Mr. Argue:

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the position taken in recent years by the farm organizations has not been altered in any way by evidence produced by the parliamentary secretary.

I should like to raise another point on clause 1. It has to do with the reference made by the minister, when he was introducing the legislation, to the maximum price for grain that can be obtained at Fort William-Port Arthur and Vancouver under the international wheat agreement. In making his statement the minister said that the maximum price, in accordance with the discount today on the Canadian dollar, could go as high as $2.14 a bushel at Fort William and Vancouver. I am not trying to misinterpret what the minister has said. I am asking for information and clarification. I did so this afternoon but the minister did not answer me in his general reply. I asked this afternoon why the wheat board has not been able to obtain more than $1.90 a bushel at Fort William when the Canadian dollar is at a discount today.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

I take it that the maximum price at Fort William today in United States funds is about $1.99 a bushel. The minister can adjust that to the precise amount but I think that would be very close. I ask him why the price at Fort William today is not above $1.90 and why the wheat board is unable to get this additional amount at this time. The minister seemed to imply in his statement that this might be accomplished by the 12J cent increase in the maximum price of wheat because the price in United States dollars has gone up from $1.90 to $2.02J. If the best the wheat board can do today is $1.90 and a fraction it would seem to me that the best they could do in the future under the international wheat agreement with the ceiling where it is would be $2.03 or thereabouts.

Mr. Churchill:

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member's interest in this particular question but it is quite obvious that I could not provide the answer tonight. I would have to consult with the wheat board with regard to the price range at the present time. I would be very glad to do that and endeavour to get an answer for the hon. member; but without consultation with the board I am certainly not able to give that answer now.

Mr. Argue:

If I may follow up that point, I wish to get an answer from the minister. I will appreciate an answer. I suppose he will have to write me a letter if the bill has been passed but I would appreciate an answer in any case. However, I will tell the minister now what I think the answer probably is, namely that wheat out of Vancouver commands a premium over wheat out of Fort William because of lower ocean transportation rates. The point I wish to make is that the ceiling that the minister has quoted for Fort William and Vancouver is really in fact the ceiling at Vancouver, and the price at Fort William has to be adjusted downward. I think that is the attitude of the Canadian wheat board. Therefore from the standpoint of the producers it is not realistic to refer to this ceiling as being the ceiling at both Fort William and Vancouver. In other words, the maximum ceiling under the international wheat agreement is not available for all Canadian wheat. It is available only for Canadian wheat that moves out of Vancouver and there is a discount in the case of wheat moving through Fort William.

I have given the minister what I think is the answer. I am not positive I am right. I do not have any particular information except what I have picked up by reading the newspapers. I wanted to bring out this point so that there would be further clarification of the sweeping statement made by the minister that $2.14 was the maximum price at Fort William and

Vancouver. My point is that even with the discount on the Canadian dollar this is in fact the effective maximum at Vancouver and there is a lower price at Fort William through which a large part of the grain moves.

(Translation):

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Jorgenson), I should like to comment on the statement he made this afternoon when he suggested that farmers would not be against the opening up of the Canadian grain market.

In this respect, I should like to put forward the views of eastern farmers who have repeatedly made representations to the government in order to receive the same treatment as the millers in western Canada.

Eastern feed mills are subject to the regulations enacted by the Canadian wheat board, while western feed mills are not. As a matter of fact, this is what eastern farmers have asked of the government since the Canadian wheat board regulations have been changed. The association for the development and protection of agriculture in eastern Canada pressed the government for:

The removal of all trade restrictions on the sale of barley, oats and other feed grains to restore equal prices across the country so as to ensure the orderly production and marketing of cattle, poultry, dairy products, etc.

We made criticisms last year, especially in the committee on agriculture and colonization, and we showed that grains sell for less in the west than in the east, that is at approximately half the price. On the other hand, we have shown that the situation is somewhat different today because grain supplies are at a minimum, and if the 1962 crop is a failure, we will probably be short of feed grains.

Moreover, certain western organizations have protested against changes in the regulations. Both the government of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan wheat pool made representations in that connection, the latter through its chairman, Mr. Gibbings.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, it is not only the eastern farmers who have protested against these changes but certain western organizations as well. Last year, we said that the changes in the regulations would bring about a certain integration for the western feed mills.

I am able to say tonight that on June 1st, 1961-when looking back to the last ten years-hogs produced in eastern Canada and British Columbia numbered 3,149,000, which represents an increase of 87,000 over 1951. On the other hand, production in the prairie provinces went up from 1,800,000 to

2.700.000, which is an increase of almost one million hogs in the west, to the detriment of eastern farmers.

Today, we, in the east, have to import from the west. We import a considerable quantity of beef, which is only normal. But when we have to import pork, there is something wrong; and that situation can be attributed to the short view policy, the day-to-day policy of the Conservative administration. We have told the government that there is still time to remedy that state of affairs so that our eastern farmers may enjoy a better standard of living.

The number of farmers in eastern Canada has decreased by 32,000 in the last ten years, whereas in the west it has decreased by only

16.000. The reason for it is that eastern farmers do not have sufficient income to provide for the needs of their families. Last year, we passed an act for the development of submarginal farms, and it is time that the government put that legislation into force.

At this stage, I would like to make a correction-

The Chairman:

I listened carefully to the hon. member and I hoped he would come back to the clause before us. I would ask him to keep to that clause.

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Chairman, I did not stray from the subject. I was on the point of making a correction, as my remarks with regard to the Canadian wheat board have been misinterpreted. I know that the Canadian wheat board was established by a Conservative government.

Mr. Pigeon:

You said a "Liberal government."

Mr. Boulanger:

I said, afterwards, that for 22 years the act was administered by a Liberal government. And, with regard to the act commonly called A.R.D.A., it was introduced by a Conservative government, but it will be a Liberal government which will put it into force in a few months, when it will again be in power.

Mr. Pigeon:

Think twice before speaking in this way.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture to carefully note our remarks, because they express the views of our eastern farmers.

I know that tomorrow night there will be a meeting of eastern mill owners, and I know that their recommendations will be similar to those I just made.

I would like to hear other hon. members from that area expressing their views with respect to the treatment meted out to eastern farmers. Some people of course, rise to praise the government and its farm policy. I hope that, during the next election, they will go on praising the policy of a Conservative government that has brought about an agricultural depression.

Mr. Pigeon:

Why don't you tell us about Mr. Courcy, the No. 1 enemy of farmers and agronomists.

Mr. Boulanger:

The agricultural policy of the Conservative government is a defeatist policy. Our farmers are leaving their farms to go and live in the cities, because they can no longer live on their farms. We only have to read a booklet issued by the Department of Agriculture, last year, to realize that 61 per cent of eastern farmers are hardly making a gross income of $2,500 a year. How can you expect them to make both ends meet when a floor sweeper, in industry, is earning $3,000-

The Chairman:

Order. The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Paul:

It is very interesting to hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), but I think it would be more practical for him to stick to the consideration of this bill.

The Chairman:

Not only would that be more practical, but it would also be more in order. As I have already asked him to do, I would again ask him to abide by the rules and to deal with clause No. 1 now under consideration. I know the hon. member will abide by my ruling.

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have strayed away from the subject. It is perhaps the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere-

Mr. Pigeon:

Tell us about Mr. Lesage's policy.

The Chairman:

Order. Such interjections should stop. On the other hand, the hon.

Canadian Wheat Board Act member, who has already acquired some parliamentary experience, knows that he must deal with item No. 1, and I hope he will do so.

Mr. Boulanger:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Each time I have the floor, I realize that I hurt the feelings of Conservative members. That is why I seem to be out of order more often than I should. I sincerely believe I am defending the opinion of eastern farmers, and I shall continue to do so.

(Text):

Mr. Jorgenson:

It is not my intention to follow all the wanderings of the hon. member but I do want to deal with one of the points he raised because I think he is labouring under a misapprehension and I wish to correct him.

The question was raised about feed grains moving into the eastern provinces, and he suggested that these should move without the authority and jurisdiction of the board. I should explain to him that the recent change in regulations simply permitted feed mills- the farmers all had this right before-to purchase grain within the provinces. The jurisdiction of the board does not apply to moving grain within a province, but if a farmer in the province of Saskatchewan wanted to buy feed grain from the province of Manitoba he would have to go through the Canadian wheat board, just the same as is the case in dealing with the movement of grain from the western provinces to the eastern provinces.

I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia must be considerably embarrassed by the statements which his colleague made-