1981-11-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas many small Canadian businesses have their backs against the wall as a result of the government's mismanagement of the economy and the Liberal high interest rate policy, and whereas often these businesses are being forced to rationalize and liquidate assets used as collateral for Federal Business Development Bank loans, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the high penalty charged by FDBD on the early retirement of loans be rescinded to aid those businesses already forced to the brink of bankruptcy by the inept economic policies of the Liberal government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, later today I will present a petition to the House signed by no fewer than 32 residents of the Peterborough area who are in very grave danger of losing their homes through foreclosure. These are not merely 32 mortgage numbers to be added to the list already prepared by the minister, they are 32 families, and when you foreclose you take away not only their shelter but also their dreams, plans and sense of place in Canadian society where honest work used to mean a just and fair reward.
Under Standing Order 43 I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the help promised in the Minister of Finance's budget be announced and put into effect immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, in that the forced implementation of metric across Canada will add an estimated half billion dollars to grocery bills because of the cost of converting to imported scales, and will seriously affect resource industries, farming and ranching, and will jeopardize trading patterns with the United States, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the Minister of Finance consult with his colleagues before the introduction of his budget to learn fully the negative impact metric conversion will have on the over-all economy, and reverse the government's position on the implementation of the metric system.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government review all of the terms and conditions currently in existence which permit WABCO Ltd. to import into Canada air brakes from their U.S. operations during the prolonged labour dispute which has resulted in a strike and, furthermore, that action be taken to protect Canadian workers who are exercising their legal right from having their position undermined by subsidiaries of U.S. companies, such as WABCO, which, while refusing to bargain in good faith, replace their Canadian-made products with a product manufactured by them in plants outside this country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

November 2, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) during a recent speech to the Management Consultant Institute said unblushingly that public service employees have a duty to support government policies and programs in public and should be actively marketing the programs they have been trained to administer. While I fully understand the concept of "Who's bread I eat, His praise I sing", a demand that employees market government programs smacks more of an attempt by the government to force employees into a propaganda role.
In light of this shameful statement by the minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That if after all the money being spent by this government to promote its policies and programs, Canadians remain understandably unimpressed, this government concede that the messages and not the messengers are to blame.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, four Liberal cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), and Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), flew to Winnipeg this past weekend in four separate JetStars, thus costing the Canadian taxpayers a totally unnecessary $40,000. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House instruct these arrogant and wasteful Grit ministers to practise what the Prime Minister preached in Toronto last week about Canadian people coming to their senses, and that these Grit ministers come to their senses and stop trying to surpass Otto Lang's extravagant record of JetStar use.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Axworthy:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the information transmitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine is false information. I did not take a JetStar to Winnipeg.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. minister may debate this motion, but instead he made a point of order. The motion is not before the House. I asked if there was unanimous consent for the motion, but there is no unanimous consent.


COMBINES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Liberal government has stood by without taking action while the oil companies ripped $12 billion away from the Canadian consumers; whereas Thomson and Southam have taken under their control most of the daily print media in Canada, as well as the major department stores; whereas merger activities over the last five years have resulted in tighter control of the Canadian economy than in most banana republics, and whereas the minister has done nothing but gut the proposed legislation, fire the director of investigation and research, and make promises, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs get on with his responsibility and lay before this House the proposed competition legislation that has been sought for so long.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, in view of the recent statement by the manager of operations of the Canadian Home Insulation Program that more homes were insulated with urea formaldehyde foam under CHIP than was previously known, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government compile an exact list of all home owners who received a CHIP grant for the purposes of using UFFI, so that if and when the government does decide on a program to help these people remove the foam, it can proceed immediately with those who received CHIP grants.
November 2, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, since the government has failed miserably to assist the agricultural community to survive the impact of unconscionably high interest rates, and bankruptcies, seizures and foreclosures are taking place at an alarming rate and in a seemingly arbitrary and intensive manner. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Minister of Agriculture appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to explain to the members specifically what action the government proposes to assist those who are facing seizures and foreclosures.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to get the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who is kneeling in the aisle.


Mr. Nowlan:: He should kneel.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The minister will know that in the month of September Canada experienced the largest one-month jump in the unemployment rate in the entire history of this nation. When questioned about that fact on October 14, the Minister of Finance indicated that he was surprised and suggested that this might be an aberration or a sampling error. This weekend the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that he could see the softening all summer. Could the minister tell us what he saw that the Minister of Finance did not see throughout the summer, what he said to the Minister of Finance, and what the Minister of Finance responded?
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, just so that the record is clear, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the unemployment figures as they relate to this last month should not be seen in isolation but in the context of the figures over the past year and in the future. In that respect I would point out that in the last 13 months there was unprecedented growth in employment in this country. Therefore, we have to take a very careful look at the figures for this past month and compare them with future figures before we make any precipitous judgments about the patterns we face in the employment field. I think it is very important that we deal with this subject very carefully and not be stampeded into a wild panic, which is what the hon. member is obviously trying to do.


THE ECONOMY
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I accept the minister's invitation to compare some figures, and I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. On that same date, October 14, the Prime Minister stood in the House and, in response to a question from the Leader of the Official Opposition, indicated that real growth in the Canadian economy in the first nine months was 6.3 per cent. Today we have figures from Statistics Canada which indicate that in the first eight months growth was one tenth of 1 per cent. The Prime Minister inflated the figure 63 times.
Could the Minister of Finance stand and, first, repudiate the Prime Minister's figures and, second, indicate to us why, when the figures in July and August indicated that real domestic product was going down and not up, he was surprised by the increase in unemployment in September? Could he tell us why that surprised him, when he is supposed to know that the economy is going backwards and not forwards?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the question is quite argumentative. It does not ask for any information. It simply makes a series of argumentative comments. If the hon. member wants to ask a question, I would be glad to try to answer it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I asked the minister if he would give the House the real figures instead of the ones the Prime Minister gave us. However, the figures today from Statistics Canada indicate that I am right, and they are there for everybody to see.


MEASURES TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I wish to return to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am wondering whether the image the Minister of Employment and Immigration had in his mind over the summer was really a

November 2, 1981
Oral Questions
common sense image. When interest rates go up, two things happen: businesses go bankrupt, and there are fewer jobs. The second part of the rhythm is that Canadians need to work harder and more hours to make their mortgage payments. Was this the kind of insight, and can the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in his new role as the economic guru of the cabinet, indicate to us that the budget of November 12 will tackle the high interest rate problem so that there will be fewer unemployed and an increase in the gross domestic product?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that every member of this government is very active and very strongly concerned about the state of the economy. This is not restricted to any one minister. It is a collective concern we have.
support to those in the red meat industry, beef first and then pork. All of this evidence is being used in our representations and the discussions we are having and have had with our colleagues who are concerned.


Mr. Gurbin:: I am not clear what the minister said, but I think he said he does not really believe there is a problem.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO RELIEVE INTEREST RATE PRESSURE
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, farmers in Canada are increasingly concerned about the minister's apparent impotence in cabinet, particularly at a time when he is fronting for a government that has a high interest rate policy and constitutional diarrhea.
What we are attempting to do is maintain a balance between the obvious need for restraint of expenditures and the need to maintain some stimulus in those areas of the economy which need it most. It goes back to the basic principle this government has put forward of helping those who need help most. In that regard I would point out, as I have many times before to the hon. member, that it was this government which restored the direct employment program which his government had cancelled. There are now over 40,000 Canadians employed in direct employment programs who would not otherwise be employed because of the actions his government took when in power.
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister will know that, as the unemployment crisis which my colleague from Calgary West spoke of looms, about three million jobs in Canada are dependent upon agriculture. He will also know that a survey he has had done recently suggests that 48 per cent of one of the agricultural sectors appears to be in serious trouble. This has been supported by literally thousands of letters to the Prime Minister. Others say it is as small a figure as 1 per cent of agriculture which is in trouble. What percentage of agriculture does the minister feel is in trouble? What message has he communicated to his cabinet colleagues? What immediate action can we expect?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have used the very quick survey done by our own people. In addition, we are using the accurate financial statements which have been sent to us. On checking, however, we find that many of these people are only lending their support to those in need. When we asked what financial problems they had, many replied that because they were a chicken producer, milk producer and so on, they had none, but were lending their


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: The only federal response we have had so far is an increase in the Farm Credit Corporation rates to 16.75 per cent, and that for funds that are not even available. Will the minister give this House a commitment to relieve immediately the high interest rate pressure on the agricultural economy?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made several assertions or accusations as to how many people need aid. He could go to his good friend, the minister of agriculture in Ontario, who says that only 1 per cent of the farmers are in difficulty in that province. I dispute those figures, as I think he does. The facts we have show that there is as high a percentage as 47 per cent in certain parts of Ontario and some parts of Canada who are in grave financial difficulty. Those are the people we want to aid.
I must say the hon. member has made some good suggestions. But he has described certain discussions that are taking place concerning the constitution, and maybe his thoughts are constipated when he talks about what is very important to the economy and the discussions taking place between the first ministers and the Prime Minister today.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Just before this past weekend the Prime Minister, at a $175 plate Liberal dinner in Toronto, urged Canadians to maintain restraint, and stated that the Liberals were a party of sharing and caring.


Miss MacDonald:: For one another.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that thousands of Canadian families are losing their homes, farmers are in great difficulty, and businessmen are going broke, can the minister tell us why
November 2, 1981

three federal cabinet ministers, in three separate executive jets, flew to Winnipeg on Friday at a cost of more than $30,000 for fuel alone?


Mr. Epp:: It's called restraint.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party whether he thinks it is responsible on his part to stand up in the House of Commons and say that thousands of Canadian families are losing their homes. There is enough fear about the future with respect to high interest rates without making what are totally false statements to the effect that thousands of Canadian families are losing their homes, because that is totally inaccurate.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON USE OF AIRCRAFT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister is a past master at avoiding both his responsibilities in this House and answering any question that is put to him. He will not get away with it.
It was a cabinet document, by the way, Madam Speaker, that said up to 40,000 Canadians could lose their homes in the coming year. The minister might have read that document. I hope the minister will deal with the question, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister goes around lecturing Canadians to cut back. Will the government demonstrate that it is concerned? Is it government policy that three cabinet ministers go on three separate executive jets to the same city on a weekend? Will he answer that? Is that the policy? Will he confirm that the present cabinet has set a five-month record in using executive jets for personal travel?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has rephrased his statement. Now he says instead of "are losing" their homes, they could lose their homes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -under particular assumptions that have been put forward in a document. It is my intention, Madam Speaker, to do everything possible to prevent any Canadian family from losing a home because of high interest rates; that is the policy of this particular government, as stated in the Speech from the Throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked about the use of government aircraft by ministers going to Winnipeg. I went both to Edmonton and Calgary on the weekend and I used commercial aircraft-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -both on the way out and on the way back. I think the hon. member wants to be fair and understand the reason that ministers use government aircraft in preference to commercial aircraft. It is when scheduling problems make it impossible to use commercial aircraft. That is the policy of the government. The three ministers who went to the west left at different times and had different responsibilities and different engagements in the west; that is the reason these aircraft were taken.


PROPOSAL TO EXTEND RUNWAY IN MINISTER'S CONSTITUENCY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, I know that two of the ministers were going to the same meeting and for the same purpose, and could have flown in the same aircraft. Since the minister is making much of his personal virtue-and we know what a virtuous fellow he is-there was a memo dated in June requesting an extension of an aircraft runway in his own riding that would enable the minister to fly in on jet aircraft. This morning I checked to find out if that request is still active. I was told by the Department of Transport officials that that request is still active. Given his great concern for virtue here, will he assure us of two things: one, that he will withdraw that request that would cost the taxpayers some $2 million? Second, will he lay down guidelines for the cabinet as a whole to stop wasteful spending on government travelling, cabinet ministers travelling in jets when they could be going by Air Canada or by other means which would save taxpayers' money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, at present there are guidelines in operation which were put in place by the Department of Transport. They obligate ministers not to use government aircraft when available commercial flights can be used. These guidelines are observed by ministers. In this particular case obviously commercial airlines could not be used to complete those engagements.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not obvious.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member referred to a newspaper comment about the extension of a runway in my constituency.


John Edward Broadbent: It is a government document; it is from the Minister of Transport.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me say that I have been travelling to my constituency for quite a long time. I have been able to do it without the use of a government jet. I intend to do it in the future, but I will not withdraw any request for an improvement to that particular airport because it is a request supported by the municipality, by the town council, and by all business leaders. I do not intend to withdraw any request, not at all.

November 2, 1981
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTERS SHARE SPACE ON AIRCRAFT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I am very glad he is also the Minister of Finance who is supposed to bring in a budget soon showing certain leadership in terms of restraint. As a preface to my question, I wonder, when the minister answers, whether he could say that the reason he flew west commercially is that all other JetStars were already in use. Although the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to be other things some day, I refer him to the speech of the Prime Minister to the Liberal fund-raising dinner in Toronto last Wednesday wherein he said:
I want to speak to you about the economy, about the challenges it presents, about how a Liberal government responds. In tough times, what is a Liberal, what does he think, what does he do?
On another page he said:
Liberals believe in caring; Liberals believe in sharing.
My question is along the lines of that of the Leader of the NDP. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that three ministers, using three government jets within three hours, to travel from Ottawa to the same city of Winnipeg, is an example for Canadians in caring when three ministers cannot share equal space on those three jets?


An hon. Member:: Are you going to answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have decided against it, after deep reflection.


QUERY RESPECTING TRAVEL TO LIBERAL PARTY DINNER IN TORONTO
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I assume the minister can assure us that on Wednesday, after the vote here, there were no government jets or planes which flew from Ottawa to Toronto to the fund-raising dinner. If he cannot assure us today, could he let us know tomorrow?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I checked with my office, because obviously we keep track of the use of planes.


An hon. Member:: Not very well.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sure that none of the planes were used for trips to Toronto for that particular event.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs. The Senate committee just completed a study into the serious problems in the Department of Veterans Affairs. It recommended that "the government appoint a committee composed of officials from both the government and veterans associations to review and update those recommendations of the Woods committee which have not been implemented and to identify, study and make recommendations about the anomalies" which exist in the minister's department. The Woods Committee conducted a study a number of years ago of problems in Veterans Affairs. One of the more serious problems in the department is that it takes five years to process pension applications, whereas it takes only 90 days in the United States. Will the minister be appointing the committee recommended by the Senate?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member realizes, approximately one and a half months ago we engaged the services of Mr. Arthur McCracken to review the administrative and adjudicative process within the Canadian Pension Commission. Part of his mandate is not only to review the process and to consult with people within the commission, but also to meet with veterans organizations to hear their concerns and suggestions. I would certainly want to receive the report from Mr. McCracken prior to establishing any committee.
I might also say that the hon. member made reference to the fact that this study will not be completed until 1983. This is not true. I can tell him that the study is proceeding very effectively. I hope to have a report within the next month.


PRISONER OF WAR PENSIONS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, I fail to see how an authority on the Veterans' Land Act can make recommendations to the pension commission. Also the Senate committee pointed out that there were inequities in the pensions of prisoners of war. When will the minister introduce legislation to stop these inequities? One example is that Dieppe POWs receive only 20 per cent pensions whereas other POWs receive 50 per cent pensions.


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the percentage approved for various categories of POWs was arrived at after fairly extensive study. We recognize the recommendation made by the Senate committee. We are reviewing it. Of course it will be some time before we have a final conclusion on it. At that point in time I would be happy to provide the information to the House.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It deals with
November 2, 1981

his statements last week respecting writs of assistance and his intention to press upon his cabinet colleagues reinstatement of writs of assistance on a large basis, and the removal of the moratorium. In view of the fact that writs of assistance provide the holder with extraordinary legal ability to carry out search and seizure without a search warrant, no discretion being provided to the court with respect to the issuance, with no back-up material needed to be filed outlining the reason for the issuance, and no time limit being imposed upon the length of time which writs of assistance are in existence, could the Solicitor General, in all conscience, and on behalf of the government, indicate that it is his intention to ask for the reinstatement of this particular legal device?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I did not mean to speak on behalf of the government. I indicated quite clearly that it was a personal view-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You cannot do that.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -which I was hoping to take to government; I still do. I would be very glad to come at some proper time before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to demonstrate the benefits in terms of drug law enforcement which would be derived from these writs. I would also want to indicate a great number of safeguards which could be imposed and would be quite acceptable. They would ensure that none of the kinds of dangers which have been spoken about recently in connection with these writs would take place. For example, I could visualize circumstances where, immediately after any entry pursuant to a writ, a process could be gone through either before a judge or some official that would meet or could meet all the standards which apply to writs obtained before the fact.


REASONS FOR MINISTER'S POSITION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the type of writ to which I and the Solicitor General referred has been abolished in the United Kingdom for a considerable period of time. Under the Bill of Rights in the United States it is prohibited. Over the weekend the Solicitor General made a fulsome defence of an entrenched charter of rights. How can he take that position with respect to supporting the principle of an entrenched charter of rights which protects the rights of individuals against the state, and at the same time try to bring forward and press upon the government his concept of the expanded use of the writ of assistance, as he now does?


Mr. MacKay:: It is the Liberal way.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do it because I am gravely concerned about drug trafficking in Canada and because I believe that, as effective as the RCMP has been, the problem, particularly on the west coast, is getting out of hand. Those who are interested in more effective law enforcement in connection with drugs, and the problems with drugs, ought to be searching with me for some additional ways
Oral Questions
to achieve effective law enforcement consistent with our democratic tradition in Canada on civil liberties.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister is aware, of course, that three U.S. warships have spent the weekend in Vancouver harbour-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: -including a 71,000 ton aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Ranger and a guided missile cruiser. Neither the commanding officer of the Ranger nor the U.S. government is willing to tell us whether or not these vessels are carrying nuclear arms. Since Canada claims to be free of nuclear arms and committed to disarmament, can the minister tell us whether or not nuclear arms have been sitting in Vancouver harbour since Friday last?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that if I had a chance to be in Vancouver these days I would welcome our American friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the defence policy of the Canadian government is well known. We are against any nuclear weapons whatever they are. We do not like to have them on our land and we do not like to have them on our soil. But if someone comes to our country as a NATO ally, as a friend, and being one of our allies, some of whom are nuclear powers, we rely on them for the best credible deterrents that are possible against war. As such, without saying whether they have or have not nuclear weapons, they are always welcome.


TIMING OF VISIT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, in a television interview last Friday in Vancouver the commander of the U.S.S. Ranger said it was a matter of concern only to himself as commander and to the U.S. government. He did not mention the Canadian government at all. I wonder if the minister will tell us whether the Canadian government did in fact know whether nuclear arms were aboard these ships. Will the minister also tell the House, when he invited the U.S.S. Ranger and the other two ships to spend four days in Vancouver harbour, whether he knew at that time this would be during the United Nations sponsored Disarmament Week? In fact, has the minister ever even heard of Disarmament Week?

November 2, 1981
Oral Questions


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks whether we invited our friends or not. If she has friends, she must know that we do not necessarily invite friends to come to our home; they drop in when they feel like it, and we are always glad to have them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Lamontagne: As far as the basic question of the visit of the U.S.S. Ranger aircraft carrier to Vancouver is concerned, I cannot give an answer to that because it would be irrelevant to explain the whole policy of defence of the NATO alliance and how we work together toward a deterrent and toward the best way possible to avoid war. If the hon. member were to come to my office I would try to explain all this to her.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As a friend.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A week ago last Thursday the U.S. Senate appropriations committee approved additional funding of $4 million for work on the Garrison diversion project. This comes after a statement by the United States Interior Secretary that he is fully behind the Garrison project. Can the minister assure the House that the Government of Canada will seek guarantees that the additional funding will not be spent on parts of the project which could harm Manitoba waters, or that it does not represent a commitment of any kind toward the completion of the entire project?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this important question again. It is one that greatly concerns the government and is one which I have frequently discussed with my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The alleged comment of the U.S. Secretary was referred to previously in this House. We have been informed by his office that he did not make any such comment during his visit to the contiguous part of the United States but that a rather careless newspaper headline, which was not reflected in the story, probably gave rise to that impression. We are, of course, concerned about the action of the U.S. Senate committee. We have made representation to them before and we have since discussed the matter with the U.S. government.
The relieving factors at the present time are, first of all, that it is still a decision of the committee and not of the whole Senate and, second, there are some legal problems with it which may mean that, in any event, it may not be appropriate to be attached to an appropriate bill.
Beyond that, there is written into the legislation, at the stage at which it is now, the instruction that it must not be used for any construction which would in any way affect Canada. Of course that is the assurance we are seeking. It is the assurance which the U.S. administration repeated to us as recently as last week.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister who answers in the House for the CBC. The minister may or may not know that Canada was honoured this past summer by the international military tattoo in Edinburgh, by the adoption of the theme "Canadiana" for the event. He may or may not know either that a contingent of more than 100 Canadian pipers, drummers and dancers from all parts of the country took part in the tattoo and did Canada proud with their outstanding performances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: That was amply demonstrated by a TV program shown throughout the United Kingdom and the continent, both alive and by rebroadcast.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Really, this is unreasonable to have such a long preamble to a question.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, he would not know about it, and I had to explain the background.
Will the minister find out why the CBC has refused to carry this TV program, even though it has been offered to them, and even though it is being broadcast widely in the United States and throughout the Commonwealth?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Madam Speaker.


REQUEST THAT BROADCAST BE SHOWN IN CANADA
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, at least the minister knows something that he did not know before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: Perhaps the minister would find out at the same time whether TV audiences in Canada will ever have the opportunity to see this outstanding display of Canadian talent in an overseas setting. In short, it was good PR for Canada, and I see no reason why Canadians should be denied access to it.
November 2, 1981


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, once again the answer to the question is yes. The tattoo was obviously a great success and everyone on both sides of the House is terribly proud and impressed with the success of the tattoo. I do not think anyone on either side of the House would want to take particular credit for it. The credit lies with the people who were involved in the tattoo, and I am delighted to send to them my grateful congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He may know that a few days ago the Associated Press carried a news story concerning peacekeeping forces in the Sinai Desert which stated, "Canada says it will participate but has not yet been asked."
As this peacekeeping force is not to be under the United Nations auspices but rather under the auspices of the United States, and as it will be a first time, will the minister assure the House that, before these troops are committed, the House will be consulted and will give its approval?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, first of all, it would not be the first time we have engaged in such an operation and it would not be customary to give any such assurance to the House. At this point we have not been officially asked to participate in the force. Because it is being talked about we have given it some consideration, but I have no further announcement to make at this time.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF PROPOSED PARTICIPATION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I shall direct my supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps he could enlighten me as to when we sent peacekeeping forces anywhere in the world under U.S. control.
Referring to these discussions, could the minister tell me how many Canadian troops are involved, and has any thought been given to setting a time limit on the length of time these troops will be employed? Also, will the minister notify our NATO allies that some of our other NATO commitments must be placed on hold during the time our troops are serving under United States control in the Sinai?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I do not remember any time that Canada had a peacekeeping force under U.S. control.
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell that to Mark.


Maurice Lamontagne: I think most of the peacekeeping forces in which Canada had a part were under the auspices of the United Nations. As to the other details of the question, I ask the hon. member to place them on the Order Paper and I will prepare an answer.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious financial problems facing beef producers this fall with dramatically increased input costs and prices reduced, is the minister prepared to recommend to cabinet that a substantial stabilization payment be made to these hard pressed producers, and that this assistance will be announced in the budget on November 12?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And will he resign if that does not happen?


An hon. Member:: Again.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that finished beef is a commodity about which a recommendation has to be made when the year ends for that product. That recommendation will be made concerning stabilization. I am sure the hon. member knows that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association have recommended, not the statutory 90 per cent of the last five-year average, but 95 per cent or 100 per cent of the last five-year average. If I go that way, I have to have cabinet approval, etc.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is the etc. business?


Eugene Whelan: The other way, just using the statutory 90 per cent of the last five-year average would need no payment for beef. Farmers have had low income over the past four years and unless you move to either 95 per cent or 100 per cent of the last five-year average, it would mean no payment. We are considering that.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who speaks for the RCMP. The concern in my question relates not only to the invasion of private homes through the use of writs of assistance, which should be abolished instead of expanded, but also to another concern about the invasion of Canadians' first-class mail.

Oral Questions
Over a year ago the minister indicated his view was that the RCMP should have the power to open first class mail in Canada. At that time the minister promised to release a study which would justify this demand on his part. Will the minister now release the study, which was done apparently some time ago, having promised to do so after the report of the McDonald commission? Will the minister indicate whether it is his view that the RCMP should have the power to open first-class mail in Canada and, if so, why?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, let me begin by reminding the House that the opening of first-class mail is illegal. It is not being done currently by the RCMP or by any other police authority in Canada.
In so far as a change of policy is concerned, I favour that kind of change. I will be bringing forward recommendations in that area after they have been considered by cabinet. They will be considered in due course with a whole package of other changes relating to the establishment of a civilian security intelligence service.
For the time being, I have no other proposal or plan to put forward on the subject of letter opening. I can continue to assure hon. members that first-class mail is not being opened.


DESTRUCTION OF UNNECESSARY FILES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, with homes being invaded by the RCMP, and with mail being opened, it seems that 1984 is much closer than some of us had thought.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary question is also for the Solicitor General and it relates to another invasion of privacy. The McDonald commission stated that 1.3 million files are held on over 800,000 Canadians. The Solicitor General has agreed that some of these should be destroyed. Will the Solicitor General tell the House now how many of these files have been destroyed, and what procedures are in place to destroy all of those files quickly which the McDonald commission indicated should never have been opened in the first place?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, indeed, I have made a commitment to speed the destruction of all files which should not have been opened in the first place. It is a complicated problem. Not the least complication is the necessity of doing it in a way which will satisfy Canadians that the files have been destroyed and that the information is effectively removed from the possession of the RCMP. I am working on that problem almost on a daily basis. I do not have it solved yet. However, I hope to be able to bring forward my thoughts shortly on how this can be accomplished in a way that will be effective and satisfy the Canadian people that it is effective.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, the seatmate of the Minister of National Revenue has expressed his view that he is in favour of mail opening. I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. As he knows, there is a report extant in his department that first-class trans-border mail ought to be opened by customs officials in order to intercept the illegal entry into Canada of drugs and other contraband. Since the Solicitor General has expressed his opinion with respect to mail opening, could we have the opinion of the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the phenomena that I have just represented to him in this question?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, first-class mail is not being opened now by customs officers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What do you mean by "now?"


Bill Rompkey: There is no intent to change that practice. It is true that illegal drugs and other materials can come in by first-class mail, and it is our responsibility to intercept those materials where they are prohibited. I think we have to do that under the proper guidance of law and with the proper legal authority. That is the practice under which we operate, and under which we will continue to operate.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. He has recently announced, as reported in the press, that government policy with respect to the reception of satellite signals through earth receiving stations is that, if done by individuals, it would be legal, and that it would still be necessary to obtain a licence if the signal is rebroadcast either by cable or transmitter by associations and communities. As the minister knows, I welcome that change in policy. I know it was always his view that that should happen. However, has this policy been transmitted to the CRTC, and has the CRTC been instructed to receive applications from communities and associations which operate these earth-receiving stations? In addition, can the minister tell me the reaction of the CRTC?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question in this regard. He has demonstrated his concern for this issue for some months now. I have not yet announced the policy in question. Our intention of deregulating as far as ownership of TVROs for individual purpose is concerned was gazetted some time last fall. As a result of that notice we received some 12 or 13 representations from various groups across the country. I
November 2, 1981

took advantage of the latest federal-provincial conference of ministers of communications to consult with my colleague ministers on the federal government's course of action. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement in this regard in the next two or three weeks.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF RECEIVING FACILITIES SEIZED AT FORT ST. JOHN, B.C.
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, because of the uncertainty of the government with respect to this particular problem, and because of the questionable jurisdiction under which the CRTC has proceeded to close down certain of these receiving stations-I am making particular reference to the rather autocratic closure of the facilities in Fort St. John, B.C.-would the minister undertake to consult with the CRTC with a view to restoring the equipment that has been confiscated from the people in Fort St. John, a community of 20,000 people, by a criminal law action, and dropping the charges laid against individuals in that community, charges based, as I have said earlier, on rather questionable foundations?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the matter for the hon. member. I understand a cable licensed operator is now in Fort St. John who is able to bring in for the viewing public in that area not only Canadian channels but also the three plus one U.S. channels, which is the prevailing rule of thumb applied throughout the country.
My understanding also is that the cable operation that was the subject of a seizure in Fort St. John, was competing with the cable licensed operator. The hon. member says that is not the case. I will be more than pleased to look into the matter to verify the facts.


PRIVILEGE
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of some comments which were heard on this side of the House during the course of my questioning the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). He interrupted some of my comments using language which was highly derogatory to me, language which I consider unacceptable-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The Chair did not hear any unparliamentary language, otherwise the Chair would have intervened to ask for the withdrawal of such unparliamentary language. Therefore, the point of order or the question of privilege brought up by the hon. member cannot be heard.
Petitions


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker- Madam Speaker: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the Annual Report to Parliament on immigration levels, in accordance with Section 7 of the Immigration Act, 1976.


PETITIONS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, at the suggestion of the minister of housing I have taken the opportunity to meet with 32 families in the Peterborough area. These are not just 32 names, but 32 families who are going to lose their homes. We have carefully documented in my constituency office the names of the mortgage holders, as requested by the minister, the mortgage account numbers and letters from each of the individuals explaining why they are having difficulty meeting their mortgage payments because of high interest rates. I respectfully submit to this House this petition of these 32 real, live families, and I suggest that if these were multiplied by the number of ridings in Canada we would be looking at thousands of people who are apt to lose their homes in the immediate future.
I would also like to tender a copy of the petition to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) now in his seat so he can immediately start to process these 32 names while the Table officers are processing this petition.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition signed by some 8,300 Canadians who are protesting this government's peremptory decision to terminate VIA Rail passenger service between Havelock, Peterborough and Toronto. These petitioners charge the government with using grossly inaccurate figures to justify killing the service which is moving toward profitability, and for which there is no economic alternative form of public transportation.

November 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,451, 2,716 and 2,797.
[ Text]


Mr. Neil: 1.	What are the qualifications for male and female applicants to be accepted as recruits with the RCMP?
2.	Is there a quota for Anglophone, Francophone and bilingual recruits and, if so, what is the ratio?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The qualifications for male and female applicants to be accepted by the Force are as follows: Canadian citizen; possession of valid driver's licence; successful completion of Grade 12 (or equivalent); medically fit; good character; speak, write, read and comprehend English or French; 19 years of age.
In order to be successful in their application, candidates must possess the required attributes or qualities that are considered essential for a career as a peace officer. These are based on a weighted selection standard which provides a means of assessing the qualities of an applicant in a manner which allows the applicant to be graded from most suitable to not acceptable. All applicants who are successful in meeting the established weighted selection standard are placed on a national waiting list. Procedural and engagement preferences are established on a yearly basis in line with the Force's specific needs.
2.	The highest priority/preference in 1981/82 will be offered to: (a) bilingual candidates (this includes the language training candidates who possess a useful knowledge of both official languages), (b) female candidates, and (c) native candidates. This policy does not imply, nor is it meant to imply that bilingualism is a prerequisite for entry into the Force. Our national waiting list is maintained in a manner which identifies preferred candidates and these individuals are offered preference for their additional qualifications.
The current participation in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of those whose first official language is French, is of the order of 13.3 per cent, well below the 29.4 per cent representation found in the Canadian population as a whole. By combining a ratio approximating that of both official language communities in Canada for the federally developed Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that of both official language communities in the contracting provinces and municipalities for the provincially funded Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we arrived at the reasonable first stage objective of 20.8 per cent. The Force hopes to attain this objective expeditiously. This figure represents the minimum needed if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is to conform with the Official Languages Act. As the number of preferred candidates on the
national waiting list is relatively low, in comparison to the large number of candidates available, the proportion of unilingual recruits selected is likely to remain high.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	With respect to the Canadian Police Information Centre computer (a) on what date were criminal record synopses first put on line to all terminals (b) how many synopses are currently available and how many are expected to be added each month (c) what sort of information about an individual is kept in the synopses?
2.	Are individuals whose records are placed in CPIC's data bank notified of the action and, if so, what procedures are available to them to challenge the validity of the synopses?
3.	Does CPIC have plans to expand the categories of data in the data bank and, if so, what are they?
4.	In regard to the centre, what regulations or agreements exist with respect to the (a) protection of an individual's privacy (b) type of information that may be entered into the data bank (c) categories of individuals and organizations to whom information contained in the data bank may be given?
5.	Since the creation of the CPIC, how many complaints were received of arrests arising from misinformation in the data bank?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) May 1, 1974.
(b)	At this time there are 1,608,661 synopses available with an average of 10,000 added each month. An average of 800 are removed from the system making net average monthly gain of 9,200 entries.
(c)	Criminal record synopsis file: Records entered in this file are based on information contained on criminal fingerprint forms filed by the identification services of the RCMP.
Each criminal record synopsis output by the system has a statement "caution this is not a criminal record". If there are no convictions registered for the individual in the criminal record file maintained by identification services, this fact will be identified by a statement in each applicable output record "no convictions". If the record contains juvenile entries, the printout also shows "caution-this response contains juvenile charges".
The data output from the criminal record synopsis file is broken down into four information areas as follows:
(1)	The record file number and fingerprint classification of the individual and tombstone data respecting the file itself. Cautionary codes indicating the FPS file contains documentation that:
(a)	The subject has been charged with a crime of violence.
(b)	The subject has escaped, or attempted to escape from custody.
(c)	The subject has a history of mental instability.
(d)	The subject has attempted suicide.
(2)	The latest available description of the individual, and the date the description was recorded.
(3)	(a) The individual's current status in the judicial system.
November 2, 1981

(b)	The date that the identification services file was opened and the date of the last fingerprint form submitted for that individual.
(c)	Categories of the types of offences the record subject had been charged with. Offences are categorized as to being offences of violence, robbery, offensive weapons, breaking and entering, theft of vehicles, thefts, drugs, fraud, sex, other criminal code, other federal statutes, failing to attend (bail) and arson.
(4)	Names used by the subject of the record as recorded on fingerprint forms received by identification services.
2.	No. A criminal record on which the synopsis is based is indexed as a federal information bank, bank index No. 23825, allowing an individual to institute procedures to determine and challenge information contained in the criminal record. Any resulting changes made to the criminal record will be reflected in the criminal record synopsis. Procedures to access and challenge the content of the criminal record are contained in the index to federal data banks available at most Canadian post offices.
3.	Yes. Two changes approved by the last advisory committee which are in the process of being implemented to the criminal record synopsis are:
(a)	removal of the information outlining the individual's current status in the judicial system, and
(b)	inclusion of an additional offence type, i.e., Criminal Code driving offences.
4.	(a) Direct access to CPIC files is limited to: (i) the RCMP, (ii) provincial police forces, and (iii) city police and those municipal police forces approved by the CPIC advisory committee.
Currently approximately 2,500 Canadian police units have access to CPIC.
A police force having direct access to CPIC may disseminate information to other agencies legislatively responsible for law enforcement on a need-to-know basis. In addition, the Attorney General or Solicitor General of Canada or the attorney general or solicitor general of a province or territory may approve dissemination of CPIC information to other agencies.
The liaison services branch of telecommunications and EDP directorate, RCMP, is responsible for co-ordinating investigations into complaints respecting violation of CPIC policy and procedures. If the investigation is unable to satisfactorily resolve the identified problem to the mutual satisfaction of all parties concerned, the complaint will be brought before the CPIC Advisory Committee for a decision.
Repeated or serious breaches of established policy and procedures will be referred to the CPIC advisory committee
for action.
(b)	See part 1(c).
(c)	See part 4(a).
Agriculture
5.	Our statistics are available only from 1975. To date, five complaints of arrest arising from misinformation in the data bank have been received at CPIC. In most of these cases the person was arrested on a warrant of committal for which the fine had been paid but the courts had not notified the police accordingly.


Mr. Waddell: 1.	From 1967 to 1978, under the provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act (IRDIA), were grants given to Imperial Oil or to any of its subsidiaries and, if so, in each case (a) to which company (b) in what amount (c) on what date?
2.	Did the Syncrude consortium receive grants under the provisions of IRDIA and, if so, in each case, in what amount and on what date?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. and 2. In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, information concerning recipients of IRDIA grants cannot be divulged.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is an explanation for the parliamentary secretary not having given us the usual copies of the questions to be answered today. Neither the whip nor myself received the customary copies.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I was not aware that they had not received it. I will look into the matter and let the hon. member know privately.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved:: That this House, noting the disastrous increase in farm bankruptcies, condemns this government for its continuing failure to support Canada's farmers, and its inability to curtail the devastation high interest rates are bringing to Canada's agriculture section.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to have the opportunity of speaking in this House, particularly

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
for those of us who have some regard for this institution and a regard and concern for our parliamentary system in Canada. It is a particular privilege for me on this occasion in that it is the first time I have had the opportunity of being the lead speaker on an opposition day. I should like to thank my party for this opportunity which I very much appreciate.
I am also very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon on a topic that is very dear to my heart, and that is agriculture. This is a topic that is of very real concern to a lot of Canadians. It is of concern for many reasons, not only to us as producers but also as consumers.
Unfortunately I think a lot of us take agriculture in this country for granted, yet whether we like to admit it or not, it is very important to us. I would point out-this has been said many times but I think it bears repeating-that without an efficient agricultural sector in this country we would not be able to enjoy the standard of living we now enjoy. It is well known that Canada and the United States are countries that spend the least amount of disposable income on food.
I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is listening intently. I hope he stays throughout the duration of my remarks because at the conclusion I want to put some suggestions to him on what we can do to improve Canadian agriculture. I know the Minister of Agriculture has quite frequently emphasized the fact that we in Canada spend a very small percentage of our disposable income on food.
Without an efficient agricultural sector in our country we would not be in that position and we would not be able to enjoy such things as the common 40-hour work week and holidays with pay. People in countries like India use upwards of 50 per cent of their total effort to provide food, and they do not have time to do the things we do after supper. Many are out working in their fields and gardens in order to feed themselves. We do have a lot to be thankful for in terms of the efficiency of agriculture in this country.
The agricultural industry is not only efficient in feeding the country, it is also an efficient sector of our economy in earning foreign exchange. We are going to export something like $8 billion in agricultural products this current calendar year, during which time we will import roughly $5 billion in agricultural goods. This means that Canadian agriculture has a surplus as far as our balance of payments is concerned. This is very important in assisting our foreign exchange, the value of our dollar and our interest rates.
It is everybody's concern in this country that we encourage agriculture to not only remain efficient in supplying our food, but to earn as much foreign exchange as possible, and by doing so help our interest rates and the value of our Canadian dollar, and thereby lower the inflation rate.
Agriculture is an all-important sector in our economy. I could go on and give some additional statistics. For example, it is the third largest manufacturing industry in the country. I think I have said enough to make the point. Most people will agree that agriculture is very important and, in many ways, a dominant sector of the Canadian economy.
What has been happening in the last few years? I go back to the time the present minister became Minister of Agriculture in 1968.1 see the minister shaking his head.


Eugene Whelan: 1972.


Charles James Mayer: I am wrong; the minister says 1972. I cannot blame him for sins committed before 1972, but there are many to blame him for since 1972. I do not think this will slow us up at all in some of the things we have to say about him later on.
What has been happening since this government has been in power, leaving out the few months in which we had the privilege of forming the government, is that agriculture has been suffering many ill effects. I think we would all agree that the main one today is interest rates. Agriculture is very dependent upon interest rates because it is a large user of capital. One of the ways in which it uses capital is to create jobs. I have some agricultural figures from Statistics Canada for 1979. These statistics point out that the agriculture industry needs approximately $56,000 to create a job. In the manufacturing industry, $37,000 is needed to create a job. This need for capital is one of the reasons agriculture has become very efficient over the last number of years. It has used large amounts of capital to increase its productivity.
Another reason the agriculture industry is affected more than other industries in Canada is that agriculture is the only major sector in our economy that finances itself internally. It finances itself from its own revenue-generating capacity. It does not go into the market like some resource companies such as Imperial Oil or some other large companies listed on the stock exchange. The agriculture industry finances itself by and large from earnings it has generated. It finances itself by going to the banks, credit unions or other institutions such as the Farm Credit Corporation. It borrows money which it has to repay. Other industries finance themselves by going to the market and taking an equity position by selling shares or bonds payable over a period of time. For those two reasons, agriculture is very dependent upon capital.
I point out again, and I hope the minister is listening, that agriculture is dependent upon capital because it is a large user of capital needed to generate a job, and it is very dependent upon interest rates because it generates its own capital and has to repay it from internal earnings.
When the economy is faced with high interest rates the productivity of the agriculture industry is crippled. I have figures from two categories which bear that out. First, interest on farm indebtedness. This is looked at in two ways; proportion of operating expenses and depreciation, and percentage of farm cash receipts.
Statistics from 1956 show that interest on farm indebtedness as a percentage of operating cost was 4.3 per cent. Farm cash receipts as at 1956 amounted to only 2.8 per cent. This 2.8 per cent of total cash receipts in 1956 was used to pay interest on farm indebtedness. Moving forward to 1966, this figure of 2.8 per cent of total farm cash receipts jumped to 4.7 per cent, not
November 2, 1981

quite double. Moving further ahead to 1976, that figure jumped to 6.7 per cent and in 1980 it went to 10.2 per cent. This year it is estimated it will be 11.3 per cent, almost quadrupled from 1956. This graphic example provides solid evidence why interest rates are having such a devastating effect on the farming community.
Turning now to farm indebtedness as a proportion of operating expenses, the figure rises from 4.3 per cent in 1956 to an estimated 14.1 per cent this year. This percentage of their operating costs has also quadrupled. I am sure many other industries, including small businesses, are in a situation similar to that of the agricultural industry.
The last three years have been especially devastating. Farm costs have risen dramatically faster than income. For the year just completed, as far as farm statistics are concerned, operating costs have risen 15 per cent. This certainly is higher than the inflation rate and is higher than the increase in income. The increase in income, taken as a total, was only 9 per cent. Some sectors in the farm economy, particularly in the meat industry, such as pork and beef, have had a decrease in income. As a whole, incomes rose 9 per cent last year whereas costs rose 15 per cent. That should be of concern to us all.
The lack of ability to increase productivity affects the standard of living of all Canadians and our balance of payments. For example, the cattle industry-and my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), a well-respected spokesman for the industry, will elaborate on this later-is particularly affected by interest rates. Looking at interest costs as a factor which the consumer has to contend with, the average price of meat to a consumer over the counter is $2.80 a pound. Of that $2.80, 60 cents is attributable to interest charges. That 60-cent figure is a result of the producer owning the animal only. It does not take into account the cost of land or the cost of machinery. That is simply the cost of owning a cow for a year and owning the feeder for a period of time suitable to get that feeder to market weight. If we add the cost of land, machinery, depreciation and some other costs associated with buying feed and caring for the animal before it is sold, I suggest that cost would probably be twice as much as 60 cents a pound.
When the consumer today buys a pound of beef at the average price of $2.80 per pound, I suggest that $1.20 per pound is attributable directly to interest costs. Not only does that figure affect consumers now in terms of the amount of meat they are able to buy, it will affect them in the future because the cattle farmers have to risk borrowing money for a period of six months or a year, the period of time necessary to produce a beef animal for sale. The interest cost can become very high.
Ontario is in as much difficulty in some ways as any other province in the country as far as beef production is concerned because this is where a large percentage of the feeding industry is located. Ontario is a highly productive province in terms of producing feed but it imports a lot of feeder cattle from western Canada. We are glad to have that market. What has happened over the past year, and I am sure the minister is well
Agriculture
aware of it, is that rather than these cattle producers risking the cost of producing beef, they are simply cutting back on production. The result is that the consumer is not only paying $1.20 in indirect interests costs but there will be less beef available.
Producers are going out of business for no other reason than that they simply cannot meet increased interest costs. This should be of concern to the government because of its past policy of maintaining a cheap food policy for this country.
Let me talk for a moment about the 60 cents a pound which is the direct cost. The only cost that is used in that 60 cents a pound is the cost of simply owning the animal for the period of time it takes to get it to market. That figure for 1978 was 28 cents a pound, so in two years we have seen more than a doubling of interest costs associated with owning an animal for the period of time it takes to get it to market. That is a direct result of this government's high interest rate policy.
The minister talks about some of the things which need to be done for Canadian agriculture. It would be very interesting to see him use some of those figures to show how they have affected the consumer in this country and why we have some of the increased costs associated with agriculture and food. If the minister were honest and straightforward about it, he would have to admit that they are the result of his government's supporting the high interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada. It has been mentioned to me many times that some of the producers in this country would almost sooner see A1 Capone at the head of the Bank of Canada. They think producers probably had an easier time, as far as interest rates are concerned, in the thirties than under the present governor, and this government is supporting that kind of policy. If we were to bring back A1 Capone, we might be in better shape as far as interest rates are concerned.
That makes the point as to why many of us in agriculture and in small business think it is a complete fallacy to try to fight inflation simply by using high interest rates. As I pointed out, high interest rates affect the consumer not only directly in the interest cost he pays to the marketplace, but they also affect him down the road because there will be less production as a result of producers choosing not to produce food.
To talk about bankruptcies for a minute, we have heard much in the past number of months about farm bankruptcies. I can give figures on farm bankruptcies; I think we all can. They are up 147 per cent over 1979. They were up 25 per cent in the third last quarter. The point has been made many times before-and it needs to be made again-that bankruptcy is only part of the picture. It is only the tip of the iceberg. This is to say nothing about people who choose to cut back on production. It is to say nothing about people who choose not to get into business. It is to say nothing about the small farmer who would like to expand and get away from working part time at a job off the farm and become a farmer full time. It is to say nothing of the terrible consequences for a young farmer who is starting up. I have had many conversations with young

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
farmers in my riding who talk about the concerns they have and why they think it will be very difficult for them ever to start farming. Simply to talk about bankruptcies is not really giving the total picture at all.
The Minister of Agriculture wants to attack the banks. I have here an article from the Brandon Sun of last Wednesday.


Mr. Dinsdale:: A great paper.


Charles James Mayer: The headline is "Whelan unleashes attack on banks and farm leaders." I do not think the minister gets results by attacking banks or farm leaders. We would very much like him to come forward with policies everyone could support. I quote from the article as follows:
And he lambasted farm organization leaders, saying it is "about time they came up with some good suggestions for helping farmers."
Surely as Minister of Agriculture it should be his job to come up with suggestions and try to implement good suggestions in order to help farmers. Those of us on this side of the House who care about agriculture have made many suggestions in the past on how to help farmers, but there has been no indication that this government is even willing to look at some of the suggestions we make. And we will make some constructive suggestions today before this debate closes.
One of the things which concerns us about banks and about what is going on today is the spread between the bank rate and the prime rate. In March of 1980 when the bank rate was floated or tied to treasury bills and announced every Thursday afternoon, the spread was 1 per cent. That spread increased to 2.8 per cent in July of 1980. It dropped back very briefly to under one half of 1 per cent in November of 1980, but in September of this year the spread between the bank rate and the prime rate-when I refer to the bank rate I mean the rate set by the Bank of Canada each Thursday-was over 2 per cent. It rose to almost 2.5 per cent in October, and presently the spread is 1.79 per cent. The prime rate today is 20 per cent and the bank rate is 18.21 per cent.
Many of us feel that the Minister of Agriculture or, for that matter, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), could be putting some pressure on the banks. The Minister of Finance says the banks should bleed a little bit. He could be putting some pressure on the banks to lower their prime rates. If we had a prime rate 1 per cent above the bank rate prior to the floating of the bank rate, then surely to goodness we could expect something like that after the bank rate was floated. I suggest that there is room for the minister to go after the banks and try to get them to reduce the spread between the Bank of Canada rate and the prime rate. Incidentally, the prime rate is a rate at which very few people, if any, borrow at in this country.
I see that my time is going by quicker than I would like. This is a broad topic which could occupy a lot of time. However, I would like to make some suggestions to the minister as to what we could do to help Canadian agriculture. First, perhaps I should talk about some of the things the New Democratic Party has been doing.


Mr. McCuish:: That won't take long.


Charles James Mayer: I suppose that would not take long because they have not been doing much, as my seatmate points out. I have to agree with him.


Ian Deans: It lets you know you don't have much to talk about, right?


Charles James Mayer: It annoys me that we have not heard much from them about agriculture, but this past week I did hear from the NDP spokesman on agriculture, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), who was appearing before the Ontario Federation of Agriculture task force on credit and interest rates. I do not know whether he is a distinguished farmer or whether he has changed his profession. It seems to me that the only real connection he has with agriculture is the fact that "green" is part of the name of his constituency. Other than that I do not think he is very much of a distinguished farmer. In fact, I doubt if he would know which end of an animal to look at to see what sex it is. In any event, one of the things he said is that the government should give more money to the Farm Credit Corporation.
That is only part of the problem. I do not think the solution to agricultural financing is simply to make more money available. After all, money has to be paid back. We would much sooner see policies implemented by the government which would allow farmers to be proud of their occupation and able to produce to their potential, and earn money so that they could generate more capital and expand.
As a member of the cabinet the minister has it in his power to recommend to the cabinet, first, that Canadian Wheat Board cash advances be increased. They were implemented in 1957 and 1958 and were set at $15,000. That was almost 25 years ago, and the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board has suggested that those cash advances be raised to $50,000. Whether or not the minister chooses to support that figure, I think it should be amply evident that a figure set at $15,000 in 1957 and 1958 and not raised since could certainly be looked at in terms of raising that cash advance level. That would certainly help many young farmers.
I have spoken with people in my constituency-I am sure we all have-who are very concerned about their cash flows. They have grown good crops and, in some cases, crops which would more than allow them to meet their commitments for the coming year. However, because of their cash flows and their inability to sell their grain, they are in very real danger of not being able to survive for another year. They would very much like to see cash advances increased. That would help them very much, but that is something which would have to be done by this government.
As I said, that recommendation came from the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board. It has come from many farm organizations across western Canada, and we have heard no reaction at all from this government. If the minister wants evidence of the fact that farm cash advances are being used, in 1980 there were slightly more than 15,000 applications for cash advances, and the total amount in cash advances given to the 15,000 producers was $61,640,000. The number of appli-
November 2, 1981

cants this year is up to 28,155, which is not quite a doubling of the number of applicants. I received these figures this morning from the Canadian Wheat Board. The value of those cash advances this year is $205,795,000. There has been not quite a doubling in the number of people applying for cash advances, but more than triple the amount of money has been applied for. Farmers are making use of it. If the minister is interested in getting some cash into the hands of producers very quickly, one thing this government could do would be to raise the ceiling on cash advances.
As I pointed out, for some producers, particularly the younger ones starting up-and this may sound foolish in terms of good business-cash flow becomes more important to them than price. The ability to generate money now is very important. If the producer has to wait three or four months for the sale of the majority of his crop, he may not be in business when he has the opportunity to deliver his crop. That is why I say in some cases cash flow becomes more important than selling price.
I would like to see the minister do something to increase the potential to produce in this country. I talk here of western Canada. There are approximately 90 million acres of arable land presently being farmed in western Canada by approximately 150,000 producers. If you do the arithmetic, you find very quickly that Canadian farmers have more arable land under their control as individuals than any other farmer in the world. Therefore, there is a responsibility to make the best use of that land. It should be the responsibility of this minister to ensure that we can produce to that kind of potential.
As I said, the hon. member for Medicine Hat will elaborate on suggestions with regard to the Agricultural Stabilization Act as it applies to beef. I will leave that to him. I would say everyone is in agreement that the federal government needs to show some leadership with regard to harmonization of provincial stabilization programs. We do not need a change in the Constitution to do that. All we need is courage and leadership on the part of the federal government. To date that has been sadly lacking.
Many of us in this House have made suggestions with regard to the small business development bond. As I said on another occasion when speaking in this House, the conditions under which the small business development bond is made available should be liberalized. It should be made available to unincorporated businesses for financing other than new purchases, for lines of credit, used machinery, expansion of buildings by small business and so on. That would help.
There should be no reason why that cannot be done. Some two months ago the Bank of Montreal suggested to the government that it was prepared to do that, pending the government changing the legislation in order that that could be done. However, I see no indication that the government is going to take up the lead.
The government should talk to the banks, instead of shouting at them as a headline in the Brandon Sun indicates, and
Agriculture
encourage the banks to have fixed rates of financing for production periods. If a farmer growing crops could have a fixed rate of interest over a production period of six or eight months, it would assist him in planning. It would remove some of the risk from the operation as far as calculating interest costs is concerned. There are some things the minister could do with regard to talking to the banks. We would all support him in that. We would be very interested in seeing this happen.
I do not know how long the Outlook Conference has been in existence. I attended the conference before I had the privilege of sitting in this House. Many have come to refer to it as a look-out conference. That is truly what it is. It is not a question of outlook but how we should look out to stay in business for another year.
That conference usually follows the American outlook conference which is on this week in Washington. In the past it has been largely a one-way communication with the government presenting papers to producers. I think the conference could be expanded in terms of the situation in agriculture today. The conference could go an extra day and there could be some workshops. There is an opportunity to gather together farm leaders from across the country where they could sit down and really talk about the problems of agriculture. They could try and find some solutions rather than the conference simply being a social gathering. Rather than the people just coming together, talking in the halls and having papers presented by the government, there could be some input from the industry. That is something that could be looked at.
Along with several of my colleagues from this House and the Senate, I had an opportunity about ten days ago to attend a meeting in Washington. We met concerning international wheat pricing arrangements as far as Canada and the United States are concerned. I very much appreciated that opportunity.
Something I found very disheartening was a statement attributed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board who sits in the other place. He pointed out that this meeting between Canadian and American legislators would not amount to anything because it did not have official government sanction. That was a deplorable statement by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and therefore responsible for a large number of Canadian grain producers.
At the meeting we found areas of concern which affected both of our countries in terms of cost of production, our potential to produce and the market conditions we operate under internationally. We certainly reached many conclusions. I hope this minister will not have the same attitude toward that kind of dialogue and possible solutions to problems in grain marketing that his colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, displayed. If the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board really had the concerns of the agricultural producers at heart, he would not be making fun of such a meeting beforehand, saying it was of no consequence because it did not have official government sanction.
I hope that when the Minister of Agriculture replies this afternoon, he does not do what he did on June 3 last. He spoke

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
for 40 minutes, talking about everything under the sun except interest rates. We all know that interest rates today are the major factor in Canadian agriculture. They threaten its viability in the long run.
I wish to repeat a story that was told to me some time ago. It made the point that the only difference between North America and South America as -far as stability of government is concerned is that South America was settled on the basis of land barons and serfs. As a result, South America does not have the same kind of stable conditions as far as government is concerned. Nor do they have the affluence we have in this country.
If interest rates make things very difficult for a young farmer, or if we condone interest rates which prevent anyone who wants to own a house or private property in this country from doing so, there is a very real danger of the kind of situation which they have in South America occurring here. I refer to the situation where many countries change governments by revolution rather than election. With this minister supporting the Bank of Canada and the fight against inflation and his colleague the Minister of Finance through high interest rates, he is pushing this country toward that kind of situation, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for young farmers to get started in agriculture.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Conservative member who just finished speaking. I am not a farmer. I had not realized when I came to the House of Commons that you were only allowed to speak about things you had absolute direct and personal knowledge about. If that were to be the case, there would not be very many speeches made by anyone in this House.
I suggest it is appropriate for members to speak about matters that worry them. I am vitally concerned about what is happening to farmers in Canada. The motion before us today ought to motivate more members to rise to their feet. There is a serious problem that hits the farming community and other related communities which has to be dealt with by this government and dealt with forthwith. It is about that that I want to speak this afternoon. I hope I do not offend anyone with my lack of knowledge, although I suspect I could find which end of the animal to look at to find out which sex it is.
The motion before us states the obvious. There is a distressing increase in interest rates for farmers as there is in interest rates generally. We condemn the government not only for this distressing increase in farm interest rates, but for its inability to come to grips with the interest rate problem in general.
The problem that concerns by far the vast majority of Canadians is compounded by the fact that farmers must rely so heavily on their borrowing capacity to see them through from one season to the next. The government will not only have to take a long, hard look at the short-term impact as evidenced by the high and ever-increasing numbers of bankruptcies that are taking place within the farming community. The long-term impact of high interest rate policies require farmers to delay unnecessarily the purchase of replacement
machinery. This has affected the machinery manufacturing sector. The long-term cost is felt not only by the farmer and the farm machinery manufacturing sector, but by the community at large. It is the consumer who over the next four or five years should buy the machinery but who cannot afford to buy it. These delays mean that farmers must continue to use machinery that will become obsolete. In the case of the farmer that obsolescence results in an inability to meet production requirements, the cost of which in the long run is on the consumer in Canada. It is to that end I wish to speak.
Many people tend to isolate groups in society and try to deal with them in a segmented way. They talk about farmers as if their problems are quite unique and they do not in any way impact on anyone else. They will then look at the situation in the consumer area, outside of the farmer, and try to make it look as if that group can be dealt with separately and apart from the other.
I do not happen to believe that is the case. I think what we see happening in the farm community is what we see happening in the small business area and throughout most of Canada's manufacturing and producing sector. What we will have in the long run is an undermining of the stability of the economy. If that undermining has not already taken place, it will certainly take place in the not too distant future.
I should like to deal with some matters that I think are of vital importance. First of all, I want to suggest it is of some significance that today we see the Massey-Ferguson Industries Limited of Brantford, along with a number of others, cutting back on their work force. Why are they cutting back on their work force? It is because the farmers of Canada cannot afford to undertake the cost of replacing the machinery that should be replaced during these years. They cannot afford to carry the burden of indebtedness that the replacement undoubtedly will bring. The end result for Massey is that the lay-offs are significant.
It is not only in Massey that the lay-offs are significant. I was reading an article with some interest in The Globe and Mail by Kevin Cox that had a dateline Hamilton. He said:
More than 30 per cent of the farm machinery dealers in Ontario will go out of business in the next six months unless farmers get a break from high interest rates, a Simcoe-area equipment distributor predicted yesterday.
He is quoted saying:
"Nobody's buying a thing and I can't blame them," Robert Laning of Laning Farm Equipment Distributors told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture task force on the farm economy.
Mr. Laning went on to say:
-many of Ontario's 400 dealers are in serious trouble because farmers can't afford to buy new equipment at interest rates of more than 20 per cent.
There have been lay-offs throughout the farm supply industry, and "if something isn't done to lower interest rates, we'll see businesses go under. Even with a good equity position, paying $3,000 to $4,000 a month in interest is a bit much."
This is clear evidence of the spin-off effect of high interest rate policy being followed by the government. The government systematically has informed this House and the public of

Canada that the high interest rate policy is intended to reduce inflation. Both major political parties, but primarily the NDP, have said that, in fact, the high interest rate policy pursued by the government through the Bank of Canada has been adding to inflation and has undermined the economic stability of a significantly large sector of the economy. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) were here he would understand that when we say thousands of people have been forced out of their homes, we mean thousands of people have been forced out of their homes. Anyone with half a brain would understand that is a truism and a fact in Canada.
This is now having an impact on most small businesses because farmers are delaying purchases that should be made. Because of that delay it is, therefore, impossible for the manufacturers and dealers to maintain their position in society. It is also causing untold hardship on the farmers because they must carry high inventory. It is also causing hardship for those who must borrow the money and must pay the 16 3A per cent in the one case, or the 20 or 22 per cent in the other case, depending upon the reason for borrowing the money. There is no opportunity for those people to realize sufficient return on investment and sufficient return from the sale of the produce or livestock so as to maintain their position.
I was interested in noting at this self-same Ontario Federation of Agriculture task force hearing that one of those who made a submission said:
"I resent the fact that I produce beef and pork for 1,500 people a year and I can't make a living working more than ten hours a day," said Lyle Peters, a Guelph-area pig and beef producer.
Mr. Peters said an interest rate of more than 20 per cent on a loan of more than $200,000 left him and his wife with only $6,000 to live on last year, and they had to buy their clothes at a second-hand store.
It is almost unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that a person put in the position of having to borrow $200,000 to maintain a pig and beef operation and who was running what was a viable farming undertaking should find himself and his family, after they have paid back their loan and sold off their produce, left with $6,000. It takes a bit of understanding to appreciate that that can happen.
Mr. Crawley, head of the Wellington County Federation of 1 Agriculture, went on to tell the task force that he borrowed $500,000 to finance his hog operation. He said:
If interest rates continue at more than 20 per cent and pork prices do not improve, we will be bankrupt in two years.
I do not think you can put it any clearer. I do not think anyone can write it any better. I do not know how you can say it in clearer terms. The farmers in Ontario whom I am addressing at the moment, but also farmers right across the country, are faced with the most severe financial hardship. They are asked to continue to produce for the needs of the consumer, while at the same time they are expected to carry indebtedness far beyond their ability to realize a return on their investment. The impact of this undoubtedly will result in a further increase in the numbers of bankruptcies that will take place. If we do not keep a viable farming community in Canada, we know we will eventually be at the mercy of those
Agriculture
who will maintain viable farming communities in other parts of the world.
That is the biggest worry for those who look into the future. As you see fewer and fewer viable farms, the food supply needs of Canadians will ultimately be filled by farmers elsewhere. And at what price? What will we have to pay in order to get what we must have to put in the stores in order to feed the people of this country if we are not prepared now to take the kind of action that will guarantee the viability of the farms that currently exist? What will it cost us in terms of dollars that will flow out of the country to produce for our future needs? Is it worth that potential sacrifice in years to come, when you measure that against the cost of providing for farmers' loans and financial assistance at a price they can reasonably afford?
In the present circumstances certain parts of society have to be subsidized. It is absolutely essential. Farmers are not asking for subsidies; they would rather stand on their own two feet. Until we are able to receive sensible financial and fiscal policies from this government, then in the short run it is obvious to me we will have to guarantee the farmers, who must purchase today in order that they can produce tomorrow, will have access to the money they need and at a price they can afford to pay from the sale of their produce.
That seems elementary. I say to Conservative members that they do not have to be farmers to understand it. It is elementary economics. Perhaps it is too elementary for the government. It is common sense. This is something which seems to be lacking in the policies which are being brought forward by the government during this period of time.
Of course, we hear statements that farm incomes have risen. I read with interest the other day that farm incomes have risen. If one reads this and reads no further, one gets the impression that the farmer is doing better this year than last year. It does not tell one that it is talking only about cash receipts. It is not talking about net incomes. It is not talking about the problems incurred by farmers trying to meet additional costs which are a result of high interest rates, high fuel costs, high transportation costs and high feed costs. These costs must be paid out of the increasing receipts.
Last week Statistics Canada released a preliminary net farm income figure for 1980. It showed a shocking decline of 30 per cent in the province of Ontario in net income and 27 per cent in total net income. These figures were for last year. Ontario is second only to Manitoba. In Manitoba the size of the decline in net income was an astronomical 77 per cent. Even if there were a marginal increase in the nine-month period of 1981, when it is measured over and against the dramatic decrease in 1980 it is virtually impossible for the farmer to maintain his position of 1979.
It is to this end that we must address ourselves. Farming in Ontario and across Canada is suffering a cost-price squeeze which is unprecedented in our history. Everyone understands that never in history has it been possible to go broke so big and
12400

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
so fast in this country. The figures on the cost of interest on indebtedness are good indications of the problem. In 1978 in Ontario the cost of interest was $253 million. By 1979 it had increased to $374 million, which was a 48 per cent jump in the cost of indebtedness. Debt charges rose last year to $465 million, which was an increase of another 24 per cent over the previous year. Over all there has been an 83 per cent increase in the amount of indebtedness and debt charges on indebtedness in the last two years. This year when interest rates really took off, we can imagine that the cost of borrowing to the farmer will be something in excess of $600 million. That is equivalent to the total net income for 1980. There is a very serious problem here.
I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) as he travelled around the province expressing what I do not doubt for a moment is his genuine concern. But there comes a time when an expression of concern is no longer enough. There comes a time when people expect results. They do not expect a further pat on the back with a vague promise of help in the future. They expect to see some tangible results from the efforts of the minister. Today they want to see some government commitment. They do not want to hear a statement by the minister that he will try or quit. They want a government commitment that it recognizes the value of the farming community to the future of the country and that it is prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure that the costs I have just enumerated and the burden about which we have been speaking will no longer have to be borne by this vital sector.
Let us look at the problems. For example, in Ontario 112 farmers went bankrupt to the end of September this year. This figure compares with only 15 farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. The difference is in the nature of government. The government of Saskatchewan put in place measures to assist farmers, while the government of Ontario failed in its obligation to protect farmers in areas where protection could be undertaken. The problem is neglect not only by the federal government but in many instances by provincial governments as well.
There are some measures which must be taken by the Government of Canada, and they must be taken now. Perhaps a week or two ago-and we have said this for the last seven or eight months-we said that some action had to be taken to assist home owners. I think the message has gotten through, but I am not sure whether the answer is forthcoming. Certainly the message is that home owners in Canada are not prepared to accept the piecemeal policy the government has offered over the past. They will not tolerate being left at the mercy of Canadian banking institutions. The federal government had an opportunity to play a role in the Farm Credit Corporation, but it has not lived up to its obligation.
The Conservative member who spoke previously said that it was not the only answer. Of course it is not. No one expected it to be the only answer. It is a sad commentary when the month of September arrives that the Farm Credit Corporation does not have any money in the province of Ontario to meet the needs of Ontario farmers when they apply for loans. It is even
more of an indictment on the government that, at a time when farmers are undertaking a debt load far greater than they could ever be expected to recover from the marketplace, the government has approved an increase in the interest rate of the Farm Credit Corporation to 16.75 per cent.
I do not doubt for a moment that there is some element of truth in the rumours circulating on Parliament Hill that the Minister of Agriculture will certainly quit if his own government does not respond.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the official opposition alleges in the form of an argument that the government has failed to support Canadian farmers. I think it is about as far off the mark as any comment could be. It would be fair to say that no government in Canada has ever provided the kind of support to the entire agri-food industry which has been given during my term as Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: It would be remiss of me to go over all the things we have done for agriculture since 1972, but I will try to put a few on record. Under this government the Agricultural Stabilization Act has been amended to increase the percentage of pay-out when prices fall below the five-year average and to bring more commodities under the stabilization program.
The hon. member who led off the discussion today told us to provide leadership. A former member of this House who was also a former minister of agriculture for the province of Alberta stated the same thing in a report that he was commissioned to bring forward by the province of Alberta on the subject of beef marketing and some other aspects of agriculture in that province. I refer to Dr. Hugh Horner. He said that we failed to give leadership and he spoke about more money for stabilization, as did the hon. member who just spoke for the New Democratic Party.
In 1977 we proposed and got cabinet approval to present 100 per cent harmonization of stabilization to the provinces and farm organizations. That is 100 per cent of cost of production. We were turned down on the grounds that it was a wild dream of mine to provide that kind of program and that kind of income. They felt it would cause an oversupply of products in Canada. They did not think it was needed in agriculture so they turned it down. We could see that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think you have to be a great economist to see it. A blind man on a galloping horse could see some of the things that were going to happen in some agriculture industries. I think particularly of the red meat industry where there is a big problem today. I see the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) in the House and I am sure he will cover that subject in detail when he speaks.
November 2, 1981

The groups that are in difficulty today are those that depended on that great free market system that was going to take care of them. It has taken care of them in the way the black sheep does in the slaughter house. Before he goes into the slaughtering pen he detours and all the others following him go to slaughter. That is what has happened to many, many people, especially young people in the beef industry.
When we speak of stabilization we should remember what has been done for hog producers in 1980. Payments totalling $112 million will go out to hog producers; indeed, practically all of that money has been paid out already. Some of the provinces are what we call "piggybacking" that program and the total pay-out to hog producers for 1980 will be $200 million. That will go to a very efficient group of producers who run a very inefficient marketing system.
The spokesmen for the New Democratic Party and the official opposition used sweeping statements about the agricultural industry but they know as well as I do that it is not the total agricultural industry that is in trouble; only those people who operate outside some system that the farmers set up and run themselves to market their products are in the difficulty that we all know about at the present time. Many efficient areas of agriculture are not in financial difficulty today and are able to pay their bills. Their cost-pricing formulas use interest rates, taxes, energy, etc. when they set a price for the product and as a result they are not experiencing any difficulty. People who depend on the buyer saying "I will give you so much for your product, take it or leave it," are in difficulty, especially if their product is perishable.
The red meat industry, both beef and hog producers, is a very important part of our agricultural production. Beef producers are probably in the worst position, but that was brought on mainly because of overproduction of pork. People bought the cheap pork product. Not as much beef was sold and so the buying power of the producers declined. The same thing happened in the United States.
The hon. member opposite said that I should speak about interest rates. I think my officials have been fairly accurate in calculating what happened when American cattle came to Ontario and took over about 25 per cent of the market for about four months. Mr. Speaker, we could have given them interest-free money for their whole operation at that time and they still could not have made a buck, because the market was depressed as the result of importation of big, cheap, fat cattle from the United States. Many people contend that we can compete with that system but, Mr. Speaker, when they have a production machine that is geared to feed 240 million people and 2 per cent of their surplus is sold to Canada, which has a machine geared to feed 24 million people, the machine gets plugged up. That is not a managed supply, Mr. Speaker.
In other production areas farmers have taken the initiative and looked after themselves, whether it be through a provincial marketing system or a federal marketing system under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the National Farm Products Marketing Council-which only include dairy and poultry products-plus the Canadian Wheat Board
Agriculture
which is under the jurisdiction of another ministry. It was set up in 1935 to provide some order in the marketplace for grain. Order in the marketplace is the most important thing because it ensures that the market can absorb the product and that it will not be piled up in the hope of selling it.
The hon. member who spoke for the opposition put on record how many millions of dollars farmers receive interest free from advance payments for grain. Listening to him, one would think that no such program was provided for anyone else. The estimate of applications from the Canadian Wheat Board and for producers of perishable crops will amount to about $255 million interest free. Close to $500 million will be lent by the Farm Credit Corporation and until October 1 the interest rate was 14 per cent, which was highly subsidized, and even at the present time it is being subsidized by about 6 per cent. Today, anyone who can obtain a mortgage pays approximately 21.5 per cent or, if they are lucky, perhaps 20 per cent.
There is still a tremendous amount of assistance available to farmers through government programs, Mr. Speaker. If there is a good marketing system, then I do not think tremendous sums of money are required for stabilization programs. The poultry industry has not received a penny of tax dollars since 1972 when I became minister. They run a fairly healthy industry and they run it themselves.
Stabilization programs will be announced as they are needed. They will provide income support to farmers to help them remain in farming and run a viable business. Since 1958 the federal government has paid out nearly $4 billion in stabilization payments. This is similar to what was offered to farmers for other commodities but no province or farm organization took it up. No farm organization said it was something they wanted; they condemned it but it was similar to the Western Grain Stabilization Act with a contribution by producers and a contribution by the federal government. In the case of the Western Grain Stabilization Act the ratio is two to one. It has been suggested that a similar program be set up for hog stabilization involving the producers, the provinces and the federal government. For four years we have been trying to get agreement for such a program but it has not come about yet. I have stated that I would go ahead with a hog stabilization plan similar to the Western Grain Stabilization Act involving the producers and the federal government. It would be a voluntary type program.
The benefits to western Canada of a program like the western grain stabilization plan are difficult to estimate. Indeed, it benefits all Canada. It is not just that $360 million has been paid out since the inception of the plan; the real benefit has been the confidence instilled in the grain industry. It has allowed farmers and all types of agri-business in the west to plan for the future in an orderly fashion.
The same type of stabilization program is under discussion at the present time for hogs and I am sure it will eventually apply to other agricultural commodities. I have already mentioned that we had proposed this to the provinces and to farm organizations in 1977. They have very short memories but I do not comment, Mr. Speaker. I remember what we proposed.

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
One province went ahead and put the program into effect. That Province was British Columbia. There are less bankruptcies in the agricultural sector in B.C. than in nearly every other province. That does not mean it has eliminated the problem, but the program we offered superseded everything they produce, other than for cow-calf producers. We said we were willing to negotiate that item with the other provinces, even with the province of British Columbia.
In the past we have suffered from a balkanization of the industry as a result of a variety of provincial stabilization programs. While I can sympathize with the desire of the provincial governments to help their farmers, I think it is important that agriculture is treated equally across the country. In a newspaper editorial I was lambasted because they did not understand what equity and equalization meant. The rich provinces with tremendous resources in their coffers can bring forward programs to assist producers, whereas the have-not provinces do not have those resources, and their producers compete in a very unfair fashion. The inequality that exists between us is terrible. Some provinces have money to pave every road, to provide natural gas, to provide loan programs and subsidize interest rates. For instance, under loan programs in Alberta farmers are getting up to $600,000. When the interest rate is figured out, it amounts to about 6 per cent for that special group of farmers.


Mr. Hargrave:: There is no cattle program in Alberta.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows where they are getting the money. They are using some of the money from the heritage fund.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: No.


Eugene Whelan: Then there is that great free system in Alberta called the Alberta trust. That is their banking system. It is owned by the government of Alberta. I must say they are distributing some of the surplus earned on high interest rates in fair interest loans to some of their farmers. That is commendable. They increased their profits by 345 per cent and said they would distribute some of the profits to some needy people. That is commendable. Hon. members talk about me yelling about other banking institutions in this country, but I will touch on that shortly.
We talk about stabilization and different programs in our provinces, but even the minister of agriculture in the province of Alberta wants a national program for beef. Yet when all of the provincial ministers are seated together, they cannot agree on what kind of a national program we should have. Hon. members talk about leadership. The hon. member who represents that great constituency in Manitoba, his constituency name escapes me for the moment-


Charles James Mayer: It is Portage-Marquette.


Eugene Whelan: When the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) talks about leadership, does he want me to
impose a red meat marketing commission and provide leadership like R. B. Bennett did in 1935? When I see the hardships,
I am about ready to provide some of that kind of leadership. We have tried persuasion of every kind that we can think of to get the provinces to go along with a national program. I must give the minister of agriculture from Alberta some credit, because he has withstood some pretty rough meetings lately, but he seems to be staying with the philosophy that it is better to have an all-Canadian program. We are not that far apart.
The hon. member talked about the cattle feeding program in Ontario and about the cattle feeders being especially hard hit. I will have to take hon. members on a little tour of that part of Canada. Ninety-nine per cent of cattle in those feed lots are fed by the feed the farmer produces on the land he cultivates himself. I am told that not 1 per cent would be bought feed from any other source. We could take hon. members to areas where there are 1,400 acres of corn which are put in pit silos and upright silos, you name it, wet corn, etc. They are pretty well self-sufficient.
However, they got into a lot of difficulty, and I find this rough. I have appealed to the bankers to get into the farm loan business. I have hundreds of letters from farmers; some of them sent me complete financial statements and some of them hardly owed a penny five years ago. These farmers borrowed on demand notes, which is a floating loan. The amounts they borrowed varied from $250,000, $300,000 to $350,000. Money should not be lent for those kinds of physical structures in rural Canada. Floating loans is an improper way to lend money. Lending should be at a fixed rate with at least a ten-year mortgage and possibly a 15-year or 20-year mortgage. Ninety per cent of those people in financial difficulty today would not be in financial difficulty if they had a fixed loan.


An hon. Member:: That is what we said.


Eugene Whelan: That is why I said that under the Bank Act the banks have the authority to do that. They have the authority to do just what the Alberta trust is doing at the present time. Under the Bank Act the banks have the authority right now to give long-term mortgages at reasonable rates of interest. Some of the. bankers come out with stories like: "Well, Whelan knows that when we have a dollar on deposit and we are paying 17 per cent interest on it, we have to make a profit on it."


Mr. McDermid:: Speak to the finance minister, that great supporter of the banks.


Eugene Whelan: But the banks loan out that dollar at least ten times. In some instances they can lend it as many as 75 times. So when the banks talk about profits, we should make sure the banks put their profits back into the rural community. Last year the banks collected $1.5 billion in interest from farmers. This year the banks will collect more than $2 billion in interest from farmers. The Bank Act allows the banks to distribute some of that wealth in any fashion they see fit. Are hon.
November 2, 1981

members opposite from that great free enterprise system suggesting that we put the banks under the hammer?


Mr. Blenkarn:: You are the government; why don't you do something about it?


Eugene Whelan: I have the hammer and I am ready to swing it if you want me to do that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If that doesn't happen, will you resign?


Eugene Whelan: Farmers and small-business men should have an appeal against that kind of a system. We have an untold amount of letters. People are telling us they will give us affidavits or will swear they asked the banks for long-term money but were refused and told they were getting money at 12 per cent, to wait, that interest rates would be down to 10 per cent or 11 per cent in six months. Therefore, people did not go ahead with long-term mortgages. This happened a little over a year ago when people were asking for five-year mortgages at fixed rates of interest.
People can see some of the pitiful things that have been done by the banking interests. The banking industry does not need the money, but the Bank Act allows the banks to do the very things that I am talking about. Banks can give long-term mortgages with a moratorium. For instance, a bank could give a 20-year mortgage. The banks created this problem. In most instances, they are responsible for farm takeovers. The bankruptcies do not tell the whole story. Many farms have automatically been taken over by the banks. The farmer just moves out and there is a quiet sale. The banks take what belongs to them, and if there is anything left it is given to the farmer.
We can compare what these banks are doing with other lending institutions in the province of Alberta. Alberta is a rich province but the lending institutions there are not keeping everything for themselves. Some people in Alberta would probably say: "Whelan, they are not doing as much as you think they are and they could be doing more". I think that is probably true.
Last year we heard it said that we did not do anything for agriculture and we did not pay any attention to the industry. But we put $60 million into the herd maintenance program, drought assistance, livestock, fodder procurement program and the livestock transportation program. I wonder how many farmers would have been forced out of business if we had not put in that $60 million?
The hon. member talks about the great programs in Saskatchewan. Let me tell him about the great programs in Saskatchewan. There is one they call the Saskatchewan Crown corporation insurance company, or something like that. I wish I could run a company like that. The federal government pays 50 per cent of the premiums, the producers pay the other 50 per cent, the province administers it and it is called a Saskatchewan Crown corporation. That is a little bit much! In Saskatchewan last year we spent over $130 million assisting farmers in that province, yet the province, which does all
Agriculture
things for agriculture production out there, spent only $61 million. Who is doing the most for whom? The federal government does not have the propaganda system to get the credit for what it is doing. That is about what it amounts to.
The crop insurance program is a unique program. No other country in the world has a crop insurance program like ours. We pay 50 per cent of the premiums and the producers pay the other 50 per cent. The provinces administer this program and take 99 per cent of the credit when there are claims. The provinces generally spend only a couple of million dollars in this program. I will give hon. members an estimate of what the federal government spends. More than 121,000 farmers bought crop insurance for their 1981 crops, an increase of 8,000 over the previous year. They bought coverage worth about $2.5 billion. This government will contribute $120 million in premiums to this program, with farmers contributing a similar amount.
Do hon. members think the United States has that kind of a program for its farmers? I can remember a former secretary of agriculture in the United States saying this is a wonderful program. I asked him what kind of program they had and he said, "We call it a disaster program, and that is just what it is, Mr. Minister, a disaster." I do not know whether the United States has come up with any other kind of program, but I know they did study our program in Canada two or three years ago.
Last year the crop insurance program paid out a record $261 million to farmers across Canada to cover losses. A large part of that sum went to farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for losses due to the drought. That is what I call support to the agricultural industry and to Canadian farmers.
This has been an exceptionally good year on the prairies. There was one large area that had a lot of hail damage in southern Saskatchewan but I do not expect there will be that many big insurance claims or payments made for grains or oilseeds in the west this year; at least, that is the advice I have been getting from my crop insurance people. Growers in Ontario and Quebec will be thankful for the crop insurance program this year. Many vegetable and grain farmers in southwestern Ontario had their crops washed out by unusually wet weather. They had the largest amount of rainfall ever recorded in that area this year.
Farmers do not want to live on handouts. They want the government to provide policies and programs that will make it possible for them to do what they do best, grow crops and market them at a price that will give them a reasonable return on their investment and their labour. That has been the basic aim of the agriculture policies of this government, and I think it has been appreciated by producers. They have certainly thrived under it and developed an agriculture industry that is second to none in the world.
No one is more aware than this Minister of Agriculture of the difficulties that farmers are facing right now with inflation pushing up the cost of farm inputs at a rate that exceeds the

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
rise in commodity prices. It is a cost-price squeeze that is hitting some farmers harder than others. Farmers who have been operating with low equity and high debt are in trouble. That is a poor way to do business at the best of times, and maybe if some of those farmers had had better financial advice in the first place they would not be in that position.
Farmers who have been able to establish orderly marketing arrangements, as I said earlier, are in better shape, and that too is a form of support this government has given to farmers. Hon. members will notice that it is not the dairy and poultry producers, as I have said, who are having great difficulty in the present situation. Supply management has a lot of advantages that many people do not realize until they get into the sort of bind some hog and beef producers are in at the present time.
As I have said, I have the right to challenge farm leaders in the community because I was a farm leader at one time. We did things; we organized ourselves and went to the government and told the government what we wanted. Most of these farm leaders at the present time are just sitting back and yelling without making any constructive suggestions whatsoever. They are afraid to go into the farm communities and really organize the farmers as we did at one time. I do not have time as Minister of Agriculture to do that and it is not my job to do that. It is the farm leaders' job to do that.
Some farm leaders have done a good job and certain products come under provincial or national boards, and those producers are making a buck. If they are efficient producers they are making the dollars and paying the bills. The bankers know that as well, and so do we in the Farm Credit Corporation. We have lent money to the farmers of Canada. At the present time there are 70,000 farmers in Canada who have farm credit loans. Of farmers who are presently farming, 70 per cent have at one time or another received assistance. I want to make that clear; some 70 per cent of farmers who are now producing in Canada at one time or another in their lives received assistance from the Farm Credit Corporation.
The Farm Credit Corporation was at one time the main lender to farmers. At one time 70 per cent of all long-term loans in Canada were made by the Farm Credit Corporation. We appealed to the lending institutions to become more involved in lending in rural Canada. They were hardly involved at all in that kind of lending before 1978. If one checks the records one will find that the bankers were hardly involved in this type of lending before that time. Little did I know when we appealed to them that they would operate in the fashion they have. They have shown their ignorance about lending in rural Canada. They have shown that ignorance as indicated by some of those things I have mentioned. They lent huge sums of money without any advice to the farmers, without any real study of the operation and without any real study of the economics of the production entity. They did not make sure the farmers were going to have some kind of program so that they would know they would be able to pay back the loan in the following ten years. One can hardly believe the heartbreaking situations some of these people are now in, mainly because of the policies of the banks in lending money.
This is what I was thinking about when I talked about whether the Farm Credit Corporation should be given more money and whether the small business development bond program should be expanded, allowing more money to be again administered by the banks. Should there not be some way of having control over how this money is to be lent and to whom in order that we do not just put these people in jeopardy again? I maintain that even with a small business development bond some of these farmers would still be in difficulty, at least until they get a better marketing system for themselves. They will not be able to get out of difficulty even with a 10 per cent or 12 per cent mortgage under the Small Business Development Bond program. They are not able to write this off as an income tax expense. What they need are long-term mortgages with a moratorium on the first three years of interest payment on capital. I know I am repeating myself, but this could work. They should have mortgages for 20 years with an amortization period over the final 17 years. This would allow them to get on their feet. For some of these people this is a must. We need these agricultural producers.
These producers are not necessarily inefficient. Some of them are the most efficient producers in existence. I could name one young farmer in my area who went bankrupt owing $750,000. He had the most efficient beef cattle feeding program in Ontario on the basis of pounds of beef produced. He was self-sufficient; he did not buy any grain for his cattle, he produced it all on his own farm.
We want amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation legislation and we have made certain recommendations. Other members on both sides of the House have made suggestions. It has been suggested that a Crown corporation or trust company be set up to entice people to invest in agriculture. We could pay a lower rate of interest but the investors could get an income tax break.
There will be other members on this side of the House who will be speaking on this subject. There are many things I should have liked to say in answer to some of the comments by hon. members. An hon. member referred to an outlook conference, which I think is a commendable idea. There are many things we think can be done to really help agriculture in Canada, but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate on the opposition motion on agriculture proposed by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). I listened with interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) expressing his concern again, again and again, but like my colleague, I would like to point out to the minister that we understand the problems. Every farmer, every cattleman and every producer of food products in this country understands those problems. We need some answers from the government. If this minister
November 2, 1981

and his government also understand those problems, then will they please supply some answers and some solutions?
The minister talked about marketing. He said the entire problem which exists in the red meat industry can be related to marketing. He said these producers are those people who, to use a government expression, are in the most dire straits.
Mr. Speaker, coming from a grain producing area, 1 would like to give the minister a small lesson in economics. I will give him some statistics showing what part grain plays in my particular part of Saskatchewan and, indeed, the western part of Canada as well as Ontario and Quebec. The dominant crops on the prairies are grains and oilseeds. In Saskatchewan, grain and oilseeds account for 74 per cent of cash receipts, cattle accounts for 18 per cent and other crops account for the balance. In 1980, of the $3.2 billion in Saskatchewan farm receipts, wheat accounted for 60 per cent, barley for 5 per cent, rapeseed for 7 per cent, cattle for 18 per cent and others were 10 per cent. Barley and wheat, a total of 65 per cent, was under the authority of a central marketing agency.
The central marketing agency the minister talks about for the red meat producers is not the answer. We have had the central marketing agency in the wheat industry, the Canadian Wheat Board, since 1935 when it was established by the Progressive Conservative government. In my opinion, the only thing wrong with the Canadian Wheat Board is that our party has not been in government long enough to make it operate properly.
Using the Canadian Wheat Board as an example, any producer-controlled agency or producer central selling desk should have leadership by someone who is at least as capable as those he represents. Anyone who is at all familiar with the Minister of State in the other place and his past experience knows he is not a representative of the producers. He is not as capable as the people he says he represents and that is the problem we are faced with in that central selling agency.
Turning to Saskatchewan agriculture, after the strike at Thunder Bay the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board issued a press release in which he said:
Producers, grain handlers and members of the elevator association have all emerged winners at the end of this disruption of the grain handling system.
The Minister of State went on to say:
-no sales were lost nor were any contracts cancelled as a result of the strike and the union has indicated it feels it can make up for lost time.
Somebody lost. I know it was not the government that lost. I know that the union workers lost because they were on strike. I know that the sales target of 26 million tonnes which has been set by the Canadian Wheat Board will be behind. We will not make 26 million tonnes this year, even with the best efforts of all parties. That is another matter which we will discuss on another day.
However, this is the type of leadership that has been given to the people of Saskatchewan who have contributed 65 per cent of the $3.2 billion in farm sales. As of today, we in
Agriculture
Saskatchewan finally had a six-bushel quota. Up until this time last week we were at three bushels per acre. That is $12 an acre which the farmer has been able to sell when the input costs are closer to $40. This is the reason the people in my part of the country are in severe financial difficulty.
The minister says that a marketing board is the answer for the red meat industry. It may well be the answer to something like the poultry industry, where there is a ten-week cycle, but the red meat industry cannot pile up sides of beef in a granary.


Eugene Whelan: I know you can't.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he knows we cannot, so why does he insist on saying the only problem in the red meat industry is the marketing process?
We have problems in the grain industry in western Canada which has had a central selling desk since 1935. The problem we have there is the same problem we have in the red meat industry, namely, lack of leadership on behalf of the government.
The minister does not have to criticize the banks. The producers will do that themselves if they feel they are being taken advantage of. I have yet to receive one letter from a producer which says that he has been harshly treated by the bank because of his inability to pay. A producer may well say: "I know I have a legal contract and the bank has assisted me over the last 12 or 18 months to try to recover, but I do not want to see my farming business go. I had a legal contract and the only place I could borrow money was at the bank. The Farm Credit Corporation did not have any funds."
This government will not move to let the Small Business Development Bond work for unincorporated farmers. It will not move to let the operating loans that producers have fall under the Small Business Development Bond. This government and its supporters in the New Democratic Party voted against the Small Business Development Bond in that part of the Crosbie budget, yet they brought it back in. However, they only brought it half way. We have wondered why the banks are the only people who can lend money and not have to pay tax on the interest accrued, as with the Small Business Development Bond. We have made suggestions to the minister and to the government that there is absolutely no reason why the Farm Credit Corporation could not be funded by individuals investing money in the Farm Credit Corporation without having to pay tax to Revenue Canada when they withdraw their income from it, as the banks do. The minister could get all the money he needed for the Farm Credit Corporation if he treated the individuals who put their money into RRSPs or home ownership or just saved money in the same way as the banks that he criticizes and blames. Why cannot this be done by individuals in the Farm Credit Corporation, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, small business development, all these areas which are hard hit by the high interest rate policy of this government? If the minister would allow these individuals to invest in a central lending agency without being subject to taxation when they collect their money, you would have all the money you need.

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
Last year the farming industry had approximately $1.5 billion in interest payments. It will be $2 billion, using the minister's own words, by the end of this year. The farming industry pays this money to carry on business. It does not do it for any other reason. What the minister and his government forget is that Revenue Canada is taxing the people who lend that money. Therefore, we have interest rates of 18 and 20 per cent when it could be 9 per cent or 10 per cent. This is not new to the minister because we have asked him about this in the House, we have written to him, and we have made proposals to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). It is nothing new.
Today the minister was asked a question on cattle stabilization. He said in order to get 95 per cent or 100 per cent he would have to go to the cabinet. He told us that his batting average has been pretty lousy lately and that the chances were that he would not be successful. He told us that the cabinet made him go to 16.75 per cent interest for Farm Credit Corporation instead of the 14 per cent he wanted. He said he would just as soon have 90 per cent in cattle stabilization over the last Five years because that was in the statute and his cabinet colleagues could not take it away.
In Saskatchewan we have a stabilization plan. I am not sure if the minister is aware of it.


Eugene Whelan: I know that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The minister says he is aware of it. I also hope he is aware of the consequences of it. It does not help anybody unless he happens to be a commercial feeder. It does not help the cow-calf operator. It does not help the guy who brings in cattle and feeds them on his farm because the plan provides that animals from the cow herd may be custom fed to slaughter while purchased feeders must be finished on the farm. You cannot go to the feed lot with that. It is very well set up! The stabilization fund is very well set up. The stabilization fund will be actuarially sound over time and if the deficit in the fund becomes too large the levy will be increased.
That is like the western grain stabilization fund the minister mentioned earlier, of which he seemed overly proud. When it first came in producers had the option of opting out of the western grain stabilization fund, and the premium was fixed at $500 per producer. A couple of years later producers were locked in and the premium was increased to $900 per producer. Now they are still locked into the fund and the premium is $1,100. That is the history of that fund, and it has been three years since there has been a payout.


Eugene Whelan: The best investment a farmer can make.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The minister says that is the best investment a farmer can make. How can a farmer invest in a grain stabilization plan when he is paying 20 per cent at the bank, does not have any quotas in order to sell his grain and is going broke? How can he pay that?
I will come back to the minister's point about marketing agencies and central selling. There is a central selling agency
for grain. In one area of my constituency which is rural and relies on grain production I spoke with a local banker and learned that financing for operating alone three years ago at his bank averaged $21,000 among producers who had operating loans. Today operating loans average $34,000. That is in three years, so I do not know why the minister says central selling is the answer. We have an agency; that is not the problem. The problem is paying $100,000 for a combine at 20 per cent interest, or paying $50,000 for a tractor.
The spokesman for the New Democratic Party spoke about his concern-and we all share it-about laid-off workers at Massey-Ferguson. I think the minister would have mentioned, if he had remembered to do so-and the spokesman for the New Democratic Party forgot as well-that those workers have the cheapest food in any industrialized country. Those workers have increases built into their contract. When they bargain, they bargain for increases every year. What has happened in farming? The reason those workers are out of jobs is that farmers have not been able to buy new machinery. I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that that is a very serious problem. It is serious not just for the farming community but for all of Canada. We have a built-in problem because of the high interest rate policy of this government.
When we talk about what farmers would like, I think I speak for any producer of a product. Farmers would like to take their incomes and wages from the marketplace. They do not want to get their incomes from the minister's department. They do not want to get it from Revenue Canada. The minister agrees with me.
We have heard much about Canagrex, of which the minister is proud. There is tremendous opportunity for the sale of food products produced in this country-and value added-to virtually every country in the world. There is talk about the inflow of American cattle. I have had the same discussion with the minister regarding the inflow of sheep. Presently there is a meat import law before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Sheep are not dealt with by that law, and we hope the minister will take our suggestion that sheep and mutton be dealt with, because what we see happening to Canadian sheep producers is something which should never happen in a country which has the ability to feed itself. Canada definitely has that ability. Our farmers are productive and hard working. They have initiative, but the government should assist in terms of refereeing and playing the game.
On April 28 the minister said to the Canadian Food Processors Association at Halifax, and I quote:
Governments don't produce, but they certainly can play a role in your productivity. Government sets the rules and it creates the climate in which private industry plays.
By the minister's own admission, the government is not setting the proper rules, and that is what we would like to have in the form of leadership from this government, and from the Minister of Agriculture in particular. I do not doubt for one minute what the minister said when he was at a meeting in Ontario. I will not quote him unless I can do so accurately. I
November 2, 1981

do not doubt for one minute that the minister said, and I quote: "I won't stay as your Minister of Agriculture if there isn't something done that is practical and workable." I hope that is, as the minister often says, as clear as a bell. I do not doubt that, but why should someone like the Minister of Agriculture have to say that? Over the past nine years he has served the farming community quite well, in some instances. At this time when the farming community and the whole economy suffer because of the high interest rate policy of the government, why should someone like this minister have to leave the cabinet and the government he serves? We will have the answer on November 12. I very much hope the minister will not have to keep his word and resign because if that happens the producers of this country will be in worse shape than they are at present.


An hon. Member:: You are being very kind.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: One of my colleagues says I am being very kind, but I do not think I am. The minister knows the respect he had in the farming community. He knows it has been eroded over the last two or three years. I am not saying that is the minister's fault, but he knows he has not been able to carry the ball for the farmers of Canada. I am not saying he is not trying. I am saying he does not have the ability to convince his colleagues; or perhaps his colleagues do not understand the problems.
Research and development are very important to the agricultural industry and to Canada as a whole. We in Canada spend 0.9 per cent of our gross national product on research in agriculture. The United States spends about 2.4 per cent. Sweden spends 1.9 per cent, and Japan spends 1.7 per cent. Because of a need to find a type of grain which will respond to bacteria to produce nitrogen-because nitrogen fertilizer costs close to $300 a tonne-the Department of Agriculture funds a research program in Lethbridge. Bob Rennie's research program to inoculate wheat seeds with bacteria so that they are nitrogen-producing is funded by a budget of $20,000. That is less than it cost three cabinet ministers to fly to Winnipeg last Saturday. The price of energy is rising-up to $4 per gallon for diesel fuel-and the cost of nitrogen will increase because of the cost of natural gas. However, only $20,000 is being put into a program which is so vital to the farmers of Canada.
At times we have had differences with the minister, but I must give him credit for one thing. I am sure this has been mentioned to him by some people in his department, but the minister has not yet introduced a program of state ownership for land. I would like to make it clear to the minister why he should not want a program like the one in Saskatchewan called Land Bank. I will give an example. A son rented his father's land from Land Bank after it was sold to them for $120 an acre. Five years later the Land Bank offered to sell it back to the son at $530 an acre. That kind and democratic socialist party which governs Saskatchewan made a profit of some 400 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.
Agriculture



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-VIA Rail-Elimination of Atlantic Limited train service, (b) Request that minister meet New Brunswick representatives; the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn)-Housing-Sale of houses held by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (b) Sales to investors and speculators; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-VIA Rail-Effect of cutbacks on western economy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mayer:
That this House, noting the disastrous increase in farm bankruptcies, condemns this government for its continuing failure to support Canada's farmers, and its inability to curtail the devastation high interest rates are bringing to Canada's agriculture section.
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the two previous opposition speakers speak to the motion introduced by the member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), which reads as follows:
That this House, noting the disastrous increase in farm bankruptcies, condemns this government for its continuing failure to support Canada's farmers, and its inability to curtail the devastation high interest rates are bringing to Canada's agriculture section.
Mr. Speaker, from this motion, moved by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette, it is clear that this opposition day will be used to discuss agriculture, a very appropriate subject for debate in this House in a country like ours. However, I feel that time is of the essence for this House, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) pointed this out just now when he said that a bill had already been tabled in this House in 1979, and that since then, there had been two elections, the business of the House had been delayed fairly regularly, and this particular bill, a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, had not been able to materialize.

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, I believe the sudden rise in interest rates actually occurred after the bill was tabled in 1979. There is no doubt that for farmers, entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized businesses, home owners who face mortgage renewal, in fact for all Canadians, interest rates are high, and that we have galloping inflation. But, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says almost every day during question period, high interest rates are the only way to fight inflation. We all know that the Farm Credit Corporation recently had to raise its interest rates to 16% per cent, which is still two, three, even four per cent less than the interest rates charged to small and medium-sized businesses. The Minister of Agriculture has just outlined also all the benefits and all the help given to Canadian farmers through stabilization payments to hog producers and potato growers, and recently to apple growers. The government must intervene on a regular basis under its stabilization insurance program.
The Farm Credit Corporation has been administering the Farm Credit Act for over 22 years. During that time it has made about 147,500 loans worth $5.1 billion all told. Thanks to its long-term credit programs it has been one of the most important factors which has enabled Canadian farmers to boost their agricultural output and increase their efficiency over the last two decades. That corporation has granted in excess of 60 per cent of the long-term farm credit in recent years. The remainder came from provincial organizations, banks, credit unions, caisses populates and private individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in the province of Quebec-Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot-which is indeed the garden of the province, perhaps second to your riding, Mr. Speaker. Two or three years ago farm land used to sell for $1,000 or $1,200 an acre, but last week a young farmer told me he had just bought a farm which cost him $3,500 an acre. In other words, the price of farms is inflated. And since 1973, the number of long-term farm loans has increased by almost 20 per cent each year and it is expected in some quarters that it could double between 1978 and 1981 to reach $2 million. During the last year for which complete statistics are available, that is 198081, the Farm Credit Corporation has approved 4,680 loans for a total of $508.8 million and the regional distribution of those funds for 1980-81 is as follows: British Columbia, 175 loans, $21 million; Alberta, 640 loans, $71 million; Saskatchewan, 1,346 loans, $128 million; Manitoba, 470 loans, $47 million; Ontario, 1,084 loans, $138 million; Quebec, 742 loans, $81 million, the Atlantic provinces, 229 loans for a total of $20 million and in all, $508,885,200 representing 4,686 loans.
What is amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that most of the approved loans were granted to persons under 35 years of age. Their share remained relatively constant around 70 per cent over the last three years. We often hear opposition members say that young people cannot afford to take up farming. Yet, 70 per cent of the funds I mentioned a while ago were paid to young farmers of under 35, and God knows, Mr. Speaker, that in
the province of Quebec it is the young people who are going back to the farm. Once again, I feel the Farm Credit Corporation has done more than its share in helping to finance over the long term those young farmers who want to settle on the land. Three per cent of the loans approved were granted under the young farmers' loan program, or the one that allows the borrowers to keep a job outside the farm.
This program, which has been changed by means of the regulations of the Farm Credit Corporation these last few years, enables a young farmer to get a loan and settle down on a farm while keeping his job for a period of three to five years. We still often see, at least in Quebec, young farmers and their wives who keep an outside job while they own a farm and who slowly increase their herds and equip their farm so that they can leave their outside job after three to five years and devote all their time to farming.
About 27.9 per cent of the loans approved last year were used to purchase additional land compared with 29.8 per cent during the previous year. The loans granted for other purposes may be listed under the following categories: new units, 24.4 per cent; permanent improvements, 16.5 per cent; mortgage debts, 12.3 per cent; other debts, 12 per cent; equipment, 2.3 per cent; livestock 2.2 per cent; and miscellaneous, 2.4 per cent.
The repayment record of farmers has remained good in 1980-81. Out of $75.2 million due last year, 89.4 per cent had been repaid, and the farmers have also repaid $52.2 million on the principal not yet due. Moreover, during the year, 91.9 per cent of the $279.1 million in due interest was paid. At the end of the last fiscal year, 93 per cent of all FCC active accounts were in order compared with 93.2 per cent the previous year and 90 per cent in 1979-80. That just shows, Mr. Speaker, that there are certainly problems, as we have heard from the other side, but I think that what our friends opposite would have the Canadian people believe are horror stories. They use every means at their disposal to exaggerate the crisis in agriculture. I was looking at the figures quite recently, and if I recall correctly, under 200 farmers went bankrupt in Canada last year.
If one compares this figure with the number of small and medium-sized businesses that have and have had difficulties, one can see that the Canadian farmer, like any Canadian citizen, is a good manager. He manages his farm with his family, and what he needs is of course credit, but also assistance to market his product and assistance to get through difficult or disastrous periods. And I believe that the Department of Agriculture provided some $112 million to hog producers last spring under its stabilization program.
Real losses on loans have increased-I hope our friends opposite are listening-real losses on loans have increased by $1.5 million, which represents .04 per cent of the Farm Credit
November 2, 1981

Corporation's envelope. During the first six months of the current fiscal year, the Farm Credit Corporation approved 3,500 loans for a total of nearly $360 million, and according to our projections the total budget for the year will be close to $460 million. Only approximate figures can be given, since a large part of the total budget of the Farm Credit Corporation is made up of repayments or advance payments made by borrowers.
Mr. Speaker, so far this year, loans have been used mainly to purchase additional land, with purchases of new farm units coming a close second. However, the number of loans granted to consolidate debts has increased considerably because of the difficult situation brought about by high interest rates, which rose from 24.8 per cent on March 31, 1980 to 27.1 per cent on September 30, 1981. However, Mr. Speaker, we still see Canadian farmers who are consolidating their units and buying additional land and farms. We see this every day in every province, and in any case in Quebec, farmers buy land from one, two or three neighbours to considerably expand the size of their farms. While the number of farmers is decreasing, actual farm acreage is stable or rising, and each year shows a sizeable increase.
The Farm Credit Corporation knows for a fact that credit productivity is directly related to the managerial ability of the borrower, and that effective farm management has become tremendously important during the last two years because of fluctuating interest rates. However, the work of the Corporation and the Department of Agriculture goes even further, since last spring and last summer, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture helped Canfarm to get back on its feet so that Canadian farmers could continue to benefit from the bookkeeping assistance provided by Canfarm, to improve management of their farm operations.
The Corporation makes available upon request advisory services on a voluntary basis to all its current and former borrowers. The purpose of these services is to dispense advice in the areas of organization, planning and administration to help family farms reach their economic and personal goals. As of March 31, 1981, some 2,742 borrowers were availing themselves of these services and others will probably do likewise. There is also the Farm Syndicates Credit Act. Its purpose is to provide financial assistance to farmers who want to join forces to fight against rising costs which individual farmers have to meet when they seek to purchase farm appliances, buildings and stationary equipment, through loans which may be granted to groups of three farmers or more up to a maximum of $100,000 or $15,000 per qualified farmer, whichever is the smaller.
For the year 1980-81, Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation has granted to the above mentioned people 169 loans for a total of $4.8 million. Up to this year, we have witnessed a marked increase in the demand for loans of this type, and one
Agriculture
of the reasons appears to be the rising costs of specialized equipment over the past few years.
Concerning the point raised by opposition members about farm failures, I would like to say a few words and give reasonably accurate figures. From 1979 to 1980, the number of farm bankruptcies across Canada increased from 124 to 220. According to the figures for the second quarter of 1981, there has been to date 191 farm bankruptcies, a 16.5 per cent increase over last year. In 1979-80, 32 farmers who had borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation went bankrupt, compared with 56 in 1980-81. And as of September 30, 1981, 41 borrowers from the Farm Credit Corporation have gone bankrupt. Those figures, Mr. Speaker, are for all of Canada, for all provinces. We have no hesitation in recognizing the seriousness of the situation, and of course official bankruptcies are only part of the total failures in the farming community. There are others. You must not forget, however, that the latter represent only a small proportion of the total farm population, because a good many farmers, even if they are faced with high interest rates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, initially I want to say that the opposition motion before us today is timely and appropriate. It provides all of us who are actively involved in agriculture with an opportunity to comment frankly and honestly on the state of each of our special interests in agriculture. This is what I propose to do. The motion pinpoints the issues which dominate every sector of the Canadian agricultural economy today-the devastation of high interest rates, the increasing cost of production, and generally increasing inflation.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), a former minister of agriculture, is presently serving as a member of an Ontario provincial task force on agriculture. I visited with him last week concerning the public meetings which he helped to conduct. Recently he commented that the hearings throughout Ontario are very revealing in terms of what is troubling Ontario farmers. They reveal that the interrelated issues of interest rates, increasing production costs, inadequate market prices and ongoing inflation are first and foremost. Heading the list of commodity groups in real trouble are beef cattle and hogs. The Ontario agricultural task force has struck a sounding board for all Canadian agriculture, especially the cattle industry.
This afternoon I intend to discuss my special responsibility-and I am sure some hon. members will say that it is my labour of love-Canada's beef cattle industry. First I should like to make some background comments on the total cattle

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
industry. Many of my comments apply to the United States beef cattle industry as well.
There are two beef cattle sectors which are in serious trouble today and were over most of 1980 as well. They are the cow-calf, grass yearling producers in western Canada and cattle feeders in Ontario and the west, especially cattle feeders in Alberta. The concerns of cattle producers are: the aftermath of the western drought which took place in 1977, 1980, and the first part of 1981; interest rates; increasing cost of production; worsening inflation; and live fat cattle imports for the first half of the year from the United States of America.
Our cattle feeders are probably more acutely aware of the interest rate disaster and feed grain costs-and I mean by that barley in the west and corn in Ontario-in addition to the other factors I mentioned for producers. Fed cattle prices have been at or below-and I would say mostly below-the cost of production throughout most of 1980 and all of 1981 to date. This is not because of the overproduction of domestic live cattle and beef which we experienced in 1975, 1976 and throughout most of 1977.
The current situation is different. Canadian beef cattle numbers and supplies have been at the bottom of their respective cycles for the last four years. This is where it differs from the other years I have mentioned. There has been no genuine incentive to expand breeding herds in the face of the short and long-term realities I have already mentioned. There is not an oversupply of beef in Canada today. However, throughout 1980 and 1981 to date there have been record supplies of meat, that is, beef, pork and poultry. This is true in both Canada and the United States. Our meat prices reflect this situation.
During the spring of 1980 most hon. members will remember that hog prices were less than half cattle and beef prices at both the farm gate and in retail stores. Consumers reacted quickly and predictably by backing away from the most expensive food today, beef, and settled for the cheaper meat supplies of pork and poultry. The result was that cattle prices and consumption declined rather rapidly, pork and poultry prices and consumption increased quite dramatically. All three commodity price levels are now much more closely grouped. We have not experienced this situation for many years. It will likely continue under the intense inflationary pressures and fierce competition for the consumer food dollar of which we are all so conscious today.
I should like to refer to the current situation. In retrospect it is easy to say that Canadian cattle feeders paid too much for their yearlings, and especially for their calves in the fall of 1980. This is true both in southern Alberta and in Ontario. Today, approximately a year later, Alberta and Ontario feeders have two alternatives. They can buy at lower prices, perhaps substantially lower than last year, or they can suspend feeding over the coming winter. I am sure feeders in the west and in Ontario are seriously considering these options, even as late as it is this season. Some Alberta feeders may very well do this, but Ontario feeders may not be able to do so. In spite of recent severe losses, cattle feeders may have difficulty justifying lower bid prices for feeder calves in the face of the anticipated all-time high record production of barley in Alberta and corn in Ontario and the consequential expected lower feed grain prices.
Grass and hay supplies across southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan are excellent. The grass is the best I have seen since 1953; it is even better than it was in that good year. These conditions are a wonderful and welcome turnaround from last spring when there was a severe drought right at our doorstep. These conditions may encourage cattlemen to hold their yearlings, especially their calves, until late November, hoping for a higher price, or even into January and February of next year before selling them. As recently as a month ago I predicted lower feeder cattle prices in the early fall, strengthening in late November and December, and holding firm into the first quarter of 1982. After about two weeks of the larger calf sales in Alberta and in southwestern Saskatchewan, we now know that calf prices are significantly lower than a year ago.
I want to give some examples of actual calf sales over the last two weeks. Good steer calves in southeastern Alberta and in southwestern Saskatchewan, weighing approximately 450 to 500 pounds-and these are in large lots-are selling from $71 per hundredweight to a top of $74, with comparable quality heifers selling at approximately $12 per hundredweight lower. In the Fort Macleod area of southwestern Alberta their earlier prices were somewhat stronger, perhaps $2 stronger but with the same wide spread to heifer calves. The indications today are that they have pretty well settled down to that same level and the same wide spread is applied to heifer calves.
Ontario calf buyers are obviously remembering last year's extravagance and are bidding much lower and buying considerably fewer calves at this date. It is quite possible that the late Ontario corn harvest, due to extremely wet corn fields, could be at least a partial explanation of what I would call their careful and guarded buying pattern for western calves. The major explanation must surely be, however, that Ontario calf buyers are aware that the interest on a $350 calf-and that is the present cost that I just mentioned-at 20 per cent comes to $70. That amount has to cover their cost for the 12-month period which is needed to winter and grow out a calf and fatten it to slaughter weight approximately one year from now. At this date, early November, western calf sellers are acutely aware that calves are selling for about $100 per head lower than a year ago, yet their production costs are considerably higher.
I should like to say a few words now about beef imports and GATT, Mr. Speaker. Live fat cattle imports from the U.S.A. to Ontario for the first half of this year prevented any hope of a fed cattle price recovery this year. It was last summer's 80-cent Canadian dollar that finally halted these imports, but recently they have resumed although at a more modest level. At the moment the average is about 929 head per week, over the last seven weeks. For a number of weeks last spring the
November 2, 1981

average was from 5,000 to 7,000 head per week. I am speaking of live fat cattle coming in from the United States. That killed our fed cattle market at that time. Not only did it depress the market in Ontario but it had an impact on every market in Canada.
The minister's meat import legislation, or Bill C-46, is still in committee and the last witness will be heard tomorrow. The real usefulness of this proposed legislation has been significantly limited, however, by the last Tokyo Round of the GATT negotiations. Our Canadian negotiators were clearly outmanoeuvred when they agreed to a guaranteed minimum access level of imports which was arrived at by using Canadian cattle population figures at their all-time high level, that is, at the top of our cattle cycle. In addition, we agreed to a human population growth factor that no other GATT trading partner was asked to accept, certainly not the United States.
Canadian cattle producers are very concerned about the implications of the GATT limitations because they destroy any real indication of a long-term incentive to increase our beef cattle breeding herd numbers. We have been sitting at the bottom of the cycle for four years, and given the implications of low markets and high interest rates, I would say we will sit there for another two years. This is causing some producers to think of getting out of the cattle industry altogether.
I am not impressed with the recent Senate report on alternatives for a Canadian beef cattle marketing system. At best, it is a hurry-up assessment by a confirmed supply management author, Max Roytenberg, that completely ignores the real challenge to governments and to our cattle industry. This challenge must surely be to find a way to allow our present free market to function without the risk of loss of access to the American cattle and beef market. That is the challenge that should have been addressed, not that of selling supply management to the Canadian beef cattle industry.
I have tried to give the House a factual and sincere appraisal of our beef cattle industry today. I do not exaggerate when I say that some producers and feeders have already given up and others are in a critical and urgent position, bordering on desperation. The minister is well aware of this situation-I know he is-so I say to him now that out of this cattle crisis, and it is a crisis, surely some good could emerge. Agriculture Canada and the minister himself could regain some of the high profile, prestige and indeed leadership that has been noticeably absent over the last several years.
I should like to lay a short term, emergency program before the House and the minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister already has the necessary federal legislation to act now under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I urge him to begin immediately the necessary planning for a national cattle and beef harmonized stabilization program under the federal act with the following component parts.
First, it should involve three groups, the federal and provincial governments of the cattle-producing provinces and the cattle producers. It should be a three-way partnership approach. Second, there should be specific cost-sharing by the three groups. Ways must be found to allow cattle producers to
Agriculture
contribute their share, somewhat like the grain stabilization program, using numbers of cattle instead of acres and/or bushels. I am sure the minister knows what I mean.
Third and most important, the immediate objective should be a 1981 stabilization payout based on 95 per cent of the previous five-year average market price, with a cost of production increment calculated by quarterly averages. In his remarks this afternoon, the minister indicated that a 95 per cent payout would not be worth while. I am sure he knows that if it were claculated on a quarterly basis it would be a little better. If we have to move to 100 per cent, as the minister mentioned, that can be arrived at as well when we get the three component groups working together. Something must be done. The actual cost of this first payout should be shared equally between the federal and provincial governments. I feel certain that the needs of the cattle industry are such that the cattle provinces would move on this. I refer to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and, we hope, British Columbia, which has its own top-loaded program which may or may not allow it to move. If there is to be cost-sharing Saskatchewan would be glad to join,
I would quickly add that for political reasons the provinces cannot wait. Only two months are left to the end of this year and I am sure some provinces will be forced to plan a provincial subsidy to cover 1981.
It seems obvious that there is a need now to halt any further balkanization of our cattle industry. We have heard that term frequently and I think it is a good one. Balkanization is what has been happening. This program should have been started a year ago when there were signs that a national stabilization program was necessary. Let us not fail this time. This proposal is the best way to accomplish that objective.
Finally, and briefly, I would like to remind the minister of two other long-term policy proposals. The other one that I have been dwelling on rather pointedly is for the short-term, emergency situation, but two long-term policy proposals have been advanced by cattle producers and I am sure the minister is aware of them.
The first one is the income averaging trust suggestion which has been well documented by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. This would be an individual stabilization plan to allow tax-free income from the good years to be used in the lean years when they would be taxed. This is just a common sense approach. The plan would also allow for tax deferrals for investing long-term improvement of the cattle industry itself, and I suggest this be done on an individual basis. After all, it is a well accepted principle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 2, 1981
Agriculture


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their indulgence. As I was saying, this procedure that I have been talking about was allowed for oil and gas exploration and for Canadian-made movies. Why should it not apply to our cattle industry in its hour of need? I think this proposal should be looked at.
The second suggestion is patterned after a U.S. agricultural bond market which is designed to provide lower interest rates to farmers. Agriculture producer credit associations would issue bonds to raise money. Interest paid on such bonds would be several points below bank rates, but the bond investor is taxed at a much lower rate on the bond interest received. The producer credit association then lends money to farmers at 3 per cent to as much as 4 per cent below prime. Both of these long-term policy suggestions could help restore some confidence in our cattle industry, which today is almost non-existent.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the Farm Credit Corporation and how it helps to increase productivity in agriculture.
One of the current expressed desires of the government is to increase the levels of productivity of all sectors, and especially agriculture. With reference to the Farm Credit Corporation, its contribution to the productivity of agriculture can be itemized to show that through the FCC lending programs, the Government of Canada has made, and will continue to make, sound and wise investments in Canadian agriculture.
Canada has the resources and technology to produce food in excess of its needs. With a growing world population and the inability of many other countries to produce adequate food because of environmental conditions, social turmoil or inadequate resources, Canada can and will play an even more important role as a food exporting nation during the next few years when a worldwide food shortage crisis is being projected. However, in order to do that, Canada must maintain its present equilibrium in agriculture. Government policy has supported this equilibrium with programs such as those administered by the FCC, the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Agricultural Stabilization Board and crop insurance, all of which provide the stability within which the agricultural sector can function.
The Farm Credit Corporation has been an important component of this stabilizing force. With a total of over $3.3 billion outstanding on over 72,500 loans at fixed terms for up to 30 years, Canadian farmers have at least some of their credit insulated from the volatile interest rates which have been seen during the last 12 months or projected for the future.
From 1975 to 1979, productivity increases averaged 3.3 per cent per year in agriculture, and this is higher than in any other goods-producing industry. Data collected by the Farm Credit Corporation indicate that FCC loans for farm consolidation or expansion, farm improvement, purchase of capital items and debt restructuring have been an important factor in increasing farm productivity. Furthermore, by helping to solve
their financing problems, the FCC has ensured that an adequate number of people have remained in the agricultural sector even when other sectors were progressing rapidly and attracting more and more people.
Assuming that financial success is a good indication of an increase in productivity, we wish to submit the following considerations. Of approximately 2,000 farmers who were refused an FCC loan in 1980-1981 because they had sufficient resources to borrow funds from private institutions, 65 per cent were previous FCC borrowers who had made an evident success of their farm operation.
An analysis of FCC data indicates that FCC loans contribute to the productivity of a farm and to the increased welfare of farmers. In 1980-1981, gross farm incomes before the loan averaged $61,800 and after the loan they averaged $96,500.
In assessing loan applications, the FCC requires that the applicant submit realistic plans that indicate the farm unit under his farm management will generate an income sufficient to meet all obligations as well as provide a reasonable standard of living. FCC credit advisers are very often a positive factor in improving these plans and in ensuring that the farm unit will be viable and more productive after the loan is granted.
Suggestions have been made that the FCC should have conditions similar to those of the private sector. It is my understanding that a Crown corporation is intended to provide an important service to individuals whom the private sector is unable to serve properly and continuously, and in order to do this, a Crown corporation must maintain all of its specific advantages. I submit that the FCC should continue to offer lower interest rates, because of lower administration cost and lower profits, fixed interest rates, advisory services, special collection policy, etc. It is only fair that young and beginning farmers and average operators of family farms be provided with these advantages if this government is going to continue to support the family farm as the most efficient means of agricultural production in the country.
The primary objective of Farm Credit Corporation Canada is to provide long-term farm credit and advisory services in order to develop viable farm operations so that agriculture can provide farmers with a fair return on their capital investment, labour and skills and so that agriculture can make its greatest contribution to the Canadian economy.
The Farm Credit Corporation provides much more than loans to farmers. During the recent periods of bad weather, escalating interest rates and depressed periods of bad weather, escalating interest rates and depressed prices for some commodities, the minister suggested to the FCC that it give extra consideration to farmers facing financial difficulty and to assist them where possible. This was done, and many farms were permitted to continue regular operations instead of going through the crisis of a foreclosure, and thus the average productivity of agriculture has been maintained.
The FCC directs its credit to young and beginning farmers. In 1980-1981, 70 per cent of all FCC borrowers were under 35 years of age, and this trend will continue in the present fiscal
November 2, 1981

year. The FCC continues to be a very important factor in the smooth passage of a farm from one generation to the next and most of the time within the same family. This maintains the family farm as the main system of agricultural production in Canada, and such a system has been proven to be better than any other. Furthermore, by offering an efficient method of succession, the loss of productivity that we witness on farms that have to go through prolonged estate contention is eliminated.
For the last four years, the FCC has not required an appropriation from Parliament and, furthermore, it has contributed profits to increase the equity of Canada. Present projections indicate that the level of profit should increase progressively in the future.
These are some of the more tangible elements indicating the contribution of the Farm Credit Corporation to the productivity of Canadian agriculture. There are many intangible contributions. For example, the farm and financial management counselling by FCC credit advisers contributes to the successful investment plans of many farmers who visit FCC but are not given a loan. These credit advisers are highly respected by the farming community, bankers, provincial credit and agricultural extension people, as well as others. When the small farm development program was initiated, the FCC was asked to administer the program because of its competent network of staff distributed throughout all the agricultural communities in Canada.
The corporation hopes to be in a position to offer beginning farmers a loan program better adopted to their restricted cash flow during the start-up period. We would do this by reducing initial payments for a maximum period of three years and then reamortizing their debt over the remaining term of the loan. This program would be complemented by intensive advisory services in the area of agricultural financing.
The FCC will continue to examine on a case-to-case basis the situation of many young farmers who are currently in financial distress because of high interest rates, and we will offer assistance whenever a practical solution is possible. We hope that Canadian farmers will take maximum advantage of the services offered by the FCC. We are convinced that this will allow Canada to successfully face the challenges of the 1980s and enhance its excellent reputation in the world as a major agricultural power. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I rise with pleasure to speak on this motion, but I wonder how it could be a pleasure to speak on a motion such as this which relates to so many of our farmers who are in the plight they face today. We know there has been a dramatic increase in the percentage of farm bankruptcies, but few in relation to the actual number of farmers that exist. We have heard the figure of 1 per cent in this regard, but we know that is not a correct assessment of the situation. Perhaps the statistics indicate that, but there are some areas in Canada and in Ontario where the problems are greater. We do have regions
Agriculture
in the province of Ontario capable of growing various crops. It appears that our red meat industry is in much more difficulty than some segments of agriculture producing selected cash crops. Some of them have done extremely well this year. A great part of Ontario agriculture is made up of mixed farming, including beef, pork, poultry, dairy and other products.
The plight of the farmer who is losing his equity daily because of high interest rates being paid to the banks or feed companies never seems to be brought to the attention of this government. These farmers face the inability to raise credit and often have to get credit wherever they can find it, often from a feed company or a feed manufacturer. These farmers are paying as much as 30 per cent interest on their credit.
We are also aware of some farmers who are working under quota management supply system, yet are still facing severe problems. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is aware of the case of one individual I have in mind who has suffered various degrees of distress over the last two or three years. He had a fire in his operation not too long ago and a personal accident in his family. This has set his family back somewhat. He built new facilities, and during the past year he had to sell some of his milk quota in order to carry on. At the present time he is trying to find ways of keeping his family farm viable. His two sons are ready and willing to take over but cannot raise the necessary capital.
Many beef and cash crop farmers were in very good financial shape two, three or five years ago. As a result, they have borrowed more money over the years and now find themselves in the position of being unable to handle the interest rate. They have been borrowing on a floating interest rate which has turned out to be devastating.
I do not know when we developed this idea of having a floating interest rate. It looked good at one time, but we certainly can see its bad effects today. No major company would enter into long-term debt without selling debentures at a fixed rate. In this way the company knows what its costs will be for the term of the debt. I do not know why we find ourselves in the present situation with the floating interest rate policy. Perhaps this is a banking problem that comes under bank legislation, but the problem does exist and I do not know how to correct it.
Some banks have been more than willing over the past few years to make loans at fixed interest rates. Other banks have discouraged this or have actually refused. I know of instances in the last year when fixed interest rates loans were not available even for capital expenditures or the refinancing of mortgages on agricultural lands.
There are many feedlot producers in my part of Ontario who are at present facing a crisis. The minister is aware of some of these cases because he has visited that part of Ontario quite often. He knows what is happening there. Many of our feedlot operators and livestock producers are not going to be able to carry on. There are dozens and dozens of operators within 20 minutes of where I live who are not going to be financially able to put livestock back on their feedlots, or keep their hog barns full. This situation has a devastating effect in

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
the area and across the country. Many Ontario farmers have gone to areas such as Medicine Hat and other parts of the western provinces to purchase livestock, so these problems will have a flowback effect.
Most farms in our area are family farms. I think most farms in Canada are family farms. Most of them are unincorporated. Many of these farmers in the past have hired labour, but in the last 18 months this has changed. Farmers and agricultural producers cannot afford to hire labour. They would like to have more people working on the farms but this is just not economically possible.
Farming can be a good and rewarding life provided the operation is viable. In recent years we have often seen young children, the sons and daughters of farmers out driving the tractors and operating farm equipment. I think all hon. members know the cost of tractors and other farm equipment today. They are making use of those young people who really should not have that responsibility at their young age. I have seen young children, 11 or 12 years of age, as well as the wife working on the farm.
I believe farmers are doing their best to try to overcome this crisis. It is very discouraging for a farmer who works a full year, plants a crop in the spring, tends to his livestock in the barns and does everything right, but when he goes to market he finds he has less money at the end of that year. The result of that is that he has lost large amounts of equity in the operation which he has built up over a lifetime.
Agricultural producers have always had what they thought was inexpensive food. That is the producers' belief; consumers may hold a different view. It may seem like a lot of money to pay $15 for a roast, but if they were to drive up the street to a gas station to fill up with gas, it would cost anywhere from $25 to $35, depending on the car and where they are travelling to.
It seems we have an oversupply of pork and beef which is also creating a crisis. However, we also have cost increases in fertilizer, seed, pesticides, fuel and other input costs which hurt the producers' profitability. Although that may not be the real cause of the crisis, those costs are there and getting greater all the time.
Whenever a farmer has to buy a repair part or new machinery, the price has gone up another 10 per cent. This happens perhaps three or four times a year. New machinery today costs at least $20,000, and many pieces of equipment cost upward of $75,000 to $140,000. I do not believe that is the real cause of our crisis situation today, either. The crisis we are in results from the interest rates we are faced with today.
Farmers have control over some of the things they purchase but they do not have control of the interest rate they pay. If farmers are going to produce food for Canadians and citizens of other countries in this world, which they are capable of doing and wish to do, the high interest rate policy cannot continue. Farmers cannot continue to pay the high interest rates today.
Most farmers today have no choice but to borrow money. They have to borrow their operating capital on a floating loan, and if they are to stay in agriculture they have no choice but to take the money on the bank's terms. They have no other way of doing it. Quite often they cannot liquidate any of their debts because of floating interest rates.
Farmers would not have to borrow on a floating rate if the government would put an end to that policy. This amendment could be made to the bank legislation, and it should be discussed at a finance meeting as well.
The hon. member who spoke before me talked about farm credit loans made to a number of farmers to increase their land base and about the fact that farmers felt they had to take out these loans to stay competitive. I would suggest that most farmers in the area which I represent are refinancing or trying to refinance just to hang on to what they have. There are many farmers who cannot last. They have to buy their seed, fertilizer, and other items I have mentioned on short-term operating credit. This year the long-term financing through the Farm Credit Corporation has gone up to 16.75 per cent, and it is more elsewhere. In some cases there is no medium-term financing available. Even a Farm Credit loan at 14 per cent is not a workable situation for many of our farmers.
Most of our producers used to look at farm credit as a means of staying in production. I believe we have very devoted producers who are willing to take a lot less, and have taken a lot less, just to maintain their home and family operations. Even for those who, I believe, will be fortunate enough to get a loan at 16.75 per cent, it will be extremely difficult at today's prices to carry on their farming business. As a result, I think this year we are going to see another severe loss of equity after our crops are harvested. Corn is coming off in Ontario at approximately $2.85 a bushel. That certainly does not meet the cost of production.
Farm machinery dealerships will be in difficulty again. Farmers will not be able to purchase machinery, and if they do, they will not be able to pay for it. Farmers who are desperate to stay in business will do almost anything. They will obtain financing at the farm dealership or anywhere they can, and in some of these cases the dealerships will have to repossess the machinery. If dealerships go out of business, it will have a severe effect on manufacturers such as Massey-Fergu-son and White. I would like to see these companies stay viable as well.
The small-business men in the farming communities are also being hurt by high interest rates. Businessmen in small towns such as mine cannot keep the stock they used to have. They are feeling the severe effects as well because the farmer can no longer afford to use their services to make the small purchases or repairs on his farm equipment. He would rather try some other means of getting by in the meantime. The interest rate policy of this government is having a devastating effect not only on the farmer but also on our businessmen on the main street. It will eventually hit our cities just as hard.
The town of Goderich, for instance, with a population of 6,000 has a good industrial base. It has a harbour that can
November 2, 1981

load ocean-going vessels with salt and grain which comes in from Thunder Bay and other centres in western Ontario. The main square in Goderich has had 11 of its businesses close in the last 12 to 15 months.
The government has said that high interest rates are temporary. Farmers have tried to hang on, but interest rates have been too high for too long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that the businesses which are hurting most are beef producers, which have a free market. That is probably true, but if we had a free international market, our beef would probably be selling in Toyko or somewhere at $25 a pound. However, we do not have a free money market. As farmers we have no opportunity to borrow money except under the policies of this Liberal government. We have no choice but to borrow money under the present economic policy.
Another hon. member spoke briefly about the Farm Credit Corporation, its contribution to agriculture and how it has served. It probably has, but that was yesterday. This is today, we need changes to the Farm Credit Corporation and we need them now. We need them now because the corporation is outdated. It is like buying a tractor not equipped with hydraulics.
We know that Bill C-46, a bill to change the meat import law, is almost completed. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to deal with the current economic situation facing farmers in this country and to take this problem to the Standing Committee on Agriculture along with the Farm Credit Corporation legislation. These matters need immediate attention today because we are swiftly losing our farmers. Small bankruptcies usually produce large bankruptcies.
I would like hon. members to remember that agriculture serves us, consumers, at least three times a day.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak on this subject because it concerns the Farm Credit Corporation, of which a study has been made during the last four years. As you probably know, the government tabled a bill in the House in the spring of 1979, which would have brought about important changes in the Farm Credit Corporation's program. Since then, two elections have
Agriculture
held up the process considerably. Nevertheless, we shall soon be in a position to submit to the government the proposed amendments to the Farm Credit Act. Without wishing to anticipate on the discussions that are still going on, I would like to submit some of the general principles we are advocating.
Many of the proposed changes are aimed at improving the program's administration, but I wish to concentrate on one important change which will allow the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow money from the private sector. If Section 13 of the Farm Credit Act is amended, the Farm Credit Corporation, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, will be authorized to borrow part of its funds on the financial market. The Farm Credit Corporation would, however, continue to have access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Its capital would be increased to bring its loan capacity beyond its present level of $3.5 billion. As of March 31, 1981, the Corporation was considered to have borrowed some $3,300,000. If the total demand for long-term farm credit reaches $2 billion during the next two years, as projected, the Farm Credit Corporation will have to make frequent use of the Consolidated Revenue Fund if it is to meet its share of the demand. Once it is authorized to borrow part of its funds on the private market, the Farm Credit Corporation will be able to reduce its demands on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, while being better able to meet demand for long-term credit, notwithstanding annual fluctuations.
An adequate supply of credit must be available to farmers in order to provide for rational development of the farming community and for the transfer of farms from one generation to the next. With the food industry, agriculture is responsible for 14 per cent of the actual domestic product in the industrial sector.
Do you know that Canadian consumers spend more than $30 billion on food, and that this is only 18 per cent of their annual income? Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out the very considerable efficiency of the agricultural sector and its dynamic position at the world level. Comparing world figures, agriculture is one of Canada's most effective activity sectors. Young farmers who take over the family farm or who have to acquire more land to make their operations profitable must have access to long-term credit, in order to be able to compete with other potential buyers of land. The fact is that the cost of buying farmland is increasing from year to year. Figures from the Canada Farm Credit Corporation on land purchases show that the value of farmland has increased by 158.5 per cent between June 1972 and July 1978, and this trend is continuing. Farmers are obliged to invest more and more money in their operations. Farming is becoming more and more a matter of increased mechanization and economies of scale. Production costs have obliged farmers to spread over a longer period of time capital improvements, that should be done in the short term. Borrowing as an agent of Her Majesty, the Corporation

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
should have no trouble borrowing part of its funds on the financial market. The Export Development Corporation is already doing so very successfully. However, the Corporation might be forced to change the conditions under which it now lends to farmers.
To be able to attract the necessary capital investments from the private sector without changing substantially its rate of interest to farmers, the Corporation might have to offer shorter-term bonds. It now borrows for a term of 20 years, but the proposed changes could also force it to borrow for five and ten-year terms. This could force the Corporation to review periodically its interest rates to make the terms of its bonds coincide with those ot its loans to farmers. These loans from the private sector could lead to a slightly higher rate than that offered under the present formula. It could prove necessary to increase or lower periodically the mortgage rate of the Corporation. The interest rate, the terms and conditions of the loan will be set so as to cover lending and administration costs while allowing for sufficient funds in reserve as an insurance against losses. While the terms and conditions of the loans granted by the Corporation could then be less attractive than at the present time, I know for a fact that the agricultural community would support any government initiative to increase longterm credit supply at reasonable rates and to guarantee the future profitability of Canadian agriculture.
The proposed changes are the result of many letters which we have received from farmers, farm organization advisory committees to the Farm Credit Corporation, provincial agriculture departments and Members of Parliament. All of these recommended an increase in long-term credit available to farmers. The Farm Credit Corporation of Canada contributes to the stability and profitability of the family farm by allowing it to make the technological changes necessary to increase its efficiency. Figures from the Farm Credit Corporation prove that family farm operators have used credit to guarantee the success of their operations. For this to continue, they will need adequate long-term credit. I know what Canadian farmers have done in the past and what they can do in the future if they are provided with the tools they need. I know that they will continue to operate family farms successfully and to improve the efficiency of their operations.
I also know that the Farm Credit Act is a tool which will enable them to continue to produce high quality food products as efficiently as the farmers of any other country. I also know, Mr. Speaker, that if, as I have suggested before in committees, the Farm Credit Corporation were to treat Canadian farm producers on the same level as they do a business or an industry, the agricultural producer would perhaps behave increasingly better, and I would like to explain what I mean. I have suggested previously in committees that certain options should be opened to farm producers who want to reimburse their loans over a shorter period. Instead of taking 20 years to
repay a farm loan, a farmer should be allowed to pay it back ahead of time without his payments being considered as income up to a maximum of $5,000, which would mean that they would not be subject to the Income Tax Act. What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the Farm Credit Corporation could make many adjustments to put once and for all the farm producer on the same level as any businessman.
Mr. Speaker, although agriculture seems to be experiencing great hardships at present because of high interest rates, we must remember that government offers farmers many ways of protecting themselves in difficult situations, in cases of poor crops or lower than normal prices. For example, Mr. Speaker, let me mention the Crop Insurance Act. Many Canadians tend to forget that this is an extremely important tool for the farmer and 1 would like to quote briefly from it to show you that the producer can avail himself of the existing legislation to make his operation profitable. It reads:
Under the 1959 Crop Insurance Act, Canadian farmers can subscribe to an all-risk crop insurance scheme. This is a federal-provincial cost sharing program designed to stabilize farmers' income by minimizing the economic effect of crop losses due to environmental causes.
I would also like to read the part which deals with crop insurance. In 1979-80, a federal-provincial agreement which is still in effect was reached with each of the ten provinces. I quote:
Under the agreements reached with Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, each level of government shares 25 per cent of the total premiums and half of the administrative costs. With regard to the other provinces, the federal share is 50 per cent of total premiums with the provincial governments bearing all of the administrative costs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers everywhere pay only 50 per cent of crop insurance premiums. To show you the great importance and benefits of this crop insurance program for all Canadian producers, let me say that in 1979 alone the federal government's share amounted to $78 million. It is therefore up to farmers to take advantage of this program.
I would also like to mention the Agricultural Stabilization Board. The Board was set up to provide compensatory payments for crops where prices were lower than production costs, and I would like to point out some specific sectors of production. For instance, let us consider that support payments amounting to $48 million were paid to 29,475 producers in 1980-81. This figure does not include support payments made to the dairy industry. In that industry alone, $287 million had been paid to Canadian dairy producers as of March 31, 1981. And then we might mention the stabilization of pork prices in 1980 under which Canadian pork producers got roughly $100 million. Had it not been for that, Mr. Speaker, it can certainly be said that the great majority of pork producers in Canada would probably have been on the brink of bankruptcy. We have also taken steps in the potato growing sector, for it is fair to say that 3,780 Canadian potato growers were given $21 million in 1980, most of them in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
November 2, 1981

I could go on listing a number of programs through which the government brought immediate assistance to farmers who were financially strapped. I would invite those farmers to avail themselves of those programs which make them feel more secure and enable them to remain very effective and very productive. Farmers are facing serious difficulties because of the rising costs of interest rates. Of course, the Farm Credit Corporation does offer certain special advantages to those borrowers. The corporation mortgage loans feature a set interest rate for the full terms of the loans. The farmers who borrowed from the corporation in recent years are not forced to renew their mortgage loans at higher interest rates, so they are relatively secure from soaring interest rates. The Farm Credit Corporation's current 16% per cent interest rate compares very favourably with those of many other lending institutions whose rates stand at 20 per cent or more. The corporation has always maintained an efficient collection policy which is also flexible enough so it can make certain adjustments to help the borrowers who find themselves in a temporary bind.
That policy allows for a case by case assessment, an analysis of the situation of each borrower. Payments can be postponed for a certain length of time, then when the crisis is over, they are adjusted somewhat to enable the farmer to bring them into line with the original schedule. The interest rate that applies to the back payments is the same as on the original debt. In exceptionally difficult circumstances, where the new adjusted payment would be too high, back payments may be paid off at the same time as the balance of the loan and a new schedule set up. The interest rate under the new schedule remains the same that applied to the original loan when it was approved.
Refinancing debts is one of the objectives of the loans policy of the Farm Credit Corporation. It will refinance debts incurred with a view to buying what resources are needed to set up a profitable operation, but only if that improves considerably the financial structure of the operation and the owner's chances of making it profitable. Before lending to that end, the corporation will demand that the farmer consider selling some of the capital goods that are not necessary to the efficient operation of the business; it will make sure that the reorganization of the borrower's finances will produce sufficient revenue to guarantee reimbursement of the loan. Present conditions this year have forced the Farm Credit Corporation to give higher priority than usual to debt refinancing in those sectors where the crisis is more severe.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the Conservative motion on this opposition day. It notes the disastrous increase in farm bankruptcies. It may or may not be disastrous. It is certainly a lot higher than it was last year or the year before last. There were a lot of them in those two years, too. Of course, we still had the Conservative and Liberal governments in those years as well. It is fun listening to the
Agriculture
black cats name-calling the white cats and the white cats name-calling the black cats. Either way, the farmers lost.
I am an ordinary prairie-type alley cat, Mr. Speaker. For many years I have watched these purebred white cats and black cats standing up in Parliament and blaming one another for what each one of them has done.
Mr. Speaker, there have been substantial increases in farm bankruptcies. That is only the tip of the iceberg. The president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture tells us that for every farmer who goes into bankruptcy in a formal, legal way another ten quit farming one way or another.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that is the case right across the country. When you get to a situation where the interest payments on your land or on your machinery take the entire income from the crop you have produced, then surely you will not continue farming. We have farmers, whether they are grain, beef or hog producers or farmers in another sector of the agricultural economy, who have to use the income from most, if not all, of their current year's crop to pay the interest charges on their borrowings. Surely that is economic madness. However, it is a madness they are forced into with no other alternative.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been snorting and stomping his feet across the country for the past year and a half. I have seen him react in a similar way to a bull in the pasture. He has been snorting and stomping with regard to bank rip-offs and high interest rates. I believe that most times when he was snorting and stomping he was perfectly right. In fact, I shall use him as my witness. The financial institutions have been, in fact, ripping off the farmer.
My good Conservative friends who moved the motion-and I have seen them do it every year over the last fourteen years, except one year when they were in power-rave and rant about high interest rates. It took them only nine months to raise interest rates by 3 per cent for the farmers, the small-business men, the fishermen and the home owners. It took the Conservatives nine months to raise the interest rates by 3 per cent, and yet the Liberals are taking a year and a half to raise it another 6 per cent. They are running about equal, Mr. Speaker. Both parties have about the same track record-it is muddy. Both parties are hollering, snorting and stomping about the same issue. There is no difference between the black and the white cats or the black and the white horses.
Would either party-if it had the power to do so-direct the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks to have loan capital available at interest rates that are geared specifically to discriminate in favour of small farmers, small-business men, ordinary home owners and ordinary fishermen? Would they really do it?
Both parties have had their chance since 1867. Neither one of them has done it. The fact that any minister of agriculture would countenance an increase in the interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation means he has had to give in to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). He was told he had

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
two choices: it was either compulsory or he had to do it. That is the minister who says he will resign if something does not happen. Both those ministers follow the same tight money, high interest rate policy that is adhered to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), Mrs. Thatcher, and President Reagan. It is a litany of the so-called private enterprise syndrome. It has been particularly noticeable in the last three or four years. I have yet to understand it, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is difficult for someone with my background, who is just a dumb prairie boy. I am still waiting to find out. I wish the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture, the Conservative financial critic, and the mover of this motion would explain to me again, for the umpteenth time because I still do not understand, how raising interest rates can reduce the cost of production. I have not been able to figure it out. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was minister of finance and the present Minister of Finance both told us they would fight to reduce inflation by raising interest rates. Somehow or other it was supposed to reduce inflation, which would mean a reduction in the cost of production to farmers; somehow or other it would reduce the cost to consumers, somehow or other it would reduce the demand for higher wage increases, somehow or other it would provide an incentive for investors. It has provided an incentive for investors, but not investors in the farm economy, in the housing industry or in our productive capacity. It has provided an incentive for investors in everything from Canada Savings Bonds to term deposits and guaranteed investment certificates. Also it provided an incentive for investing in the United States. This is the only incentive which has been provided-"'twas ever thus, nothing changed."
Since coming to this place, I have listened to five or six ministers of finance. They all sounded like Herbert Hoover, R. B. Bennett or Mackenzie King. They have learned nothing in 45 years. They keep doing and redoing the same thing; they did not listen to history. They were condemned to repeat it. The problem is that they repeat it at the expense of farmers, home owners, small-business men and fishermen. High interest rates result in concentrated ownership of land. An across-the-board high interest rate policy does not distinguish between investment in productive capacity, such as farms and small businesses, and investments in swimming pools and fancy shopping centres. The federal government can and should reduce interest rates for home owners, small-business men, farmers and fishermen. They should be geared to their income. This will mean an imposition of selective foreign exchange controls. If Canadian Pacific, BrasCan or any other company has a few spare million dollars to invest south of the 49th parallel or anywhere else in the world, the national government should tell that company that we need that investment in Canada. They should be told to invest here, that they will get a reasonable return on their investment. They should be told that they have one of two choices-it is either compulsory or they have to do it. I am not interested in the person who retires, sells his little business, his farm or whatever. We must
have selective foreign exchange controls in place to carry out an interest rate policy which is geared to the operations and incomes of farmers, small-business men, fishermen and home owners.
There needs to be a moratorium on mortgage renewals for farmers as well as home owners. I recall a provincial premier who tried that in 1944-45. It was opposed in the courts by the then Liberal government and supported by the then Tory opposition. At the time it was indicated that it was an infringement on the right to control or own private property, that it was an infringement into private sector investment. But there was one province which indicated that there was no way to foreclose on the home quarters or the homestead. It was taken to the courts. All the bleeding-heart Tories and Grits cried about poor farmers, home owners, fishermen and small-business men. They are part and parcel of the assistance which was extended then and is being extended now.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If it is rubbish, I challenge the hon. member to rise and say on behalf of his party and his government that a fundamental change will be made in interest and monetary policies. We will see how long he lasts in his caucus. Since neither this government nor the previous one would take effective control over the monetary policy of the country, it is time for the ordinary citizen to rebel. It is time for the ordinary citizen to tell the banks to get off their fat assets. It is time for people to withdraw their savings from Canadian chartered banks. This would amount to $130 billion. They should withdraw their savings, pool their capital and put it in credit unions, with direct interest rates geared to incomes. Instead of credit unions being required by law to adhere to the monetary policies of chartered banks, financial institutions owned and controlled by ordinary people could dictate the interest rates.
The government's restraint policy has more in store for us. The Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Olson) has some news for us. It is not only interest rates and mortgage foreclosures. He has news in a cabinet document which eliminates clothing and textile subsidies. I hope the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) will take his financial lecture to the clothing and textile industry of his province. The minister of state in charge of economic development has even more news. He indicated that we should find ways to make the fishery a self-reliant industry and that federal contributions to the industry should be cost recoverable. This is news for the fishermen of Canada.
Let me turn now to the Department of Agriculture. It was indicated in a document that a review of income stabilization and compensation schemes is currently under way with a view to reducing subsidies. I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture knows about this. The document indicated that there is a cabinet committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Senator from Medicine Hat and, further, that ways must be found to stabilize producer income without spending tax money.
November 2, 1981


Eugene Whelan: Good idea.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish the Minister of Agriculture would rise on a point of order to indicate one way, let alone 100, to stabilize producer income without spending tax money-and without using up a portion of my time.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims to be a farmer from urban Regina. He knows full well that neither the provincial government nor I am putting a penny into the coffers of farmers through provincial marketing associations or boards or through the federal system, and they are making a darned good living.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister does not have a point of order. He appears to be entering into debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will take that one minute off my time. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture said that. I have listened to him expounding for many years around here. 1 give him credit for supporting orderly marketing and marketing boards. I wish he would get that message through to some of his colleagues who seem to carry more weight and muscle on that side of the House. When it comes to orderly producer-controlled marketing and marketing boards, the system indicates that agricultural producers shall get their cost of production plus their living, which is all I am requesting. I defy anyone to tell me the producer of any agricultural product can cover his cost of production and make his living under the so-called free and open market system. It has never happened and will never happen, Mr. Speaker. Only those who rely, either totally or mainly, on a marketing board process have been able to achieve some measure of economic stability or financial stability.
With all due respect to my colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), I want to tell him that I have listened to beef producers from all over Canada for the last 14 years. Most years they come here and ask us not to interfere, to leave them the free, open market system. But as soon as they are hurt, they are back here crying, with their hands out. They have to make up their minds, Mr. Speaker, and admit once and for all that the so-called free market system under which they operate out of Medicine Hat, Maple Creek, Regina, Swift Current or anywhere else, is based on prices set in Chicago and Montreal. The beef producer of western Canada has absolutely no say whatever in it. It is about time beef producers got rid of the delusion that somehow or other they have a say in the free and open market. It has never worked that way and it never will.
There is other news for us, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of State for Economic Development who sits in the other place and is supposed to be a prairie boy. The committee says that the termination of the Crow rate is the first priority of a new transportation policy. This committee of cabinet suggests- and I suppose this is the buy-off-that they should buy another 3,000 hopper cars, pay $500 million for a branch line
Agriculture
rehabilitation program and pay an annual subsidy of $500 million to $600 million. That would cost those dummies more than they are paying out now, Mr. Speaker.
The same cabinet document refers to "we". I presume that means the Minister of State for Economic Development, the Minister of Finance and the other five people on the committee. They conclude that it would be ideal if farmers paid the full price of transporting western grain. It is no wonder that farmers have no prospects, Mr. Speaker. At the moment they have high interest rates and mortgages that they will not live long enough to pay off. They have the prospect of what the cabinet committee proposes to hand to agriculture and to transportation generally right across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting to listen to the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Bejamin). It did not seem to me that he had any solutions but just the same old philosophical yarn that he has been spinning for a long time. Perhaps one of his deficiencies is that he has never lived on a farm and has no conception of how to run one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I worked on one.


Fred Alward McCain: He feels that the only answer to the requirement is a marketing board. Let us examine the conditions where there is one of the strongest marketing structures in agriculture in the country. That happens to be in the hands of the dairy farmers of Canada. I should like to refer to a couple of lines in a document which shows the support that this strong organization has received from the government. A copy of its submission arrived in my office on June 8 of this year. In part it said that the level of government expenditures on the program may be unjustified or excessive. They contended that they were justified and, moreover, were declining in real terms at a substantial rate.
This is an organization which is not being continually supported by the government. It entered into its agreement with the government in good faith only to find that the government's contribution was declining in real terms at a substantial rate. The document went on to say that industrial milk in Canada is being substantially overpriced. It questioned the inclusion of this document among the interdepartmental committee papers as being very odd. Not only are its conclusions unsupportable, it claimed, but they are not even reflected later on in the discussion papers.
So much for farm organizations and government fair play. I would say to the hon. member for Regina West that farm organizations are not dealing with a structure that understands how to treat them.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) on his speech. Tonight, as always, he proved himself the most knowledgeable and intelligent contributor to agricultural debate from your right, Mr. Speaker. He relied

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
upon his knowledge of farming to present his case to the minister. I wish he would do the same here.
As is his wont when I speak, the minister is now leaving the House.


David P. Smith: That is understandable.


Fred Alward McCain: Perhaps so, but it is rather offensive when it happens repeatedly.
There is another situation where a board of the Government of Canada, after extended hearings, has made recommendations to the minister. It is a report on public hearings carried out by the National Farm Products Marketing Council. It recommends that a board should be established with a board of directors comprised of two producer representatives from each province and two members representing other sectors of the industry and consumers, all members to be appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
It is at this point that I quarrel with that recommendation very vigorously. If we are to have a board to govern the affairs of the potato industry, it should most certainly be made up of members elected by those who will be dealing with their own fate. Those people should not be selected by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture. I believe that to be totally unacceptable and unworkable.
I should like to discuss this proposed board for a few moments, Mr. Speaker. In the provinces of eastern Canada, marketing structures are already in place which influence the marketing of potatoes. We find that when one agency or one province tries to arrive at a price, other provinces will undercut it. I am sorry that the minister is not present because I would implore him to consider what happened in exactly these circumstances in the fall of this year and see if he can determine how a marketing board can work under this structure.
I challenge the hon. member for Regina West on this as well. He has suggested that every farmer in Canada should be part of a rigid marketing board structure.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not say that.


Fred Alward McCain: I challenge the hon. member or any other who says that-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I didn't say that.


Fred Alward McCain: -to come up with a plan under which the Government of Canada, unequivocally and with a long-term contractual agreement, can arrange to dispose of a variable crop to the benefit of the farmer as well as of the consumer. That is what is lacking in marketing boards in the fruit and vegetable industry. The constraint of marketing does not fit in with that structure.
Some interesting things are going on internationally and I should like to mention a couple of them tonight. In the state of Maine at the moment there is a movement to try to inhibit the shipment of potatoes from Canada to the United States. I
implore the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to take a long, hard look at the movement presently in place in the United States, particularly in the state of Maine. On an average, we have been the recipients of more potatoes in Canada than we have exported to the United States in the last ten years. In the last two crop years we have shipped more to the United States than we have received, but historically the United States has had the positive side of the interchange of potatoes between the two countries. We have a need for their potatoes, but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the United States too has a need for ours. Because for two years the balance has shifted in our favour, that is no excuse for the rigid barriers to trade which the state of Maine today is trying to establish against our products. This movement goes both ways, from coast to coast in Canada. It is imperative that government at the highest level, from the Minister of Agriculture to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, even to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), take a very serious part in the discussions which may lead to the inhibition of trade on an unfair basis. Potatoes moving from eastern Canada to the United States are of a higher quality on a grade basis than vice versa. On that basis I think we have been able to market without cutting prices and without damaging the market, yet the Americans wish to inhibit our shipments to them.
It is interesting to note that since the present Minister of Agriculture has been in office, he has always had to have a scapegoat. He has always had to have a crutch. He has always had to have something or someone to blame. It is never an acknowledged error on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. Today it may be the banks-perhaps we should not have any sympathy for the banks. Tomorrow, it may be the farmers who will overproduce. It may be the farmers of yesterday who were not organized and could not market. But we have always heard an excuse. There has always been something which has allowed the minister to get off the hook.
He is beginning to be recognized as the one in need of a crutch as he faces the public. What the Whelan crutch will be tomorrow has yet to be determined, but there will be one. Farmers had high expectations that there would be prosperity. Because a few prosper, and there are not that many, that is the excuse for everybody else to prosper and they should not have the minister's sympathy. It is rather unfortunate that those who need price stabilization payments have to depend upon a formula which is outmoded and inadequate. At this point a little history and a little explanation is required.
Not too long ago I spoke to an official in the minister's department. In trying to explain the cost of potato production in Atlantic Canada-and again I am sure the hon. member for Chicoutimi will agree with me-for seed or processing, say in the month of April in the year following planting, interest costs exceed the total costs of production for the same acre of potatoes ten years ago. That is how much the cost of potato production has increased. The executive member of the minister's staff stated that farmers do not borrow all the money they
November 2, 1981

use. Farmers have working capital and they keep it alive. I do not think any man in business-and farming is business today, not all that small-should be expected to arrive at a cost which does not reflect the value of the money, whether it is his money or borrowed money. If he has been smart enough that it is his money, then he should get the credit for it. If he is young enough and poor enough, as many farmers are, and it is borrowed money, then it must be taken into consideration. When interest as a cost of production is not fully considered in any price stabilization payment, a farmer is shortchanged. He cannot be anything other than shortchanged.
The formula may recommend that you take 90 per cent of the five-year average. That is what you are going to get. But in the potato industry, or any other agriculture crop, whether on the hoof or on the ground, when you look for the five-year average return or cost, you come up with a figure so far below the return you need today because of inflation that it just does not make sense to use the formula. The price stabilization payments being made today are being made on the basis of the advice given to the minister that the five-year average is what we should use.
It is imperative in price stabilization payments that we take a look at the discretionary powers in the act and that we recognize that, if a price stabilization payment is needed, the cost of the year in question is the basis for the arrival at 90 per cent or 95 per cent of their cost. I have never been one who recommended that price stabilization payments should generate a profit. I do recommend, however, that they should approach stop loss, and this is not being accomplished as the present act is being interpreted.
Farmers' operating costs are going up at a rate exceeding the increment in return in many sectors of the fruit and vegetable industry. I wonder what will happen to some of them this year.
With respect to advanced crop payments, I recommend that the minister should forthwith bring in an amendment to the act, if it is not already included in the budget, which would bring the limit from $15,000 up to $30,000. Perhaps the $15,000 was an excellent figure when the bill was introduced, but it is no longer in tune with the realities of the cost of production today. It is better than nothing, but it is not what it should be.
I also recommend to the minister, having reviewed the price stabilization formula and given it careful consideration, that we take a look at the Small Business Development Bond borrowing opportunity for farmers. This instrument of borrowing has been available only as a last resort in too many instances. It has been available only to small business as a last resort. If one bank has turned a business down, then the next bank does not want to accept that business under any circumstances, even though the SBDB is guaranteed by the government. For that reason we have to allow not only the incorporated farmer to approach government and banks for a Small Business Development Bond but also ensure that the unincorporated farmer have the same privilege. This would make a major reduction in the cost of production of many agricultural
Agriculture
products from beef, to fruit to vegetables, to grains, in fact, the whole ball of wax as far as agriculture is concerned.
I think that is imperative if we are to keep the cost of production and the cost of food down in any way. As I pointed out last spring, it would be an instrument which would make Canada much more competitive with many of the cattle feed lots in the United States, for instance. Feed lot operators in the U.S. are able to tap emergency funds that have been in escrow for many years. They are using these funds to obtain interest rates at one half of the rates our feed lot operators are paying today.
I think agriculture in Canada has been neglected by the minister. There should have been some bridge financing. This should have been on an SBDB basis. Surely the agricultrual industry should be permitted to borrow from the lenders of this land today as big business can borrow. Surely the farmers are entitled to the same privilege.
Historically, the Farm Credit Corporation has given farmers low rates of interest, but the SBDB does not have any money to lend. It is, therefore, at a point in time where it is no longer useful to the hard-pressed farmer on a second mortgage basis or on a first mortgage basis. It does not make any difference. It is high time this was reconsidered, and reconsidered in a major way.
In conversation with maritime farmers I find that one of their beefs over a decade has been that the feed freight assistance program is not serving its purpose. Freight rates have gone up much faster than feed freight assistance. As a result, the competitive position in the production of poultry and meats in Atlantic Canada has deteriorated. The intention of the plan was that it should be possible to produce eggs, poultry and meats in Atlantic Canada at a competitive price, not with an advantage, with those products that are produced in other parts of Canada. That was its historic intent and I do not think the minister will disagree with that. It has slipped from that position. I plead with the minister to take a look at it.
There is an alternative I have been pleading for ten years in this regard. Let us take advantage of European technology. Let us bring in some of those varieties of grain and use them on a much more extensive basis. Let us increase research programs in eastern Canada. Why does the minister not give to the eastern grain producer one half of the present freight assistance that is extended in respect of western grains? This would encourage the production of grain in the east. Why do we not breed varieties of our own, or introduce foreign varieties which will give us viable yields? Some of those varieties with viable yields have been brought in from Europe by various means with which the minister is familiar, and they have certainly produced viable crops in areas where grain is needed.
In summary I guess I would have to say that the agricultural community needs a stable program under the Department of Agriculture. It needs the historic assurance that if and when a

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
sector of agriculture is not prospering, but is suffering serious losses as many of them are today, the price stabilization board will in fact be a stop-loss. I say to the minister that so long as this is settled by a committee of cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and so long as the Minister of Agriculture is in a secondary position, this subject matter is not going to receive the consideration which is necessary for perhaps Canada's biggest local consumer, its biggest food supplier and the one with biggest impact upon the cost of food in this land. Stability can be introduced by a sincere governement, and with an influential minister we do not need to be in the doldrums or in the position of uncertainty which we have experienced in the last ten years.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree with the comments of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) or the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) about the hard-working, conscientious Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his ongoing efforts on behalf of the producers who find themselves in a bind in dealing with the banking institutions in Canada.
Only today I received a request for help from a grain elevator operator who has been facing receivership, not because of a lack of equity, but because of a lack of ready cash. He has been placed in receivership during the peak of the corn harvest because he missed one monthly payment on his mortgage. Another example is a farmer in my area who called me for help today. He revealed that he is being charged 30 per cent interest by one of the banks because he is behind in his payments. I wish to advise members of the House that under the authority of the Bank Act the inspector-general of banks has, as one of his obligations, the duty to act as an ombudsman to examine such abuses and disputes between the lender and the borrower. Believe me, he is available and he is effective in cases such as this.
Perhaps the current problems confronting some sectors of our agricultural economy today, particularly in eastern Canada, are the result of the bumper crops we have had throughout western Canada, most parts of central Canada and in the maritimes. These bumper crops have brought about lower prices. These lower prices have been caused in part by a supposed surplus during the peak of harvest, but also as a result of dropping currency values in other countries. For example, the currency values in England are down 21 per cent compared to the Canadian dollar this year, in France by 20 per cent, and in Germany by 18 per cent. When the currency values of these countries drop, naturally the grain marketers price the product accordingly, and the farmer ends up taking the loss.
We also have higher input costs due to increased energy prices and interest rates. Again we cannot discount the fact that decisions made in other parts of the world have a dramatic effect on our price structures here in Canada, particularly for those commodities which do not come under a marketing
organization or an authority to set prices according to cost of production with a reasonable return to the producer.
As a matter of fact, Alvin Toffler, author of the "Third Wave," points out that no longer can we expect in this country, or in any nation, to isolate ourselves completely from policy decisions made in other countries, because we are serving a global market, not just a domestic market.
It is interesting to note the stability of those products under our national farm products marketing program, or legislation in that area. Those products which are subject to the cost of a production formula do not suffer the same hardship as those produced in a free enterprise price system. I am speaking in this case of poultry meats, eggs and milk. Let me state to those opponents of these plans who suggest there is a high quota value built into the cost of production formula that there is no quota value at the national level. If there is a quota value involved, it is at the provincial level, under the provincial area of jurisdiction. Consequently those values are not included in cost of production formulas and, therefore, are not added costs to the consumer. Rather, those products are operating in a system of planned production, production planned for both domestic and export markets, at a reasonable price for both the producer and the consumer.
Perhaps I should refer to a study done in 1979 by Mr. A. Cayer comparing the price of eggs in Canada and in the United States at both the producer and the consumer level. The Canadian producer was receiving more than his American farm counterpart but the Canadian consumer was paying less. The consumer in Toronto, for example, was paying less than the housewife in New York. Our producers had a narrower margin between the farm gate price and the consumer price, to the benefit of society.
By contrast, producers such as beef producers have no countervailing force in the marketplace. Consequently, we see here in Canada very few but large supermarket chains, but when they decide to increase the margin of profit-that margin between the farm gate price and the selling price-the producer suffers. I submit to you that the current price war taking place among the supermarkets in Ontario at the present time will reflect dramatically lower profits or incomes to beef producers in Ontario. As a matter of fact, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the only products on which they will not lower their price are those they have to import from other countries, and the consumer will be paying for those products through the nose. In fact, one very large buyer of beef cattle withdrew from the marketplace on two afternoons last week and broke that price structure in the so-called free enterprise system by approximately $6 per hundredweight. I suggest that this is just a start of the drop on the price of fat cattle across Canada which will be an added burden on the beef producers of Canada.
I am a beef producer and an egg producer. I know the hardships, and if I had to make a choice between which product I would delete from my operation, it would have to be
November 2, 1981

the beef operation until such time as some order can be brought to the marketplace.
I submit that there is a desperate need in the marketplace for a countervailing force on behalf of the producers to deal with these very large and complex retailing chains that are creating havoc in the industry.
I would ask those who disagree to explain the price spread between the producer and consumer for A-l and A-2 steers in Toronto of 45 cents per pound on a dressed basis in 1977 and $1.18 a pound in 1980. That is an increased price spread of 271 per cent. It is no wonder that the beef industry is sick. The producer prices did not increase by that much. It is not hard to see where these profits are going. By comparison, price spreads in the egg industry in that same period, between the producer and the consumer, increased by 25 per cent.
Although there is much discussion in this House about agriculture, it is also a provincial responsibility. It is interesting to note that in five out of ten provinces, the provincial budgetary expenditures are greater than the federal government expenditures. In eight of the ten provinces, certain classes of producer receive interest rate subsidies. I must admit as an Ontario farmer that I am getting an inferiority complex because, as the slogan says, "We stand alone."
I will now quote from a brief submitted on October 5 to the Federation of Agriculture Task Force by the Lambton County Federation of Agriculture. I am sure you will agree that we in Ontario have some serious problems. The brief says:
In Ontario it seems unrealistic to operate a farm for a period of years and walk away from a failing endeavour, sometimes with nothing. This is happening, however, and even though those who are leaving agriculture seem to be small in numbers, they are in fact many of the young farmers that will be needed in future years. A young farmer who is 37 years old who has been farming since the age of 25 and is forced into leaving the farm has much more to lose than just money. These individuals have given the best years of their lives to a failing industry and country. How can anyone put a dollar value on those years? The way in which lending institutions and individuals, both professional and federal, are treating the issues that face agriculture would seem to indicate the years of hard work are without value. This is not just an over-simplification of a problem but in fact is the reality of the situation for many young area farmers. The banking institutions must share the larger responsibility for the present day crisis in agriculture.
As recently as 1980 banks encouraged many farmers to expand their operations, to buy more machinery and of course to borrow more money. At the time interest was much lower and the cash flow projections that a farmer presented generally indicated that farm expectations were viable but in many instances might have been marginal. Often bankers and farmers hoped for high commodity prices that may have been unrealistic. Many bankers that were approached for the purpose of this study believed the commodity prices had to improve because costs of production were always getting higher and these increased costs surely must be a global phenomenon. For example, the world wide increase in fuel costs should be seen in commodity price increases. In the U.S.A. state and federal programs were established to help the failing agriculture industry. Machinery companies offered unusually low interest programs. The American farm cost increases were up not nearly as high as the Ontario farms. In the rest of Canada provincial governments seemed to anticipate the growing problems. Many provinces began interest subsidy programs to keep their province's agricultural businesses viable... To our disappointment Ontario has no current industry subsidy programs. If we remember the program last year, we realize that the subsidy offered was 3 per cent of total interest to a maximum of S3,000 rebate. The $3,000 figure was barely the tip of the iceberg that most farmers, particularly young and new farmers, had to face. That situation seemed rather peculiar to Ontario farmers. How is it that Ontario, one of the wealthiest provinces, and certainly one of the largest in population, is not and has riot provided a subsidy
Agriculture
that would protect its agricultural interests from the present inflationary spiral? The answer, I am afraid, may in fact be political.
The rural community is probably about 5 per cent of the population in Ontario and the consumer community which puts our politicians in power, is the balance of that population. Government cannot support a smaller sector of society at the price of losing both. The rural vote is really not that aim; at least this appears to be the case. Private business would certainly expect the same kind of subsidy. Interestingly enough, this has not been the case in other provinces, with a possible exception of Quebec. The solution in Ontario may not be as complicated as it seems. A high profile campaign aimed at educating the urban centres about agricultural productivity in Ontario and its importance to food production in Ontario would seem to be necessary. The public must be made to realize the fact that only through higher Ontario agricultural productivity can they be guaranteed a continued supply of high quality products at the supermarket.
The Lambton County Federation of Agriculture further recognizes that the criteria that lending institutions use to lend money must remain fairly static when considering farm operations. Farming operations do not lend themselves to fast changes in terms of their production. The banks should be forced to honour previous commitments and should change their policies to accommodate farmers facing financial difficulties. Lending institutions that have encouraged the development of farm operations along certain lines should be forced to continue to support these operations. The lenders themselves should be penalized along with the producers if there need be a penalty at all.
In most instances, banks have contributed to the decision-making of farm operations. Bankers have always been thought of as having a certain expertise in financial matters concerning the farm. In the past few years they have proven to the farmer that the chances of them making the correct decision are about as poor as the farmers'. This has resulted in an underlying feeling of resentment that the farmers seem to have for the lender. Bank managers only wish to ensure that the banks get what is coming to them. Farmers are experts in the job of farming and they see bank managers as being inexperienced or incapable of making proper decisions when it involves the operation of a farm. They are playing a dangerous guessing game trying to anticipate what the next move will have to be. This can obviously be seen in the Bank of Montreal's Small Business Development Bond for farmers. If the government does not approve the SBDB program for farmers then the results to marginal farm operations who receive the benefits of the bond will be disastrous and of course the banks will appear as if they really tried to push for the program but the government let them and the farmers down. The government will have appeared to be the villain in the case when actually the bank has only manipulated the situation to produce this result.
This quotation from the Lambton Federation of Agriculture is most interesting. They conclude by saying:
The task force must insist that the Ontario government be made responsible for the needs of the farmers' communities in Ontario.
I wish to compliment the Lambton Federation of Agriculture on this document and its conclusion.
In closing, I wish to say that the Minister of Agriculture has legislation at his disposal that would enable the producers of Canada to direct, plan and control their destiny, if and when the majority of producers in Canada or a region of Canada request it and its implementation. I am speaking of the legislation I referred to earlier, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, which allows producers, either through declaration by lieutenant governor in council or following plebiscites, or by other means, which could include a petition, to organize, to set their own prices, to market their own products or plan their production based on need, whether it is for domestic consumption or for export. I suggest to producers that this is one of the moves they will have to make if they are to have that countervailing force in the market to which I referred earlier. I suggest that we examine what is happening in the total context of where the problems are in agriculture at the present time. Certainly it is those who have at their disposal this legislation and who are currently using it who will weather the storm.

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
I would like to draw retail food prices as of October 15, 1981, to the attention of the House. Beef prices were down 4.6 cents, although live cattle prices in Toronto had remained unchanged for a few weeks. However, this was the start of the price war among supermarkets. Pork prices were up by one point, but retail pork prices, they say, are likely to come under downward pressure, as 100 index hog prices in Toronto fell by $5.15 per hundredweight during the first two weeks of October. They too are heading into difficulty. Poultry meat prices are up slightly, reflecting the termination of Thanksgiving specials on turkeys. The price of eggs is up by 0.1 per cent, and the index there is expected to remain steady during the next few weeks and several months ahead. Dairy product prices are up only 0.9 per cent, and they are expected to remain steady. The price of vegetables is up 4.2 per cent due to higher prices, again for imported fruits and vegetables.
In closing, I suggest to members of the opposition that the Minister of Agriculture has other legislation in the works. He would like to have it introduced to relieve pressures on the farmer. The best help we in Parliament can provide to the farmers of Canada is to allow the government to proceed with its workload, to pass Bill C-48, and to get on with other pressing legislation, which will relieve the pressures on the farmers of Canada and allow them the stable incomes they so richly deserve.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) should say we should get on with Bill C-48.1 would have thought he would realize that if we defeated Bill C-48, the Canadian dollar would show some real strength in the marketplace, interest rates would come down, and it would not be necessary for this government to continue to have a 5 per cent interest differential, as is presently the case, with the United States. It is this very program of the government which caused us to bring forward the motion we are debating tonight.
The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex did make some excellent suggestions. He said that the price spread on beef had changed dramatically. I would have thought he would make that suggestion to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). The minister has been in charge of that department off and on for a long period of time. Perhaps now that the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Toursim, he will investigate supermarket price spreads. Whether he knows it or not, the province of Ontario is not responsible for interest rates. That responsibility was clearly set out in 1867 as a responsibility of the Government of Canada. There is no point in the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, or any other member of this House, suggesting to the people in his riding that it is the province that should be responsible when we have interest rate problems. It is not a provincial matter, it is a federal matter and the hon. member knows it.


Ralph Ferguson: How about the other provinces? Co-operative federalism!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member refers to co-operative federalism. If we had co-operative federalism in this country, we would have nowhere near the economic problems, dislocation problems and disharmony we have.
One might wonder why a member from a riding with absolutely no farms in it-there is not a chance of a farm, although my constituency did have one at one time-should be speaking about an agricultural matter.


Ian Deans: Why not?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I agree with hon. members to my left. It is good that we do so because it is important that members from all parts of Canada speak about the interests of farmers. We all like to eat three square meals a day, and we all ought to understand that if we are to eat well, those who produce the food we eat must be able to make a dollar or two. There is no question that farm incomes have reduced dramatically this year and last year and that high interest rates are seriously hurting our farm community, particularly young people coming into the farming community to take over their fathers' farms or other farms. I refer to people such as a young Rover Scout of mine who decided, after working at construction for some period of time-he is a graduate from Guelph-that he ought to go into farming. He used all the money he could save, borrowed some money from his family and one thing and another, and went out and bought a farm. A farm and its equipment and cattle cannot be bought for less than $300,000 or $350,000. I do not know how many young men wishing to go into the business will be able, even scrounging at every source, to pick up more than $60,000 or $70,000. That means there is not a young man anywhere who can go into this business unless he is prepared to borrow a quarter of a million dollars. If such a young man were so prepared, he would be forced or induced to borrow at prime plus. That did not sound so bad in 1978. At that time prime was 8.25 per cent. Prime plus 1 per cent was 9.25 per cent. That was pretty reasonable. It was less than 10 per cent. However, prime plus 1 per cent today is 21 per cent, and prime plus 2 percent is 22 per cent. On a quarter of a million dollars, the difference is well in excess of $25,000. That is a lot of money. The difference is the possibility of paying back such a loan, the possibility of keeping a farm going, going bankrupt or not going bankrupt.
Earlier today in his speech, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that the banks are wrong, that they should not have lent money at prime plus and that they should have insisted on term loans. Hindsight tells us he is right, but everyone realized that prime plus was a fair way to go. After all, the prime rates in this country did not vary too much. They varied perhaps 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent, but not much more than that. For years and years prime rates in this country remained stagnant. I said that in 1977 the prime rate in September was 8.25 per cent. The rate a decade before was only 6 per cent. There was not much difference. However, what has happened is that this government has lost control of
November 2, 1981

things. It has no ability to manage, so it has allowed the prime rate to go up and up and up with the thought that this would control inflation. This policy does not control inflation. It destroys production and producers. When interest rates rise, people who cannot pass the increases on are put out of business. If they can pass the increases on, prices increase. The result is that prices go up in both cases. We had a situation in the past three or four years where prices have been continually rising. We have seen a bank policy that tried to control inflation by controlling interest rates. Interest rates have been raised presumably to reduce inflation. Now we have 12 or 13 per cent inflation and a 20 per cent prime rate.
We have been told that this will eventually reduce inflation. That is nonsense. It is a disaster. It is not only hurting us but tearing us apart, and is particularly disastrous in the farm community.
Farmers are the only people in our society who are expected to buy retail and sell wholesale. There is no way that a farmer can pass on the costs of his interest. A manufacturer might include that in his cost of production and pass it on in the wholesale price. A storekeeper might include the cost of carrying his inventory in his overhead and pass it on. However, how would a beef farmer or one inolved in a cow-calf operation do that? There is no way he can.
A calf bom in 1978 might have produced offspring this spring. However, it might not produce until next spring. It depends on how competent the farmer may be. How can a cow-calf operator pass on his interest rates when to produce an animal it takes probably 27 months from birth to the next birth? It is totally impossible.
What does this government which is responsible for interest rates do? The minister blames the banks. He says they are terrible fellows. I suppose they should not have lent money to the farmer. What does the minister propose? He has huffed and puffed around the country. We will see after November 12 whether there is something for the farmers, or perhaps he will huff and puff his way out of the cabinet and out of this House.
I wish to make three suggestions as to what the minister might include in his budget. In a sense these are only band-aid measures. Looking at the high interest rate policy of this government, it is essential that it be prepared at least to extend the concept of the Small Business Development Bond into farming. The government should at least be prepared to allow unincorporated farmers to use the bond system. I agree there is a benefit to the big lender. However, it gives the farmer money at perhaps prime plus one.
There should be three kinds of small business development loans. First, I suggest some kind of small business development long-term bond, for example, 20 years on a fixed term for the young person going into business, to be amortized. This would help him get into business. If we do not have new farmers, we are dead. The people in Peel talk about saving Peel-for farming. Unless there is someone to farm it, you can have all the agricultural land you want, but what good would that be?
Agriculture
You need someone to sit on the tractor. The old fellows are getting older. We need young farmers in the game. Therefore, they must be given a chance.
Second, we should have one-year Small Business Development Bonds for the farmer on a roll-over basis so that he can buy his feeder cattle in the fall or finance his grain crop in the spring and pay it off in the fall. He should be able to pay it off with interest that comes out of capital. He might find it better to borrow on a regular basis, but he should at least have that option. Third, I suggest the Small Business Development Bond on a fixed term of seven or ten years so that he can buy equipment, rather than bonds on a short term which the banks insist be amortized over five years. My colleague would like to speak further on this matter tonight.
[ Translation]


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to use the few moments allotted to me to state the facts as they are and point out the unquestionable efforts made by this government for many years to help the Canadian farming community. The federal government, mainly through the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, has been implementing a number of programs designed to improve the efficiency of the Canadian food and farming sector and to provide producers with fair revenues while of course providing Canadian consumers with a proper supply of first-rate products at reasonable prices.
One of the main programs to which I wish to refer comes under the Agricultural Stabilization Act which was amended in 1975. It is designed to provide a certain amount of balance between the price which producers can obtain for their products and the cost of goods and services which they must purchase. The legislation guarantees to the producers of nine commodities listed in the legislation an income which at least amounts to 90 per cent of the average market price during the five previous years and an adjustment to take into account various production costs. Under that legislation, Mr. Speaker, the costs and prices are determined annually for the nine commodities mentioned in the legislation which are of course, beef, pork, lamb, milk, industrial milk, corn, soya beans as well as oats and barley coming outside areas designated by the Canadian Wheat Board. Other products may also be designated for price support under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, at the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture if in his opinion market conditions warrant it.
The nine commodities for which a support price is mandatorily calculated every year include all the major animal and vegetable lines commercially produced in Canada. The main objective of the Agricultural Stabilization Act is to stabilize the income of farm producers against the market hazards. But it is also aimed at protecting the family-type operations and indeed at promoting this type of operation in the agricultural

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
sector. Moneys paid out to agricultural producers under the various federal stabilization programs are limited to a given volume of production per farmer or farm in the case of corporations. Thus, government aid is aimed at farmers who are directly dependent on the market for their income, and not at big corporations we all know in the food business.
As of March 31 of this year, the federal government had paid over $3.5 billion under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which included payments made by the Canadian Dairy Commission. These stabilization payments have helped put Canadian producers in a better competitive position on the market and promote the development of stable Canadian sector. There are several other federal programs aimed at providing a more reasonable return for Canadian farm producers by enabling them among other things to obtain better prices on the market while guaranteeing that market prices also take production costs into account.
Under the provisions of the Agricultrual Products Marketing Act, the National Farm Products Marketing Council monitors the activities of the national egg, turkey and chicken marketing agencies which were created under this act in 1972, 1975 and 1978 respectively. These agencies co-ordinate the activities of provincial boards as concerns supply and prices during the three previous years. Under these programs, Canadian egg, turkey and chicken producers get a return that is proportionate to their production costs, their work and their investments. Costs, such as prices of poultry feed and interest rates, are taken into consideration in the pricing formula for these products. While there is no guarantee that the prices will cover all production costs, prices have not fallen below cash production costs since the establishment of these agencies.
Other federal programs are designed to achieve the basic objective of the Canadian government's agricultural policy, which is to protect the Canadian agricultural food production sector and promote its development and efficiency. I am thinking about another extremely important piece of legislation for this sector concerning crop insurance. Under the Crop Insurance Act, the provinces receive certain amounts to provide a comprehensive insurance plan for farmers. While some of the elements of the plan may vary from province to province, the objectives at the national level remain the same, namely to stabilize the annual income of farmers and minimize income fluctuations resulting from a decrease in production due to unforeseeable natural causes. Crop insurance is offered to all farmers in the ten Canadian provinces and covers most major crops. In 1980-81, for instance, over 113,000 Canadian producers were insured for a coverage of over $2.3 billion. Farmers were eligible last year to compensation exceeding a quarter billion dollars or $254 million. The federal contribution to the crop insurance plan for 1980-81 is now just under $100 million.
The Advance Payments for Crops Act also helps Canadian producers to sustain larger inventories for a certain period of
time and to take advantage of better market conditions later in the season. The act has been in effect since 1977 and enables groups of storage crop producers to benefit from interest-free loans in order to pay advances or advance payments to their members. Thus, producers can pay production bills right after the harvest, as if they were selling their crops at that time. And consumers can buy fresh Canadian products over an extended marketing season. So far this year, the federal government has paid a total of some $3 million interest on amounts advanced to farmers.
Another program which has promoted marketing of Canadian farm products by helping producers financially is a federal financial assistance program for the construction of fruit and vegetable cold storage facilities. Under this program, groups of producers receive substantial financial assistance for the construction or renovation of storage facilities for fruits and vegetables. Many farm groups have benefited from this program which was started in 1973. So far, the government has spent more than $15 million towards completion of nearly 200 projects.
I could go on for quite some time if I wanted to enumerate all the federal programs and policies aimed at providing financial assistance to Canadian farmers and at helping them to become more efficient and to operate within the open economic system that is typical of the North American food market. Our farmers are efficient, and besides being able to compete with many imported products, they also are able to compete successfully on various foreign markets.
There is a whole array of measures in this session's legislative program that are designed to provide increased help to the Canadian agri-food industry. These are not novel measures and will surprise no one. A number of them are at the second reading stage, such as the measure to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act to allow the corporation to seek funds on the private financial markets in order to better meet the credit needs of Canadian farmers. Everyone knows also that there is a piece of legislation to establish the Agricultural Export Corporation, the so-called Canagrex.
In July last, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) published a discussion paper on an agri-food strategy, which refers to the growth potential in that sector over the next two decades, and identifies current constraints to growth. Canada could increase its food production by two thirds before the year 2000, doubling this year's current dollar value.
This document proposes a strategy based on market development, increased research and the strengthening of the supply base. The federal proposal has been very favourably accepted by the various parties in the agri-food industry and also by the Canadian provinces. The Minister of Agriculture and his officials met with most provincial ministers of agriculture, to discuss that strategy and priorities to be allocated to the various proposals in order to eliminate constraints to growth in the Canadian agri-food industry. Meetings have also been held
November 2, 1981

with a number of non-government agencies such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Food Processors Association, which also had very favourable comments for the strategy put forward by the Minister of Agriculture of Canada.
It is easy to suggest that this government has failed in implementing policies and programs designed to maintain a strong and fully developed agri-food industry. It is just as easy to prove, based on facts and figures, that the Canadian government has shown such undeniable leadership in agri-food policy as to put Canada among the four countries in the world that are net food exporters.
Besides, Canadian agricultural exports would not have the positive effects they are known to have had the government not played its role of assistance to this very important economic sector. Mr. Speaker, having had the privilege of serving as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I must say that many programs have been set up not only by the federal government alone but also in co-operation with the provinces, and because I have worked hand in hand with the Minister of Agriculture, I can assure the House that I have been most happy to see not only what has been done in Canada but also what has been done by us for developing countries.
I have been interested for several years in world food aid and Canada is second to no other country as far as food aid is concerned. I know about Canadian producers, and here I refer especially to our colleagues from western Canada, an area that has contributed so much to Canada's food exports, and each time I have been given the opportunity to visit that part of the country, I have realized how better acquainted with the facts of food aid the western provinces are than central Canada or the maritimes. Which does jjot mean that the maritime provinces, Quebec and Ontario are less interested in the food aid issue, but I think that because they acted somewhat as pioneers in Canada in the area of assistance to underdeveloped countries-I mean in food assistance-the farmers of western Canada, as far as I know and especially as far as I could ascertain when I had the privilege to serve as parliamentary secretary, are very much aware of the assistance which Canada is providing on an international level to the have-not countries of the world and where people are undernourished or dying of hunger.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that although agriculture is not a top priority in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, there being no farms there, mine being essentially an urban constituency, farming in Canada is of paramount importance to all Canadians, because we all have to eat and agriculture provides us with an abundant source of nourishing food. I have also had the opportunity to visit underdeveloped countries and appreciate the effort Canada is making. I came back to Canada convinced that we could increase substantially the level of our
Agriculture
aid to Third World countries and especially that we could help underdeveloped countries develop their own agriculture.
It is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are tens of thousands of people every year who are not only undernourished but who are dying from starvation, and I feel that it is a real shame that some countries should spend such huge amounts of money to arm themselves while devoting such a little share of their national budget to develop their agriculture. Together with the Minister of Agriculture, I have had the opportunity to take part in a number of FAO conferences in Rome and to visit a number of underdeveloped countries both in Latin America and Africa, and I can assure the House that back in Canada when we realize the tremendous potential of our farm industry, we are proud of all our past and future achievements. I must say that agriculture in Canada, which has already been mentioned by several speakers during this debate, is one of our major industries. High interest rates affect all Canadians, but in some parts of the country farmers are affected most. And I recognize with the opposition which has introduced this motion that solutions must be found to this high inflation and mostly high interest rates dilemma which, I hope, is only temporary.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that our colleagues across the aisle will recognize this, and I do believe that several of them, who have sat on the Committee on Agriculture, will also recognize that the federal government, and I do not mean only the present government but all previous governments, has done everything in its power to provide Canadian farmers with all that they need so that Canada may continue to be one of the most progressive agricultural countries and, especially, the best fed country in the world.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps I am a bit biased for having worked with him, but if there is someone who has stood up for the cause of agriculture both in caucus and across Canada it is certainly this minister, and also for having acted in his capacity a number of times, I can say that everywhere, be it in the maritimes, in western Canada, in Ontario or in Quebec, people have always had the highest regard for him, because agriculture means a great deal to him, and because he defends it as best he can, and he does so admirably well.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to agree with this motion condemning the government for its treatment of the agricultural community. Among the many faults the government must bear, clearly the major one must be its treatment of agriculture. There is no doubt that the farmers of the nation should be in the streets rioting. The government has failed to respond in any meaningful manner to their needs.
What has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) done for energy? The last tax increases imposed upon energy will

November 2, 1981
Agriculture
put $50 billion into federal coffers. As Canadians we will all share a portion of that through automobile gas and home heating fuels, but 320,000 Canadian farmers will bear an inordinate share because the money which is coming in will be used for general purposes, not specific agricultural ones. Thus farmers will bear an extra burden in paying for their farm fuels, for their fertilizers, and for their chemicals. It is unfair to put that on the backs of 320,000 farmers. It should be a tax borne by the general population because the $50 billion is being used for general purposes.
What has the Minister of Agriculture done? He travelled across the country bragging about how cheap food is. For a 21-item food basket he brags that Canadians spend $55.58 as compared with $135 in Japan. The Minister of Agriculture should not be going around the country bragging about cheap food because the cost of cheap food is that farmers dropped away one by one, in the dozens, and now in the tens of hundreds. This is the cost of cheap food. Surely it is not something for the minister to brag about. He should be travelling around speaking to city groups. He should be saying to them, "Folks, you have had cheap food. It has cost us enormously because we have lost many agricultural producers". Why is the Minister of Agriculture not doing that?


Eugene Whelan: I am doing that, and you know it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What is the Minister of Agriculture doing? I have read all his speeches. I do not see that in any of his speeches.
What is the Minister of Agriculture doing about the capital gains tax? He was elected on a promise of changing V-Day to 1974. They did not honour it. He is party to a white paper which claimed that now they will increase the tax to 100 per cent. We will know when the next budget comes out whether the Minister of Agriculture has any sway in cabinet at all. I do not think he does. It is very regrettable because the 320,000 farmers of Canada need a strong and influential spokesman on that side of the House. The Minister of Agriculture, I say with great respect, has lost that. What has he done with the capital gains tax?


Eugene Whelan: Over half of them are financially well off because they are in those good programs. No other country in the world-


Blaine Allen Thacker: He has done absolutely nothing. Everyone who lives in cities, the urban citizens of the country, get their homes-and this is their major investment-totally free of capital gains tax. But the government is putting capital gains tax on farmers, the productive side of the country.


Eugene Whelan: Farm homes are tax free.


Blaine Allen Thacker: They are not only taxing the gains. They are taxing capital because the increase in value does not have anything to do with the real gain. It is an inflationary gain. The government has let them down badly.


Mr. Evans:: They have the lowest tax rate of any group in our society.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) should know better. Surely he wants to have his children fed.
May I call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 589(11) the proceedings on this motion have now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, most of the applications for rail passenger abandonment during the past few years have been rejected by the Canadian Transport Commission, but the very people who have been unable to convince this impartial body of the merit of their arguments in favour of abandonment have apparently been able to convince the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that it is a desirable step. The minister has cancelled one half of the rail passenger service in the maritime provinces. In doing so he has made a mockery of this government's commitment to the principle of regional development. The minister has bypassed the democratic process. He avoided Parliament by making this announcement after Parliament was adjourned by closure. He has refused to see municipal officials from southern New Brunswick whose communities are directly affected by this cutback. He has ignored his provincial counterparts, particularly the minister of transport in the province of New Brunswick.
The minister said he would account to the transport committee for his conduct and would give his reasons, but his colleagues and the minister will not permit the committee to sit until after the cruel deed is accomplished. This shabby charade written for the Minister of Transport by the madhatters in his department is most unlike the gracious gentleman we have come to know in this House.
I want to call upon every Member of Parliament from New Brunswick not to be content with comments made outside the House but to stand up in this House and oppose these severe
November 2, 1981

cutbacks and condemn the ruthless and undemocratic way they are being made.
The Atlantic Limited has moved more people on the shortest distance between Halifax and Montreal than any other rail passenger train in the maritime provinces. The minister has refused to make public the 1980 monthly revenue expenditure and ridership figures for the Atlantic Limited. I asked him, in writing, to do this long before Parliament resumed this fall.
We have learned from independent sources that over 200,000 people have travelled on the Atlantic Limited in 1980, and that more have travelled on it in 1981. We know for a fact that over 140,000 people travelled through McAdam, New Brunswick, en route to and from Montreal.
The visiting Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stuck his nose into the debate last week and indicated that for every dollar spent on tickets the Government of Canada had to contribute two dollars. He did not tell us that for the air mode, the figure is in excess of $2 and for the limited marine transport in Canada it is even larger. I do not know what the Prime Minister thinks Canadians pay taxes for if not to hold our country together with a reasonable and responsible transportation system. Most certainly we are not paying taxes to buy him a new stone desk or pave his driveway or keep him in matches and candles.
One good thing to come out of this whole mess is that the Halifax-Saint John, New Brunswick, rail liner has been extended to Fredericton. I look upon this as a progressive move, but again, when a good move is made, the madhatters in the Department of Transport work on the schedule. The train is scheduled to leave Fredericton at 2.15 in the afternoon and arrive in Saint John at four o'clock. I ask you to guess when the return trip from Saint John to Fredericton leaves, Mr. Speaker? It leaves at ten minutes after four-just ten minutes after passengers arrive. Saint John is a great city but what can anyone do in ten minutes? If they could do anything in ten minutes, is it worth the time and expense of getting there and back?
The train goes on to Halifax where it arrives at 10.50 at night. It leaves there at 9.40 the next morning, so at least you could get a good night's sleep in Halifax although it might be a pretty expensive one!
For passengers travelling west from Fredericton the story is even sorrier. It now takes 13 hours, and with the new system it will take 20 hours. It seems that people are at work in the Department of Transport trying to discourage rail passenger service.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to use his good offices to see if the schedule could not be revised so that more people could ride the trains, and thus help improve the service. The cruel abandonment of the Edmunston to Moncton daylin-er contributes to the isolation of Plaster Rock, Napadogan, McGivney, Minto and many small communities in southern New Brunswick which do not have an alternative form of public transportation. Plaster Rock got some good news on September 29 from the CTC. An order was made that the
Adjournment Debate
existing station facilities at Plaster Rock be kept clean, heated and lighted for the comfort and convenience of the travelling public. But on November 15, there will be no travelling public.
The way to go, I suggest, is to modernize and use the light rapid comfortable trains. Therefore in April, and again in May of this year, I urged the minister to include the maritimes in this train system and to bring these more modern trains to downtown Frederiction. On July 14, I received a letter from the vice-president of VIA Atlantic who referred to my correspondence to the minister and said he was answering for him. His letter reads:
When the LRCs were first ordered in 1977, it was our firm intention to assign two train sets for operations in the maritimes. However, conditions have changed considerably since then. We must now live within a financial envelope system for rail passenger service in Canada, and in order to ensure that the best possible return on investment be earned by the LRCs, circumstances dictate that we must use the first ten sets in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
When the minister was in Saint John, New Brunswick, a few weeks ago and lecturing politicians to the effect that we should be unpopular, advice which he himself has taken very well, he indicated that maritimers would soon be travelling on the LRCs. Where? In the Windsor corridor? I would like the parliamentary secretary to clarify this matter for us tonight and indicate that maritimers will be travelling on the LRCs in the maritimes.
My final request tonight is for the visiting Prime Minister. The next time he goes around the world on a tour, will he please take the Minister of Transport with him?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked if there was reasonable doubt about the correctness of the government's decision to terminate some VIA Rail services, particularly in New Brunswick.
The government's decision was taken only after careful consideration of all the factors. It was not an easy one. It was recognized that the discontinuance of certain services would cause some inconvenience, but it is hoped that those affected will be able to adjust relatively quickly.
The reason for discontinuing the Atlantic train is based on the extremely high cost of operating transcontinental services. The Atlantic and the Ocean together cost the Canadian taxpayer over $45 million in 1980, which represents a subsidy of $76 for the average passenger. A passenger travelling the full distance from Halifax to Montreal would pay a fare of $58, but the true cost of his trip is $210. The Canadian taxpayer pays the difference of $152.
Transcontinental trains are expensive to run because they provide a full range of sleeping and dining facilities designed for long-distance travel, even though the trains are primarily used for shorter trips where these facilities are not required.
Once the government had decided to retain only one of the two transcontinental services, the question became which one? Both trains carried approximately the same number of people in 1980; the Atlantic carried 286,000 and the Ocean carried

November 2, 1981
Adjournment Debate
304,000.	Both had similar costs and revenues. The revenue-cost ratio was 28 per cent. However, the Ocean served an all-Canadian route, whereas the Atlantic passed through U.S. territory and was therefore chosen for termination.
The actual travel time from Halifax to Montreal on the Ocean route is only a few minutes longer than by the old Atlantic route. It is recognized that residents of southwestern New Brunswick will have to backtrack to Moncton to catch the Ocean, but the connection is a good one, with the Ocean departing for Montreal 30 minutes after the arrival of the train from Fredericton and Saint John.


HOUSING-SALE OF HOUSES HELD BY CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION (B) SALES TO INVESTORS AND SPECULATORS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on October 22 last I asked several questions of the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The first question was with respect to the selling of repossessed townhouses and apartments to purchasers on the basis that the minister would cause the corporation to take back first mortgages. The second question was in connection with the manner of the sale.
It has become apparent to me and others that the minister is insisting on one price for townhouses or apartments to the ordinary purchaser, but is prepared to deal wholesale with the speculator or investor. Indeed, in one case he is prepared to offer apartment townhouses to tenants and others at $38,000 on average, and presumably prepared-indeed, we understand he has a back pocket sale lined up-to sell 150 units to one speculator at an average price of $31,000.
Dealing with the first issue, two years ago Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ran into serious problems and was required to borrow some $200 million from the government in order to re-establish its insurance fund. It is on that basis that the minister says, "I cannot take back mortgages and hold mortgages in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation." We in this House have to remind the minister that he is in charge of a corporation called the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and it is his business to hold mortgages. Certainly at a time when the mortgage rate on the open market is 19.5 per cent, 20 per cent and 21 per cent, it is his obligation to do what he can with his limited stock of housing to lead the way and give decent low-cost mortgages to people. I do not suggest he give these units away. This is not to be a giveaway program, but the rates should be 10 per cent, 12 per cent or 14 per cent at the most-something that people can afford to pay.
What is this minister doing with his repossessions? Is he saying to the proposed purchaser, "pay me all cash?" Having regard to the one project at 3120-3170 Kerwin Avenue in Mississauga, the minister is saying to the tenants who have leases with CMHC that they can buy their suites for $38,000 cash. He will take them down to the Toronto-Dominion Bank and arrange a 19.75 per cent first mortgage for them. He
might, under certain circumstances, be prepared to pare down the mortgage by 3 per cent so the face of the mortgage will only look like 16.5 per cent. He will work a bonus deal with them. That is a bit of a scabby system, but that is the kind of thing this minister is prepared to do.
The most scabby thing this minister wants to do is to send around a girl to talk the tenants out of picking up their options. He says, in effect, "You people really cannot afford to pay $38,000 all cash for these apartments, can you?" It has to be all cash; he cannot take terms. He can then sell them to an investor for $31,000.
I want the minister or his parliamentary secretary to give a couple of undertakings to the House tonight: First that he will sell his condominium and townhouse apartment repossessions on the open market using real estate brokers on an open listing, and that he will take back mortgages for 85 per cent of value at 12 per cent or 13 per cent, and that is all, on a fair basis, and let people have a chance at these units. My second request of the minister or the parliamentary secretary is that he will under no circumstances do what he did at 570 Darcel Road, Malton. At that time, as shown in an answer to an Order Paper question on June 17 to the House, the minister declared the details of the sale of 570 condominium town houses to four numbered Quebec companies. The companies did not even have enough sense to give themselves a name. They were numbered companies. These companies can be incorporated by writing an application for incorporation to the Quebec government and it will assign a number. Four numbered companies bought 570 units at a price slightly in excess of $20,000 each.
I want the undertaking from this minister that the speculators are out and that never again, at any time, will he sell houses in the region of Peel en bloc to speculators, and that he will sell them on the open market and hold mortages on reasonable terms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on matters concerning the sale of houses held by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
As the hon. member is aware, CMHC is responsible for the administration of the mortgage insurance fund known as MIF. The recent unprecedented number of claims against the fund has resulted in the MIF encountering substantial losses. To replenish the fund, CMHC has accelerated the sale of its real estate holdings. The fund itself, while it sells the real estate it acquires, lacks the liquidity to finance these sales. Accordingly, these sales are effected with private mortgage funds, at private institutional mortgage rates. In the sense that CMHC does not provide direct funding, units are sold to individuals on a cash basis. Purchasers may, in certain cases, benefit from NHA insurance by arranging financing through an approved lender.
November 2, 1981

I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that CMHC units are being offered for sale at market prices. In condominium projects where a large number of units have been acquired and cannot be sold individually on the open market at their target price, CMHC may obtain the consent of the condominium board and offer the units to investor-purchasers at prices which generally reflect home owner prices. The conditions of sale can, at times, reveal an apparent disparity between the price paid by an investor-purchaser and a tenant-purchaser, for example where an interest rate buy-down is involved.
The request for proposal technique is directed toward qualified bidders interested in purchasing CMHC's real estate for rental-investment purposes. This process allows potential purchasers more flexibility as to the terms and conditions than the traditional tendering process. This procedure has proved to be a flexible and effective marketing approach in the attainment of CMHC's objective of disposing of some of its real estate portfolio directly to the open market. It offers no special favours to the private sector and obtains the best price and associated conditions for each property, taking into account the current and near future market conditions at the time of sale. Where CMHC anticipates that the purchaser may resell, the agreement for sale may provide, among other conditions, that CMHC will share in the profit ultimately realized by the speculator-purchaser on such resale.


VIA RAIL-EFFECT OF CUTBACKS ON WESTERN ECONOMY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 I directed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I pointed out:
As chairman of the Western Development Committee, and as one who is supposed to be stimulating economic growth in the west, he will know that the unilateral cutbacks in the VIA Rail routes will have a devastating effect on the western economy in general and cause the Canadian tourist industry losses in the millions. Also, there will be lay-offs in the rail and tourism industry.
The minister replied that a major Air Canada facility has been moved to Manitoba. He concluded by saying:
-which will be of substantial help to the hon. member's constituency. We are trying to promote industries in western Canada which are modern, up to date, and high technology industries, and not to support obsolescence.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration is supposed to be stimulating employment, not reducing it, as the VIA Rail cuts will do. Between 8,000 and 16,000 jobs will be lost across Canada, and 500 will be lost in Winnipeg alone. How many hundreds will be lost in related sectors? The Winnipeg local of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers Union has lost 167.
The minister stated that it is all right to cut VIA Rail back because we now have a new Air Canada overhaul hangar in Winnipeg. The minister is giving us nothing. The Liberal Party is giving us absolutely nothing. All the government is doing is returning a small portion of something that should never have been taken away in the first place.
Adjournment Debate
I want to read from a letter I received from the Winnipeg-Farlane Camping and Recreation Association, which is a group of Winnipeggers who travel by VIA Rail from Winnipeg to the Sioux Lookout area. The association points out the following:
We have recently received figures on the performance of Trains 144 and 145, which show that over the past three months a total of 4,368 passengers were carried. This amounts to a load factor of over 120 per cent either arriving or departing at or from Winnipeg.
This is not obsolescence, yet the government is going to cut back on VIA Rail. What are these people supposed to do, take JetStars down to their camps? They have no other way to get down there except by VIA Rail. It is all very well for Liberal cabinet ministers to fly around in JetStars and for two of them to go to the same city at the same time.
This camping association also said this:
What more can VIA ask for in the line of performance? As it is, at least 20 per cent of the passengers on most runs have to stand in the baggage car and/or wait for next week's train.
The Liberals want to cut this back, and there is 120 per cent occupancy.
The western tourism industry and economy in general will lose millions of dollars and will be forced to lay off hundreds of workers because of the cutbacks. Jasper will be hard hit, since trains are the main method of getting into the town. Cuts will also hurt many Manitoba towns such as Rivers, Thompson, Thicket Portage, and numerous other small communities.
Recently there was a letter in the Winnipeg Free Press from a travel agent in Florida in which he pointed out:
Our travel agency sends more Americans to travel by Canada's scenic railroad routes than for any other reason.
We will lose tourist dollars because of the VIA Rail cutbacks. Tourists do not spend money just on the railroad. They spend it in hotels, restaurants, buying souvenirs and so forth. We will lose all this business.
What about the 500,000 acrophobiacs, those who fear heights? They have no way to travel or they will have to find other methods of travel because they cannot travel by aircraft. It is all right for Liberal ministers to fly around in JetStars, but these people, 500,000 of them, will have their VIA Rail travel cut back. No consideration will be given to those people by the Liberal government.
The government is supposed to be cutting back in order to save money. It is all right to save by cutting back VIA Rail, but there will be not cutbacks on Liberal ministers' flying around in JetStars. They can fly anywhere they like. They can fly to Liberal fund raising dinners-two to the same location-and to hell with the Canadian people.
This is just another example of why western Canada feels alienated. Western Canadians are not permitted an input into the decision-making process. Indeed, in the case of the VIA Rail cutbacks no one was. The Conservative VIA Rail task force allowed Canadians to have some input. This is what the Minister of Employment and Immigration should have been fighting for. He should have been fighting for full-scale hear-
12432

November 2, 1981
Adjournment Debate
ings. 1 hope we will hear tonight from the parliamentary secretary that the minister will take some action and put some pressure on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to withdraw his order in council cutting back VIA Rail service in western Canada.


Charles James Mayer: Good luck.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that some ministers have travelled on government planes to benefit dinners. I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) denied that in the House today. Second, if the hon. member was here last week, he heard the reason why the Minister of Transport has made some cutbacks on VIA Rail. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) took some measures to be in charge- [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, all cuts in VIA Rail services were planned in such a way as to encourage surplus employees to adapt to change. The company and the unions representing the workers concerned have agreed on a series of measures designed to minimize the negative impact of the changes on the workers. In addition, the minister has encouraged the company and the unions to find other jobs for the employees to be laid off, especially at this time when there is a great demand for specialized workers throughout Canada. In the case of all surplus employees at VIA Rail the minister favours the setting
up of an employer-employee advisory committee under the sponsorship of the Manpower Advisory Service with the view to finding a solution to the workers' problems.

The hon. member asked what the Minister of Employment and Immigration as chairman of the Western Development Corporation has done to help western Canada. I remind him of the new economic initiative during the last year in western Canada through the efforts of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. First, there was Canertech, the new federal Crown corporation for alternate energy. Second, there was $100 million for the core area development initiative by the federal government. There were 3,500 new jobs created to revitalize the centre of the city. Third, there was the microelectronic research centre at the University of Manitoba. Fourth, there was a new computer facility for Air Canada in the city of Winnipeg at a cost of $60 million. Finally, there was a $150 million contract for aerospace firms, especially in the city of Winnipeg, in the year 1980. These are examples of what the Minister of Employment and Immigration as chairman of the Western Development Corporation has done for western Canada during the last year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 3, 1981