury Board is now offering 16 per cent to the grain inspectors who work for them. These men work side by side. I wish to quote a few facts from the August 28 edition of the Montreal Star, as follows:
Put into annual terms, the conciliation board report calls for a base pay increase from $10,316 a year to $12,126 next year and to $13,478 the following year.
In addition to that, there is a cost of living index, plus a pension benefit. This runs to about $17,000 or $18,000. With regard to the income of producers, the article states:

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
Even in 1973, which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as a normal year, average net income of Alberta farmers was about $12,100; and of Saskatchewan farmers about $12,500.
In 1972, a more typical year, average net income of Alberta farmers was about $5,600; and of Saskatchewan farmers about $5,400. And the average was lower in 1971 and 1970.
The figures for the producers do not include pension benefits. The figures for the grain handlers do. Therefore, there is a vast difference. Approximately 8V4 cents worth of flour, including milling costs, goes into a 24-ounce loaf of bread. At the present time, bread sells for between 40 and 48 cents a loaf, depending on whether it is a private brand or a name brand. In the last year, direct labour cost in the production of bread increased between 17 and 18 per cent. Unless the government is prepared to bring inflation under control, this type of increase will continue year after year; there will be no end to it.
The profits of the bakeries run from zero to 1 Vi per cent. That is not a great profit. We cannot condemn the bakeries for what they are doing; they are caught up in a series of regulations which are prescribed by government officials and they are being buried under the load. They have great difficulty dealing with these regulations. The cost of packaging, which the modern housewife demands, is up 84 per cent over last year. In addition, I understand that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is demanding a list, in percentages, of all the ingredients in a loaf of bread. This adds to the cost to the consumer.
On one hand we are trying to do something for the consumer; on the other the government negates that policy by adding controls, regulations and restrictions which increase the cost to the consumer. I mentioned recently in the House that the policy of this government is causing a great deal of hardship to the business economy of Canada. This is an example. Rather than list all the ingredients of the product and their percentages, it would be far better if the government set up a nutrition information bank where information would be available for persons with allergies. There could be a data centre in Ottawa which a person could call to obtain all the details of a product. The bakeries do not criticize the policy that this information should be listed somewhere, but they recognize that it costs a lot of money to do it. This cost ultimately must be borne by the consumer under the present system.
Some consumers can afford to pay a little more for a loaf of bread. In Canada today there is a vast majority who make more money than the producer. They enjoy the benefit of the three-cent subsidy which the western producer in many cases can ill-afford. In my constituency we grow some of the best wheat in Canada. We can grow number one CW wheat most years. Land is selling in the vicinity of $500 an acre. This is not because industry is trying to buy up the land; it is foreign-controlled money which is purchasing this land. The prairie grain producer has to compete with this type of financing.
Production costs have gone up. The costs of fertilizer, machinery and labour have increased. There does not seem to be any end to the rise in the cost of production for western producers. In my constituency it costs approximately $50 an acre to put in and take off crop. If land is worth $500 an acre, and the interest rate is 10 per cent, that amounts to an additional $50 per acre. This means the

producer has a $100 cost per acre. He must recover this amount before he receives any return for himself.
The cost of repairs is up 30 per cent, and the cost of machinery is up 30 per cent. Not long ago I spoke to a farmer who had just purchased a new swather. It was ordered and delivered in October. On November 1, the price of that type of swather will increase to $12,000, an increase of 30 per cent. Tractor and combines prices have increased to the point where they now cost between $25,000 and $35,000. While the operator in western Canada may have a great deal of wealth, he does not have the opportunity to make use of the return on that wealth because it is invested in his property. He cannot enjoy its benefit until he retires or sells his farm.
There is no guarantee that the western Canadian producer will have a large crop each year. The minister knows very well that for the past three years crops have been getting smaller and smaller. I am sure the minister will agree that crops in western Canada this year will be of lower quality and quantity than at any time in the past ten years. The average yield in the western Canadian Wheat Board area was 25 bushels per acre last year.
The price of wheat is good at the present time. As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, it is $6.20 per bushel, which means that the farmer will break even, and possibly come out with a small profit. But there is no guarantee. The farmer has to face many obstacles, and when the government imposes restrictions and regulations which are hard to deal with, many problems are created. The western Canadian farmer likes to produce. He recognizes there are approximately 3.9 billion people in the world and that the world population increases by 80 million each year. He recognizes the need to produce more and more as the years go by, if people are to be fed. The average Canadian eats 190 pounds of cereal a year, in one form or another. In India, people eat approximately 300 pounds. But the 190 pounds consumed by Canadians is supplemented by the extra protein we are fortunate to obtain from our red meat diet.
We must never take anything for granted. This is why I am concerned about the manner in which the minister has presented this bill. There has been no attempt to protect the western farmer against escalating costs of production. No provision is made for an increase in the price of wheat used for domestic use. I suggest there are people better able to pay this three-cent subsidy on a loaf of bread than is the producer. We recognize there are people in low income brackets who need assistance. I assure the minister that the western producer is a compassionate person who would not let anyone go hungry if he could prevent it. At the same time, he wants a fair shake.
I trust the minister will accept the amendment we intend to propose at the committee stage in order to afford the producer the protection he so vitally needs, because unless the government is prepared to do something to control inflation, the sky is the limit. The producer has to be protected as well as the consumer.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, in addressing myself to this bill I intend to be
October 30, 1974

brief. I begin by saying that my colleagues and I support the legislation in principle and, indeed, with some degree of self-satisfaction since it embodies an idea which was put forward by my party in the mid-thirties, as it relates to a minimum price, and since the early fifties as it relates to the two-price system. Thus, we feel some satisfaction that even after so many years the government should have come around to our view.
I recall that famous Liberal rally which was held in 1965 in the skating rink at Humboldt, attended by the prime minister of the day, Mr. Pearson, and an unlamented former member of the CCF, presently in the other place. The promise was made, then, of a two-price system and of a base price related to the cost of production. But nothing happened until two years ago when the industry was faced with a somewhat unusual situation and, incidentally, the government party was in a minority position in parliament. Anyway, the principle has at last been accepted, and even though the bill we are considering may be considered inadequate by some of us, a beginning has been made.
I recall the discussion which went on during consideration of the first grain stabilization bill the minister in charge of the Wheat Board brought down. This was one of the conditions we put forward for supporting that measure-a guaranteed price and a two-price system. At that time, the minister turned us down, but today he has come at least some distance toward accepting the point of view we then put forward.
Perhaps I could make one or two suggestions which in my view would make the legislation better and enable the minister to provide wheat growers with greater security. First, I would direct this question to the hon. gentleman: why just wheat? The minister has now come around to believing it is logical to give growers a fair price and a two-price system for bread wheat and Durum which is consumed in Canada by human beings. Surely it would be to extend this to ether gre.ins-r*atc harl^v rve flax, rapeseed, sunflower seed, etc. The principle should be extended. I hope the minister, and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), will persuade their cabinet colleagues that this is a logical extension. There is good reason for doing so now, while we are at it.
Since Canadians consume only a relatively small percentage of those commodities I have mentioned, it would not involve massive expenditures, though it would afford a modicum of protection by way of guaranteed floor prices for those who produce these commodities. I hope the minister will bring in an amendment to this effect at the committee stage. If this is too much to hope, I trust he will at least discuss the matter with his colleagues and seek to have the legislation extended to cover other grains.
Then there is the other point, which is the desirability of providing an escalator clause or method of indexing the floor price in order to take into account increasing costs of production. It seems to me that if Statistics Canada, the farm organizations or the minister's own research people, establish that there had been an increase of 3, 4 or 5 per cent in cost of production in a given year, it is only fair that an increase of this nature should be reflected in the floor price. I hope the minister will consider bringing in an amendment of his own so as to incorporate an indexing clause of that kind in the legislation. This would at least
Wheat Payments
see us through for six years, and when the legislation comes close to terminating we can always wrestle over it again. It is not a matter of setting a precedent. It would merely be an extension into the field of agriculture of a principle-a good one in my opinion-which has already been adopted in other areas.
I was disappointed that the minister was not more explicit in his introductory remarks. I wish he had included figures to show people in urban Canada, particularly in the east, how much these various agricultural programs are costing. Since he did not, I should like to put on record some examples of what is involved. For example, if the world price for wheat is, say, $5, then the farmer receives $5 from the Wheat Board, the miller pays $3.25 and the federal treasury pays the other $1.75. The public should know, Madam Speaker, that if the board's asking price is $5 and the world price, as was the case last Friday, is $6.04% a bushel for 1 CW, 13% per cent protein wheat, this means that the farmer is subsidizing Canadian consumers to the tune of $1.04% a bushel. I have not found a single farmer, either in my constituency or elsewhere in western Canada, who is complaining about that at all. But I hope the rest of the people of Canada realize that were the situation left to the whim of the so-called open market, to world demand and so forth, it would cost them more for bread wheat than is the case under this legislation. This is something of a sacrifice that the wheat producers of the three prairie provinces are making and, as I say, I hope the people of Canada understand and appreciate that fact.
Let me take a further example. If the board's asking price for hard wheat is $4, and the same grain is sold in Canada for human consumption, then the farmer receives $4, the millers pay $3.25, but the government pays only 75 cents instead of $1.75, which means a reduction in cost to the Canadian taxpayer. A third example: the world price drop? tr, *9 fin- thp farmers still receive $3.25, the millers pay $3.25 and the cost to the government of Canada is nothing. Only in that instance would the guaranteed floor price have any meaning or effect; it applies only when the world price drops below $3.25 a bushel.
Similarly with Durum wheat. Again, the farmer receives $7.50 a bushel for 1 CW Durum, basis Thunder Bay, the miller pays $5.75 and the government pays the other $1.75. The world price last Friday was $7.61%-not a large amount, but nevertheless 11% cents per bushel that the Canadian farmer was giving up for the benefit of the consumers of Canada. I hope this is also made known to the Canadian public so it can be appreciated. The Durum wheat producers in western Canada are not complaining about this sacrifice either. If the world price goes to $6.75, the farmer receives $6.75, the miller pays $5.75 and the government payment drops from $1.75 to $1. So there is a provision reducing the cost to the federal treasury. If the world price were $5, then the farmers would get $5, the millers would pay $5 and the cost to the federal treasury would be nil.
Now we come to the crunch, Madam Speaker, and it is a point about which I want to argue with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. If at any time between now and the end of July, 1980, a six-year period, the world price of 1 CW Durum, basis Thunder Bay, drops to $2.50, for

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
example, then the farmer receives, not $5.75 but $3.25, the miller pays $3.25 and the cost to the national treasury is nil. But in that instance the farmer has lost $2.50 on the floor price that was in effect, and would continue to lose it so long as the world price for 1 CW Durum remained that low. In other words, in reality the floor price for both hard wheat and Durum is $3.25, although when one looks at the legislation it looks as though the floor price of Durum is $5.75. But it is a mythical floor because once Durum drops below $5.75 a bushel, the floor price drops with it down to $3.25.
I must say I do not understand the reasoning for this. With only the odd exception in a crop year over the last 12 or 15 years or so, Durum has always been of higher value than hard wheat, costing anywhere from 25 cents to $3 more per bushel. I do not know why the minister insists on having a $3.25 floor for both Durum and hard wheat when this has not been the practice or the history in the past. I hope the minister will bring in an amendment of his own in committee which will provide that there be a higher floor for Durum than for hard wheat. If he does not want to stick with the $5.75, we can always argue what is appropriate; but I think it is appropriate that there be a higher floor for Durum than for hard wheat.
We may never have to use it, Madam Speaker. If world prices stay up during the six years, we will never have to use it. But in case the world price for Durum does drop drastically between now and 1980, and if the economists who are predicting a depression are right, then we should be prepared for it. I contend the minister would be well advised to bring in an amendment to the legislation providing for a higher floor price for Durum in the event of a drastic drop in the world price.
In regard to both the direct and indirect subsidy to the consumers of bread, I think it is incumbent upon the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), to get together and see to it that we do a much more accurate job of monitoring the subsidies and of ascertaining whether or not they do reach the consumer. This matter was raised during the question period today with both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I do not think it is by any means settled.
In my opinion, the subsidy on powdered skim milk is not being passed on to the consumer, and has not been passed on in the past year or so. Mrs. Plumptre says that it has not been passed on, and the Retail Council of Canada admits it. In fact, they have told their members that they have no obligation to pass it on. Surely the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture, are not going to allow themselves to be "had" in that manner. It is time for them to get tough. I know they are both tough people, and when the going gets tough it is time for tough people to get going.


Eugene Whelan: You have been reading my speech.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, but I have not read the minister's speech. Incidentally, that phrase is one that Woodrow Lloyd used for years. As far as government monetary intervention in the economy is concerned, unless and until we have proper monitoring through legis-

lative authority, and the will to enforce that authority to ensure that monetary intervention by the national government does reach the consumer, the situation will not be satisfactory. If we do not do that, all we will have done is fatten the pocket-books of those who do not need it. We will have helped neither the farmer nor the consumer.
It is a "must" that the benefits of this monitoring and these rigorous requirements are reaped by the consumers. If the minister in charge of the Wheat Board fails to accede to that suggestion in respect of the price of bread, flour and pastries, then I submit there will be a misuse of public funds. I hope the Minister of Agriculture, in the areas in which he is responsible and in which there is monetary intervention by his department in respect of various agricultural products, will see to it that these subsidies reach the consumer.
We are not interested in the arguments or any warfare that is going on between the Minsiter of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Let them have all the arguments they want. But when they are through, I hope there is a co-operative effort by the departments concerned, and the Food Prices Review Board, with effective machinery put into place quickly not only to ensure but to require that these subsidies reach the consumer. Otherwise, this is nothing but an exercise in futility.
I wish to repeat my main argument and contention to the minister, reminding him again of the loss of $2.50 in the floor price for 1 CW Durum in the event there is a drop in the world market. I plead with the minister to take this into account. I hope he will have the opportunity to comment on this question later today. Failing that, I hope he will at least bring in an appropriate amendment when the bill reaches committee. I am pleased to say that we support in principle this legislation.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, in order to speak to this bill one certainly needs to have a forked tongue, as there are in this bill principles with which one can agree, but many shortcomings which leave a great deal to be desired. When the minister introduced the bill, he suggested that it envisaged a two-price system for grain and wheat. The fact is, that is simply not the case. First of all, it does not apply to all grains, and it really does not apply to all wheats. It refers to those wheats which are sold for use and consumption in Canada. Obviously, this means it applies to those wheats that are used for the milling of such commodities as macaroni, bread and pastries. That constitutes about 10 per cent of the grain consumed in Canada. This means that we are talking about a two-price system for 10 per cent of Canadian milling wheat. That, of course, is not a two-price system and falls far short of what the minister suggested.
More importantly, while it is assumed to be a bill-as the minister mentioned-that will offer a subsidy to the consumer, in fact it will not do that either. The fact is that the cost of wheat has very little to do with the cost of bread. When we consider what is comprised in the cost of bread, we all know that wheat must go through the milling, baking, packaging and marketing processes before it reaches the kitchen. Of every $1 we spend on bread in
October 30, 1974

supermarkets, the wheat farmer receives about 15 cents. This means that on a hypothetical 25-cent loaf, the farmer receives about 3'/2 cents. Therefore, if the farmer were giving his wheat away, it would still cost us 21 Vi cents for that loaf of bread. Controlling the price of wheat will have almost nothing to do with subsidizing the consumer because that is not where control is required. Control in respect of bread prices must really relate to all other processes; it must relate to labour, baking, transportation and, finally, the supermarkets and their profit.
While I commend the minister for his intention to introduce a two-price system, this bill falls far short of the objective he outlined in support of it. I should also like to comment on the floor price of $5 starting in 1974 and continuing to 1980. The unfortunate situation is that this puts the farmer into a six-year period during which the government establishes what the price will be. I cannot think of anything more frightening or dangerous to the farming community or the producer of food than such an established rate being written into the legislation.
We have all witnessed what has happened in the oil industry in the past few years, with the tremendous increases that have taken place in the price of a barrel of crude oil. When we look at the indicators on the international scene, which can reflect on the price of grain, we see many things which indicate that the price of wheat will in fact increase. Let us look at some of the indicators which show that grain will go up in price. First of all, if we were, hypothetically, to divide all the food of the world among all people, we would find there would be barely enough carbohydrates to go around, and not enough protein. That is the situation at the present time. With the increase in world population, this means we will be falling increasingly further behind in meeting this need.
Let us take India as an example. In that country there are some 77 million more human mouths to feed each year. That is four times the present population of Canada. We must remember that figure in light of the fact that at the present time Canada is expecting a decrease in its grain yield, the United States will have something less than a quarter of its corn production, and the Soviet Union is barely holding its own. We are looking at something like 30 million tons of cereal grain less on the world market this year, so the situation is extremely critical.
Let us couple that situation with the fact that, with the shortage of petroleum and its very high cost, the production of nitrogen fertilizer is very much restricted. This means that we will have more people in need of more food. With all the inputs, including inflation and the cost of farm machinery, this means the price of wheat on the international market is bound to go up. Then we look at this bill and see that it locks in, for a period of six years, the price of wheat to be sold in Canada. If I were a grain producer in Canada today, I would be extremely concerned because unless there is an amendment to this legislation, this means a six-year freeze on the wheat producing people. I would simply ask, who would accept a six-year freeze on any other industry? Certainly the banker would not accept that his interest rates be fixed for six years. Farm machinery producers would not accept that their prices be fixed for six years. Those who produce
Wheat Payments
the tires, chemicals and other things required in agriculture would not accept a six-year freeze.
It is crucially important that this bill be amended so that there is some kind of relationship between the payments and the cost of production. If there is no such relationship, I think this is a tremendous insult to the producer of food. There is, in fact, nothing that is more important in the world today than giving a feeling of professionalism and encouragement to those who produce food at an ever increasing rate.
There is one other aspect of this bill that I think must be taken into account, and that is the following statement on page 3:
-this act together with interest thereon at a rate per annum fixed by order of the Minister of Finance for the period commencing with the first day after the end of the month-
First of all, this means that the farmer is, by a two-price system, really getting his money, not in terms of a subsidy but in two payments. It is his money, and this just means he gets his second payment later. The fact that it is his money means it is on loan to the government. I think it is important, then, that he not be treated as he has traditionally and given an insignificant amount of interest for that money, but that he be given interest at the regular lending rate. Why should farmers support the federal government, which should at least be able to pay lending rates for money?
The other thing I question is-again, I think it is an insult to those who want to see a professional approach to agriculture-why we are waiting 30 days? The fact is that on a fairly major shipment of grain, 30 days could add up to a considerable sum in interest. Also, I think it is important to note that here again, if you were to borrow money from a bank for 30 days; you would have to pay for that money from the very beginning. This should apply in all cases. Calculations do not start on the first day of the following month, because this would mean that those who sold on the 1st or the 2nd of the month would have given up that payment for a full 30 days before interest began.
It is obvious, then, that if we want to create an environment in which we encourage the producers of grain to produce much more extensively than in the past, they must receive proper rewards for their efforts. If we are to meet the food shortages that exist in the world, then obviously producers of grain should be given the kind of rewards that match those of any other industry. I say that the bill before us does not treat agriculture as an industry, but as something that is subservient to the rest of society, inasmuch as the interest rates are not to be as high or given as freely, and there is no real relationship between the cost of production of grain and the amount which the farmer receives.
We might stay on that subject for just a moment. I should like to point out that very recently this House considered legislation dealing with the west coast grain handlers strike. At that time, the principal argument of the government was that the west coast grain handlers should have parity with the longshoremen working on the same docks. May I ask that if the government accepts that argument, then why not accept a similar argument for

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
agriculture? Why is it that the farmer who takes financial risks on his investment, who gambles with weather, who gambles with pests and insects, and who gambles with fluctuating markets, is not given some kind of guarantee that would be equal to the one given to an unskilled worker who simply unloads ships? Why are producers not given cost of living adjustments, as were the grain handlers who were working next to the longshoremen? If we are to give parity to those who unload grain, then let us lock in some kind of guarantee for those who assume all the responsibility for the production of grain.
So although in principle I agree with the notion of a two-price grain system, I will summarize by saying, first of all, that this is not a two-price system for wheat because it does not affect all the wheat that will be used in this country. Second, it is not really a valid two-price system because it bears no relation to the cost of production. Also, it is an insult to the agricultural industry because the bill does not provide a guarantee to pay a proper interest rate from the moment at which the farmer has loaned his money. So on those points I suggest that, while we can certainly accept the notion of a two-price wheat system, it needs the characteristics that I have outlined before this legislation can become acceptable not only to ourselves but to the farmers; the producers of cereal grains., which are so badly needed in a hungry world.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, as a member representing a large wheat producing area in Saskatchewan, I am pleased to participate in this debate. Farming is one of the most important industries in our country and it is becoming more and more important because of the demand for food in the world today. We have an increasing world population, and we have famine around the world. I read in an editorial of today's issue of the Globe and Mail that in Bangladesh between 70,000 and
80,000	deaths from hunger are already reported in the Rangpur district. The report goes on to say that the most conservative estimates by foreign diplomats foresee at least one million deaths from famine as an aftermath of this year's floods. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization considers 32 countries, with a total population of 700 million, threatened by starvation this year. This is why food production is important.
We have reduced production on the prairies this year. In the spring we were faced with flooding, which resulted in late seeding. During the summer we had an extremely dry season, and we had an infestation of grasshoppers which we were unable to control with the chemicals available to farmers. It appears that we may have a severe infestation of grasshoppers next year, which again will curtail production. We had a wet fall, and a very early frost, which resulted in low yields and very low grades. So it is very important that we develop our agricultural industry.
It was indicated in the Speech from the Throne that a number of bills relating to agriculture would be presented before this session is over. The bill with which we are dealing today, Bill C-19, is one such bill. Reports that have come in from Edmonton from the Canada Grains Council meeting on Monday indicate that perhaps legislation dealing with the reduction of the Crownest pass freight rates will be coming before us very shortly. It would appear that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board

wishes to do away with this concession to the western grain producers. I gather from newspaper reports that he suggests that the Crownest pass freight rates are unfair to the railways. When I read the report, I wondered whether the minister had studied the history of the Crowsnest pass freight rates. Originally the rates were not a concession to the prairie farmers; they arose as the result of an agreement or contract between the government of Canada and CPR.


Otto Emil Lang: Madam Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? I am sure that in due course we will all want to have a discussion on the very important matter of the Crowsnest pass freight rates and the benefits which they provide to the prairie provinces; but it does not seem to me that this subject has any relationship to the bill before us. I wonder if the hon. member would assist us in getting this bill through to committee, so that we can help prairie producers in this way. Then we could get on to the next bill as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, there are mills on the west coast as well as in the east, and the Crowsnest pass freight rates have to do with mills on the west coast. Therefore, I feel they have a certain bearing on the bill in question. But I will be very brief in my comments regarding them, and then I will go on to the bill.
I should like to point out that the contract between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway gave to the railway, among other things, a monopoly on rail traffic in Alberta south of the city of Calgary. It approved the purchase by the Canadian Pacific Railway of the B.C. Southern Railway and the Columbia Western system, including 270,000 acres of land and a smelter at Trail, B.C., at a cost of $800,000. By grants, options and other means, the CPR acquired some 3,350,000 acres of land with mineral rights, and six square miles of valuable coal land near the Crowsnest pass. As far as the Crowsnest pass freight rates are concerned, they are not a concession to the western farmer; they were a contract entered into between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Lest I be accused of digressing, as I already have been, Madam Speaker, I will move back to discussion of Bill C-19. What is the effect of this legislation? The bill deals with both Canada Red Spring wheat and Durum wheat used for domestic consumption. Under the bill, the millers of Canada pay $3.25 per bushel for No. 1 Canada Red Spring wheat of 13.5 per cent protein, basis Thunder Bay. If the world price exceeds $3.25 per bushel, then the treasury-by that I mean the government of Canada, with the taxpayers' money-pays the difference between the $3.25 and the $5. If the world price exceeds $5 a bushel, as it has and as it is likely to remain for the foreseeable future, then the producer subsidizes the consumer for the excess.
In other words, if the world wheat price is in the neighbourhood of $6 a bushel, as it is today, the producer is subsidizing the consumer of Canada by approximately $1 per bushel, and as the price goes up so does the subsidy by
October 30,1974

the producer. The program for Durum wheat is similar, except that the base price is $5.75, with the treasury paying the difference between that and the maximum of $7.50 per bushel. Again, if the price of wheat on the world market exceeds $7.50 a bushel, the producer subsidizes the consumer for the excess.
I will say, Madam Speaker, that the bill is an improvement over the previous arrangement. Originally, the two-price system was an acreage payment and was paid no matter whether or not the farmer produced a bushel of wheat. He could have produced feed grains, forage crops- anything-but as long as he had acreage under cultivation he received an acreage payment. I recall speaking to a farmer who had retired and had rented his land in the fall to someone'who had never farmed. The tenant applied for a permit book at the beginning of November and moved on to the farm. Under the two-price system he received an acreage payment in the spring of the year-before he had ever planted or produced a bushel of wheat. So I say, again, that this legislation is an improvement over the program we had in the past.
The situation with respect to special permit holders was also a mess. These were the people who had produced wheat for a number of years and then sold their farms but had grain on hand to dispose of. They could sell it by special permit. After waiting a year and a half, the two-price payment to these special permit holders was recently made. It was a real mess. Some 9,586 producers were entitled to payment, and the cheques to the special permit holders were mailed out just prior to July 8 this year. That made 9,586 people relatively happy. Whether the mailing date had some bearing on the election, I do not know; but it has been common practice over the years in Saskatchewan that prior to a federal election the farmers have received a payment of some kind-an acreage payment, a dry-out bonus, or something. That has been the history of the party on the opposite side of the House.
But what happened in this case? A week after the election, 7,529 recipients of those cheques received letters telling them that they had been overpaid, and demanding a refund. In some cases, up to 80 per cent was demanded. The minister claims the computer made a mistake, but it seems to me it was a deliberate Liberal mistake.
Madam Speaker, my party agrees with the principle of this bill, but it still requires improvement. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and several others, have suggested an amendment to index the initial and top price. I agree with this suggestion, and unless the minister brings in such an amendment in committee it is the intention of this party to do so.
I have two further comments with respect to the bill. In the interpretation section, a producer is described as a person actually engaged in the production of wheat. I feel this is unfair. There are many farmers in Saskatchewan of retirement age who have rented their farms and are dependent upon the rental income. It seems to me that the interpretation of "producer" should be widened to include the landlord as well as the tenant. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister this spring in connection with payments under the two-price system, and he looked at it with a certain amount of sympathy in committee. But
Wheat Payments
I note this matter was not taken into consideration when the bill was drafted.
Another thing that concerns me is the method of payment under the two-price system. I had occasion to question the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, in the miscellaneous estimates committee on Wednesday, October 16. From this it was determined that payments will be made only to producers of No. 1 Canadian Red Spring wheat. Madam Speaker, there is not very much No. 1 Canadian Red Spring wheat produced in the province of Saskatchewan, or in any of the prairie provinces, for that matter. It is restricted to certain areas which vary from year to year.
This means that conceivably when the price of No. 1 wheat on the world market exceeds $5 in the case of Canadian Red Spring wheat, or $7.50 per bushel in the case of Durum wheat, it will be the restricted group of producers of that particular grain who will lose the difference, which presently is approximately $1 per bushel. In other words, when the price goes to $5, the subsidy to the consumer is not made by all grain producers in the prairies but only by those who produce No. 1 Canadian Red Spring wheat. On the other hand, if the price of wheat sinks to $3.25 a bushel or below, the price to the producer will be guaranteed, at $3.25 per bushel.
Does the minister not realize that when world prices are above the limits set in the bill these producers will be subsidizing the consumer, and when world prices are below the limits many farmers will not benefit from the guaranteed price of $3.25 a bushel? Wheat is produced in different areas from time to time. Production of milling wheat varies with climatic conditions. Some grain farmers may retire or go into other types of farming, such as livestock production, and will not benefit. This question should be looked into, as there may be some unfairness with regard to the manner in which payments are made under the system.
To sum up, we began with acreage payments under a two-price system, under which money was paid to farmers no matter what they produced. The pendulum has swung and we are adopting a new two-price system. Money passed in the 1974-75 estimates will go into the Canadian Wheat Board pool and be spread evenly among all producers of wheat. The pendulum has swung again and payment of a subsidy is to be restricted to producers of No. 1 Canadian Red Spring wheat. I will not belabour the point. We must have full discussion in committee on this bill. I hope the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will consider my comments and the comments of my colleagues and will, in committee, bring forward amendments which will make this bill beneficial and operative.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my constituency in western Canada relies heavily on the grain farmer and on the wheat farmer in particular. The legislation before us is especially significant for those of us who represent areas like mine. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am also pleased because of the nature of this legislation. The present debate is most important and we

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
are witnessing a truly historic moment as we deliberate upon this measure.
Today we are moving toward the enshrinement in legislation of a fundamental measure which westerners of all stripes, political and otherwise, have talked about, sought and worked for over many years. The two-price wheat program has been called for, from time to time, by almost all political parties of any standing in western Canada. The question has been raised by farm spokesmen and farm organizations. Now, two-price wheat will become reality, with the co-operation of this House, and will be enshrined in the statute books of Canada. This is indeed a great day for the western grain producer.
Let me comment briefly on remarks made by other hon. members participating in this debate. Yesterday evening, when the minister introduced this legislation, he recited the historical background which has brought us to the present measure. He outlined adequately the mechanics of the legislation, and I need not repeat what he said. Let me comment, however, on a remark made earlier today by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) who complained that this law will not introduce a true two-price system because it affects only domestic wheat for human consumption. Clearly, the intention of a two-price system is to do just that-to separate domestic and export wheat. We have talked about this for the past 30 years. One price is charged on the export market, and another on the domestic market.
An added feature of this legislation is the provision for a consumer subsidy. The treasury-ultimately the taxpayers of all Canada-will subsidize the consumer under this two-price system. Hence, when hon. members criticize this program and suggest it really does not involve a two-price system, I do not think they are being accurate. There has been much comment here today, and last night, concerning the cost of production. I sympathize here with hon. members; many of their points are valid. The cost of production relating to the producer of western Canada is a serious factor indeed. It is one which members of this House must consider carefully and deal with in due course.
We must bear several things in mind, however, when we talk about production costs being a factor in the two-price system. First, I suggest that members are inaccurate in suggesting that this bill constitutes a price freeze. I suggest that the bill provides, not for a freeze but for a broad, guaranteed range of prices. I say that because it guarantees a floor price for wheat, just as much as it does a ceiling.
Not even the most optimistic will suggest that during the next five or six years we can always expect to maintain present price levels. I know we all hope that we are beyond the days when wheat sold for $2, $1.98, $1.95, $1.50, or less. Nevertheless, we must be prepared in case the price falls. That is why this legislation is important, as it guarantees the domestic floor price for the next six years at least at $3.25. It is particularly significant to note that price. Until just a few months ago, when conditions in the world market changed, this price was beyond our wildest dreams. Yet the government is guaranteeing this price for about the next seven years: it is guaranteeing it as a floor. That makes the range we are considering very significant and important.

The new floor price adequately and fairly reflects the situation we are witnessing today on world grain markets. Projections show that between now and 1980 there will be at least one-perhaps more-downturn in grain prices. On the basis of odds alone, let alone economic projections, we can look forward, unhappily, to at least one downturn in the grain market. Therefore, a floor price is an important feature. That distinguishes this measure from one imposing a freeze, something which might have adverse effects, considering the cost of production. In short, this bill guarantees the farmer a certain price range, and a fair one.
Secondly, on this matter of taking into consideration the costs of production, if conditions change drastically, as well they may, between now and 1980, if there is a downturn in the grain market-as grain producers of western Canada realize might happen-the figure provided for in the bill can be changed by this House to keep it in line with real circumstances. My third, and most important, point concerning the cost of production is this. It has been argued that this legislation should reflect specifically costs of production. I think that kind of suggestion is somewhat inappropriate in a discussion on a two-price system for wheat.
I ask hon. members to remember this government's commitment to an over-all western grains income stabilization program. That kind of concept is not particularly new to this House. It is a firm commitment of this government that we will be proceeding with that particular legislation as quickly as possible. Indeed, a week or so ago the minister indicated to the Standing Committee on Agriculture that he hoped to have that legislation ready for introduction within perhaps a week or so now. That is very significant. We look forward to that kind of legislation. Perhaps it is a more appropriate vehicle for trying to deal with the important question of the cost of production.
The stabilization plan for western grain incomes, as we have heard from public pronouncements, will have a voluntary feature. This is very important. As well, it will be based, not upon gross grain receipts but net cash flow. That is a very significant distinction. It means the stabilization plan will have that essential link to the cost of production. The plan will not only become operative when markets or prices fall, but when costs squeeze up from the bottom and pinch the grain producer's profit margin.
I can understand the concern of members opposite about this cost of production factor: it is important. But I believe stabilization programs are a more important and a more effective vehicle for dealing with this problem. We have the assurance there will be legislation to confront the problem head-on. Probably that was the most significant comment by members opposite with regard to this legislation. Otherwise, I find that the sentiments of most members opposite are in support of the proposal put forward by the minister in this legislation.
There were comments which may have been a little off the point but nonetheless were "pointed". They concerned other factors that may, by one means or another, affect the western grain producer. There were some comments about the Crowsnest rates. The minister commented on this question in a recent speech in Edmonton. Members oppo-
October 30, 1974

site have talked about the "destruction", "removal" or "abolition" of the benefit of the Crowsnest rates. It is important to consider what the minister said both in Edmonton and in this House with regard to questions on that point. He said the benefits of the Crow rates must be, and will be, preserved. He stated it is his intention to see they are preserved in statutory form. That is the essential point.
There is no question that the benefit of the Crow rates are to be preserved for western grain producers. That is clear. It is a fact that they will be preserved. The issue is how best to do it. Do we serve the interests of the prairie grain producers best by putting money into the coffers of the railway companies so they can spend it on industrial centres in Toronto, Halifax and elsewhere? If we want to give a benefit to the western grain producer, surely there is a more direct way of doing it. That is the question we have to face. We do not have all the answers at this stage.
It is crucial to the future interests of western grain producers that we examine where the real costs and benefits are and ensure they receive the maximum of those benefits. That is what the minister said, and that is the direction in which we should move. We should not be afraid of a bogeyman coming up at one point or another in the examination. If we are to assure the future of western agriculture, we must be prepared to examine the situation.
Finally, I wish to make a brief comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). He spoke about cheques being mailed in late May and early June in connection with the old two-price wheat program, and the cheques sent to special permit holders. There was some suggestion that that was an election plot of sorts. I had direct experience in that matter. My constituency was probably as much affected as his. The farmers in my area who were eligible for the payment received their cheques in the last week of May or the first week of June. They received a letter indicating a computer error with the cheques in the mail between the middle and the end of June, prior to the election.


Douglas Charles Neil: Not in my constituency.


Ralph Goodale: They did in mine, and the results were rather satisfactory.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-19 makes law what has been accepted for the past year. It is just one more factor in an already overcomplicated grain industry. The tangle in the two-price payment for special permit holders brought literally dozens of letters from my area. It is something people just do not understand. What is desperately needed in our grain industry is confidence, not something to add to the confusion. The minister said this bill will enshrine the two-price system for seven yegrs. That is a long time. As my colleagues have pointed out, consideration must be given to indexing.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) talked about a small group of producers who will carry the whole load of subsidizing the bread consumers of this country. It is the producers who deliver the high quality milling wheat, 1 CW Red Spring, 13.5 per cent. The subsidy these producers are now carrying is over $1 a bushel. This year the
Wheat Payments
load will fall on producers in southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, the only producers of high quality milling wheat to escape the frost. I do not remember a more mixed up crop as far as quality is concerned. Milling wheat is being bought and used for livestock feed and our overseas customers are becoming nervous. There is one man on the grain commission in Winnipeg who is responsible for over-all quality control. He is the chief chemist. If there has ever been a year when he is desperately needed at his desk in Winnipeg, it is this year. However, he and his family are in Quebec City on an extended French course.
The mess in which the cattle industry finds itself can be traced back to the grain conditions of a few years ago. There was no confidence in the industry. The minister and his advisers continually look backward. What we need is someone in the industry and someone in the government who will look ahead for a change. The whole idea of this legislation is to ensure that the price of bread in Canada will be lower than it would be otherwise. The minister spoke about a saving of five or six cents a loaf. My arithmetic does not confirm those figures. It is my understanding that it is possible to bake between 65 and 70 one-pound loaves from a bushel of wheat. The miller now pays $3.25 at Thunder Bay for a 60-pound bushel of wheat. This works out to 514 cents a pound for wheat. Just over half a pound of wheat is used in a loaf. Therefore, there is not much more than three cents worth of wheat in a loaf at the present time. The government subsidy of $1.75 cannot account for more than 214 cents a loaf. I question the need for this type of legislation, which could cost the taxpayers $60 million and the producers of high quality wheat $40 million for the 50 or 60 million bushels which will be used domestically.
I was surprised when the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested there was only one floor price for milling wheat and Durum wheat. I understand from my reading of the bill that there are two-$3.25 for milling wheat and $5.75 for Durum wheat. I wish the minister would confirm this. I realize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre may have been a little unnerved, since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated some time ago he was at the top of a very short list in Saskatchewan.
I want to take issue with the statement made that this legislation implements a two-price system for wheat. Consider one grade of wheat, the top grade milling wheat known as 1 CW. Right now, the producer receives $2.25 a bushel at Thunder Bay through the Canadian Wheat Board. This means that 1 CW returns to the producer in my area about $2.04 a bushel, if he is lucky enough to have that grade. The miller pays $3.25 a bushel for 1 CW at Thunder Bay. It sells on the open market for $3.83 or thereabouts. The same grade is quoted at over $6 a bushel for export. Under our two-price system, 1 CW returns $5 in total to the producer. It will return about $5.50 if it is sold through the Wheat Board on the export market.
This maze of prices really has producers confused. I quote from the Alberta Grain Commission's report on feed grain prices, dated October 25, 1974, to give an idea of the range of wheat prices: Lethbridge, $3.25 to $3.60 a bushel;

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
Medicine Hat, $3.15 to $3.40; Calgary, $3 to $4; Red Deer, $3.25 to $3.50; in the Edmonton area, up to $3.95 a bushel. It is a tragedy to see, especially this year, with the frozen crop, milling wheat going into the livestock feed market of Canada.
I have another comment on the confusion which exists in the industry. We know that the grain inspectors on the Pacific seaboard were off the job a couple of days ago; they were back at work today. Loading at Vancouver is still not up to par. On October 21, 471 cars were unloaded, for a total of just over a million bushels. They should be handling between 600 and 700 cars. October 22 was a better day; 588 cars were unloaded, totalling 1,274,000 bushels. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Moose Jaw; the minister certainly failed to instil any confidence in the grain industry when he mentioned in his speech that there might be some moderation of Crowsnest rates. The president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, commenting on the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in connection with the Vancouver situation, concluded by saying:
The statement should have come from the Prime Minister, not a minister. The fact that a dispute between 520 grain workers and companies which represent 200,000 farmers should lead to a possible nationalization of our grain handling system is almost humorous if it were not so sad.
I like the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I quote from a publication of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool:
Mr. Whelan told a food prices forum we simply will not have any farmers or any food produced here in Canada unless and until farmers begin to get better treatment in our society and our economy. He pointed out that if farmers get a better deal it will be consumers who will reap the real, long-term benefits.
What we need in the grain industry and in the agriculture industry generally is a dramatic new concept. It takes farmers a long time to own the land they work. Ownership of the land constitutes, in effect, their retirement plan. I do not understand why we cannot allow farmers to register their land as a retirement savings plan, take a few thousand dollars before taxation and allow them to put it into their land, rather than obliging them to turn to a trust company for a registered retirement plan and seeing their money leave the district. Such a scheme as I have suggested would encourage young people to make a start in agriculture. There is nothing wrong with starting small, but it is difficult to start small today because the Farm Credit Corporation does not recognize small units; they must be going concerns. I support the bill in principle but I hope it will be amended in some respects in committee.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, in considering Bill C-19 one has to study the concept and the purpose of the bill and ascertain whether its objectives, or intent, will actually be accomplished. In the committee dealing with the main estimates it became abundantly clear that the purpose of this bill was to bring about lower food costs for consumers in Canada. The minister said that when the world price rose above $1.95 and continued to rise, the government became concerned. When it became clear it would go to about $3.25, the price to the Canadian miller was frozen at that figure. Ministers opposite have told the country and this House, through answers to questions, that the additional $1.75 will go to the wheat farmer

in the final pool payment; that is, for hard spring wheat. For Durum wheat the average is $5.75 and the final payment of $1.75 makes it $7.50.
The point I wished to establish through my questioning was that all political parties have advocated a two-price system from time to time. It is nothing new. Under the leadership of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister we introduced what was, in effect, a two-price system on an acreage basis. The concept has stood up well. But in those days the price for which the Canadian farmer was obliged to sell his wheat was unreasonably low, and the two-price system was designed substantially to increase the payment farmers would receive for wheat consumed in Canada. Farmers had to produce in an environment where the cost of production was high, and they sold it abroad at what was considered to be far too low a price, one which did not cover the cost of production.
Many parties have advocated a two-price system involving a higher price for wheat for Canadian consumption paid to the farmer over and above that paid for the same wheat internationally. Here we have a bill that firmly establishes a two-price system. Members of the government will throw out their chests and say that they are putting this system into permanent legislation. They will say, "Everyone has been advocating a two-price system, but we are the good guys who are putting it into legislation".
Let us look closely at what the government is in fact doing. The government is not establishing a two-price system that is going to bring the farmers more money. The minister himself answered this question in committee. I asked him how much, in ball-park figures, the farmers had lost so far under the system, but he hated to say. So I put it another way. I asked him how much the western farmers have subsidized Canadian consumers, per bushel, under this system so far, and he said it was hard to derive a figure because the price of wheat fluctuated a little every day. However, with a little bit of coaxing the minister arrived at the conclusion that under this legislation the Canadian farmer had already subsidized the Canadian consumer by 25 cents a bushel.
Knowing the minister in charge of the Wheat Board as I do, that figure is very low. I asked him for a ball-park figure, and that is the figure he gave. Obviously, he is used to hitting Texas leaguers; certainly he has not hit many home runs if these are the kind of figures he wants to play with. I say that the Canadian farmer is subsidizing the Canadian consumer under this legislation today by at least 50 cents a bushel. If the minister will readily admit to 25 cents, then anyone who knows politics can safely double that figure, which is a little on the conservative side.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is $1 right now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) is absolutely correct. Right now, the international price at Vancouver is over $1 more than the farmer will receive for wheat consumed in Canada, under this legislation. If we are talking about 60 million bushels,
October 30, 1974

this subsidy amounts to more than $60 million. Certainly to this date the Canadian farmer has already subsidized the Canadian consumer, on the wheat consumed in Canada, by 50 cents a bushel.
The basic purpose of this legislation is to lower food costs to the consumer, not necessarily to protect the farmer. During the committee study the minister admitted that as the price of wheat went up, the government introduced a freeze because it was afraid that the price would go too high. The price did go too high, but since the price was frozen the consumers were saved from paying that high price.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is quite right in suggesting that under Bill C-19 there is only one floor. There is a suggested floor price for Durum wheat, though $3.25 is basically the floor price for both wheats. The point I want to make is that the government is saying that so long as the price of Durum wheat stays above $5.75, this is what we will charge Canadian millers; but as soon as it goes below $5.75 on the international market, down will go this supposed floor to the Canadian farmer, to $3.25. So what we have here for one particular brand of wheat is a floating floor; as long as the international price is well above $5.75, the floor will not go down.
The minister says that we can rest assured that the floor of $3.25 will be guaranteed for a seven-year period. It does not seem to be such a great guarantee for the Durum wheat producer, so why should our farmers believe it is a floor for hard spring wheat producers when the real purpose of the bill is to lower the cost to the consumer? The purpose of the bill is not to bring about a base price for wheat so as to encourage farmers to continue to produce and to meet their cost of production; the purpose is to lower food costs.
If the price of wheat goes below $3.25 on the international market, it would be both folly and negligence on Mrs. Plumptre's part if she did not complain long and loud that the Canadian consumer was paying too much for bread. She has been a rather effective voice. All of a sudden the Minister of Justice might find himself occupied solely with the law as his arm of responsibility because he has neglected to protect the Canadian farmer through this deal that he suggests the bill establishes.
The minister has suggested that $3.25 is a good price, that it is above cost of production. When someone talks about a certain price being above cost of production in today's world, the immediate question that comes to mind is, when? Was it above cost of production yesterday, the day before yesterday, or a year ago? Will it be above cost of production tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, two years from now, or at the end of this seven-year period? Any member of this House who would guarantee that $3.25 will be above cost of production at the end of the seven-year period referred to in this bill would be quite foolish. When anyone tried to forecast the weather in my part of the country, they were described as being either a fool or a stranger. No member should be a stranger in this House now, particularly when dealing with the subject of wheat. No member should be a stranger in the House, particularly when dealing with the subject of inflation and the way goods have risen in price during the past year.
Wheat Payments
Many members who have spoken in this debate have laid stress on the rapid rise in cost of production due to cost of fertilizer, wheat sprays, farm labour and farm machinery. Some increases have been as much as 300 per cent during the past year. If this state of affairs continues, although $3.25 a bushel may have been above cost of production this year or last year, it may not be above the cost of production in the years ahead. I can see problems ahead for Canadian farmers in terms of increased costs over and above those that have already taken place for such things as fertilizer, crop sprays, labour, machinery, twine, and so on.
What else lies ahead for the farmer in the line of increased costs? If one listens carefully to what the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is saying across the country, one can well see increased trucking costs ahead for Canadian farmers in getting their wheat to Canadian millers. I do not know how many members of this House have ever trucked grain, but it is a heavy commodity, rather stable on the truck but pretty rough on tires if you truck it any distance at all, particularly in the summertime when the tires tend to get hot. There is an increase in cost which may well be ahead if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has his way.
I can see other increases in costs ahead, too. The producer will require greater and greater capitalization. There is no doubt that if you have to truck grain greater distances, you are going to require bigger trucks. You have to buy bigger machinery all the way along in order to make farming worth while. If you are going to truck your grain 100 miles, you are not going to farm only 100 acres but 1,000 acres, to make it worth while. Therefore, the farmers will have to find huge amounts of capital in the years ahead, whether I like it, whether the Minister of Justice likes it, or whether anybody else likes it-and this will add to the cost of production.
These are increases that I see occurring during the seven-year period referred to in the legislation, and the $3.25 guaranteed floor will not cover those increases at all. The minister may say, "Yes, but the farmers are getting $5". They are getting that $5 now, though they should be getting a lot more. They should be getting $6. If the government wants to lower the price of wheat to the consumer and to keep inflation in check, then that is a political decision. That they are entitled to make. If they want to lower the price of bread, that very stable commodity, that is their prerogative. But why make the farmer subsidize the consumer to the extent of 50 cents a bushel? Right now, he is subsidizing consumers to the extent of about $1 a bushel. Why not take up the whole difference and say we will apply everything above the $3.25 figure to the Canadian producer?
The minister said in committee that the government was giving a guarantee in the event that wheat goes below that price. Any farmer today who puts any faith in that guarantee is either a fool or a stranger-and not one western farmer can be placed in either of those categories. They do not believe in governments, and they do not trust this government in particular. Therefore, they will have no faith at all in the $3.25 floor.
894

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
There is another thing that will add to the farmer's costs in the years ahead. Farmers will have to haul grain farther and they will have to build more storage facilities to store additional grain at home. If they produce more, they will haul it farther, using bigger trucks, and they will require more storage facilities at home. Many of the elevator companies will have to face a rationalization period. If the minister has his way, with something like 1,700 miles of railway track abandoned in his province of Saskatchewan-


An hon. Member:: He doesn't care.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member says the minister doesn't care. I would like to think that he does, but I wonder how much he cares. In any event, I envisage a great modification and rationalization program being necessary in the grain elevator business. Over 50 per cent of the wheat in the province of Saskatchewan is handled by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, which is the farmers' own company, so this really means the money comes out of the farmer's pocket once again. This means an added cost in carrying on the farming operation.
In addition, when one thinks about hauling grain farther, one must think of the roads, and the taxes which farmers have to pay to maintain them. If anyone suggests that $3.25 covers the cost of production today, surely he cannot say that it will cover that cost tomorrow, because nothing lies ahead but increased costs.
A few years ago we heard the oft quoted phrase in the House of Commons "the cost-price squeeze" in relation to farming problems. We then had a period of six to eight months during which international prices actually shot up and went ahead of the increase in the cost of production. A few farmers were able to build up their inventories of new machinery and new equipment to assist them better in the field of agriculture. However, costs are rapidly catching up. The cost of fertilizer is up 300 per cent, the cost of crop sprays is up 300 per cent, and the cost of twine is up 300 per cent. In this context, one wonders what has happened to the price of agricultural commodities. I suggest they have not increased by a comparable amount. Statistics Canada show the index of farm prices of agricultural products for the month of June as being 211, compared to 100 for 1961. In 14 years the price of agricultural commodities has just about doubled, whereas in the last year farm production costs increased threefold. This gives some idea of the rapid increase in the cost of equipment which farmers must use.
Let me make it abundantly clear that the purpose of this bill is to bring about lower food costs for the Canadian consumer. A portion of the subsidy to bring about lower food costs is being paid by the government, which they take out of everyone's pocket, while the other portion is being paid for directly by the farmer. I suggest that the government is wrong in doing this. If it decides that politically it should lower the cost of food, then the cost of that decision should come out of the pockets of all taxpayers. While the farmer loves his brother, the great consumer, he feels no special obligation to work on his behalf. He feels he should pay his taxes and be a good citizen. But if the government makes a political decision, it should not make the farmer pay; all taxpayers should pay.

In view of the fact that according to this bill we are entering a seven-year agreement, let me establish beyond any doubt that the purpose of the bill is to lower food costs; and we do not put any trust in the $3.25 floor price, because it will come down if world prices come down. The situation has ever been thus. This government will find a way to lower it, just as it says it will lower the Durum price from $5.75 to $3.25 as soon as the international price drops below that figure.
Let us compare a similar piece of legislation in the United States. On June 20, 1973, the House of Representatives passed Bill 8860 dealing with a support program in respect of the production of various grains. That bill was not intended to lower food prices but, rather, to create a guarantee so farmers could produce enough grain. In that bill the support price changes; it is indexed to the price paid by farmers for goods and services to produce their products. Interest rates, wages, and so on, determine what that index will be. As the index goes up and as the cost of services farmers have to buy goes up, so the support price goes up. This starts off, in respect of wheat, with a support price of $2.05, to be adjusted each year through 1977.
One can go back and read the committee report to find that it was not a unanimous decision, but it was certainly a decision taken by the committee in respect of support for grain. I see nothing wrong with that indexing principle being adopted by this government in this bill, if the cost of production continues to go up and surpasses the $3.25 figure. I might point out, in respect of the $3.25 figure, that any farmer who happens to be reading today's Hansard will wonder about the figure because all he gets when he delivers his grain to the elevator today is about $2 a bushel, depending on the delivery point. We are encouraging him to believe he will receive a final payment. He will this year, but whether he will next year or the year after is difficult to determine. With the increase in the cost of transportation being borne more and more by the farmer, there will be less and less in the kitty for him.
Recently, in western Canada, the minister announced that he was going to do away with the Crowsnest pass rates. What will this mean? Let us take 100 pounds of wheat as an example. That 100 pounds of wheat moves from Regina to Vancouver at something like 26 cents. The comparable rate now used in the United States is in the neighbourhood of 96 cents. If one takes the $2 a bushel the farmer now receives at the delivery point, and chops it down by using the "Otto Lang" freight rate, that pretty well cuts up the $3 figure, without taking into account the other increases in cost of production to which I have referred. Otto has big plans which will increase the cost of production through the movement of grain. He is reluctant to allow this bill to be amended in order that indexing can be applied, allowing the $3.25 figure to go up as the cost of goods and services to the farmers go up. That is being done right now in the United States with regard to a variety of grains. I am only suggesting that it be done with wheat under this bill.
In the United States, Bill 8860 deals with wheat, corn and a number of other commodities. There is nothing new in this idea. I would not want to try to convince the minister that I am advocating anything new. It is a well
October 30, 1974

established practice in grain producing areas that when you believe it is in the interest of the country to either continue or to increase production, you should at least ensure the farmer an adequate return for that portion of his production which will be used in Canada, because surely we want to make certain that farmers can cover the cost of production. That is all an indexing formula tied to the $3.25 would do.
Let us suppose that the goods and services which farmers buy compare, relatively speaking, to the rate of inflation. If the rate of inflation is 1 per cent a month, 12 per cent a year, why can the $3.25 not go up by 12 per cent next year? If the minister does not want to foist that increase on the consumers, why does he not increase the $1.75 portion that the federal government is paying, by the rate of inflation? If the minister adjusted any one of these two figures he would show the country, and the farmers in particular, that his heart is in the right place and that he understands the problem.
We farmers see one union contract after another being signed with a COLA clause embodied in it. The COLA clause became popular after it appeared in the grain handlers contract. I do not blame them. But if you look at any other negotiations that are taking place anywhere in Canada, you will see that they all ask for a COLA clause. What is a COLA clause? It is a clause that writes into the contract increases according to the rate of inflation. I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), who has an understanding of labour contracts, listening. I am glad he is here and I hope he is sympathetic. All 1 ask is that a similar clause be written into this bill.
Farmers must be assured that subsidization to the consumers of Canada will not necessarily increase, but that the government's share will increase by the rate of inflation. The government has forced that principle upon other workers. It has forced the grain companies to pay it to the grain handlers, and it will probably include it in the contract with the grain inspectors. It is included in nearly every labour contract signed these days, whether it be with the air transport controllers or the Post Office workers.
Here we have a floor price of $3.25 being placed on wheat consumed in Canada, and another $1.75 being paid by the government. Over and above that there is the subsidization by the farmer of the Canadian consumer. So this is broken down into three categories. The purpose of this bill is to maintain a low price for bread in Canada, and I have no quarrel with that principle at all. All I am saying is that, as a farmer, I do not trust the $3.25 floor because it does not cover the cost of production today and it will not tomorrow.
What I am saying is: put a COLA clause into the legislation for the farmers. If the minister does not wish to add a COLA clause or add the cost of inflation to the $3.25, then that is a political decision and I would not blame the government for not wanting to take it. But if he adds it to the $1.75 that is to be paid to farmers whose costs are going up, then I would support it. Should the farmer not be treated in the same way as every other person in Canada, whether he be a unionized worker or a civil servant? Every contract, whether it be with the grain inspectors or the railway workers, will be asking for more
Wheat Payments
wages this winter. The grain handlers got it, and the air terminal workers will be asking for it; so will Post Office workers.
All I am saying is that we should increase either the $3.25 or the $1.75 by the rate of inflation. I think I would prefer having the second figure increased, because then I would not be forcing the consumers of my product to pay more for bread, and I would not be suffering from increased costs of production which the $3.25 will certainly not cover.
I know that the government wants to be better understood on the prairies and better received there. If it wants to show the farmers that its heart is in the right place, let it treat the farmers in the same way as it treated the grain handlers and will treat every other worker, whether or not he is unionized. All the government has to do is add a COLA clause, an indexing system, to this legislation. I am not asking the minister to add an indexing provision to all the grain sold internationally, because that is a decision which farmers must make. If they cannot produce cheaply enough to get their product on to the international market, then perhaps they should not produce, or else we should not allow their costs of production to go up too much. If Canadian consumers should eat bread produced in Canada, there should be a declaration by us to provide enough bread for consumers in Canada. If we make such a declaration, then we should add a COLA clause to this legislation saying that the cost of production will be taken into consideration and an indexing system will be included.
Bill C-19 asks for a seven-year contract. The Postmaster General who is in the House now knows he could not find one labour union in Canada that would sit down at the bargaining table and sign a contract for seven years. They would not even approach the table. They are only ready to make a deal for one year. But this bill is asking Canadian farmers to make a deal for seven years, without even a COLA clause being written into it. What kind of suckers do they think Canadian farmers are? What kind of blind people do they think Canadian farmers are?
I listened to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) make a speech this afternoon. He was right when he said that western farmers like to produce. But if they have no money to pay for the fuel, to pay the taxes or to pay for the longer hauls that the Minister of Justice will require for wheat, then they cannot produce enough wheat for all Canadians. It is the obligation of this parliament to recognize the serious situation in which farmers find themselves. Inflation is rapidly increasing, and I firmly believe it was the rapid devaluation of the American dollar that started this round of inflation. But I recognize that the huge wage contracts of 65 per cent or 70 per cent now being settled will add impetus to what might be called the second round of inflation. I do not see any abrupt end to it, although I should like to see it trailing off.
The government is asking us to sign a seven-year contract to provide Canadian consumers with wheat. The very least it could do is write a COLA clause into the contract. Not one worker today would negotiate a seven-year contract or any kind of wage settlement without
28305-57%

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
some kind of COLA clause. The government should consider this because, without doubt, production costs are going to rise rapidly, particularly if the Minister of Justice has his way. On this side of the House we are cheering for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who seems to have a better grasp of the situation. I hope he wins the fight going on in the cabinet. If the Minister of Justice has his way there will be a phenomenal rise in the cost of production, yet he is piloting this bill through and asking us to forgo a COLA clause.
This bill should be given thorough study in committee, and farm associations should be called to give evidence. We should see whether Unifarm of Alberta thinks it is a good contract, and hear what the National Farmers Union of Canada has to say, although I am not a particular fan of theirs. The Palliser group, which has a strong base in the riding of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, should be consulted.
If parliament passes the bill as it is now, heaven help the people who represent the farmers. Can they go back to their ridings and tell the farmers that they did not know about such a thing as a COLA clause, or did not know that the cost of production was going to increase? We cannot claim to be so blind to the inflation that is rampant. All we are asking of the government is that the farmer be given the same right as everybody else. They will do their share to increase production without increasing inflation. The agricultural industry in no way contributes to inflation and should not be asked to accept a seven-year contract that does not have a COLA clause. That is just poor business.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate because it involves the grain industry. Sometimes we are inclined to forget that this industry has helped to make Canada great. The changes that have occurred in the past two years indicate that the grain industry is going to assume a greater part in our national life than it has in the last 20 years. We have emphasized our manufacturing industry and forgotten how important grain, especially wheat, is to the country.
Technically, the bill deals with a relatively small area of the industry, that of ratifying the two-price system; but I think we should take the opportunity to find out what the government has in mind for the wheat industry. We need to know what is going to be done to assist the producers and those who handle wheat on the way to world markets. The bill follows hard on the heels of the abortive settlement the government imposed on the grain co-operatives owned by the million farmers on the prairies-a settlement particularly biased in favour of the grain handlers on the west coast. As an aftermath of that settlement we now have the walk-out of grain inspectors and a demand for parity from the grain handlers at the Lakehead. All these extra costs have to be paid out of the world price of wheat, so the cost of moving the grain from the farm to world markets is a very important matter for this House to consider. This bill must be considered in the context of what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said to the grain handling industry and to the farm co-operatives, so it is important that it be discussed in detail.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has made a great point of saying how important it is to assure $3.25 for

wheat milled for home consumption. Six or seven years ago that might have made an impact and would have represented a considerable subsidy from the federal treasury, the taxpayers of Canada. But that was before inflation and was perhaps of some importance in 1968 and 1969, although even then production was declining. One could see fields that were not being worked because the price of grain was too low.
The cattle industry got a shot in the arm because cheap grain was available, but now the cattle industry has problems because the price of grain has increased. With the price of $3.25 to run for seven years, we are not as well off as we were in 1968 with $2 wheat. The devaluation of the American dollar and our own in 1973 has meant that the present $3.25 for No. 1 wheat at the Lakehead in reality brings less to the farmer than the $2 he received in 1968. In fact, much of the wheat sold does not bring $3.25, but a considerably lower price.
The increased costs of production make $3.25 seem like a pauper's penny. For instance, a pail of the herbicide Avadex cost $59 in the spring but now costs $83. So the government is not committing itself to doing much by guaranteeing $3.25 for 50 million bushels of wheat. Also, they show no evidence of being willing to introduce a COLA clause. With inflation running at 12 per cent, the government could promise at least $6 at the end of the next seven years.
On the other hand, the government is taking from producers of No. 1 milling wheat a substantial amount of money to subsidize the consumers of Canada. The mechanism for doing this is to be set up. I am not one who believes that food subsidies in the long run ever solved anything. I appreciate that violent fluctuations in the cost of food, shelter and the necessities of life can wreak great havoc. For instance, the former Heath government of Great Britain was highly criticized because it allowed coal miners to extract higher wages and then protected the consumer with coal subsidies.
Certainly, the government wishes to mitigate violent swerves in the cost of living and in the cost of certain essentials. Therefore, I do not take issue with the government for paying out of the federal treasury the difference between $3.25 and $5 as a consumer subsidy to relieve hardship. In the long run, if subsidies continue for too long and encompass a wide range of food products, a reduced production of food will be the result. It is important for that $3.25 figure to bear some relation to the farmer's cost of production and to what grain is worth on world markets.
I object to the producer of No. 1 milling wheat being made to accept less than the going world price for his produce. The difference runs at about $1 per bushel at present, and the total loss could be between $50 million and $60 million in one year. That the loss is to be borne by the producer of No. 1 milling wheat is unfair. We are not fortunate in my riding to produce much of this grade of wheat, even in good years, and this year has been unusually bad. It may be desirable to compensate the producer of No. 1 milling wheat with higher prices. As it is, that producer, under the present program, may receive less
October 30, 1974

money than the producer of No. 2 wheat who will sell his produce at world prices, or the producer of No. 3. Unless the full going price is paid to the producer of No. 1, the industry must suffer from distortions. Under this bill we are penalizing the producer of good wheat who harvests it before the rains come and makes an extra effort. Surely he is entitled to receive the maximum benefit for a good product.
The minister brought in the LIFT program, which was surely one of the worst programs ever perpetrated on the farmers of western Canada. We have had far too much government interference in the grain industry. It is time for that industry to find its own level. We must make sure that support measures do not disrupt the grain industry and create distortions and stresses within it.
The minister has shown a marked intransigence with regard to COLA clauses. His attitude is distinctly similar to that of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) who, in speaking of farmer-owned co-operatives, said, "unless rates paid to grain handlers, working under conditions deplorable as they are, are brought more into line with those paid to longshoremen, the companies will experience great difficulties in getting the manpower needed to man their operations." Yet what are the facts? Two shifts were back at work willingly within hours of Senate approval of legislation to end the strike. There was an excellent unloading day on Friday, October 11.
The government, particularly the Minister of Labour, have stated that farmer-owned co-operatives have one of the worst records in their relations with employees. Nevertheless, productivity at United Grain Growers' terminals in the last ten years, measured in bushels per farm, increased as follows: at Terminal A, Thunder Bay, it increased by 24.5 per cent; at Terminal M, Thunder Bay, it increased by 92.7 per cent. This is unbelievable, you will say. Nonetheless, it is true. The activity at UGG terminals at Vancouver decreased by 21.5 per cent.
It seems strange that results at two locations coming under the same board of directors and management should be so different. I believe that the total labour environment at Vancouver has more to do with the situation at the terminals than has been supposed. Further, I do not think farmer-owned co-operatives ever had difficulty getting all the labour they needed at Vancouver and Thunder Bay, despite what the Minister of Labour said. Actually, there is little difficulty with regard to procuring labour at Vancouver, even with extremely high wages paid in general there compared with the prairies.
I bring these matters forward because if COLA clauses are included in union agreements, we may need to revise the $3.25 support in the future. The present bill and the previous bill with which the government settled the strike in Vancouver show, I believe, that the government intends to take over the elevator system. Possibly the government will levy a charge related to the $3.25 in order to run the elevator system. Actually, the National Harbours Board No. 2 elevator at Vancouver is not operated at all because it is too expensive to operate. If the government wants to provide money for grain farmers, and wants grain co-operatives to handle grain, it must provide to farmers a base price which is large enough to enable them to meet their commitments in moving grain.
Wheat Payments
The minister himself suggested that automation may provide the cure for the grain handling industry. But automation means that we must spend great gobs of money, which grain companies do not have and will not acquire if they charge merely the 414-cent a bushel handling tariff. The Canadian grain terminal system can only function because it is old. It was built when costs were a fraction of what they are today. Replacement costs are on a completely different scale. I think that government involvement in the grain handling system will mean that we will pay a large price for the operation of our grain handling facilities. Under private ownership of the facilities there is an incentive to save grain. Private ownership provides the incentive to save grain and grades by cleaning to the closest tolerances. This prevents waste of good grain in dockage, and so on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You don't believe that, do you?


William Gordon Ritchie: No such incentive will exist for government operators, and the farmer would be the loser. I think we must look at the total costs of such operations. This bill deals with only part of the present cost involved in moving grain from the farm to the markets of the world. At page 237 of Hansard, the Minister of Labour said, "the companies are convinced that sooner or later they will sell the grain they now have on hand." The minister should know that 83 per cent of all grain shipped to Vancouver is Wheat Board grain which is owned by the government of Canada and for which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is responsible to this House. The companies have neither financial control nor interest. He went on to say they do not even have to justify their actions to the membership. The directors of prairie co-operatives are elected by a most democratic process. All farmer members are allowed to vote. They in turn elect the officers of the company.
In committee we should have the input of people who know the grain industry, particularly from the side of the farmer. Many of them have a great deal of experience. I hope this bill will receive close study, not only within the narrow range of $3.25 at one end and $5 on the other, but we want to know what the government has in mind for the future. What will the cost be to move grain from the farms to the markets of the world? Will we be developing alternate shipping through the Mississippi or Seattle in addition to our eastern and western terminals, as well as trucking, and so on? All these matters should be discussed. A useful purpose will be served by widespread discussion of this bill in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I wish to advise the House that if the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board speaks at this time, he will close the debate at this stage of the bill. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a very few comments to conclude this debate on second reading, in order that the bill can go before the committee for further consideration. I welcome the support which the bill has received; it seems to be unanimous

October 30, 1974
Wheat Payments
from all corners of the House. I therefore expect it to move forward through the remaining stages with expedition.
I noticed that a number of the comments of hon. members dealt with subjects not directly related to the bill. In dealing with the question of farmers' costs, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) spoke about the question of Crowsnest rates. He referred to remarks I had made, which were put forward for consideration by the prairie farmers and the industry, in connection with whether there might be a better way for the prairies to benefit from the Crowsnest rates. This traditional and hallowed arrangement, as 1 call it, to which they are entitled will always be the same with this government and, I am sure, with successive governments because of the tradition associated with it.
The specific question which I put forward, and I did so for the benefit of the prairies, was as to whether the benefit of the Crowsnest rates could, in fact, be turned over to producers more directly and not necessarily still in the form of a specific, frozen rate on grain. I say that particularly in answer to the hon. member for Crowfoot who obviously misunderstood this important point.
The hon. member for Crowfoot argued that any change I was suggesting would in some fashion increase the cost to the producer if the rate on grain increased. Of course, if any increase in the rate of grain were matched by a transfer to the producer of an equivalent amount, it would not increase his costs. In fact, my argument-and I believe this to be for the probable benefit of the prairies-was that with the more flexible rate we might have a grain handling and transportation system that better meets the needs of the prairie farmer. It would allow him to have a better choice as to the kind of transportation system he wants, how he wants to relate to it, where he wants to deliver his grain, and at what cost. We would have a better transportation and handling system for an equivalent amount of money. I noted the hon. member for Crowfoot clearly missed that point. I am confident he would not want to distort the matter in that way, and I have tried to make that point for him now. It is an important point and I urge hon. members to consider it very seriously.
It is not accidental that I, a person who comes from the prairies, a principal grain growing area, have put forward the proposition that the Crowsnest rates might better benefit the prairie producers if they were handled in a different way. I do that, and hon. members who know my record of performance in fighting for things that are good for the prairie farmer and the west will appreciate that that is ample testimony and evidence that, once again, I see an opportunity to improve the lot of the prairie farmer in a clearcut way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: There are, of course, some members opposite who do not always agree with those sentiments which I expressed, but I am happy to have the more eloquent testimony of a significant number of voters in Saskatchewan who happen to agree with that proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale) pointed out that discussion on cost of production will be an important matter in connection with the stabilization bill which is being prepared for this session of parliament, and which we hope to have passed into law very quickly. I think it will be the most appropriate place for firm protection for the prairie grain producer against increases in the cost of production. In this particular situation, what we have involved-not in the bill but in the arrangement with regard to price which is outside the bill-is a range of prices in the form of a long-term agreement with a floor of $3.25 and a ceiling of $5.
I ask hon. members, particularly those who welcome long-term agreements, whether they would not now-or indeed would have a year ago when this principle was, in effect, accomplished-welcome a long-term agreement with other buyers with that kind of floor price and ceiling. Even today, when prices are higher than that ceiling, it seems to be a fairly attractive range for negotiations or discussions. When you are discussing a range of prices, you are really dealing with a market price which may rise or fall. Over the long term, we need to have increases equal to the cost of production. That is the nature of market prices. It is not a fixed price such as a wage which can be indexed to go forward every year. I hope hon. members understand that.
The basic agreement with regard to price is outside the bill. The bill is specifically for the transfer to the producers of the wheat of $1.75 a bushel or such lesser amount as may be required when wheat is above $3.25 in the case of Spring wheat, and above $5.75 in the case of Durum. The arrangement with regard to the price for wheat, that the Wheat Board will sell at no higher or no lower price than $3.25 for Spring wheat and $5.75 for Durum, was included in an order in council adopted at the time the policy was announced. The order in council explained this arrangement through the seven-year period contemplated originally, through to 1980. The price for Durum payments from the treasury is triggered over the $5.75 figure.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) asked why the eventual floor for Durum in the longterm arrangement is, in fact, the same as for Spring wheat, that is, $3.25. This is an important question and one to which we gave full consideration. It was our conclusion that it would be inappropriate to take the temporary, very large difference in price between Durum and Spring wheat and enshrine it in the domestic wheat pricing arrangement. A review of prices over a long period shows that prices of Durum and other wheats produced in the prairie region are far closer than the present distance between them indicates. The difference at the present really reflects an unusual production and demand pattern. In fact, poor crops of Durum in one or two principle countries outside North America have resulted in these price discrepancies.

Another form of analysis which we undertook concerned the number of bushels we could expect to be produced on various lands in the prairies which could grow both Durum and Spring wheat, and this analysis indicated a very close relationship in the yields between the two. There is a tradition on the prairies that Durum
October 30, 1974

yields a little less than does Spring wheat, but further analysis indicates that in fact it tends to yield the same amount, approximately, on the same land. The statistical difference which appears when one looks at the broad yields seems to come from the fact that Durum tends to be grown in those areas where yields tend to be lower, rather than that the grain itself naturally yields less.
Obviously, to impose an artificially higher price for Durum, even in the domestic market, a very small market, it is true, might have had the result of encouraging more production of Durum, as compared to other wheat, than would have been the case. We felt that as we approached the floor, if we ever do, the two ought to be allowed to be in the relationship in which market forces place them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the minister permit a question, Mr. Speaker? In view of the fact that the price of Durum has always been higher than for hard wheats, even sometimes as much as 25 cents higher, would the minister not agree that the floor for Durum should at least be somewhat higher than the floor for hard wheat? I agree that $5.75 may be too high a spread. But should it not be somewhat higher than the $3.25?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been periods during which Durum has been priced higher than other wheat, but this is not universally true; it has not always been the case. It may have reflected a particular number of special conditions. I think in the case of a floor price it would be very difficult to know the exact relationship which would be desirable. Of course, we have been looking at this question, recognizing that the greater proportion of both these crops is likely to be exported. Therefore, real market forces in the international world would likely adjust the price fairly appropriately between the two without our seeking to deal exactly with it. If we could come to any specific conclusions about the scientific reasons for the difference in price between the two, I would certainly be glad to take them into consideration when looking at the floor price for Durum.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre made a number of other suggestions with which I must take issue. He was grasping at straws, I think, Mr. Speaker, when he saw the two-price wheat system as having come about in the minority parliament situation of the last couple of years. I would have thought that at this point in the new session he would not want to refer back to this party's reliance on taking credit for everything that went on during the last parliament. He and his party tried that in the election campaign. The two-price system was, of course, begun in one form in 1969, the first year of the previous majority Liberal government; it was converted into $3 two-price wheat in early 1972, in the last year of the majority parliament. That is when the most formal kind of two-price wheat was really born.
Of course, when a good program comes forward I suppose it is typical of politics that many people should try to take credit for it. Why, we even heard the hon. member for Crowfoot trying to claim it for the Conservative Pary, going well back into history to do so, because the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was prime minister, had made a couple of acreage payments. The hon. member called that two-price wheat,
Royal Assent
in retrospect. Of course, these payment were coughed up from time to time, usually when an election was in prospect. This government intends to do things on a regular basis. The history of the right hon. gentleman and his government doing these things before an election is so implanted in the hon. member's mind that every time we introduce a good measure he expects an election to be around the corner. I suspect that some of the good things we shall be producing in the next few months will lead him to get ready for an election in 1975.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre should also go back and check his notes about the stabilization bill debate, because he suggested that I was in some way opposed to two-price wheat in connection with that debate. I was, of course, at that time in the very process of developing the two-price program which was implemented in January of 1972. What I said in the course of the stabilization bill debate, when his party and the official opposition obstructed in every possible way the movement into law of a good measure, was that this was good legislation which could be improved at a later date. I also said it should not be stopped simply because it was not the answer to all the problems.
I am delighted that all hon. members see the value of this bill. Some have suggested that the principle be extended to other grains. I will be glad to hear what they have to say about the specific levels they would regard as being right in the case of long-term arrangements for barley, for instance. If hon. members have any suggestions to put forward I would be delighted to receive them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-31, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1975.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, October 30, 1974
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., Administrator of the Government of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 30th day of October, at 5:45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.

October 30, 1974
Royal Assent
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major A. G. Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-31, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1975- Chapter 2.
At 6.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 31, 1974