The Chairman:

Order; I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.

Mr. Stanfield:

Oh, no, carry on.

The Chairman:

Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister to continue?

Agreed.

Mr. Greene:

Mr. Jorgenson:

Where is the $2 promise for wheat?

March 4, 1968

Mr. Greene:

Well, now-

Mr. Jorgenson:

Give us some more peanuts.

Mr. Greene:

Well, now, hon. gentlemen of the opposition ask about wheat prices. I think that is a good question, and I am glad they have asked it. Apparently they take exception to the fact that, for the first time in history, this government has seen fit to guarantee the price of wheat to the western farmer at $1.95J.

What about $2 wheat?

Mr. Greene:

With respect to the implementation of the Kennedy round agreement and the world wide wheat agreement, I fail to understand how the Leader of the Opposition who, to the best of my knowledge in public life is known for the care of his statements-I believe he is known as a square dealer-can say that Canadians in any way are responsible for the fact that the maximum and minimum prices agreed on in the Kennedy round have not yet been brought into the world wide wheat agreement.

Canadians attended at meetings of the world wheat council. I think my colleagues will indicate to you that we have been in constant communication and constant negotiation with others to assure the implementation of the Kennedy agreement into the world wheat agreement. I feel sure that those negotiations will be successful. How the Leader of the Opposition can allege-and this, really, is not only a criticism of the government but also of its officials, who are responsible for carrying out negotiations to bring the agreements under the Kennedy round into the world wheat agreement-that there has been negligence, that we or our officials have been remiss in our duties and that we could or should have done something in order to implement the Kennedy round agreements into the world wheat agreements, I fail to understand. I think that that was a very unfair and untrue criticism, with all respect, Mr. Chairman.

As hon. members know, after the successful conclusion of the Kennedy round negotiations on May 16 of last year, world wheat prices dropped sharply. That made it difficult for the buyer nations to implement the Kennedy round agreement and world wheat agreement in July, as we had anticipated would be possible. It made that negotiation more difficult. We do not control world wheat prices. Certainly I think the Canadian minister and 27053-4584

Supply-Agriculture

Canadian officials took every proper step and pursued the end most actively of implementing this price range of the Kennedy round agreement into the world wheat agreement.

If we want to talk about world wheat prices, here are some facts about world wheat prices. In 1957-8 the price of No. 1 Northern was $1.62. In 1958-9 it was $1.60; in 1959-60 it was $1.59; in 1960-61 it was $1.80 ; in 1961-62 it reached $1.91. Let us recall that these prices were on volumes of sales that equal about half the volumes that have been sold since we have been in office. The price in 1962-63 was $1.87; in 1963-64 it was $1.97. I did not hear much about $1.97 wheat from 1957 to 1962. The price in 1964-65 was $1.89; in 1965-66 it was $2; the estimated price in 1966-67 is $2. That is that $2 wheat hon. members over there are talking about.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Greene:

So, if we are going to talk about wheat prices, let's talk about them.

We will, just wait.

Mr. Greene:

Let us put them on the record and let us see who sold wheat and in what quantities and at what prices, and we will stand on that record every time.

I will not take much longer, Mr. Chairman, since many hon. members of the opposition have asked me to reply to the questions they have posed. I would not have intervened at this time had it not been for the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I thought it would be proper for me to make a few comments. Speaking to the hon. Leader of the Opposition I feel that, having now been straightened out as to the facts in agriculture, the hon. gentleman in future when addressing this house, and now having those facts, will be able to make some very worthy contributions to the difficult subject of agriculture.

Mr. Ormiston:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend the time at my disposal in arguing with the Minister of Agriculture. I commend the leader of the official opposition for the grasp that he appears to have of the problems facing us in agriculture at the present time.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ormiston:

Certainly, he sank the Minister of Agriculture and his protestations, and methinks that the minister protested too much.

March 4. 1968

Supply-Agriculture

There is no doubt that since Friday the minister has had to absorb many suggestions to do with agriculture. Many more will be forthcoming in the debate, before it is over. The minister has had suggestions not only from members of this house, but from two organizations which have presented briefs; I refer to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. Certainly, the briefs cover many aspects of agricultural needs. I shall not deal with those aspects in the few minutes at my disposal.

Having perused those briefs, I can appreciate what is contained therein respecting the vagaries of increased production costs and diminishing financial returns, with which those who presented the briefs are so concerned. For the life of me, I cannot find anything which would indicate that the present voluntary crop insurance plan, plus the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, are sufficient to protect western farmers from the effects of natural hazards or to compensate them for losses.

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

It is all very well to talk about prices when farmers have a crop to sell. But when there is a crop failure more should be done than is being done at the present time to help farmers out of a serious situation. The prevalence of a short crop in the 1967 year and the experience of payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act bring into focus the state of our agriculture legislation. We are today employing the provisions of an act which was brought into effect in 1939, when conditions were much different from those which exist today. In 1939 there were many quarter section farms where farmers used horses and horse-drawn machinery. The number of farms was far larger, and a different type of farm operation was being carried out in many cases. The provisions of the act might have been more effective then than they are today. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the maximum number of acres in respect of which an award may be paid to an individual farmer is 200. The maximum award is $800, and over the last 29 years the average payment has amounted to only $300.

It can be seen from these figures that in the event of a crop failure the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is only of limited value. Because of the very nature of the legislation, a growing number of abuses has come into being and these are known not only to the local inspectors but to the supervisory staff as well.

This is a situation which causes grave concern to those administering the act. Should further erosion take place the usefulness of this legislation will be even further impaired.

Several years ago, in 1964 to be exact, a report was produced by Judge Harold Pope in consequence of alleged irregularities, and he made several recommendations for the improvement of the act. Regardless of the good intentions of the commissioner none of these recommendations was put into effect, possibly because it was felt something more than piecemeal improvements were needed to bring this legislation up to date. I suppose it was with this idea in mind that the Crop Insurance Act was passed in 1959 in the hope that eventually it would provide suitable assistance to prairie farmers and supersede the older legislation.

I realize that the provinces administer the crop insurance scheme, but further help is needed from the federal government before the plan is equipped to give full and comprehensive coverage. Many farmers in low yield areas feel present premiums are too high if an adequate financial return is to be ensured. Surely a review of the act is now in order. It has been in effect for seven years and further thought should be given to the application of premiums actuarially set, with the possibility of assistance to marginal areas for a limited period, certainly for long enough to ascertain whether or not such a scheme is practicable.

In the meantime, since we have to live with P.F.A.A., there is certainly one improvement which might be considered and this is the application of a deterrent fee when municipalities apply for inspections. Too much money is being wasted in the business of inspection, and if the approximate cost of inspection were to accompany an application a more responsible attitude would almost certainly result.

That is the only point I wish to make before closing. Before I resume my seat, though, I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture for the impartial way in which the local P.F.A.A. inspectors have been chosen. Certainly this added strength to the administration of the act last year, and if there are any complaints they are certainly not to be directed against the dedicated public servants who are doing their best to administer this legislation.

Mr. McKinley:

I am sure the farmers of Canada will be interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture telling them tonight they have never had things so good as they are now. Of

March 4, 1968

course this is what they were trying to tell the minister when they were up here last summer, out on the lawn. Maybe he would like to give us a report as to how good the security measures were on that day.

There is a theory going around that there are just too many farmers altogether, and that the only way to cure the problems of agriculture is to starve them off the farms. This is a theory which I cannot accept. We have seen the elimination of the quality subsidies on hogs, lambs and cheese. This is another indication of the belief in this theory that is going around.

There is another theory which is held by some people in the government, and it is that all farmers are well off. I have talked with some of the officials working in the public service and they come up with this idea. They figure that all farmers drive around in Cadillacs except when they are in Florida-they fly down there. This is not very true, and it is the wrong way in which to consider the problems of agriculture. The fact of the matter is that farmers who make a go of it are obliged to work very hard indeed. They have to be well up in the latest methods, they have to be extremely fortunate with regard to marketing conditions and they have to enjoy a lot of luck. I think luck comes into it as much as anything, and maybe it is the most important factor.

Farming is no bowl of cherries even for fruit farmers, and if anyone in the government thinks it is his ideas ought certainly to have been changed when the farmers came down here last summer to see the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers, out here on the lawn. The Prime Minister was afraid to face them.

Mr. Greene:

So was I.