1982-11-24

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   COMMUNICATIONS SUGGESTED USE OF SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS BY NORTHWEST TEL

['No.']
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, the policy of the Department of Communications is to permit common carriers to own and operate satellite earth stations only in the 12/14 Ghz band. This policy may make sense in southern Canada but makes no sense in the Far North where, for technical reasons, it is necessary to use the 4/6 Ghz band. Hence Northwest Tel, the federal Crown corporation providing telecommunications in the North, is obliged to pay exorbitant rents, far in excess of the true value, to Telsat Canada for the use of its facilities. These excessive costs are then passed on to Northwest Tel's subscribers. Therefore, in order to avoid this discrimination against Northern telephone subscribers, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That Northwest Tel Incorporated be permitted to own and operate satellite earth stations in the 4/6 Ghz band.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, a number of countries have made it possible to send CARE parcels to Poland postage free, to help relieve the situation that exists there. I move, therefore, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the House indicate to the Government and Canada Post that a policy whereby Canadians would be able to send CARE parcels postage free to friends and relatives should be implemented as soon as possible to last as long as this dreadful situation lasts.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the escalation of military spending in the world, and in view of Canada's international image as a moderate and peaceful country, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House urge the Canadian Government, as a symbolic step, to buy one less F-18 fighter bomber and, instead, use the money to help establish a peace institute in Canada and fund university chairs and foundations which would study the causes of war and underdevelopment, and how we could maintain peace.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA REQUEST FOR CHAIRMAN'S RESIGNATION
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, due to the recent evidence uncovered yesterday by this Party at the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, which established that the purchase of B.P. Canada's gas stations by Petro-Canada, originally thought to cost the taxpayers $347 million, will actually cost $577 million, and because the management has further stated that the return on this investment would be 15 per cent compared to a national average of 5 per cent for all other oil marketers over the past ten years, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That this House request the resignation of Mr. William Hopper, Chairman of Petro-Canada, for misleading the public and providing incomplete and unsubstantiated facts.

November 24, 1982


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, all political parties and the majority of Canadians want to work toward global nuclear disarmament. The New Democratic Party is in a position to play an important role in assisting toward the unification of the parties to achieve this end. In light of their close relations with the Communist Party, evidenced by the New Democratic Party Members' participation in May Day celebrations in Peking and Toronto, as well as the regular attendance of the Member for Spadina at celebrations held at Communist Party headquarters in Toronto, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That this House call on the New Democratic Party to communicate with their Russian comrades in order to impress upon them the need to arrange a conference with President Reagan and President Andropov to discuss the topic of nuclear disarmament.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in light of the Solicitor General's statement of yesterday that he will soon be announcing a policy for the destruction of some RCMP documents, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson):
That no document be destroyed that might assist any RCMP officer who may be subject to prosecution where such document, to be determined by defence counsel, would be essential to a full answer and defence.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, in view of the Government's doctrinaire determination to force elderly Canadians to pay for the Government's incompetent management of our economy by proposing to limit pension increases to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent in 1984 and in view of the fact that senior citizens simply cannot afford to have their purchasing power further eroded by the actions by this Government, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the Government to withdraw Bill C-131 and Bill C-133 from the Order Paper immediately and that it bring before this House proposals to bring true reform to this country's pension system.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress called on its two million affiliated members to join a political crusade in order to get rid of the Liberal Party. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House congratulate the Canadian Labour Congress and Dennis McDermott for finally understanding what the problem is in this country, for finally seeing the light and understanding that the Liberal Party and its management of this country have caused massive unemployment, massive economic distress and have generally managed the country to the verge of bankruptcy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, on May 16, 1982, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), while speaking at Notre Dame University, said, "I welcome the prospect of a summit meeting between the Presidents of the United States of
November 24, 1982

America and the U.S.S.R.". He also stated, "Let us accept the challenge to take bold initiatives". Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and I am sure by every Member of this House:
That this House unanimously support the Prime Minister in calling publicly for a summit meeting during the next 18 months between President Reagan and Chairman Andropov to strengthen nuclear detente and initiate the process for nuclear arms stabilization and eventual reduction.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA COST OF ACQUISITION OF BRITISH PETROLEUM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas the original announcement of Petro-Canada's acquisition of British Petroleum Limited has turned out to be most misleading in light of the revelations of Chairman Bill Hopper in committee yesterday, and whereas it turns out that the actual cost of this questionable deal is fully two-thirds more than the Minister stated in this House of Commons last month, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt):
That this House condemn the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for allowing Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation for which he is responsible, to mislead the Canadian public and Hon. Members of this House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact it is desirable that Canadians in general be encouraged to participate in voluntary organizations; since the voluntary organizations of Canada have an exemplary record for their contribution to excellence and are noteworthy in their efficiency, and since some taxpayers now are able to receive $100 deductions for charitable donations when in fact they have never made a charitable donation, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this Parliament encourage the Minister of Finance to give consideration to the concept of allowing a 50 per cent tax credit for all donations to charitable organizations and that, if he finds this proposal advantageous and workable, this Parliament encourage him to introduce such a concept in the next federal budget.
Oral Questions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once again abdicated leadership on disarmament when he professed complete ignorance on the question of the MX missile, a clear threat to our very survival. In view of the strong leadership shown by Malaspina College in Nanaimo, British Columbia, in declaring itself a nuclear free zone, in a referendum which was approved by 95 per cent of students, staff and faculty, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to follow the leadership of Malaspina College and declare all of Canada a nuclear free zone.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Hon. Minister said in the House that he had received telegrams from the Lake Louise-Banff Chamber of Commerce supporting the project. Note that he said "telegrams".
I hold in my hand a copy of the telex that was sent to the Hon. Minister on October 5. The gist of it reads, "We urge your Department to expedite the approval process for this project." The Minister was well aware yesterday that this telex was sent by two men only, one of whom is John Morrison, who is a friend of Judd Buchanan. The other man is President of the Chamber of Commerce and also the solicitor for Judd Buchanan's company. No one else in the Chamber of Commerce knew that this telex was sent until approximately a month later. As soon as the members of the Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce found out about the said telex, another

November 24, 1982
Oral Questions
one was sent to the Minister on November 4, some 12 days before the permit.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The telex reads:
-we would now like to respectfully retract-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a question, or is he giving us a full history of the matter? Please ask the question now.


Gordon Edward Taylor: In light of that second telegram, why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that the Lake Louise-Banff Chamber of Commerce supported the project when he knew that it did not?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, there are two aspects which I would like to comment on-


Mr. Clark:: Do not comment, answer.


John (Moody) Roberts: -in answer to that question posed by the Hon. Member. First, I want to make it clear that both the telegram and the representations to which we referred yesterday came to us in October, as he indicated, when the decision on the land transfer had taken place a month earlier. That is to say, these representations, whatever their validity, were a month after the decision for the project had taken place. A decision had been made and, to that degree, they were too late.
The second comment I would like to make is that I know that the hon. gentleman would not want deliberately to mislead the House. He has referred to the telegram as containing the signatures of the people whom he has mentioned. Therefore, I think I should read the telegram, which is quite short, in its entirety. It says:
Attn Hon. John Roberts, Minister of the Environment Re: Block 63, Banff, Alberta T01 0C0
We understand that there have been negotiations regarding a rental accommodation development for Banff. Due to the extreme shortage of employee housing, we urge your Department to expedite the approval process for this project.
Regards
Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce
That is the telegram in its entirety.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister has been told a number of times who sent that telegram. He knows very well. He is the one who is misleading the House. The second telegram is signed the same way. In the second place, he said "telegrams". He only received one that was favourable-from two men-which the Chamber of Commerce knew nothing about. He said "telegrams" yesterday. Who is trying to mislead the House?


REASON FOR REQUESTING DELAY IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. If the Minister says that everything was above board and there was no difficulty, why did he have officials of
his Department phone Buchanan last Friday requesting a hold on the development? Why?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I thought I clearly heard the Hon. Member say in his first question that the telegram was signed by those two individuals. If I misunderstood, I am sorry. That is what I thought he said. If he did say that, it is obviously contrary to the fact.
The Hon. Member asked in his second question why I asked for a delay in the project. The answer to that is quite clear- because there was an intervention on the part of a politician asking for that delay. That politician was the hon. gentleman from Bow River.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What I said was that the telex was sent by two men. The Hon. Minister's hearing is as bad as his memory.


REQUEST THAT BULLDOZERS BE REMOVED
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister crossed the floor twice last week to tell me he was asking his officials to find out if he had authority to cancel that permit, and he knows it. If he denies that-


Madam Speaker:: Is that the object of the Hon. Member's question? Question, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the bulldozers are now in that park. There has never been any information given that the park was going to be desecrated. Zoning was never questioned. We want to know now if the Minister will save that park, leave the trees that are still there, get the bulldozers out of that park, and build the apartment someplace else?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Again, Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman asserts that the telegram was sent by two men. The text clearly indicates that, so far as the recipient knew, it was sent by the Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce. There are no two names attached to this telegram. That is the name.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You were told; don't lie about it.


John (Moody) Roberts: To answer the hon. gentleman's second question, I did indeed, when I spoke to him last week, say that I would see if it was possible legally to delay the project so that the kind of concern he expressed was one I could look into thoroughly. Indeed, I followed up on that intervention request and made inquiries, or rather had officials make inquiries, to see if some delay was possible, to satisfy the Hon. Member's request.
As to the third part of the Hon. Member's question, as I indicated in the House yesterday and in public statements, I have looked into the matter and I believe all the proprieties
November 24, 1982

have been pursued and it is the firm conviction of Parks Canada that this arrangement is a beneficial one so far as Parks Canada and Banff are concerned. I do not believe at the moment it is either legally possible to turn back the clock, much as the Hon. Member might like to do so, without encouraging the risk of very grave damages which would not be, in my view, wise to suggest to the House we should do.


Charles Joseph Clark: Judd Buchanan might sue for reneging on patronage.


APPLICATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who will know that his former colleague in Cabinet, the Hon. Judd Buchanan, and his partners, have been actively pursuing this project involving the transfer of Government lands over the course of well over two years. The Prime Minister will also know that the postemployment conflict of interest guidelines demand that former Ministers not be involved with a commercial corporation in connection with any specific proceeding or transaction in which the Government of Canada is a party for two years following their exit from the Ministry. Mr. Buchanan was Minister of Public Works until mid-1979.
Is the Prime Minister going to look into enforcing the conflict of interest guidelines, at least in this instance, with respect to the activities of Mr. Buchanan, a former Minister of his Cabinet?


Mr. Nielsen:: He is going to redraft them.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, in phrasing his question the Hon. Member said that the Prime Minister "will know that for two years", and so on. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the first I heard of this transaction was a few days ago when it was raised in the House. Since then I have heard the Minister of the Environment answer various questions. It seems to me, insofar as I remember the conflict of interest guidelines-I believe they were accurately read by the Hon. Member-they apply to a Minister who leaves a Department and then who would use his knowledge or acquaintance with that Department, or familiarity with people in that Department, to enter into some commercial transaction. If my recollection is right, Mr. Buchanan left the Department responsible for Parks Canada somewhere around 1975 or 1976, so he was well within the guidelines if his initiative was taken about two years ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: He was a member of the Ministry.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, that was a weasely avoidance of the spirit of the conflict of interest guidelines, and the Prime Minister knows it.


SPIRIT OF GUIDELINES-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, it seems that every month we have another Arthur Erikson
Oral Questions
situation in the Chamber here with respect to the Prime Minister's friends. Another one of his friends, Mr. John Gow, is a partner in this transaction. The Prime Minister will know that the conflict of interest guidelines say that Ministers will not, and I quote:
-accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends or to organizations in which their relatives or friends have an interest.
The Prime Minister cannot avoid this matter simply by saying that the Minister of the Environment is responsible. It is the collective responsibility of Cabinet as well as a ministerial responsibility. I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do about this.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe there are at least two aspects to the question asked by the Hon. Member. He referred to the spirit of the guidelines. I also heard the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition indicate that somehow we had flouted the spirit of the guidelines.


Erik Nielsen: The letter of the guidelines.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I am incorrect, then I hope the Leader of the Opposition will correct me. My recollection of the guidelines is that they prevent a Minister from using the knowledge he acquired in that Department, or his acquaintance with the-


Erik Nielsen: In Cabinet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the letter and the spirit of the guidelines are quite specific. It is not that any Minister should do nothing for two years. I do not believe that even Members of the Opposition who entered private life after resigning from the Ministry would be expected to do nothing. Perhaps that is the maximum of their possible performance, but in terms of the guidelines, the intention was not to prevent former Members of the Ministry from doing anything for two years.


Mr. Broadbent:: You are doing nothing now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was to do nothing related to their particular Department.


Erik Nielsen: Related to the Cabinet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member and the Leader of the Opposition are serious about this I would ask them to refer to the guidelines and indicate to me in what way they think Mr. Buchanan flouted the spirit of the guidelines.
As far as Mr. Gow is concerned, it is true that he is a friend, Madam Speaker. I had never heard of this transaction before. He never talked to me about it. There is no way in which I could assure him preferential treatment, because 1 did not know there was going to be any treatment at all.

November 24, 1982
Oral Questions
The question is whether he was a friend of anyone else and if he got preferential treatment. It would seem to me that the Hon. Minister of the Environment made it quite clear that there was no preferential treatment. A recommendation was passed, as I understand it, by the City Council, by the Environmental Advisory Board, and by the officials of Parks Canada. The Minister made it quite clear in his answer that he has not extended any preferential treatment to either of these gentlemen.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. An NDP Task Force on Older Women has been holding hearings in every Province. It has been told repeatedly that women who spend their whole lives raising Canada's children, experience extreme poverty, isolation, and loneliness in their middle and later years. On behalf of these women I would like to ask the Minister what plans he has or what he will do to develop job opportunities for mature women. In particular, will he allocate some of the funds available for job-creation programs to target the needs of this age group, these women who really need an opportunity to work and pay into a pension plan?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member raises a very legitimate and very important concern. I should like to point out to her that in the past year we have taken a number of initiatives to respond directly to that particular problem. In something like 12 centres across Canada we have opened special women's employment centres to provide counselling and placement services as well as special help in the transfer from home to the first-time job.
In addition, we have substantially increased the Outreach budget so that community based organizations can also provide that kind of employment base service to them. As well, the Canada Community Service Employment Program is particularly targetted to this group. Almost 80 per cent of the people working in the Program have worked in child care, in social services programs, or are women coming into the work force for the first time and they are closer to their clientele.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, it is important to have counselling support services but there is no point having them if there are no jobs at the end.


SKILLS TESTING PROGRAM
Margaret Anne Mitchell: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In connection with the services of the Canada Employment Centres we often find that homemakers are handicapped because they do not have job
experience and so do not have a job reference. It has been proposed by some women that we have heard from, that there could be a testing program carried out at Canada Employment Centres. As a result of this a certificate could be awarded which would recognize the skills of women in human relations and management, and the other skills that they have acquired in a lifetime of experience could also be recognized. Will the Minister implement this in Employment Centres as a means of giving older women a chance for a good resume and then a good chance at a job?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, obviously if we established that particular program it would be to give us information and ideas about how we could more broadly expand those initiatives. We would be prepared to look at such a program and see how we could apply it on a national level.
I would point out again that I know of one project in my own city, an employment counselling service which is an Outreach Program. In the last two or three months it has had something like a 70 per cent success rate, enabling older women entering the work place to find their first jobs. It is a very specific example of how a good counselling placement service, working individually with women, can provide them with both the opportunity to choose how they can upgrade their skills and also get their first job opportunities. This is what we really want to concentrate on, that is, providing individualized service where it is needed most in terms of making that major transition from home to work.


INCOME TAX
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Would he confirm that those ordinary Canadians who invest in Canada Savings Bonds or regular Government bonds are required to pay income tax on the interest or the income they receive from the bonds, and that, in the case of coupon bonds, social security numbers have to be given to the bank or whoever cashes the coupons to ensure that the interest income is monitored and to ensure that that income is taxed?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the practice, with the check-off of social security numbers which the Hon. Member raised. I will find out if there is a common practice, common through all financial institutions, and advise him.
November 24, 1982


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am surprised the Minister is not prepared to confirm that people receiving bond income are not required to pay income tax, or there is no follow-up on that.


Some Hon. Members:: They are.


POSITION OF TREASURY BILL INVESTORS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, in light of the problem would the Minister explain why, for sophisticated investors who buy Government of Canada Treasury Bills, there is no follow-up on the bills as to the income they receive on the discount of the bills, why there is no co-ordination of that income to the Income Tax Department so that the income can be taxed, and why sophisticated investors, people who buy Treasury Bills, in many cases are able to escape the payment of income tax when ordinary Canadians who buy Canada Savings Bonds and the like are stuck with paying the tax?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, of course one of the difficulties that the question poses and that the Minister of Finance hit upon recently in answer to questions dealing with the tax system is in coming up with a system which is uncomplicated, unsophisticated and meets, for example, the submissions of the Canadian Tax Foundation that the tax system and its implementation should be uncomplicated.
Apart from the fact that the system which the Hon. Member encourages us to adopt would be very complicated and very sophisticated, there is the question of whether the cost of putting such a system in place is worth the revenues which would be received in the circumstances. I am sure this matter is one that the Department and the Minister of Finance are concerned about, and he is undertaking, as he indicated in his speech in Metropolitan Toronto last evening, a review of the system with the objective that it be simplified and not complicated, as the Hon. Member would encourage.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It is supplementary to those already raised today on the Judd Buchanan apartment complex in Banff National Park. The Minister told the House yesterday that he had telegrams from the Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce supporting the Judd Buchanan apartment complex being built at Banff. Yet on November 4 he received a telegram which read:
Further to our telex dated Tuesday, October 5, 1982, please be advised that although the Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce recognizes the need for additional staff housing in Banff, we would now like to respectfully retract our October 5 telex as it does not reflect the views of the majority of the Board.
Oral Questions
Sincerely,
Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce
My question to the Minister is this: why in the House yesterday, on the public record, did he tell the House of Commons and the people of Canada, through the Parliament of Canada, that the Chamber of Commerce supported the apartment complex being built when he possessed a communication in his pocket that made it very clear that the opposite was the truth?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday to the House, I had received the earlier telegram to which the Hon. Member referred, and outside the House I indicated that I had also received the second telegram to which he referred.


Erik Nielsen: Outside the House.


John (Moody) Roberts: The really relevant point in relation to both telegrams is that the decisions about which Hon. Members are concerned was taken a month or six weeks before either of those telegrams was received.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment, the only relevant point in this whole debate is whether the Minister of the Crown is telling the truth or whether he is misleading the House. My question to the Minister, in light of that, is this: Yesterday on the floor of the House of Commons he said:
Subsequent to that, the Chamber of Commerce in the area sent telegrams supporting the proposal to the Government.
He said, "telegrams", two telegrams. The implication was that both telegrams supported the action that is being taken in this instance. I repeat my question to the Minister. When he possessed a telegram in his pocket disavowing the first telegram, why did he say to the House of Commons that he had received telegrams verifying that the Judd Buchanan complex being built in Banff had the full endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce in question and the people that the Chamber represented? Why did he make that statement?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is really a nit picking nits. If it will make him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: If it will make him much happier, I would be quite happy to drop the "s" off "telegrams", if indeed I said telegrams rather than telegram.
The essential point that was raised yesterday in the House was the question of when the decision was taken what kind of indications did we have of public opinion on the site, and what kind of consultations had taken place. As I indicated yesterday, there have been continuing public consultations going back ten years, reviewed in 1980. As the Hon. Member for

November 24, 1982
Oral Questions
Bow River has stated himself, reviews took place again. The project was discussed again in December, 1981, with the town council. It was a discussion of what was likely to take place, and opportunities were presented for comments then. That was the point that was being made yesterday.
If the Hon. Member really would feel much happier if the Hansard record yesterday read "telegram" instead of "telegrams", I would be quite happy to have that correction made.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHANGE DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if I could have the attention of the Minister for patronage in the parks-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -the Minister of the Environment knows that the hearings to which he refers ten years ago related to zoning practices generally, not to the application of his former colleague. The Minister has told us that it is too late to change the decision. The decision has been opposed by the Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce, by some 1,200 people, and it has caused the resignation of the public servant who says he was forced to sign the authority. Why, since the decision was based on false information, and since the decision was-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear from several Liberals who are potential applicants for permits to developing Banff, Jasper, and other national parks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why will the Minister not change a decision that was based on false information?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, since a question has been raised, perhaps I should refer Hon. Members of the House to yesterday's Hansard, page 20,882, in which, in reply to a question by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, I said, in the second paragraph:
Again I refer the Hon. Member to the telegram-
That is in the singular. My sentence continued-
[DOT]-which we received indicating the support of the Chamber of Commerce for the proposal.
If I inadvertently misled Hon. Members opposite by referring to telegrams in my earlier response, I clearly indicated in my second response that we were talking about a telegram.
Second, perhaps I should indicate, since clearly it is a question of concern about the opportunity of people in the area to know what is being considered, that the Hon. Member for Bow River himself said:
December 7, 1981: Banff Community Council, (town council) meeting hears a presentation from Parks Canada's townsite manager, Dan Mullaly, proposing that additional staff housing be constructed to facilitate needs of community and gives various indications to a Marmot/Cougar project. The Banff Community Council approves the need for additional staff housing but does not approve any specific sites for such.
Note that extract does not say "objects to the proposal". According to the Hon. Member's own statement, that took place in December, 1981 -


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -so that well over a year-for almost a year at least-the nature of the project was known and was available for members of the public in the Banff area and elsewhere and, indeed, for the Hon. Member to comment upon.


REASONS FOR NOT REVERSING DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister overlooked my question. Why will he not reverse his decision? Is the Minister afraid that Judd Buchanan will sue him for breach for patronage?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition believes it is proper for governments willy-nilly to break legal arrangements and solid agreements-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -and that a Minister of the Crown should be heedless of the legal consequences of so doing, or damages which could legitimately arise from so doing. I do not think that is a proper attitude for a Minister to take. Clearly with the appropriate procedures under the Parks Canada Act a proper decision was taken following authorities which had been laid down.


Mr. Crosbie:: Hold your nose and vote.


John (Moody) Roberts: An agreement was made and it did not appear to me to be in the public interest to open the Government to damages which could arise from rescinding, overcoming, or overturning an agreement which had been legitimately arrived at.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this Government had no hesitation in breaching contracts with Syncrude, with Alsands and in a number of energy agreements. The only contracts it respects are the patronage contracts it has with its own former colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 24, 1982


OFFICIAL'S RESIGNATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Parks Canada official, Mr. Lee Racine, who was-in the past tense-the development-


An Hon. Member:: Why are you shaking?


Charles Joseph Clark: What is shaking is the Liberal Government, the rotten, corrupt Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Lee Racine, the development and construction officer in Banff National Park, resigned. He is the man who signed the building permit. He resigned because he signed it under pressure from Ottawa, under coercion from the Minister's Department, the Minister's officials and perhaps the Minister himself. For those reasons he resigned. Will the Minister tell the House of Commons why it was that Mr. Racine was ordered to rush approval of this particular transaction? Will the Minister tell why he was forced to do something that in retrospect Mr. Racine found so odious that he was forced to resign?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers to patronage and to interventions. I should make it absolutely clear to him and absolutely clear to the House that in no aspect in this situation did I overrule, direct, transform or supplant recommendations or decisions taken by Parks Canada's officials. If the Hon. Member wishes to make specific allegations rather than simply indulge in character assassinations and smears, he should make specific, concrete allegations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The second point I would make is that it is true there was a resignation of a Parks Canada official who had been working with Parks Canada for the past six months. He resigned because he did not agree with the decision taken by his Parks Canada superior. If we are to have an investigation or a scrutiny every time some officer does not agree with the actions of his superiors-


John Carnell Crosbie: There will be a lot of investigations.


John (Moody) Roberts: -the country will be flooded with inquiries. If there are to be inquiries every time one of the Hon. Member's followers does not agree with one of the decisions he has taken, then the Conservative Party would be racked with perpetual investigations and recriminations.


An Hon. Member:: As they are.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but I am five minutes late in recognizing the turn for the New Democratic Party. I will come back to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition later.


Erik Nielsen: The heat is off; relax over there.


LABOUR RELATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will put my question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday we learned that the Chrysler Corporation, in spite of continuing obligations under the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement, is busy transferring work that was normally done by Canadian workers on this side of the border to the American side of the border and to plants in that country. Today we have learned the names of two specific companies involved.
Considering that the Chrysler Corporation has received millions of dollars in assistance from Canadian taxpayers, does the Government value this kind of anti-Canadian labour policy on the part of that Corporation as appropriate, or does the Government not think that Corporation has an obligation to sit down and negotiate seriously with its Canadian workers?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, without going into the very serious developments that have taken place in the last few days on this particular issue, I would like to remind the hon. gentlemen of the New Democratic Party that this labour relations dispute could be resolved, or at least come squarely under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Government, and that that matter rests squarely for a resolution with the Ontario Government.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I remind the Minister that it is the Government of Canada that signed an international agreement with the United States of America and not the Government of the Province of Ontario.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE IN DISPUTE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Labour. Considering that the Chrysler workers have not received any increase in their pay for three years while, in the meantime, the cost of living has gone up more than 37 per cent, and that Chrysler Corporation for the first nine months of this year has had a profit in excess of $266 million, does the Minister, in terms of showing some leadership in Canada, not think it appropriate to tell that Corporation that, instead of taking anti-labour positions with its workers, it should sit down and make a reasonable wage offer?

November 24, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I advise the Hon. Member to run for a seat in the Ontario Legislature.


CORPORATION'S OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Labour. I would like to remind the Minister it was this Government that provided Chrysler Corporation with Canadian taxpayers' money, coming in the main from ordinary workers all across the land. Is the Minister prepared to stand up and say to the Chrysler Corporation, "You have received this money. You have made a profit in the first nine months of this year. You have an obligation to negotiate seriously with Canadian workers who have some entitlement to some reasonable increase for the work they are doing"? Is the Minister prepared to stand up and say that, or is he just going to pass the buck out of this House entirely?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, it seems as if the Hon. Member does not realize that he is raising an economic question with the Minister of Labour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: I will be glad to answer questions that have to do with federal jurisdiction in labour matters.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on this matter of Liberal patronage. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the shares of Eldorado, Canadair, de Havilland and other companies will be transferred to the Canada Development Investment Corporation, that Mr. Joel Bell will be the new President of that Corporation, and that Mr. Maurice Strong will be the new Chairman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not see the relevance between that and patronage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The innocent abroad.


REQUEST FOR ANSWER
Charles Joseph Clark: Will the
Prime Minister answer the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Will the
Leader of the Opposition indicate what patronage he has in mind when he asks the question?


APPOINTMENT OF CORPORATION PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN
Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the former Liberal candidate in Scarborough, Maurice Strong, and that the former Liberal henchman in Petro-Canada and in the Minister's office, under the Prime Minister's office, Joel Bell, will be respectively, Chairman and President of the Canada Development Investment Corporation and that there will be an announcement this afternoon that transferred to that Corporation will be shares of Eldorado, Canadair, de Havilland and other companies? Is that simple enough? Can the Prime Minister understand that? Can he answer that question?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that no henchmen of the Liberal Party will be appointed to those posts, but I do believe that two hon. gentlemen, competent in the field, will be appointed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The land of Strong! For whom the bell tolls!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On Monday night President Reagan announced his intention to proceed with the development of the MX missile, using a dense-pack basing plan. Would the Minister tell the House if he was advised or briefed on this decision by Washington or by his own staff prior to this announcement, and could he tell us what Canada's position is concerning the feasibility of the proposed dense-pack plan?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think the communication between Washington and this Government is normally very fluent. 1 think the Department of External Affairs was aware of the deliberations of the President concerning the MX missiles and also about some of the issues he would address in his speech. I think it is only normal that we in the Department of National Defence, through our contacts with the Department of External Affairs know what is going on between our American friends and ourselves. As far as the issue of the MX missile is conerned, I think it is part of the two-track decision which was taken by NATO to try to create a credible deterrent in order to avoid war and preserve the peace. Actually, that is the basis of all actions taken by the United States within the NATO area.
November 24, 1982


NECESSITY FOR ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SITE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am asking the Minister of National Defence these questions because he, of all people in the House, is supposedly an expert on the feasibility of the equipment and the siting. Most experts are nearly unanimous in their belief that, for the dense-pack system to be viable, an anti-ballistic missile site will have to be set up nearby. Has the Minister been briefed or informed on this matter, and can he inform the House whether such an ABM siting would be considered to be a breach of the ABM Treaty of 1972?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as far as being an expert is concerned, 1 am humble enough to know that I am not an expert in all defence matters. I think that the Hon. Member, being an ex-Minister of Defence, can understand that also. As far as the MX missile issue is concerned, I think we are now dealing with a particular issue related to American defence, which has nothing to do, in a way, with Canada as far as our defence issues are concerned. We do, of course, have a feeling that everything the United States does as far as defence is concerned is of concern to us, but not necessarily to Canadian defence. I am going to Brussels next week to attend the Nuclear Planning Group and Defence Planning Committee meeting. I am sure that at some point Mr. Weinberger, the U.S. Secretary for Defence, will have much information to give to his NATO colleagues as far as the American defence decision on MX missiles is concerned.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Canadian travellers are being bilked millions of dollars by major Canadian air charter carriers, including Air Canada, which are, in fact, breaking federal laws and confiscating up to 100 per cent of fares on cancelled advanced booking charters. In fact 1 have in my hand a confidential CTC memo which states that "the general public is getting cheated" by this scam. Will the Minister now confirm that CTC's legal branch has ruled that this practice is, in fact, completely illegal, and will he now order all charter carriers involved to refund fully, with interest, the moneys illegally withheld? Will he further order them, particularly during the holiday season, to obey the law immediately and stop fleecing thousands of Canadian travellers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the law and the facts are not exactly as stated; far from it. The regulations under the Aeronautics Act state that to purchase an ABC or advance booking charter ticket, a deposit of not less than 10 per cent must be made, and that amount of money is not refundable. It appears that tour
Oral Questions
operators are charging more than 10 per cent and stating that that amount is not refundable, either. That is clearly being done. People can read the conditions. This practice has existed in Canada since 1972. It may be that it is not clear enough. The CTC itself is willing to consider the matter again, which is being done now, and the CTC will decide if a change must be made, if an amendment is needed, and if more interpretation is required. That is where the question lies at the moment.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is a supplementary one, but it is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-a rather gentle one-not the Minister, the question. It relates to people who are being hosed at the pumps.
According to press reports, a Government study on gasoline costs has shown that Canadian consumers are being gouged by something like 12 cents a gallon too much for unleaded gas, a fact that I pointed out to the Minister some six months ago. The Minister said in a letter that the high cost of unleaded gas was probably due to the fact that only the prices for regular gasoline were posted at the pumps and, therefore, there really was not any competition.
I received a wire from Shell Canada blaming the Government for increasing the taxes on unleaded gasoline and stating that that was the reason, rather than the sort of grasping by the oil industry, which caused the differential in prices by up to 145 per cent. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister, who is really responsible for this absolutely ridiculous price difference, to quote Alien Gullon of Environment Canada? Now that the Minister has had a year and a half to study the matter, what does he intend to do to bring this environmentally preferable kind of fuel back down to earth?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I think that the answer to one of the questions put by the Hon. Member, namely, who is responsible for these price increases, is, of course, the companies that set the prices. What my department can do? When the Hon. Member asked me the question several weeks ago, I answered him in the House that my department did not have the power to regulate or control prices, and that in any case, under the Combines Investigation Act, the Director of Investigation could check whether there had been any price fixing or collusion by companies in setting these prices. The Director of Investigation did, in fact, look into the matter after the subject was raised in the House, and regarding the article that appeared this morning, he informed me that he had looked into the situation, that he had checked and saw no reason to conclude that the difference in price between regular and

Official Report
unleaded gas could raise questions under the Combines Investigation Act.


NATIONAL PARKS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment a supplementary question concerning the Banff proposal. On December 23 his Deputy Minister wrote to the Hon. Member for Bow River about this land transaction and the letter stated it was indeed under discussion and was reviewed by Parks Canada and the Treasury Board and, on the basis of that analysis, the proposed land exchange was not approved. My question to the Minister is, did he know that? Is that the same land that we are talking about, and why, after having given the Hon. Member for Bow River the information that nothing further was going to be done, was all of the negotiation for this project conducted secretly until finally someone found out about it?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, there was an original proposal, on which, as the Hon. Member indicated, the views of the Treasury Board were sought. It was felt that that proposal would not adequately protect the public interest if it were accepted. Therefore Parks Canada went back and negotiated a very different proposal with the developers.


THE OFFICIAL REPORT
John Carnell Crosbie: This is a point of order, Madam Speaker, in connection with a deliberate change in the record of our debates which apparently occurred yesterday. This refers to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) answer to a question in the House yesterday, at page 20878 of Hansard. I was questioning the Prime Minister as to who should turn a new leaf in East-West relations, whether it should be us, as the Prime Minister indicates, or the U.S.S.R. The Prime Minister gave this answer as recorded in Hansard:
Madam Speaker, I think the Soviet Union should turn a new leaf.
I happen to have been sent the "blues" yesterday, as I am entitled to be sent them, and that is not the answer that was recorded yesterday as being given by the Prime Minister. He was obviously reluctant to say that anybody thought Canada and the West should turn a new leaf, and he is recorded in the "blues" as saying, "Madam Speaker, I think that several humans should turn a new leaf." Now, "several humans" and "Soviet Union" are not the same expression. There is a complete change, Madam Speaker-
November 24, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Order, order! The Hon. Member, I am sure, knows that only the Member who made the statement may correct his statement. That Member is totally responsible for the statement he makes in the House and no other Member can force that Member to correct his statement. The statement has to be, in my view, as it stands and as approved by the person who did make the statement.


John Carnell Crosbie: I refer you to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Madam Speaker, at page 48 where it says this:
The debates of the House of Commons are reported verbatim . .. Slight verbal alterations are allowed to be made by a Member in order to make his meaning more precise and accurate; however, he may not, by the insertion of words or phrases, effect material changes in the meaning of what he actually said in the House.
Now, Madam Speaker, inserting the words "Soviet Union" is a complete change to what the Prime Minister said in this House. He in no way wanted to infer that the Soviet Union was under any-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.
I am sure that the Hon. Member is not the one who knows exactly what that statement was. That statement was made by another Hon. Member and that Hon. Member is the only one who can correct his own statement.
As far as the Hon. Member is concerned, the quote he made from the "blues" as against what is inscribed in Hansard indicates to me that those two sounds are quite similar. We will check that. We not only have the "blues" but we also have tapes, and we can check all of that. But it is not up to the Hon. Member to correct another Hon. Member's statement.


Erik Nielsen: On that point, as I understand it-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please; I am sorry, was the Right Hon. Prime Minister rising to ask for the floor? I will let him intervene now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I may be able to help you clear up what seems to be a discussion on a point of order. I can assure the House and the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), that I had nothing to do with the "blues". I know of no change being made in the "blues", certainly not on my instructions, and I doubt whether they were made by anyone in my office.
I recollect that when I gave that answer there was, as often happens, a lot of noise coming from the Tory Party, and it is probably true that the stenographer may have written "several humans", but it would seem to me, that if that was the case, the Editor must have used his common sense, as I enjoin the Hon. Member to use his, and said that what must have been said was the "Soviet Union".
I can assure the Hon. Member that what I did say in fact was the "Soviet Union". I must say that I meant that in part to humour the Hon. Member.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am instructed by the Hansard office, where I checked this morning, that the Prime
November 24, 1982

Minister's office corrected these "blues". Perhaps they do not have to get his consent to do whatever they like, but there is a proper procedure. You rise in the House, according to Beau-chesne, if you want to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: He has had a conversion since yesterday, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member realizes that whatever he alleges to be a statement by a member of Hansard cannot be accepted in lieu of a statement made by an Hon. Member in the House, and especially by a Right Hon. Member.


Erik Nielsen: In an issue of this nature, Madam Speaker, I see no distinction between one Hon. Member of this House and any other Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The correction has been made and I am satisfied with that. It has been made where it should have been made, in the House of Commons.
There is a residual matter here, and I trust I heard the Chair wrongly, in the inference that I drew from the remarks of the Chair when dealing with the point raised by the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), namely, that it is not only the right but the obligation of Members of the House of Commons when they notice a deliberate or a blatant change in the official record of this House of Commons to bring that matter to the attention of the Chair.
I do not quarrel at all with the fact, as the Chair has ruled, that the only individual who has the right to make a change in the official record with respect to what he or she says is that Member himself or herself, but I would take strong exception if your ruling was intended to include a prohibition in any way on Members to rise and draw attention to the fact that the official record of the House of Commons had been altered in any substantial way. That has always been our right, and I would not want to see any ruling of the Chair cast any doubt on that whatsoever.


Madam Speaker:: I did not make any such ruling. I just reminded Hon. Members of the rule. Members of the House can raise absolutely anything they want in this House, but it is the responsibility of the Hon. Member who made the statement to determine whether he is going to correct the statement or not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I may be able to elucidate the matter further, because I received a note from my office. Before reading it I must indicate my astonishment that even the Member for St. John's West would not want me to have said the Soviet Union, because then I would be agreeing with him.
Point of Order-Mr. Taylor


John Carnell Crosbie: I am very pleased that you had a conversion- I am delighted.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member for St. John's West says that he is delighted and that I had a conversion. I think if he looks at the record he will see no conversion, but that I agree with him seems to displease him because he would want-


John Carnell Crosbie: I am happy, I am happy, but do it right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member is happy, why is he insisting that I did not say the Soviet Union? Why is he saying that, if he is happy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Because the "blues" said it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think Hon. Members are now debating the question. It seems to me that the question is closed and the correction is accepted. It has been made and it has been accepted as the statement made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it does involve the Editor of Hansard, and that is why I thought it my duty to draw it to your attention. The note comes from Miss Ruth Derrick of my office, who says:
The blues did reflect "several humans" but I thought I heard you say "Soviet Union" so I made a note on the blues to the Editor of Hansard asking that he listen to the tapes in order to check that out to verify it one way or the other.
She did not change the "blues"; she asked the Editor of Hansard to check out what he heard-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the note concludes:
I assume he did-
This is the Editor of Hansard.
-and it is printed as "Soviet Union" in today's Hansard.
The matter rests.


POINT OF ORDER
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I believe I heard the Hon. Minister of the Environment say today that I had misled the House. I want to check the "blues" carefully. I am giving notice that if that is so, I will want the right to raise a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member can do that without giving notice. If he is now saying that the fact that someone might have said he misled the House is unparliamentary, I remind the Hon. Member that in the "blues" the words must read "deliberately misled". Unless the word "deliberate" was used, it would not be unparliamentary.

November 24, 1982
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to file a petition on behalf of approximately 100 members of the Southeast Edmonton Seniors' Association protesting the Government's intention to apply six and five to federal public service pensions. They object to the imposition of six and five on several bases, including the question of breach of good faith, breach of contract and misrepresentation to employees in order to get them to retire early. They cite a quotation from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1978 wherein he said he would maintain the purchasing power of federal public servants, and a pledge in 1981 by the then president of the treasury board that he would protect public servants' pensions from inflation.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise in my place today to table a petition from 80 residents of the constituency of Oxford who wish to register their objection to the cancellation of Saturday mail delivery to rural routes and wish it known that they would prefer mail delivery six days a week.



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-665, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I seek the co-operation of the House this afternoon to introduce this Bill to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. In brief, this Bill would amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act so as to increase the basic coverage from $20,000 to $100,000, a move which is indeed necessary in order to more adequately
reflect present day economic realities. This long overdue increase will assure investors that there is the protection and security to which they are entitled under the Act. In addition, provision would be made for premiums assessed against financial institutions toward a deposit insurance fund to be increased accordingly.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,115, 4,174, 4,479 and 4,513.


Mr. Domm: Since May, 1971, did the Government extend financial aid in any form to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the purpose of partially financing construction of oil and gas pipelines, or for drilling and exploratory well development, or for any other purpose relating to energy extraction, development and supply and, if so, what was the precise nature and level of the financing?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Canadian Government has not extended any foreign aid to the Government of the U.S.S.R. since 1971. Foreign aid is offered only by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to developing countries and the U.S.S.R. is not such a country. This having been said, however, official credits in support of Canadian exporters have been provided to the U.S.S.R. by the Export Development Corporation (EDC). in this respect since 1971, the Export Development Corporation provided financing for a total of $253,849,570 to support sixteen different sales of Canadian goods and services to the U.S.S.R. Thirteen of these transactions amounting to $215,224,991 were related to the energy sector. Twelve of them were financed under the Financial Protocol Agreement between EDC and the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R. dated May 5, 1975 and one was financed under a separate loan agreement in 1974, prior to the signing of the Protocol. In respect of each contract, EDC financing covered 85 per cent of the sale price of the Canadian goods and services. Details of these energy-related financing agreements, as published in EDC's annual reports, are the following: (see appendix which follows.)
Appendix
EDC Financing for Soviet Energy-Related Projects since 1971
Date	Amount (Cdn.S)	Exporter	Buyer	EquipmentNovember 11, 1974	$3,671,882	Canadian Foremost Industries Ltd.	Machinoimport	Husky 8 carrier vehicles used to carry work-over-rigs in oil fields.
November 24, 1982

Order Paper Questions
Under May 5, 1975 Protocol Agreement July 15, 1976	$8,029,947
December 31, 1976	$37,544,810
February 10, 1977	$20,017,526
May 26, 1977	$3,876,935
May 26, 1977	$513,183
June 24, 1977	$88,460,782
April 27, 1978	$5,706,900
August 11, 1978	$868,870
March 30, 1979	$7,757,612
March 30, 1979	$28,900,000
March 30, 1979	$7,859,361
Global Trading Company Ltd. Machinoimport
Unit Rig and Equipment Com- Avtoexport pany (Canada) Ltd.
Cooper Energy Services Ltd. Machinoimport
Velan Inc.	Machinoimport
Global Trading Company Ltd. Machinoimport
Unit Rig and Equipment Com- Avtoexport pany (Canada) Ltd.
Velan Inc.	Machinoimport
Forged Steel Valve Corporation Machinoimport Ltd.
Velan Inc.	Machinoimport
Dresser Industries Canada Ltd. Machinoimport Borg-Warner (Canada) Ltd. Machinoimport
Canadian Foremost Industries Machinoimport Ltd.
EDC has not concluded any financing agreements
December 6, 1979	$2,017,183
Since the expiry of the Protocol Agreement in December, 1979,
Drilling equipment
Off-highway haulers used for the transportation of coal.
Turbine compressors
Oil petrochemical valves.
Oil petrochemical valves
Off-highway haulers used for the transportation of coal.
Oil and petrochemical valves
Oil and petrochemical valves
Oil and petrochemical valves.
Gas and air compressors
Switchboards, transformers and cable components of submersible electro-pumping units used for secondary recovery in oil fields.
Huskey & carrier vehicles used to carry work-over-rigs in oil fields.
to the U.S.S.R.


Mr. Corbett: What percentage of the persons who would be included under Measures VII to XI of the Official Languages Program in the Public Service that act in the role of managers and supervisory personnel have French as their first language?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Assuming that reference is made to measures mentioned in the press release of November 10, 1981, it is noted that the question has five elements and that all seek estimates of complex impacts of changes introduced into the Official Languages Program.
1.	There are 947 occupied positions currently in the Executive Group which will, after December 31, 1982, be affected by Measure VI1. Although no accurate prediction can be given on the impact that this measure will have on future francophone appointees, using fiscal year 1981-82 statistical data as a model, of 329 appointments made, only three anglophones and no francophones would have been affected. (Measure VII)
2.	There are approximately 2,500 occupied positions involving supervisory functions for which the language requirements will be raised to the "B" level of proficiency when they are re-staffed. Although no accurate prediction can be given on the impact that Measure VIII will have on future francophone appointees, using fiscal year 1981-82 statistical data as a model, of the 4,112 appointments made to supervisory positions, francophones accounted for 48.3 per cent. (Measure VIII)
3.	No information. (Measure IX)
4.	No information. (Measure X)
5.	No information. (Measure XI)


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the Canadian Media Corporation's basic monthly retainer fee?
2.	Does CMC's basic monthly retainer fee include (a) travel expenses (b) an Ottawa office (c) any management functions other than being the Agency of Record for the Government?
3.	What are the criteria used by the Government for assessing an appropriate planning fee structure for advertising programs of the various Government Departments?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. DSS
is currently paying CMC, Canadian Media Corporation, a monthly fee of $ 136,555.
2.	(a) No, however for the period of January 1, 1981 to March 31, 1983, a provision, not to exceed $40,834 of travel and living expenses based on approved travel at cost, was made in the initial 27 month contract; (b) No, CMC, Canadian Media Corporation does not have an Ottawa office; (c) No.
3.	The planning fee structure paid to creative/planning agencies is based on the advertising industry standard commission paid to agencies for planning/creative services when an agency of record is employed to centralize media placements.

November 24, 1982
Motions for Papers


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a contract for chewing gum with Adams Brands Inc. in the amount of $27,473 and, if so (a) for what reason is the Department purchasing chewing gum (b) how many sticks of gum will be purchased for $27,473?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: A contract was awarded, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, for a value of $27,473 to Adams Brands Inc. (a) For inclusion in individual meal packs (ration packs); (b) 1,100,400 boxes of two pieces each.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the production of papers Nos. 109, 110 and 111 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not present, but I will call No. 109.

COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING AMAX LIMITED Motion No. 109-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence concerning Amax Limited forwarded to Mr. P. Chamut on March 30, 1981, including a letter from (1) M.D. Nassichuk to D. Goyette, dated July 5, 1977 (2) B. Heskin to W. Johnson, dated October 5, 1977 (3) R. Stewart to B. Heskin, dated October 12, 1977 (4) E. Taylor to N. Perret, dated October 18, 1977 (5) W. Johnson to B. Heskin, dated December 13, 1977 (6) H. Freeland to D. Farmer, dated December 15, 1977 (7) I. K. Birtwell to R. Kussat, dated June 6, 1978 (8) R. Kussat to P. Scott, dated June 16, 1978 (9) R. Hoos to "Distribution", with attachment, dated June 28, 1978 (10) D. Farmer to P. Nasmyth, dated July 12, 1978 (11) C. Wong to P. Nasmyth, dated July 14, 1978 (12) P. Nasmyth to r' Hoos, dated July 19, 1978 (13) L. Retfalvi to R. Hoos, dated July 19, 1978 (14)
I. K. Birtwell to R. Hoos, dated July 27, 1978 (15) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated August 1, 1978 (16) P. Chamut to L. Dominy, dated August 13, 1978 (17)
L. Dominy to P. Chamut, dated September 1, 1978 (18) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated September 1, 1978 (I) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated September 27, 1978 (20) I. K. Birtwell to M. Waldichuk, dated October 3, 1978 (21) I. K. Birtwell to M. McNally, dated October 3, 1978 (22) 1. K. Birtwell to C. McAllister, dated October 3, 1978 (23) I. K. Birtwell to Z. Kabata, dated October 3, 1978 (24) I. K. Birtwell to D. Shutz, dated October 3, 1978 (25) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated October 11, 1978 (26) J. C. MacLeod to Cornwall, dated October 11, 1978 (27) P. Meyer to M. D. Nassichuk, dated October 18, 1978 (28) C. McAllister to I. K. Birtwell, dated October 26, 1978 (29) Z.
Kabata to 1. K. Birtwell, dated October 27, 1978 (30) M. D. Nassichuk to R. Hoos, dated November 6, 1978 (31) I. K. Birtwell to P. Chamut, with attachment, dated November 6, 1978 (32) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos. with attachment, dated November 6, 1978 (33) M. Waldichuk to I. K. Birtwell, dated November 7, 1978 (34) R. Hoos to RSCC Task Force, with attachment, dated November 17, 1978 (35) K. Smiley to B. Kurtz, dated November 30, 1978 (36) J. C. MacLeod to McEachran, dated December 5, 1978 (37) B. Kurtz to W. McKenzie, dated December II, 1978 (38) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated December 11, 1978 (39) D. Trethewey to R. Hoos, dated December 11, 1978 (40) W. Johnson to B. Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (41) F. C. Boyd to B. Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (42) W. Johnson to McEachran, dated December 29, 1978 (43) I. K. Birtwell to M. Waldichuk, dated January 3, 1979 (44) G. Jaltema to D. Shutz, dated January 18, 1979 (45) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated January 30, 1979 (46) 1. K. Birtwell to R. Hoos, dated February 19, 1979 (47) M. Ito to I. K. Birtwell, dated March I, 1979 (48) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated March 26, 1979 (49) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, dated April 3, 1979 (50) P. Chamut to M. D. Nassichuk, with attachment, dated April 5, 1979 (51) P. Chamut to F. C. Boyd, dated May 4, 1979 (52) 1. K. Birtwell to R. Kussat, dated June 1, 1979 (53) P. Chamut to I. K. Birtwell, dated June 22, 1979 (54) P. Chamut to I. K. Birtwell, dated October 23, 1979 (55) P. Chamut to J. MacLatchy, dated November 6, 1979 (56) J. MacLalchy to I. K. Birtwell, with attachment, dated December 14, 1979 (57) J. Seaborn to the Minister of the Environment, with attachment, dated December 18. 1979 (58) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, on the subject of metals in stream sediments, dated December 3. 1980 (59) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, F. Claggett and J. Scott, on the subject of byproduct recovery of metals, dated December 5, 1980 (60) F. Claggett to "File", on the subject of preliminary results, EPS surveillance samples, dated May 5, 1981 (61) M. D. Nassichuk to F. C. Boyd, on the subject of the Amax-US Borax meeting with Alaskans, dated April 1, 1981.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the following correspondence in the records of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Prince Rupert from (1) J. H. Hitchcock in 1956, on the subject of a report on salmon stream spawning (2) P. D. Murray to W. R. Hourston, dated May 12, 1965, on the subject of the disposal of tailings from B.C. Molybdenum Ltd. (3) J. V. Thirgood, in May 1971, on the subject of reclamation at Kitsault (4) H. Nelson to D. Goyette, dated June 23, 1976, on the subject of the Trip Report-Anyox and Climax Molybdenum, June 1976 (5) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated August 24, 1976, on the subject of Permit AE 4335 to discharge effluent into Alice Arm (6) F. C. Boyd to R. H. Kussat, dated November 18, 1976, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Alice Arm (7) M. D. Nassichuk to D. Goyette, dated July 5, 1977, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Kitsault (8) D. Schutz to G. Jaltema, dated September 27, 1978, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Kitsault (9) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated October 11, 1978, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Kitsault (10) an unnamed individual, dated November 2, 1978, on the subject of Mr. Jim Schubert, an Alice Arm fisherman (II) B. Curt, dated November 6, 1978, on the subject of the 21st Annual Nishga Tribal Council Meeting (12) K. Smiley to B. Kurtz, dated November 30, 1978, on the subject of findings and comments concerning Alice Arm fisheries (13) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated December II, 1978, on the subject of the Climax Molybdenum (14) B. Kurtz to W. H. McKenzie, dated December 11, 1978, on the subject of the Climax Molybdenum Project at Alice Arm and road construction (15) G. Jaltema to D. Schutz, dated January 18, 1979, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum Project at Alice Arm (16) I. K. Birtwell to G. Jaltema, dated August 15, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application No. AR 5639 (17) K. Smiley to W. H. McKenzie, dated September 10, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application No. AR 5639 (18) K. Smiley to W. H. McKenzie, dated September 12, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application No. 5638 (19) I. K. Birtwell to M. Ito, dated September 26, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5622 (20) K. Smiley to "File", dated October 31, 1979, on the subject of a visit to Kitsault (21) I. K. Birtwell to G. Jaltema, dated November 20, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5744 (22) I. K. Birtwell
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1982
[Stage Direction]
to G. Jaitema, dated December 6, 1979 on the subject of PCB Permit Application AR 5639 (23) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated December 19, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5744 (24) 1. K. Birtwell to M. Ito, dated January 8, 1980, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5744 (25) I. K. Birtwell to G. Jaitema, dated January 24, 1980, on the subject of PCB Permit Application PE 5622 (26) K. Smiley to W. H. McKenzie, dated January 28, 1980, on the subject of an application from Climax Moly. (27) K. Smiley to W. H. McKenzie, dated January 29, 1980, on the subject of a Crown grant (28) K. Smiley to W. H. McKenzie, dated February 5, 1980, on the subject of mine tailings disposal (29) M. D. Nassichuk to G. Jaitema, dated March 27, 1980, on the subject of WMB Permit Application AE 5853 (30) B, Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated April 9, 1980, on the subject of WMB Application AE 5853 (31) W. H. McKenzie to E. Zyblut, dated April 15, 1980, on the subject of WMB Permit Application AE 5853 (32) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, F. Claggett,
D.	Goyette, J. Scott, R. Harbo and B. Huber, dated May 20, 1980, (33) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated June 18, 1980, on the subject of a memo concerning Dolly Varden Res. Ltd. (34) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated June 19, 1980, on the subject of Clary Creek File No. 0366114 (35) K. Conlin to the Prince Rupert Office, dated June 30, 1980, on the subject of underwater blasting and construction (36) W. H. McKenzie to B. Huber, dated July 24, 1980, on the subject of the Indian Food Fishery at Alice Arm (37) B. Huber to
E.	Zyblut, dated August 13, 1980, on the subject of the Indian Food Fishery at Alice Arm (38) G. Vardy to B. Huber, dated August 29, 1980, on the subject of a permit held by Dobrocky Seatech Ltd. (39) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated September 16, 1980, on the subject of right of way stabilization along the shore at the head of Alice Arm (40) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated September 16, 1980, on the subject of the mine tailings outfall system (41) M. D. Nassichuk to M. Ito, dated September 27, 1980, on the subject of a WMB Amendment Application No. PE 4335 (42) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated October 22, 1980, on the subject of an application by Amax for approval of a proposed sewage disposal outfall (43) R. Bell-lrving to A. C. Duncan, dated November 3, 1980, on the subject of an application by Amax for approval of a mine tailings outfall system (44) B. Huber to W. H. McKenzie, dated November 7, 1980, on the subject of Lands Branch referral No. 0354180 (45) K. Conlin to "File", dated November 13, 1980, on the subject of blasting for tailing outfall (46) M. D. Nassichuk to P. Chamut, dated November 18, 1980, on the subject of PCB Analysis at Alice Arm (47) R. Bell-lrving to A. C. Duncan, dated December 1, 1980, on the subject of an application for approval of a proposed sewage disposal outfall (48) B. Huber to G. Jaitema, dated April 21, 1981, on the subject of biological sampling and distribution of crabs (49) B. Huber, dated March 5, 1981, on the subject of herring sounding (50) the Nishga Tribe, dated April 21, 1981, on the subject of the Council Convention.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 111-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the correspondence pursuant to the Alice Arm Tailing Deposit Regulation and the Fisheries Act which was issued to the scientific review panel created by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to study the Amax Limited dumping of mine tailings into Alice Arm, British Columbia, specifically (a) the correspondence applying to the DOE Technical Review List, including a letter from (1) Goyette to Heskin, dated February 13, 1976 (2) Waldichuk to Heskin, dated March 22, 1976 (3) Waldichuk to Heskin, dated March 29, 1976 (4) Stucchi to Heskin, dated March 30, 1976 (5) Naysmith to Heskin, dated April 21, 1976 (6) Schouwenburg to Kussat, dated April 21, 1976 (7) Boyd to Kussat, dated November 18, 1976 (8) Farmer to Goyette, dated January 17, 1977 (9) Goyette to Kussat. dated January 27, 1977 (10) Goyette to Kussat, dated June 10, 1977 (11) Farmer to Goyette, dated September 19, 1977 (12) Thompson to Goyette, dated April 10, 1978 (13) MacLatchy to Scott, dated May 9, 1978 (14) Farmer to Naysmith, dated September 12, 1978 (15) Hoos to Kussat, dated October 18, 1978 (16) Farmer to Naysmith, dated October 31, 1978 (17) MacLatchy to Ito, dated November 1, 1978 (18) Goyette to Gardy, dated November 7, 1978 (19) Dayal to Scott, dated November 8, 1978 (20) Scott to Ito, dated November 9, 1978 (21) Hoos to RSCC, dated November 16, 1978 (22) Villamere to Ito, dated
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
November 28, 1978 (23) Goyette to Hoos, dated December 7, 1978 (24) Boyd to Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (25) Harbo to Birtwell, dated March 7, 1980 (26) Goyette to Ito, dated May 14, 1980 (27) MacLatchy, dated June 9, 1980 (28) Goyette to Ito, dated July 11, 1980 (29) Ferguson to Ito, August 1, 1980 (b) the correspondence dealing with radioactivity, including a letter from (1) Scott to Rothschild, dated November 2, 1978 (2) Scott to Ito, dated November 7, 1978
(3)	Vasudev to Scott, dated November 9, 1978 (4) Hallam to Claggett and Kussat, dated November 22, 1978 (5) Scott to Rothschild, dated January 11,
1979	(6) Scott to Rothschild, dated February 9, 1979 (7) Goyette to Ito, dated April 18, 1980 (8) MacLatchy to Ito, dated April 18, 1980 (9) Ito to Higgins, date April 17, 1980 (10) Goyette to Ito, dated May 13, 1980 (c) the federal correspondence concerned with monitoring the program, including a letter from (1) Stucchi to Goyette, dated July 19, 1979 (2) Thompson to Goyette, dated July 23, 1979 (3) Stucchi to Goyette, dated November 26, 1980 (4) Ferguson to Claggett, dated December 1, 1980 (5) Harding to Farmer, dated January 16, 1981 (d) the provincial correspondence concerned with monitoring the program, including a letter from (1) Birtwell to Ito, dated August 13, 1979 (2) Brothers to Kussat, dated August 14, 1979 (3) Goyette to Birtwell, dated January 28, 1980
(4)	Boyd to Ito, dated March 5, 1980 (e) the correspondence concerning a contingency plan, including a letter from (1) Ito to MacLatchy, dated January 2,
1980	(2) Staff, dated October 1980, on the subject "Management Notes" (3) Ito to Boyd, dated January 5, 1981.
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the documents requested are departmental memorandums and cannot be produced. Therefore, 1 ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motions.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member I would request that these motions for papers be transferred for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Motions Nos. 109, 110 and 111 transferred for debate.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the other notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre De Bané: that Bill C-134, respecting rebates of interest on farm loans made under the Farm Credit Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pierre De Bané: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, in my view, Bill C-134, an Act respecting rebates of interest on farm loans made under the Farm Credit Act, is essential to the implementation of special measures reintroduced by the Government in its budget last June. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) mentioned earlier, the federal Farm Financial Assistance Program was established in order to alleviate the distressing situation created by high interest rates and lower returns on farm products. Canadian farmers who are facing serious financial difficulties can obtain an interest rebate of four percentage points on their loans for two years, which reduces the effective interest cost to 11% per cent during the first two years of the loan. The program has already saved several hundred farmers from bankruptcy, and will probably save several hundred more before it expires.
The Farm Credit Corporation has always done its utmost to help its clients through difficult periods. Its recovery plans, for instance, are among the most flexible known. FCC credit advisers encourage farmers to discuss their financial difficulties as soon as they become apparent, so that they can then reconsider repayment schedules and take appropriate action. In some cases, rescheduling of the loan may be necessary. In others, postponement of one or two payments may be sufficient. It is reassuring to note, however, that the FCC is sufficiently concerned about the problems facing its clients to take this kind of action, and that this agency, which represents the government, has not forgotten the human factor in its business relations with Canadian farmers.
In addition to its flexible recovery plans and the special loans being granted since June 1982 under the Special Farm Financial Assistance Program, the FCC offers its borrowers every opportunity to resolve their financial problems through its Advisory Services Program.
Generally speaking, all FCC loan applicants may benefit from preliminary counselling, including advice on how to organize and develop their farm operations. The service is available to any FCC borrower who asks for it. However, the service is compulsory in the case of borrowers under the special program, since it is one of the conditions of the loan. If we look at the components of this program, it is easy to understand why the service is compulsory for borrowers who are in financial difficulty and are anxious to improve their situation. First of all, the goal of the Advisory Services Program is to help the farmer manage his farm finances more effectively. The credit adviser will therefore help the farmer to select the accounting system that is best adapted to his needs and help him get acquainted with the system.
With his financial training and experience, the credit adviser is also in a position to help the farmer interpret and analyze the financial data provided by his accounting system. He can also provide a comparative analysis of financial factors and farm production in similar operations. Finally, if the farmer requires additional counselling, the credit adviser can tell him where to obtain the information or the help he needs. Thus,
this service is an adjunct to provincial educational programs. As a result of the follow-up provided through the Advisory Services Program, the farmer has a better chance of successfully implementing his recovery plan.
Mr. Speaker-
-a Bill of this nature is not new. In the November 12, 1981 budget speech the then minister of finance announced a similar special program to assist farmers in financial distress. It provided a 5 percentage point rebate. Similar legislation to this Bill came into force in April, 1982 for the November 12, 1981 special program, which terminated on March 31, 1981. There was strong demand for the program, as the statistics indicate. From November 12, 1981 to March 31, 1982, 382 loans totalling $45,417 million were approved. Interest rebates on these loans over a two-year period will total about $4.6 million.
I urge Hon. Members to support this Bill which will be instrumental in assisting so many Canadian farmers through these difficult times. Most agricultural producers are at the mercy of the marketplace for their incomes. The price received for their production does not correspond with their costs, and in recent times costs have outstripped earnings for a significant number of them. I firmly believe that most of these producers can survive and contribute to the economy if they are given a chance to recover. This interest subsidy for a two-year period provides that breathing room. Agriculture is essential for a healthy economy. If our economy is to strengthen, so must agriculture.
[ Translation]
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the FCC is doing everything in its power to help borrowers through the difficult times we are experiencing today. By supporting Bill C-134, my hon. colleagues will enable us to continue its good work.
Mr. Speaker, I trust the debate will be short and that on both sides of the House, Hon. Members will act quickly so that our farmers will be able to take advantage of the benefits of Bill C-134 as soon as possible.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments before we conclude the debate on Bill C-134, a piece of legislation that is indeed important to farmers who, like so many other sectors, are facing tremendous problems because of a bankrupt economy. We are being asked to expedite this bill. Well, I shall be fairly brief, but nevertheless, I would like to remind the Government that the fact we are obliged to consider this kind of legislation, namely Bill C-34, today, means that things are not as they should be in this country, and perhaps the Government should recognize this. As usual, it seems the Government is once again introducing corrective measures at the last minute to save people who are in dire straits because of a lack of economic foresight and
November 24, 1982

probably also because of a lack of adequate economic provisions. Not long ago, we had an interesting debate on the importance of research and development, and considering the significance of agriculture to our economy, I believe that more substantial allocation of funds to more thorough research would have enabled the agricultural sector, which I consider extremely important, to benefit as well from certain legal provisions that in all cases would have helped to alleviate the problems with which farmers are now faced.
In my riding, as is the case in Quebec generally, agriculture ranks fairly high, and it is particularly important because this sector is responsible for 25 per cent of our economy. Therefore,
I need not dwell further on the importance of the agricultural sector. On many occasions, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) talk about the excellent position our farmers are in today. We all know that farm operations have increased tremendously in value. We also know there has also been a tremendous decrease in the number of farmers, while farm production has increased enormously, thanks to modern technology and research. Many people often get the impression that our farmers are now out of the woods. However, we have found that farmers, too, have been affected by the present economic situation.
In Quebec, which in 1951 had 134,000 farms, there are now 48,144 farms. There has therefore been a significant drop in the number of farmers. I agree that we have all these new measures and all these modern techniques and that the Farm Credit Corporation has made it easier for farmers to take advantage of these by facilitating loans, but I still think that farmers are facing a serious problem today. Especially during the last two years, there was a rise in interest rates which hurt them quite badly, and increased production costs. Here are some statistics to illustrate the significance of agriculture. For instance, farm debt increased from $1.6 billion in 1960 to $16 billion in 1981. In 1982, net farm incomes have dropped by 17 per cent. I think that these are some of the basic reasons why production costs have increased.
More specifically, it is known that energy costs represent 25 per cent of a farm's operating costs, and today, that is a lot of money. It is certainly a substantial increase, when we realize that the purchase of oil products alone represents 25 per cent of operating costs in the agricultural sector. In greenhouse operations, for instance, energy costs represent 22 per cent of operating costs, while this is only 14 per cent in dairy operations. I am therefore quite aware that things have changed in the farming sector. We must also recognize that if we have
300,000	farmers in Canada, that represents 500,000 jobs, since we have 4,000 businesses producing food and beverages, which provides employment for another 200,000 Canadians. The agro-food sector represents 40 per cent of our economy and employs 25 per cent of the labour force. Finally, it is also a well-known fact that in 1980, exports of farm products were
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
worth $8 billion compared to $5 billion for imports, meaning an excess trade balance of $3.5 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I think that although this bill will enable farmers to take advantage of a rebate of 4 percentage points, reducing the regular rate of 15% per cent to 11% per cent, the fact remains that it is not enough to ensure continuity and encourage young people to take up farming. I agree that the government is offering very substantial assistance today. I am sorry that no further provision was made other than this last minute measure to cope with an urgent problem, and this comment could apply to many other sectors as well. The fact remains that if we are discussing the survival and expansion of agriculture, we must first take a close look at capital gains policies. This year, we made proposals in this respect, which, if implemented, would have helped farmers. There is no doubt about that. Today, there is increasing talk of a tax credit for energy costs in the agricultural sector, which could help reduce this aspect of production costs. I think we should take a serious look at suggestions made by colleagues here in the House, and I would like to take a few minutes to talk more specifically about our young people, Mr. Speaker.
Times have changed, and increasingly, the family farm is being taken over by strangers or foreigners. The fact remains that the tradition of the family farm has undergone some very profound changes as a result of the increase in value of farming operations. As we all know, some 30, 40 or 50 years ago, it was not unusual for a father to leave the farm to his son, provided he kept it until he died. Today, however, things have changed, and if we consider the value of a farm operation and our present interest rates, how can a young man under 30 purchase a family farm that is worth $300,000, $500,000 and even $1 million in some cases? If special measures are not taken very soon to help young people who want to go into farming, there is very real danger that the number of farmers will continue to drop as it has during the past 10 or 20 years. I am saying this in all objectivity. I have the clear impression, Mr. Speaker, that we need some very specific policies to provide special assistance to young farmers who want to own their own farm operation and make this sector of our economy a prosperous one.
In the circumstances, I wonder whether we will not have to give serious consideration to a special interest rate, and I do mean special, at the risk of appearing to discriminate against other groups, and I wonder, in fact, how we can ensure that these young people will have a future if we do not introduce special measures such as a rate of interest that would appear to discriminate, and I repeat this, against other groups, a privileged interest rate for Canadians under 30 or perhaps 35, but in any case, this is what I would like to suggest today, and I would invite the Government to give careful consideration to a policy that would encourage young people to start their own operation and not only enable them to purchase, but also to keep, their own farm. The Government is going to answer: We

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
have increased the FCC budget for a number of years, and every time we try to allocate more funds for loans.
Mr. Speaker, I recall having informed the minister in the House on several occasions: You are doing a tremendous job on facilitating loans, but the future of our agriculture does not depend on the availability of loans but on the farmer's profits, and all my hon. colleagues agree with me on this point. Of course, loans are necessary for investment and expansion purposes, and we all understand this. I repeat that if the Government has no policy in the short term for privileged rates for young people some time it will have to set a certain age limit to ensure continuity in this sector. Conditions have changed and times have changed, and young people are no longer able to purchase the family farm and save it for posterity. And that is so important to us in Quebec and to people throughout Canada.
I therefore support the measure presented in the House today. It is at least an attempt to do something. It may be too little, too late, but it had to be done. The house is on fire and we have to call out the fire brigade. The Government is manning the fire engines, but we cannot be choosy when there is a fire. The fact remains that these are stopgap measures, and that we must consider, in the long term, how we can improve agriculture and ensure its survival, how we can give young people a chance, and there are many who are interested, Mr. Speaker. Many representations are made to me in my constituency. In my view, this is a serious concern among the young who need assistance, and within the current context, we have to provide some relief to ensure the survival of farming in Canada.
It is my hope that these brief comments, Mr. Speaker, will be taken very seriously, as I am making them in earnest. We will support this legislation, but feel the government should go further and perhaps fund more advanced research in agriculture so that reliance on emergency measures is no longer necessary. Hopefully this will offer farmers easier access to borrowing, and better opportunities to make a living without requiring the support of the Farm Credit Corporation. It is a good thing they can depend on the Corporation for help but even better if they can do without. I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, and let other members make their comments. My feeling is that we will see this legislation through today without further delay.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate briefly in this debate. It is not my intention to hold up passage of the Bill because I support the principle and agree with the premise of the Bill which sets out to reduce the Farm Credit Corporation interest rate up to 4 per cent over a period of two years in circumstances where farmers find themselves in difficulty. I understand that roughly one half of the $200 million has been allocated, and there are roughly 550 farmers who have qualified. That really means that it will be useful to approximately
1,000	farmers and to that extent it is welcome and, of course,
is supported by Members in all corners of the House. But really, it is an example of a half-baked measure being offered to assist a very troubled industry. I think it is designed more to serve the Government as a public relations exercise or as flim-flammery than as an offer of genuine help to the industry. For instance, it does not compare to the magnitude of a Maislin, a Chrysler, a Canadair or a Dome bailout. It relegates agriculture to a second or third rate position, and I take exception to that.
In the last couple of years the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has travelled the country addressing the issue of high interest rates. He has talked a brave line, attacking the banks by suggesting that they are less than fair in their dealings with producers. That may be true in certain circumstances. Many farmers have found themselves locked into extremely high interest rates, and at the mercy of the banks. In order to consolidate previous debts, some of them assumed huge loans at interest rates of 19 or 20 per cent and, of course, have difficulty meeting the payments.
A measure such as this would be useful if it allowed the farmers to pay off their loans over a longer period of time at a more reasonable rate of interest. But the measure will not assist in that respect, Mr. Speaker, as it will probably only affect 1,000 farmers in the whole country. We should be dealing with a measure to help about 20,000 farmers. Available records indicate that the industry is in very serious difficulty, largely as a result of high interest rates, high input cost and depressed prices.
In the period January to October 1982, 344 farm bankruptcies were recorded, an increase of 50 per cent over 1981 and an increase of 87 per cent over 1980. I think we all recognize that this does not tell the whole story. It does not take into account those farmers who have abandoned their enterprise, liquidated their assets and moved on to other activities. It has been suggested that for every farmer who declares bankruptcy, ten others voluntarily leave the industry. If that is so, it is in very serious trouble.
Farmers have been caught in what I would call a devastating squeeze between high input costs and low product prices. The interest rate is but one component of the problem.
1 have to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is an insignificant, half-baked measure which will not solve the problem. It is but a superficial remedy. It is unfortunate that the 344 farmers who declared bankruptcy and the thousands of others who left the industry voluntarily, will probably never go back to farming. Many who were caught in the squeeze of borrowing money at high interest rates in order to consolidate their debts are now getting the runaround from the Farm Credit Corporation because of the limitation of this program which is being applied very strictly. Farm Credit Corporation officials have a firm set of guidelines and regulations to which they must adhere. They cannot extend help to borderline cases and, as a result, there is despair and frustration in the industry.
November 24, 1982

My colleague who spoke earlier mentioned the impact of all these things on young farmers and those just starting out. They could not have foreseen that interest rates would double within 12 months, and so, in good faith, they invested in equipment, stock and land. Based on a 10 per cent interest rate, their cash flow projections showed that they could have made a living from their enterprise, but now they are threatened. We have not been able to address their problems nor does this Bill address them adequately.
The vast majority of farmers who find themselves in trouble today will not qualify for help under this measure. 1 am sure that Hon. Members who represent rural ridings will have had the experience, day in and day out, of farmers coming to the constituency office for help with their problems.
Just the other day a farmer came into my office. He had an existing Farm Credit Corporation loan and was quite laudatory about the way the Corporation had dealt with him. Now, however, because he got sucked in to taking out a high interest loan at the bank, he needs to have his debts consolidated as he is barely making ends meet. This legislation is designed to give such farmers a breathing space, but unfortunately he does not qualify. This is a tragic situation, Mr. Speaker. All sorts of phony excuses are being given for the fact that he does not qualify. One is that he does not have enough experience. Mr. Speaker, he is a second or third generation farmer. His father homesteaded and his brothers are presently farming in the area. This young man needs a break to allow him to turn the operation into a viable enterprise.
While this legislation is a start, 1 would implore Hon. Members opposite to put pressure on the Minister of Agriculture and on the Cabinet to give more help to people who find themselves in difficult circumstances. While this Bill offers a measure of relief on interest rates it does not offer any help on prices.
I have said that this is a half-baked measure and that it is a sort of flim-flam, Mr. Speaker. I think the same thing could be said of the Small Business Incentives Program. Many businessmen have come to my office asking if the Program is in effect. They have been to the bank to inquire, but no application forms are available. There has been a lot of publicity to the effect that farmers and small-businessmen were going to get a break on interest rates, but this has not occured, Mr. Speaker. Under this measure, only 500 farmers will get any relief. I do not know how many people qualify under the Small Business Incentives Program but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the problem.
This Bill is a gesture, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly does not offer any genuine help to an industry in extreme need. We know that prices for agricultural products have been depressed while food prices have gone up by 8 per cent. Farmers are getting as much as 20 per cent less for their produce. I should like to refer to a headline which appeared in a newspaper in Vermilion, The Standard. It indicated that Prairie farm incomes would drop by 28 per cent, according to an assertion made by the United Grain Growers at their annual meeting. A 28 per cent drop in farm income in the current desperate
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
economic situation does not augur well. Agriculture is one of the basic and fundamental industries which needs support, not all the time but to get over the rough spots.
Wheat and feed grain prices are at a level where they provide roughly one-half of the purchasing power they provided in 1973-74 or roughly one-third of what they provided in 1970. There is not much that we can do in terms of market prices, in that much of our agricultural produce is sold on the export market. We are grateful that we have an export penetration of roughly $9 billion, but there is not much we can do because we have to compete with the subsidies and treasuries of other companies on international markets.
We must be efficient and productive. We must address the input side of the equation. This is something that can be done by Government because, in my view, Government is the biggest culprit in driving up farm input costs. The Government can do something about it. There is a raging debate about the freight rate situation, and I am very disturbed. Generally farmers recognize that they will probably have to pay more to move their grain to market positions. How much more is really the question. I should like to refer to an interview with the Chairman of the CNR which was reported in the November 18 edition of The Western Producer, wherein it was indicated:
-farmers should assume they will have to pay all freight cost increases above the annual Crow benefit payment guaranteed by the Government-
1 think this will really cause alarm in the farming community. As it now stands, the CNR Chairman is suggesting that farmers should not expect the Gilson formula to apply and that the Government of the day will meet the Crow gap, which is something in the order of $612 million or $644 million, depending upon the figure one wants to use. Also he is suggesting that producers will have to pick up the total of anything above that, but Gilson did not ask for that. The newspaper article went on to indicate:
He said he is skeptical of any Government assurances about obligations to future cost increases.
If the producers of Canada have to foot the bill for all additional increases of a freight rate structure with open-ended escalation, it will be a further drain upon them because they will not be able to pass that additional cost on to the consumers who purchase their grain. I am not sure whether the Chairman of the CNR was speaking on behalf of the Government or whether this is another manifestation of his rather dramatic conversion. At one time he was on the farmers' side of the issue; now he seems to be on the side of the railways. The Government of the day has some control and some ways and means to check that development.
Another area in which the Government could clearly act is the area of energy. The Government of Canada could do something rather significant in terms of ameliorating the situation with respect to energy. It is very clear that the federal Government is involved in a massive revenue grab in terms of the taxes it imposes upon all forms of energy, particularly fuel. Fuel and natural gas are major components

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act of the production of food in the country. The Minister of Agriculture goes about the country saying that the federal tax only accounts for roughly 20 percent of fuel costs, but 1 submit that that is grossly inaccurate and is another manifestation of the fraud and the flim-flam emanating from that side of the House.
I should like to refer to some of the per gallon components. I still use the term "gallon" because it is the one farmers use for comparison purposes. I see the minister who used to be responsible for things like metrication in the House this afternoon. He knows of what I speak and that the metric system in the farm community is not very popular. Bearing that in mind, I will use the term "gallon". When we look at the price of fuel in Canada at $1.56 per gallon, we find that 69 cents of it consists of federal tax. In the case of diesel fuel, for example, the 7 cent excise tax is not applicable, so that reduces it to 62 cents. If the Minister is talking simply about the federal sales tax, then he may be right, but I remind him that there is more than simply the federal sales tax. The excise tax on a per gallon basis is 7 cents. There is a 9 per cent federal sales tax which accounts for 15 cents per gallon. Then there is the petroleum compensation charge of 18 cents per gallon and the Canadian ownership charge-to buy Fina and British Petroleum which is also used to support the activities of Petro-Canada in Tanzania, Bangladesh, Jamaica and all over the world-which amounts to 4 cents per gallon. Also there is the petroleum and gas revenue tax, another federal tax which amounts to 7 cents per gallon, and when we look at the corporate tax of 24 per cent of $24.75, it works out to 18 cents per gallon, for a total of 69 cents per gallon. In the case of farm diesel fuel, it is reduced by some 7 cents.
In the last election campaign, the Minister of Agriculture promised special consideration for farmers so that they would not have the burden of huge federal sales taxes. There has been no relief at all for Canadian producers.
The situation is the same in terms of natural gas. This happens in the Minister's own backyard. The fact of the matter is that greenhouse operators are crippled by an exorbitant, devastating, confiscatory tax.
A good friend of the Minister, Nick Ingratta of Nick Ingratta Farms Ltd., 504 Seacliffe Drive West, Leamington, Ontario, said that in the early 1970s it was estimated that fuel costs were approximately 20 to 25 per cent of gross operational costs. Also he indicated that today this figure is approximately 50 per cent of his costs, or $40,000 per acre for fuel costs for spring and fall cropping. Then he went on to point out the natural gas liquids tax of 68 cents per MCF and the Canadian ownership tax of 15 cents per MCF. But he overlooked another tax which works its way into the price, the petroleum and gas revenue tax of roughly 24 cents, for a total of $1.05 per MCF.
Of a total purchase of natural gas worth $75,000 in 1981, Mr. Ingratta's payment of the federal tax applicable was in excess of $20,000. This destroys the competitive edge. What is really ridiculous is that we are trying to promote and encourage the use of natural gas because it is in great supply in western Canada and it reduces our reliance upon imported
products. Simply, we have nothing more than a massive federal tax grab.
I will continue by referring to the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops. It is made up of 77 members, county-owned utilities and other private gas utilities in the Province of Alberta. They provide services to 140,000 rural people. A brief was presented to Members of Parliament. In this brief we find:
The Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops objects to the Federal Natural Gas Excise Tax and will advise its members to pay this Tax under strong protest.
I think that summarizes the disaster that is inflicted not only upon farming industry but indeed on every industry. The brief continues:
The Natural Gas Excise Tax will:
(a)	impose a great deal of hardship on the less affluent members of our society
and those who can least afford it;
(b)	place a substantial increased financial burden on the Canadian farmer at a
time he can ill afford it;
(c)	add significantly to inflation;
(d)	increase our dependence on expensive imported oil;
(e)	weaken the manufacturing sector of our economy;
(f)	add to the rate of unemployment, and;
(g)	generally adversely affect the Canadian economy.
This brief goes on to state that the natural gas excise tax must be repealed, and in the interval, pending its repeal, an extension of time for paying the tax must be granted. I think that summarizes the situation very well.
According to the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association's calculations, the tax on fuel oil and the tax component used for the manufacture of fertilizer works out to about $10 an acre. If you are farming a 1,500 acre farm, each farmer farming a farm that size is paying $15,000 into the federal Government coffers. There is certainly something which this Government could do about that. That is nothing more than a producer rip-off. The Minister comes along and attempts to placate the producers of Canada with this Bill. In my view, this Bill is only a gesture. It provides some aid and some temporary relief to
1,000	producers in Canada, but we should be dealing with something that will provide relief to more like 20,000 producers. What does the Minister do? He tries to sell us Cana-grex. He tries to sell the producers Canagrex so that the Government of the day can put its thumb on the pulse of all the farmers in this country.
This Minister supported a devastating budget, the one introduced last November, 1981. This budget proved to be disastrous, not only to the agricultural community but, indeed, to all sectors of Canadian society. The Minister of Agriculture could help producers now by prevailing on his Cabinet colleagues to reduce the federal Government take on energy, costs, on fertilizer and on all the components used by farmers in terms of energy and fertilizer. The Minister could certainly take action to remove those taxes which to me amount to outright confiscation.
November 24, 1982

I see we have a new Speaker in the chair. He is a colleague from Alberta. I might be prompted to carry on just a little longer now that he is there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister could be proposing some very fundamental changes in farm financing in Canada. What about the agri-bond concept? That is a concept we advanced as a Party. 1 noticed from the Minister's remarks that he picked up on the idea and suggested the Government is looking into it. The agri-bond concept would have some validity. Perhaps we could have something along those lines, perhaps an industrial development bond?
Canada's second-quarter figures indicated that there is roughly $30 billion in personal savings. Much of that money belongs to people who have been in the agriculture industry- perhaps retired farmers-who want to see the agricultural industry grow, thrive and survive. I am sure there is a tremendous opportunity to tap that pool of capital. That money could be transformed and used very effectively, particularly by the young farmers of Canada.
The Minister could be advancing some changes relating to capital gains tax. The capital gains tax does nothing more than drive up the cost of land, deflating the bona fide farmers' retirement income. It really is a disincentive in the creation of a pool of wealth. It is a disincentive to those who want to engage in farming or in small business. I am referring to a farmer or a businessman who works for a pittance but plows all his profit and energy back into his business or farm so that he can live in dignity, stability and security in his retirement. Changing the rules on capital gains tax would loosen up a fair amount of capital.
The Minister could be prevailing upon his Cabinet colleagues to reinstate the provisions of the Income Averaging Annuity Contract. The Minister could give the producers of this country some reasonable stability and security in terms of their retirement, again providing for the opportunity to tap these pools of capital for the further industrialization of this country and the further development and expansion of agriculture. These funds could be re-invested for the benefit of Canada and for the benefit of agriculture.
There is so much that could be done which needs to be done. But this Government has failed to act. This Government has failed to address the fundamental and critical problems of this country. This Minister has failed to attack fundamentally the critical problems facing the agricultural industry today.
This Government has lost the will to govern. Its sole motivation today is simply the motivation to survive.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-134, respecting rebates on interest on farm loans made under the Farm Credit Act. The legislation here today, the amendment to the Farm Credit Act, is to authorize the Farm Credit Corporation to offer some $200 million in loans, with the interest rate to be reduced by 4 per cent for two years. I support the intent of this Bill. It is something that has perhaps
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
come too little too late. There is much more the federal Government has to do in the area of agricultural financing. But I do support the intent of the legislation that we are dealing with today.
I want to talk about some of the problems 1 see in farm financing. I would like to make some suggestions that we in the New Democratic Party call improvements over what we have at the present time.
The problem for the Farm Credit Corporation is the formula which sets the rates for loans for a six-month period. These interest rates are locked in at present to 15.75 per cent. But money is available from other sources at 14 per cent or less. Having a discrepancy in interest charged on loans causes some problems. Farmers do not need any increase in their burden by way of higher interest rates from an institution that is supposed to be helping them.
I believe the Farm Credit Corporation sets its rates each year on October 1 and April 1. However, if a farmer borrows money from the Farm Credit Corporation he is locked into an interest rate for the entire term of the loan even if the interest rate six months down the road is significantly less on the market. For instance, if the rate is set at 15.75 per cent and the term for the loan is 20 years, that interest rate must be paid no matter whether the rate is reduced six months down the road by the FCC.
The Farm Credit Corporation has introduced a penalty, something that concerns me. If a loan is closed out before the end of a term, a penalty of three months' interest is charged. There are a few exceptions. On a loan of $100,000, a three-month penalty would cost a person about $4,000 to terminate the mortgage or the borrower's agreement with the FCC.
It is shameful of the federal Government to bring in that type of a penalty against farmers who are faced with very serious economic times at the present. It is ironic to find that a few months ago we were calling on the federal Government to put more money into the Farm Credit Corporation so that it would be able to expand the lending capacity of the Corporation, yet we find now that the situation exists where there are not very many farmers to whom loans are being given, and certainly no new loans. Farmers who wish to expand their operations or those who wish to start into farming do not want to go to the Farm Credit Corporation because money is so much cheaper through the private markets than it would be through the Corporation. Even if there were increased money in the Farm Credit Corporation right now, it would still be sitting there because the farmers do not want to borrow it and be penalized for dealing with a federal Crown corporation which was initially set up to be in the best interests of farmers themselves.
we are heading into a period of lower and lower net farm incomes as grain prices continue to decline on the world market and, meanwhile, costs such as those for energy, fertilizer and interest charges continue to increase for people involved

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
in the agricultural sector, in farming operations. In 1979 there were some 82 farm bankruptcies in Canada, and then, one year later, that number had doubled to 164 farm bankruptcies. In 1981, farm bankruptcies again increased to 191, and it is even worse this year. At this point in time we cannot know how many farm bankruptcies there will be over the entire year, but we do know that in the first three quarters of this year, some 316 family farms went into bankruptcy and that number could be much higher by the end of the year.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who spoke just before me, pointed out that this does not really give a true indication of the economic hardship which many family farms are going through right now, because there are some people who choose either to sell off their farming operations to farmers with larger operations in the area or, sometimes, to rent out their land and go out and find jobs on other farms so that they can subsidize their income in order that their families can have a decent level of income. Total farm incomes have changed very little from the 1974 level. In 1974, total farm incomes came to some $3.5 billion. In fact, this year total farm incomes will be less than the 1974 level. When we take inflation into account, it is fair to say that they would possibly be about one half of what they were in 1974.
The real problem of farm credit is not simply the problem of inadequate credit, which I have already tried to point out. There is more than enough credit available right now. It is not the right type of credit and it is not something which will help the farmers and those involved in farming in the long run. It is actually a problem of net incomes being too low to pay the bills and upgrade their operations in order to maintain viable farms. Farmers have actually borrowed increasing amounts. The borrowing rate has increased quite significantly. If we look back to 1970, we find that the accumulated farm debt in Canada was approximately $4.2 billion, and it had risen last year by almost four times to $16 billion, that being the total amount of debt farmers had gone into here in Canada.
Also, many Hon. Members have spoken in the House about some alternatives to what we have right now in the area of financing farming operations or putting together the necessary capital which farmers must have in order to continue. It is imperative that farmers have a line of relatively cheap or at least competitive credit that they can count on as being stable. One of the problems we find with the interst rates right now involves the insanity of the monetarist policies of allowing interest rates to fluctuate so wildly. When a farmer is going to put in his seed in the spring and he wants to borrow some money to continue his farming operation through until fall, it makes it very difficult for him, as it is for small business people and others who must rely on credit, to capitalize on his operation during the year and it is very difficlt for him to plan his budget on the farm. When the farmer does not know whether the interest rate will be 10 per cent or 25 per cent at the end of the year, it makes it very difficult for him to plan his year.
When we consider some of the other constructive suggestions which have been made and which should be followed, we should also consider the agri-bond concept which has been
mentioned by other Hon. Members in the House. The agribond concept is a good idea because it would provide a real pension plan for those farmers who do not usually contribute to a pension plan, many of them not at all. Many of the farmers in my own constituency whom I know personally rely upon the sale of their farms and farm assets at the end of their term of farming. Quite often they wish to turn their farms over to family members. They may sell to neighbours or to someone else, but over their lifetime they have really relied on building up their farming operations to provide for a dignified and decent retirement. Many farmers have sacrificed all their lives so that they can look forward to their retirement and a standard of living to which they have been accustomed. When a farmer sells his farm upon retirement now, he is quite often hit with a very heavy capital gains tax, and if there is one area in which the tax is unfair, I believe it is when it affects those who are involved in farming, those who have invested in their farms as their retirement package.
The agri-bond concept would be good if the Government were to see fit to put legislation into place which would allow farmers who have sold their farms for their retirement years to invest their money in a fund set up by the Farm Credit Corporation so that they could get relief and not pay capital gains on that amount. They would be returned an interest rate which might possibly be somewhat lower than the private market rate at that time. However, the rate that they would get on the capital gains for the bulk of the capital they had invested in the Farm Credit Corporation fund would certainly offset the lower interest rate they would be getting.
I think many farmers would be happy if they were able to invest in an agri-bond system set up through the Farm Credit Corporation, In turn, this would possibly provide the Farm Credit Corporation with a cheaper source of monay than its present source in the private market. I understand that the Corporation is thinking of floating $100 million in bonds on the United States market. The Corporation is in somewhat of a quandary right now because it is waiting until the interest rates reach the lowest possible point to try to pass that benefit on to the farming population of Canada, which wishes to take advantage of the Farm Credit Corporation loans, and we hope the rates will be coming down in the near future.
When farmers invest money in the Farm Credit Corporation it benefits them when they retire. It also benefits new farmers who are getting into farming and farmers already involved in the farming operation, because it gives them a supply of capital that they need to continue their farming operation, at a preferred rate.
One thing that I would like to touch on before I close off my remarks is the fact that an increasing number of farmers are feeling that they are being driven off their farms. This is true. It is indicated in the number of farm bankruptcies that we have had increasing very dramatically over the years, but it is also indicated in the hidden areas, such as when people have
November 24, 1982

either rented their farms out or they have almost turned into hobby farmers. They have sometimes sold off at a loss just to get out of the farming operation. This brings me to the area where I have real concern, that of people earning off-farm income. I can see why they earn off-farm income because many farmers, especially those on a smaller scale with a quarter section or possibly up to a section of land need that money to increase their family income to a large enough extent that they can keep on farming and keep some sort of decent lifestyle. I think that when farmers have to do this, the farming operation itself suffers. They are not spending the time that they should be.
We have to look at ways of stabilizing prices for farm products that will allow those involved in farming to plan over a longer period of time. The New Democratic Party over many years, and the CCF before them, have advocated orderly marketing. I agree with the orderly marketing concept. I believe it should be expanded in many areas of agriculture, but if there was another way, Mr. Speaker, that prices could be stabilized for people involved in farming throughout this country, whether it is potatoes in Prince Edward Island, fruit in British Columbia or wheat in Saskatchewan, I would agree with that, because farmers need a stable price for their products so they do not have to go off the farm and earn this extra income.
I am quite upset with Revenue Canada. They are connected with off-farm income as well. I have had several complaints recently from constituents whom I represent about Revenue Canada doing an audit on many farmers. I do not know whether they picked out one section of Saskatchewan or one section of Canada, but they have been doing several audits on people who have declared off-farm incomes. They have seen fit in many of these instances not to allow some of the regular farm deductions that would have normally been allowed in the past, and still should be allowed today because, although these are bona fide farmers and are in a full-time farming operation, they need the off-farm income to keep their operation going. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we find that we have farmers who have to neglect their business and then are punished even futher by the federal Government's not allowing them the deductions that they should have available to them as bona fide farmers.
I support the intent of Bill C-134 in that it does in fact give a two-year break to farmers who are getting money from the Farm Credit Corporation. It is lowering the amount for two years from 15.75 per cent to 11.75 per cent.
I have another reservation that I would like to bring out and that is that at the end of the two years the farmers who take advantage of the money from the Farm Credit Corporation under this new piece of legislation will find themselves locked in at 15.75 per cent when at that time the market rate may be much, much lower.
I would urge the federal Government to look at stabilizing farm prices for farm products. I would also ask them to be a little more sympathetic. I refer to the Departments and
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
agencies of the federal Government that do in fact deal with our farming population. In Saskatchewan and many other areas of Canada agriculture is the number one industry. The prosperity of many regions in Canada depends on agriculture.
I think if we continue to treat people of our farming communities in the way we have until now, we will find ourselves in the position where we are not producing sufficient food to fill our own requirements. We do not do that now in some areas, but it will get even worse in years to come.
I would also urge the federal Government and all Members of the Opposition to keep in mind that agriculture and transportation are vitally intertwined together. One cannot succeed very well without the other, especially in some of the landlocked Provinces where we have to go to more expensive methods of transporting agricultural products. We need the benefit of good transportation policies to get our products to the people who need them in other parts of Canada, and in other parts of the world.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Hon. Members who have spoken before on the very important issue of farm credit, credit and financial assistance to farmers. It is most important at this time as farmers this year will be facing some 17 per cent less in total income than they had last year.
We find that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) over the years has been amending the farm credit Bill a number of times to bring it up to date or to attempt to allow it to meet certain circumstances. We recognize now that farmers are in financial crisis. The statistics have been put on the record. When we look at what has happened in the last year we find that the Farm Credit Bill has been amended once, which will assist approximately 900 farmers, and we are now attempting to amend it again to assist perhaps 300 or 400 farmers- maybe 500. In all, we are assisting, in the legislation that we have passed, the Farm Credit Bill, only about 1,250 or 1,300 farmers out of the 315,000 or 318,000 that are resident and operating in Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A mere pittance.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: As my colleague from Vegreville says, it is a mere pittance, and he described that very well in his remarks on this legislation, and I know that all Members of this House were listening very carefully.
The Minister, in the years that he has been Minister of Agriculture-and I have been here all those years-has done really very little for Canadian agriculture. The one thing that he has done and probably is doing today is that he has been the Minister of Agriculture who has travelled more than any other Minister in this country. He is constantly in the air, putting out fires here and there, instead of coming into this House with legislation to assist farmers and to allow them to operate and produce food not only for Canada but for many other countries in the world that need it. He is the PR man for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and for agriculture. He is not presenting to this House the kind of legislation or the kinds of ideas

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
that are necessary to assist a most important industry in this country.
Let us just look at what he has done in the last ten years. He has presented 13 bills to this House that have passed. Three of those bills have been in farm credit. Another bill has been in the farm improvement loans area. Most of the other bills, excepting one, have only been bills to update legislation that had been passed in the previous Parliaments. The only bill that is new has been the Bill for the Meat Import Act, an Act that was almost forced upon the Minister because of surpluses in other countries of the world coming into this nation. He has brought forward futuristic legislation to assist the farmers, something being proposed by Hon. Members in this House today. Why have we not seen legislation to reduce the farm fuel tax? That is very important legislation that could be passed quickly. It would greatly assist the farmers right across this country. It was earlier put on record that every farmer who farms in the neighbourhood of 1,000 acres is adding $1,500 to the federal coffers. Most western grain farms average 700 to 1,000 acres, as the previous speaker mentioned, and more and more farmers are being forced to rent their land. As a result, practising farmers are being offered so much land they cannot handle it. They are stretching their assets.
For the first time in many years farmers have to borrow from the banks the working capital in order to put in their crops. They cannot save enough money to put in a crop. If in some way their crop should fail, they have no other choice than to sell their assets or go bankrupt. That is the serious problem being faced not only by young farmers or those starting up but by established farmers as well.
Why has the Minister not talked to the western grain stabilization people with regard to getting the payment out early this year? Farmers are in desperate need of that money. There will be a payment this year and it ought to go out quickly. Members of this House and agricultural organizations across Canada have proposed that the advance payment be increased to $30,000, and $45,000 for corporate farms, from the present $15,000. For the average farm of 700 to 1,000 acres, $15,000 will not even pay the fertilizer bill. Therefore, that amount ought to be increased quickly. This is not new; it is an idea that people have been talking about.
The Minister of Agriculture should bring together his provincial counterparts. He should ask for their ideas with regard to stabilizing farm income. Every time the ministers attempt to get together, the Minister of Agriculture goes back to his old favourite, the marketing board. If it does not involve a marketing board, the Minister will not talk about stabilization. He favours the supply management marketing board. Most farmers do not want such an order from the Minister. They would rather talk about a program that does not involve such a board.
Many Members have said the Minister should look at new credit ideas. The agri-bond concept has been put forward by both opposition Parties and looked upon favourably by many
people as a way of getting Canadians to invest in a Canadian industry rather than outside the country. It could be done very easily with that concept.
There has been talk about the capital gains tax. Not only is it tough to pay the capital gains tax when selling out to retire, which few farmers can afford to do, but when a farmer is forced to sell his assets, not only must he meet his debts, but the Government is there with its hand out looking for a capital gains tax.
An excellent proposal was put forward by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). He is suggesting that those farmers who would have to pay capital gains tax when selling their assets be allowed to put that money into the Farm Credit Corporation at a low rate of interest. If the money is left in for a period of more than five years, when they receive that money back it would not be subject to capital gains tax. If this idea were adopted, loans could be made to farmers in desperate straits at lower interest rates. It would not only help 900 or 1,200 farmers, but it would help the 20,000 who are now in financial difficulty. This could be put into place immediately.
A previous speaker referred to off-farm income. Many farmers are forced to work outside their farms in order to get enough money to support their families. Their farm income is only enough to pay the debt. A lot of their income is invested in the farm in order to better it. The Government will not respond to the suggestion that we raise the $2,500 deduction as well as the additional $5,000 of which 50 per cent can be written off. This should be brought up to date. It has now been in place for ten years. Because many farmers are now forced into the off-farm income position, this amount should be increased.
For the past ten years this Minister has only been updating legislation. He should be putting into our embassies and trade commissions those who are knowledgeable in agriculture to assist us in our trade. For years we have been making that recommendation. Instead we get a Canagrex Bill with powers of extraordinary magnitude. This makes every farmer in the country shake in his boots. We should now have people in the trade houses looking for export markets for our farmers.
We need leadership to respond to situations such as that in the United States where there is a huge surplus of grain and oilseeds. With its large treasury, it has now put in place export credit packages. Because of these interest-forgiving packages, they will be capable of stealing our traditional markets.
A similar type of assistance could be given through our Canadian Commercial Corporation. It may not be necessary to do that in the same volume, but with the present recession many of our traditional customers require that kind of assistance. We ought to be there to ensure that these markets are not lost.
The largest portion of our imports are fruits and vegetables. We have the capacity in Canada to produce those vegetables and some fruits in our greenhouses. We not only have the capacity to produce, but this is a labour-intensive industry. At
November 24, 1982

this time of high unemployment, we ought to foster our greenhouse industry in every way possible.
We have a surplus of natural gas. However, the onerous tax on the natural gas is driving many greenhouse operations out of business. Farm credit will not assist them. It will not provide the loans they require to stay in business when the cost of fuel to heat the greenhouse has in some cases increased by 100 per cent per year. This creates an impossible situation.
The federal Government ought to assist in providing alternative systems of heat for greenhouses. Pumping stations all across the Prairies are emitting heat into a 20 below atmosphere. Heat is going up the stack of our thermo-coal generating plants. Huge amounts of heat are being wasted from our nuclear plants in Ontario. That wasted heat could be funnelled into the greenhouse industry at almost no cost. In addition to a tremendous amount of vegetables being produced, it would create thousands of jobs.
These are the types of ideas that we should be hearing from the Minister of Agriculture. Instead, we see amendments to a Farm Credit Bill that will only help 200 or 300 farmers. We are seeing amendments to bring up to date old pieces of legislation that were brought in by other Governments. When will the Minister of Agriculture bring forward some positive policies which we can pass in the House to assist our farmers quickly in their desperate need?


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate on the amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act. Each day when Members stand to speak in the House, we hear time and again of the mills that are laying off shifts, of factories that are forced to close their doors and of small businesses that have been pushed into receivership. That causes us all a great deal of concern. I suspect that we on the opposition side are more concerned because one gets the distinct impression that the Government still does not recognize that there is a serious problem in the industrial sector of this country. One gets this impression based on the Government's actions and its proposed solutions. It is our hope that the Members on the Government side will realize how serious are the problems facing that sector and the fact that we are on the edge of an industrial collapse unless the Government takes some action. Let us hope and pray on a daily basis that the Government will see the challenge before it and take it up.
While we are all concerned about the demise of small businesses, medium businesses and the large corporations in our country, we begin to become very concerned when the agricultural sector faces real difficulties. Cattlemen, farmers, orchardists and so many others participating in food production in Canada are finding themselves in greater difficulty each day. Some very definite trends have been emerging which I consider to be dangerous. For example, the small family farm is falling by the wayside while the large corporate sector-the agri-business-is taking over the impetus in food production in Canada. Families who have lived on their land for many generations are being forced to move because they cannot meet
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
the high interest costs the Government has placed upon them. As well, farmers, cattlemen and others who have been on their land for generations are now forced to rent their properties to others because of the difficulty they have in marketing their goods.
A few months ago I had the good fortune to co-chair a task force on the economy which toured virtually every sector of each province. Farmers and food producers appeared before that task force to offer distinct solutions to their problems. They indicated that if they were given the opportunity and provided some encouragement by the federal Government, and the Provinces in some cases, they could double and perhaps triple or quadruple the amount of food they were producing. As was suggested by another Hon. Member who spoke recently, we are still importing fruits, vegetables and beef when the opposite could be true for many of these products.
We are faced with a grave situation. I would like to give some statistics which attempt in an objective, non-political and non-partisan way to describe accurately the situation as it relates to Canada's food production. In 1979 there were 82 farm bankruptcies in Canada. That number doubled one year later to 164 farm bankruptcies. In 1982 farm bankruptcies increased again to 191. The situation this year is even worse. While we only have the number of farm bankruptcies for the first three-quarters of this year, there already have been 316 family farms which have gone bankrupt. In the last nine months, 316 farmers could no longer make ends meet and were forced to shut down their operations. This situation should be considered totally unacceptable by Members in the House when we consider the vast agricultural resources and the potential capital and human resources which exist in our country. It is an outrageous situation.
I would like to speak for a moment about the farm situation in my Province of British Columbia. When one examines the struggle farmers in that Province are having, it presents a very bleak picture. The statistics on net farm income in British Columbia show that there was $136,458 million in terms of farm income in 1978. In 1979, that amount changed to $178,578 million. In 1980 that income began to decrease. In that year the net income for farm operations in British Columbia was $166,759 million. In 1981 it was reduced to $90,674 million. That represents a very serious decrease in income.
Let us consider the interest on indebtedness on British Columbia's farms. This statistic is something which all of us have become only too used to, that is, the matter of personal, business, corporate and farm indebtedness. In 1978, interest on indebtedness for B.C. farms totalled $62,524 million. In 1979 that had increased to $93,137 million. In 1980 it increased again to $116,437 million. In 1981 that figure skyrocketed to $189,873 million. These Figures illustrate the drastic increase in interest on indebtedness for B.C. farms in the last three years.
When one considers the outstanding farm debt in British Columbia, the statistics paint an even bleaker picture. In 1978

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
the outstanding farm debt was $956,079 million. This increased in 1979 to $1,163,093 million. In 1980 it had increased to $1,312,480 million. Unfortunately, the statistics for 1981 are not available but by all indications the outstanding farm debt will be well over $1,500,000 million. No matter what statistic one wishes to consider when trying to understand what is happening to farm incomes in Canada, it points to a very definite downward trend.
I would like to discuss the question of fertilizer costs and energy costs. These two areas are of special importance because these costs are beginning to skyrocket rather than decline.
For this example, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the great grain producing Province of Saskatchewan where energy and fertilizer costs are perhaps more important than in other areas. Over the last four-year period energy costs, including petroleum products, have risen substantially. In 1978 it was $171 million. In 1979 it had increased to $189 million. In 1980 it went up again to $215 million. In 1981 the figure had nearly reached $285 million.
So one can see, just by looking at these raw statistics, the incredible costs food producers are forced to bear as a result of increased fuel and energy costs. The tragedy, Mr. Speaker, is that these increases are the direct result of this Government's energy policies. It is a very sad day for the food producers of this country when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) week after week refuses to recognize the skyrocketing costs, and fails to take any action to ease the burden.
Let us turn for a moment to another area of cost which is perhaps even more important than energy, that of fertilizers. The fertilizer industry, because of its great dependence on energy, has seen fantastic increases in the cost of its product. That, of course, is directly related to the cost of food production. Again, let us objectively examine the increase in fertilizer costs over just the last four or five years. In 1978 the cost of fertilizer application in Saskatchewan was $101 million. In 1979 it had increased to $143 million. In 1980 it had gone up to $166 million. Then came the big jump in 1981 up to $205 million, and in 1982 to nearly $250 million.
On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, we see these increases in these two critical areas of energy and fertilizer, and on the other, the cost of seeds, barbed wire, building materials and equipment is increasing as a result of the inflationary problem we find ourselves in, and that is attributed directly to present Government policies. At the same time as these costs are increasing so dramatically, farm income in many cases has actually decreased. Looking at the price per pound that beef producers in central British Colombia receive, it has largely levelled out for the last number of years. In no way does it begin to match the rising costs of raising beef. If it were not for the beef stabilization plan in British Columbia, more accurately described as the Farm Income Assurance Plan, the small beef producers in British Columbia would not be in operation today. We can thank the New Democratic Party for the plan. When they were in power in British Columbia they
recognized the value of keeping the small family ranch in place and introduced that measure to preserve this very traditional part of the British Columbia and western Canadian landscape.
Over the last five years, Mr. Speaker, the cost to food producers of energy and fertilizer has increased by just under 80 per cent. Is it any wonder that people who are very knowledgeable about the food producers of Canada and the problems they face stand up and declare that many in this sector are on the edge of financial collapse? When you consider these few figures which I have just put before the House this afternoon, is it any wonder? Consider the most recent amendments to the legislation dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation, such as the one a few months ago which resulted in assistance to approximately 900 farm operators in Canada. Assuming that this Bill we are dealing with now is passed soon, it will provide relief to somewhere between 300 and 500 farmers. But we are just beginning to touch the surface of the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Government is not addressing the serious problems facing the food producers of this country.
There is a crisis in the grain industry, in the oil seeds industry, and a crisis in the beef industry in Canada. Nothing short of calling it a crisis would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker. Yet what is the Minister of Agriculture doing? Oh, we see him almost on a daily basis wearing his green hat and western boots. He likes to travel around the country visiting every single fair and every little agricultural meeting that he possibly can, telling everyone how hard he is working. Yet we in this House wait day after day to see a Bill which is going to provide assistance to food producers in Canada. The Minister reminds me of a snake oil salesman. He is a great showman with a lot of rhetoric, but unfortunately no action. The patience of food producers in Canada is beginning to wear a little thin. They like this man, they got the impression over the years that he has worked very hard for the farmers of this country. To pay respect where it is due, in many areas he has done a number of things to assist the food producers. But we are in a crisis today and it requires imagination, courage and a sense of creativity, which this present Minister of Agriculture simply does not have.


Mr. Blais:: Yes, he does.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the hog producers in Canada are struggling this very day to survive. They see little light on the horizon in the way of help coming their way. What does the Minister do? He brings in an amendment to the Farm Credit Corporation which is going to provide a 4 per cent decrease in interest rates. He does not address the serious problem which faces the Corporation. Here is a Corporation which is intended to assist the farm community and which sets its rates every six months, I believe on April 1 and on October 1, and at the moment that Corporation has its rates locked in at 15.75 per cent. The interesting thing is that I can remember not many weeks ago when Members of the Opposition were having to stand up and literally plead and beg the Minister to increase the cash available to the FCC in order to meet the needs of the
November 24, 1982

food producers in Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, you cannot give that money away. Because of a recent amendment to the FCC, that Corporation is now able to go out into the private money market, but to date no bond issue has been quoted because they have no need for the money. Interest rates are coming down so that now rather than borrowing from the FCC at 15.75 per cent, you can go out to the open private market and pick up money for 14 per cent, in some cases even less. What becomes abundantly clear is that the present interest rate formula of the Farm Credit Corporation is not working, particularly during the present unstable period.
The Government seems quite prepared to let the interest rate roller coaster go up one Thursday and go down the next Thursday, until it has become like a game. People wait until Thursday to see what the interest rate will be before making an investment. How can a food producer attempt to plan his operations when he has no idea what the interest rate will be in the days ahead? Any individual or businessman has a difficult time planning for the future when the interest rate can vary on a weekly basis.
Surely the Government could have done a favour to every business and individual by attempting to stabilize interest rates for at least six months. That is what it did with the Farm Credit Corporation. It said, "Despite the volatility in interest rates we will lock the Farm Credit Corporation rate for six months." That is of some assistance to food producers while interest rates increase. But if they drop below the six-month rate, then people working for the Farm Credit Corporation will have a long, leisurely winter, waiting for business which is going to the banks, the credit unions or other funding agencies.
The situation is a tragic one, Mr. Speaker. Yet the Minister of Agriculture masquerades as a snake oil salesman, travelling the country in an attempt to convince people that everything is all right.
Last weekend 1 had the sad experience of sitting down with a cattle producer who has a small, 200 head, operation in my constituency. He is now in his mid-30s and had grown up on a cattle ranch in central British Columbia, as had his father and his father before him. Raising cattle is the only thing this young man understands, and he is good at it. His wife and two children help him with the operation. He had difficulty obtaining much money from the Farm Credit Corporation so he borrowed $90,000 from the bank in order to get through the year. His interest payment is in excess of $15,000. He works full time, his wife works full time and his two teenage children work after school and on weekends. He is a man of strong character and he and his family have worked for the last four or five years to make this operation viable. Interest rates have made it imposible for him to continue, however. He and his family will have to walk away, after selling the ranch at a fire-sale price to a Swiss investor.
The implications of this case are tragic for Canada, Mr. Speaker. This man has lost faith in the country. He has long since lost faith in the Government and in its agricultural
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
policy. He has lost hope because of the way the Government has allowed the banks, in particular, to run roughshod over the food producers. Now he will have to try to find employment in the forest or mining industry in British Columbia, both of which are on their knees. It is a story of failure, after three generations in the livestock business in western Canada. He is no longer able to continue because of the policies of the Liberal Government.


Marcel Dionne: If you have nothing to say, sit down.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as a voice from the Liberal benches called out that if I do not have anything good to say about the food industry, I should sit down. I will not sit down, Mr. Speaker. I will draw attention to the Government's lack of leadership and its inability to deal effectively with the lending institutions in the country in the last two years. There is no chance that I will just sit down and keep quiet and let the Government continue in this way.
The agricultural policies of the Government are at the root of the increasing number of farm bankruptcies in the country. Until the late sixties most of the long term credit needed by Canadian farmers was supplied by the Farm Credit Corporation, as well as much of the short-term and intermediate term financing needed by farmers. Then the Government began restraining the amount of credit the Corporation could provide to food producers. Chartered banks were invited into the farm credit market. In 1975, 72 per cent of all long-term credit taken out by farmers came from the Farm Credit Corporation. That made sense; it was designed to provide long-term funding to food producers. By 1979 only 35 per cent of farmers were able to meet their long-term credit needs with the fixed interest loans provided by the Corporation.
The Government, with its tight purse strings, has hamstrung the Farm Credit Corporation. It has prevented it from keeping up with the increasing demand for farm credit. In effect, it offered the banks, with their floating interest rates, a bigger piece of the farm credit action on a silver platter.
At the same time that it was knocking the props out from under the Farm Credit Corporation, the Government introduced drastic changes in its grain policy. Prior to the so-called open market, most feed grains had been marketed outside the Prairies under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board. Prices were relatively stable at that time, and the competitive capabilities of different regions of the country were more or less equal. But the Government's decision to move to the open market and to allow large grain merchants and feed mills back into the grain market on a nation-wide basis, upset the apple cart. The result was the transfer of some sectors of agricultural activity to different regions of the country. To aid that transfer, some provincial Governments got into the act with subsidized credit or out-and-out subsidies. By the end of the decade, much of the hog population had moved out of the Prairies into Ontario, Quebec and, to a lesser extent, the Maritimes. To a greater extent, cattle which originated in the Prairies were

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
being fed in eastern feed lots where the price of feed grain gave the producers a competitive advantage.
This must have looked very appealing to the Government economists because, with all the activity, it looked as though agriculture was booming. But, as I said, what was really happening was that production was shifting from one region of the country to the other, largely financed with borrowed money. It was fortunate that while this was happening there was a surge in grain prices that carried most farmers through to the end of the last decade. But with accumulated farm debt around $16 billion, and farm income now falling, as my earlier statistics demonstrated, the results of the shift in the Government's agri-food policy is becoming evident. Large investments were made in some parts of the country and abandoned in others. Farmers were forced to borrow greater amounts when interest rates were increasing at unprecedented levels. The total was $1.7 billion in 1981. In the early 1970s, credit costs ranked about eight or ten in the production costs of farmers. Now the cost of credit is the highest one facing Canadian farmers. While farmers were borrowing in greater amounts, the Farm Credit Corporation was prevented by the Government from keeping up with the demand for farm credit. Longterm credit at fixed rates was becoming less and less available.
Agriculture in Canada is in desperate straits today. With the Government's record of destabilizing policy changes and the reduction of farm credit interest rates by 4 per cent, it can only be considered a rather feeble attempt to deal with a very grave problem.
In the West things are done in more traditional ways when it comes to production. The people of western Canada have come to depend upon the institutions which provide security for the maintenance of those traditions, institutions such as the Crow rate and the Farm Credit Corporation.
The Farm Credit Corporation is the only agency which offers long-term Fixed interest loans to farmers. FCC loans can now be obtained at 15.75 per cent interest, but the floating rate available from banks or credit unions is for the time being lower than 15.75 per cent. Unless the formula now used to set FCC interest rates is changed, permitting the Corporation to lend at less than 15.75 per cent and to obtain funds at a lower rate, much of its fixed interest credit may go unused this year as farmers cash in on the temporary reduction in interest rate from commercial lending institutions. Already the Provinces are being pressured to move into the subsidization of farm credit. We could soon see a patchwork of subsidization programs which again stimulate production shifts from one region of the country to another, giving the illusion of a productive, vibrant farm industry, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has recommended time and time again the introduction of an agri-bond program similar to the small business bond. Under this proposal the Government would give FCC authority to borrow short-term, three to five years, by the issue of financial instruments on
which the interest is tax free. This money would then be lent to farmers requiring money at lower interest rates, not only for debt consolidation but also for essential investment and, more important, working capital. This is a proposal which could and should be introduced quickly. I would submit that it is a more rational and long-term solution to the farm credit crisis than the 4 per cent interest rate reduction which will be granted as a result of this Bill to benefit at best not more than a few hundred farmers.
If we are to have any stability in the Canadian agriculture industry, the Farm Credit Corporation must be expanded to provide enough long-term credit to service the bulk of farm credit needs across Canada. It needs to be expanded as well to provide short and medium-term credit in special cases. I am thinking of special cases where FCC credit can help a new farmer or new cattleman get started. But simply expanding the FCC is not enough to bring needed stability back to Canadian agriculture and to stimulate increased production. We in this Party have long supported the concept of stabilization programs. If stabilization programs are provided on a federal basis, and if marketing systems are in place which provide some equity across the country, Canadian farmers would be more confident that they will be able to get their costs of production, plus a decent standard of living off their land.
Bill C-134, to provide a 4 per cent interest rate relief, will provide only a very short-term solution to a serious problem. As I said earlier, it will help a few hundred farmers in grave financial difficulty who are crying out for relief from high interest rates. This proposal just begins to scratch the service of the farm credit crisis in Canada.
The FCC would be playing much more of a leadership role in terms of supporting the cutting edge of a thoughtful and dynamic industrial strategy for the food producing sector of Canada, if one were in place. The time has come for the Government of Canada to look at this critical industry, and industry which is critical in virtually every region of Canada; to identify those areas which need to be nurtured, encouraged and supported by the senior levels of Government, and to take steps to see that that is done. Canada is still required to import vast amounts of fresh vegetables, mutton, lamb and beef. This is totally unnecessary in a country such as ours with its vast potential.
The Government should take the leadership. We on this side of the House would be pleased to rally around and embrace a strategy in agriculture which makes sense and encourages Canadians to recognize the need to support a strong agricultural component in our economy. We should say to Canadians that perhaps for one morning a week they should drink apple juice rather than orange or grapefruit juice. That would mean 24 million people lifting glasses of apple juice. Think of what it would do for the orchards in British Columbia, central Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Suddenly there would be an instant demand for tens and perhaps even hundreds of new apple orchards overnight. If we could convince every person in the country to drink an extra glass of Canadian wine, think of

November 24, 1982

what it would do to the vineyard industry. We could go on and on; just by modifying our dietary and purchasing habits, we could provide a much needed stimulus and instant demand for many Canadian food producers. But, no, we live glibly on in a sort of continentalist mentality which has virtually become the catch word of the Liberal Government of Canada. One almost gets the impression that it does not want to encourage this critical sector or the family operation on the land.
It would appear by this Government's policy that corporate agriculture is the route to go. I am not suggesting that in selected areas it is not the route to go; in some cases corporate agriculture makes sense. But in many areas much more could be done to assist the family operation. Think of what it would do to the mood in the country if every Canadian was convinced that the food producing strategy of the Government would make sense in all regions. The people of Canada would rally around it and provide the necessary support.
I come from a part of Canada in central British Columbia which is not famous for its agricultural production, but to this day a number of people are still able to manage as food producers. I remember as a youngster, not many years ago, coming to that area and seeing vast acreages of potatoes, asparagus and tomatoes, vast areas of crabapple orchards, huge flocks of sheep, 5,000 ewes in a single flock, and herds of cattle in the neighbourhood of two or three thousand head. Now that is virtually all gone. They thrived in that particular environment for decades. Obviously the basis of the industry is there, but because of the lack of marketing procedures and credit opportunities, the farm and ranch industry has virtually deteriorated over the last two or three decades into at best a marginal industry today.
It is important for Members of the House, especially Hon. Members opposite, to know that this potential exists in Canada today. That opportunity is still in place. With the availability of energy in terms of coal, natural gas and geothermal energy, and with the waste heat of many large factories and mills, we could be producing much more.
In closing, let me say the opportunities are there. What we need now is a Government with the strategy to put the agricultural community back on the rails and to provide the support and encouragement to get that vital component of our economy going once again.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing third reading of Bill C-134. This is an important Bill. It deals with the farming community and the most important aspect of the farming community, which is finance. Finance is important today because we know that agriculture is no different than any other business in this country and that many businesses are experiencing financial difficulty.
Before I get to my main remarks on the Bill, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the late Hon. Member for Bran-don-Souris who passed away last week and whose funeral I
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
attended in Brandon yesterday. I did not have the chance to know the Honourable Mr. Dinsdale for a great number of years, but it was a privilege for me to sit with him in the House and be able to refer to him as a colleague. He was a great help to me as a new Member. I know he has been a great help to many others in this House. Mr. Dinsdale was the kind of man who, in my opinion, was an example of what a Canadian should be. He was a man of high principle, of high morals, and displayed it without a lot of flamboyance. Unfortunately, many of us do not realize what a Canadian is. In many ways Mr. Dinsdale exemplified what my idea of a Canadian should be. We will all sorely miss him, particularly those of us from Manitoba. It is true that you do not know how much you miss somebody until they are gone. That is the case with Mr. Dinsdale. I know some tributes were paid to Mr. Dinsdale in the House on Monday. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here because I was in my riding. I did, however, attend his funeral in Brandon yesterday. I just wanted to say a few words today about our dear colleague from Brandon-Souris.
The Bill before us is very important. Agriculture, like many other businesses, is in a considerable amount of trouble. We know there are something like 320,000 or 330,000 farms in Ontario. I have seen estimates that place the number of farms in trouble as high as 32,000 or 33,000, or ten per cent of the total. That is a large percentage; the number is large in terms of absolute numbers. These are farmers who have financial problems which could put them out of business.
This situation has serious implications for consumers. If farmers are forced out of business we know that one or two years, down the road less food will be produced, which means the cost will go up, causing rising inflation. It is in everybody's interest to keep as many farmers in production in this country. Not only is the farming community interested, everybody else has a large stake in it, too.
This Bill proposes to spend an additional $100 million. The $200 million mentioned in the bill is arrived at by taking $100 million out of the normal allocation that the Farm Credit Corporation has. The extra $100 million is made up of $16 million, which the Government has found to pay in direct interest assistance to lower interest rates for farmers, plus an additional $84 million in loans. When one talks about the $200 million figure, one has to bear in mind how the Government got to this $200 million. It is $100 million of old money and $100 million of new money.
We have to give the Government credit for that because it recognized the problem and it did find some additional money with which to address it. Our concern is not so much that the Government recognizes the problem, but that the Government waited so long and has been delinquent in acting. In many ways the Government has been contributing to the problem by allowing it to develop.
The $16 million that will be available in direct grants to farmers to lower interst rates works out to an average of about $50 per farmer in this country. We know that is not a lot of money when you put it in perspective. We are not saying we
20958

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
are ungrateful for the $16 million, nor are we saying it will not be well used. I simply want to point our that $16 million spread among approximately 320,000 farmers works out to an average of $50 per farmer.
One must take into account that in many areas of the country it costs a farmer $100 to $200 to fill up the fuel tank on his tractor enabling him to work in the field for a day, that is twice or three times the $50. If a farmer buys a tonne of phosphorous fertilizer, it will cost him something like $300. That gives Hon. Members an idea of just how much assistance this $50 will be to him. Fifty dollars will not even buy a tonne of phosphate fertilizer. It will not go very far in terms of helping a farmer put his crop in, even as far as fuel expenses are concerned.
Because the amount of money available is so small, the total number of applicants will exceed by far the amount of money the Bill will make available for farmers. By taking $100 million out of the normal allocation of funds which the Farm Credit Corporation has, it will mean there will be $100 million less available to be loaned under the normal operations of the Farm Credit Corporation. That is of concern to us.
I want to talk specifically about interest rates. We know that the Farm Credit Corporation sets interest rates every six months. We also know that the rate set now is 15.75 per cent. Most people know that the prime rate is considerably lower than that today. Therefore, farmers who are locked into a Farm Credit Corporation loan are paying 15.75 per cent interest, a higher rate than if they were to go now and apply for a loan at a bank. I am not suggesting that farmers should be able to have it both ways; that is, a cheaper rate of interest when prime rates go up. In other words, farmers should not be able to get loans of 15.75 per cent interest when the interest rate at the bank is either at 17 per cent or 18 per cent. When the bank rate drops those people with Farm Credit Corporation loans should not immediately be released from those loans to go to the bank to receive a cheaper rate of interest for their loans, but I suggest that the Government and the Farm Credit Corporation give serious consideration in respect of those producers who have some problems paying the 15.75 per cent interest. That high rate of interest relative to today's prime is causing farmers financial problems. I know of one such instance in my own constituency about which I had some discussion this afternoon. In this particular case, if the producer were able to go to the bank and get a loan at the lower rate offered by the bank today it would make a significant difference, enabling him to stay in business.
1 would suggest the Minister and the officials in the Farm Credit Corporation give serious consideration regarding those farmers who are in trouble as a result of paying the 15.75 per cent interest rate. I would suggest the Minister and the officials consider releasing those farmers from that interest rate. I do not think that is asking a lot.
I understand the Government is considering changing the setting of the rates under the Farm Credit Corporation from every six months to perhaps every three or four months. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, when we are in fluctuating capital markets with interest rates going up and down quite
quickly, I do not think there is anything wrong with the Government considering adjusting interest rates sooner than every six months, which is what has been done up until now.
All of us have another concern which has been expressed by Members of the New Democratic Party and those of us in the Official Opposition. This Bill is a manifestation of the lack of leadership which this Government and, in particular, which this Minister have shown in the agricultural field over the past ten years. I understand the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will, within the next week or ten days, be celebrating his tenth anniversary of being appointed the Minister of Agriculture. I am not sure that the farmers will want to celebrate when they think about this Minister having been at the helm of Canadian agriculture for ten years.
I submit that the agricultural industry is a very proud industry, and would much rather earn its own way than have to go to the Government for handouts and subsidies. However, if one considers the ten years that the present Minister has been in this position, one finds a very sad, lamentable and actually terrible testimony to what he has been able to accomplish. He has really taken a once proud industry and reduced it to an industry which is fighting amongst itself. It is looking inward for markets instead of being outward-looking-instead of looking to markets outside our country which would earn foreign exchange for our country and help us fight a lower Canadian dollar and hold down interest rates. Instead of doing that, he refers to marketing boards, saying to close the border and produce for a small market at home.
The Hon. Member from British Columbia who just spoke talked about producing all kinds of fruits and vegetables in this country, including some of the off-season fruits. I suggest that he must carefully consider the matter because,for instance, it would be very difficult to produce bananas and pineapples in this country. A certain amount of peanuts are grown in southern Ontario. However, we should be considering what we grow best; that is, whether we grow grain, beef, or pork best. If we are good at producing these products, and are capable of being competitive, we should be exchanging them for some of those others. I would rather see that kind of industry than one which looks to the Government for subsidies. That would be a much healthier situation for the farming community and for the total Canadian economy.
I would briefly like to refer to some of the things the federal Government and the Minister could and should be doing. These are not new, but have been mentioned in the House by other Hon. Members. In the past two or three years I have had the opportunity to mention them, but nothing seems to have happened. What we should first do in terms of western agriculture is to consider the Western Grains Stabilization Fund. First, we do not know whether there will be a payment this year. If there is to be a payment, we do not know how much it will be. I would submit that there is no reason that the level of payment, if any, could not be immediately announced to the
November 24, 1982

farming community. 1 am not suggesting that the payment be made, although that would be even better, but if the farmers at least knew that they would be getting something and when it would come, it would help them to budget and handle their cash flow. However, as it is, we know that we contribute one dollar for every $2 contributed by the federal Government. We think that is great, but we do not know when and if there will be a payment, or how much it will be. That is a very simple matter which would not take much extra organization or expertise on behalf of the Government, yet it would greatly assist farmers in terms of their cash flow.
We have suggested another item which could be considered, the second item, if you will. There should be an increase in the Advance Payments Act, which I believe has been in place since 1957. It was mentioned in this debate by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). It is an excellent suggestion. We have offered the Government that if it were to bring forth the amendment we would put it through very quickly.
This Program has been in operation since 1957 and has worked very well. It is simply a provision whereby the Government advances money to producers against the delivery of their own grain. Then, when the producer sells the grain, he pays a portion back to the Government and the Government picks up the interest. Admittedly, there would be a small additional cost to the federal treasury, but I submit that if one considers the additional money which would be gained from taxation, in many cases the additional cost would be offset against the quicker generation of revenue as a result of the additional money put in the hands of the producer. It is not a Government handout. It is simply an advance against some of the farmers' own money. This Program has worked well. It is outdated now because the limits are too low. An increase must be considered.
The third suggestion, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), is that we need to consider the tax on farm fuel collected by the federal Government. I have in my hand a chart, and I will refer to my own Province of Manitoba. On a gallon of gasoline, the federal Government charges approximately 65 cents. It seems to me that in the interest of keeping farmers in business and food costs down, the Government could consider increasing the 7 cent a gallon excise tax rebate which is presently returned to farmers. That is another bone of contention. Rather than the Government collecting it all and then refunding it, there should be a provision in place whereby the producer should not have to pay it in the first place. This should apply not only to farmers but to the business community as well. As it is now, one pays it and then applies for a refund every six months, or whenever the amount of refund exceeds $200. I see no reason for the extra paperwork required of the business and farming community, as well as the Government, in simply collecting the money and then refunding it. If it is to be refunded, why not stop the practice of collecting it in the first place? That makes sense. Unfortunately, many suggestions we make in the House do make sense, but they are never listened to or acted upon.
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
Another item we could discuss ad infinitum involves capital gains. We should allow farmers to earn their way and generate money so they do not have to depend on Bill C-134 for a few Mickey Mouse handouts-a few dollars here and there.
We should also be able to expect a federal Minister of Agriculture to be truly a federal Minister. He should be willing and able to show some initiative in working with his provincial counterparts. The present Minister has done exactly the opposite. I know of a meeting which took place in Regina last spring attended by the representatives of provincial ministers of agriculture who sat down to discuss national stabilization programs for beef and pork. I know that the Minister responsible for DREE in this House had a more senior representative at that meeting than did the Minister of Agriculture. That is a disgrace. Surely, when we have a federal Minister of Agriculture, he should have enough common sense to act like a federal Minister and show some initiative, rather than being a hindrance, if anything.
We also know that approximately two weeks ago there was another meeting of provincial Ministers of Agriculture who, in principle, agreed on a national stabilization program for beef. It included all three parties and, by that, I mean the federal Government, the provincial Government and the producers. Our federal Minister of Agriculture was not there. 1 should not say "our", because I do not want to claim him as mine. However, the Minister of Agriculture who represents Canadian agriculture was not there. Again, to my mind, that is a disgrace.
Instead of having Canadian producers united, working together and being competitive with producers in other countries, like the United States, the European Economic Community, Argentina and Australia, so that Canadian agriculture can be competitive with them, what we end up with is a bunch of provinces stepping in, because of the lack of initiative by the federal Government, stabilizing their own red meat industries, causing provinces to bid against provinces. In effect, the result is Canadian farmers fighting amongst themselves for a share of the market, instead of being shown some leadership by a federal Minister so that they could all unite and be more competitive on the world scene. That has been the result of the Minister's ten years in office. It is sad testimony to what he has done in that ministry.
Another example of what we could do if we had some support from a federal Minister of Agriculture who had some brains, or who cared, is deal with the Americans; the American legislators, Congressmen and Senators, who are more than willing and are looking for us. It is our turn to sit down and discuss the world grain trade. We are not necessarily referring to a cartel. We should simply get together to hold some discussions on where world grain prices are going so that we can better understand the positions of the Americans, and they can understand ours. Simply put, it means that we would have legislators, elected people on both sides of the border, sitting down and holding discussions.
There was such a meeting a year ago in Washington. It is now Canada's turn to host a meeting this year, but to date we

November 24, 1982
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
have had no real support from the Cabinet, which is where we need it. We have had no support from the Cabinet because, again, it is our turn to host those meetings. Not much may come of them, but if we could at least have the chance to sit down on a formal basis and carry on discussions with the Americans, I think we would realize that we both have the same problems, and we may reach some common ground from which we could go forward to firm up grain prices. We all know that some grain prices are $1 a bushel lower than a year ago, even though our cost of production is continually rising.
Another example of how the Government and the Minister have failed to help farmers generate income can be found by considering what has happened with the levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It was terminated approximately ten years ago, at which time there was almost $10 million in the fund. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) has presented a Private Members' Bill which has been approved by the House in principle, proposing that money be used to finance a research organization. The Government has not seen fit to do that. What is really criminal, actually almost insane about it, is that that money has been sitting there. It is farmers' money, collected as a levy when they delivered grain and it has been sitting there, not earning interest. So even if the interest had been used-


An Hon. Member:: It is scandalous.


Charles James Mayer: It is scandalous. It is just incredible that that kind of thing would happen, that you could have that kind of money static for a period of almost ten years when it could have more than earned that principal over again. Instead of $9 million or $9.2 million we probably could have had $20 million. Instead of that, we have the original sum and no indication that this Government is going to make use of that money for anything, to benefit agriculture or benefit somebody. That is an example of what this Minister has been able to do in ten years.


An Hon. Member:: It could have been doubled.


Charles James Mayer: A good point, it more than could have doubled; it probably could have tripled. We want some support from this Government. We do not necessarily want handouts. We want some support so we can earn our way and get ourselves in a position where we do not have to borrow money and come back to the Government and look for these kind of Mickey Mouse programs, to adjust a program or adjust a Bill and give a few dollars to this farmer and a few to that.
Another area on the international sphere that I feel very strongly about is that Canada has been very badly represented at any of the international negotiations that go on with regard to tariffs. There are negotiations going on currently in Geneva concerning some of the problems of the GATT agreement. We know that the European Economic Community has managed so far to keep most of their agricultural products out of the jurisdiction of the GATT. I think that is totally wrong. If we had a Minister and had a Government that really understood
some of the things that the agricultural industry is capable of doing for this country and this economy they would take those negotiations more seriously and see that Canadian agriculture is given a fair chance to compete on some of the world markets. That goes for Japan as well. We are not asking for favoured treatment but we are asking for at least a chance to compete fairly for those markets. If any of those people are watching or listening to me, they will know that in many cases the European Economic Community and Japan are not necessarily fair players when it comes to agricultural commodities. They are very good at keeping our products out, with both tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Let me say a little bit about how I think we differ from the NDP and what their policies would be. The farming community in this country is in many cases very young. In western Canada it is not much older than 100 years, and in some cases it is less than that. It has got to be where it is, I know it has been very successful and in many cases it has been very prosperous, because it has relied on individual initiative to create that wealth, and it has rewarded the individual for doing that.
The NDP, I believe, having listened to some of their speeches and followed some of their programs, think that everything should be run from the centre and that largely Government programs should control everything, and we know what that means. It means administering programs from the centre and not giving the incentive and reward to the individual producer who takes the risk. That is how we differ. If you look at history you will realize that this country was settled by individual homesteaders who took some initiative on their own. It was not settled by a horde of bureaucrats from Ottawa going out and saying, "You chop down a tree and you work after supper and you sacrifice on behalf of your family so that you can have a better piece of farmland". That is exactly the wrong way to create wealth in this country, and that is exactly the kind of policies that the NDP are advocating by supporting these measures that the Minister of Agriculture has brought forward, like Bill C-134. That is exactly the kind of thing this present Government is supporting.
I would suggest there is no reason why we should not support the Bill. It seems to me that if we do not support the Bill we would be a lot more irresponsible than the present Minister, and Lord only knows how irresponsible he is toward Canadian agriculture. I would suggest that Canadian agriculture would be a lot better served by programs that could be developed by a Government and a Minister that understood agriculture, cared about it and saw that it was productive so it could pay its own way, not have to borrow as much money and, therefore, have to rely on Mickey Mouse Bills like Bill C-134.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy to be able to speak for a few moments on Bill C-134, a Bill to provide rebates under the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
When the farms do well in this country, as in other countries in the world, then the whole country does well. That has been
November 24, 1982

an accepted fact with most Governments across the world, and most Governments take into consideration that if you help the farmer to be secure, to be able to make a living, to make enough from his production to stay alive, to help his family, then your whole country can be prosperous.
The basis of the affluence of Canada is the agricultural industry, and it is very important that we keep that industry able to provide the kind of continued direction that it has had in the past.
The speaker just before me suggested that our Party's position was not based on the farmers doing what they can to produce and continue to produce food for the world, but no farming industry can be built on the kind of policies that have been put forward by this Government. Those have led to continued bankruptcies or farmers having to sell out and leaving the industry to the consolidation, to the extent where the industry is becoming weaker and weaker.
If we believe that the agricultural industry is a basic industry in this country then we in this House should be doing something about it. We should be doing all we possibly can to make the industry secure. This Bill is a very small attempt to do something to keep the farmer afloat. What we should be doing is making the industry secure.
The agricultural industry in Canada at the present time has a $22 billion debt. About $2 billion per year is being taken out of that industry to finance that debt. This is the highest level of debt that the industry has ever had, even if you take into consideration the inflation of the dollar. That is a very interesting statistic because what we are really saying is that there is something so badly wrong with this industry that the debt is increasing as we go along. Instead of an industry which pays off its debt and allows the people involved in it to be affluent and to make a living to pay for the production of their goods, we are getting further and further into debt.
The reason for this is fairly obvious. Last year the income of the agricultural industry across Canada was reduced by about 17 per cent. The predicted reduction in the income of the industry this year may be as high as 20 per cent. The return for the farmer is gradually getting closer and closer to zero. What we need to do here is not, as the previous speaker suggested, to have a Mickey Mouse Bill which helps a few farmers out who are in dire need. We need to look at the basic industry and change it so that it is a continuing industry with a return that is acceptable. We need to establish a base that is stable.
Over the years the Department of Agriculture has shepherded the industry. Since we are getting into such bad shape, we must recognize that that Department has not provided the country with stable marketing and income programs which
Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act
make sense. This very important industry is quickly approaching a debt position where the value of the capital is being very quickly eaten up by the debt.
For years our Party has said that if we had a stable income from farm markets, we would not need the Farm Credit Corporation, or its use could be limited to the development of new farm areas or new industries within the farming context. Our Party feels very strongly that this sector of the economy should be self-sufficient in terms of its refinancing. If we are to continue to have a strong agricultural industry, its profits must be large enough to finance itself through generations. That is not happening.
As I pointed out, a continuous infusion of capital is required to keep this industry going. Over the past eight years, farm debt has been increasing at a very rapid rate. In 1947, payments on interest amounted to $473 million. In 1980 this reached $1.6 billion. That is just the interest to service the debt developed by this industry. The industry should be selfsufficient. However, a large portion of the productivity goes toward servicing the debt.
Maybe this industry is no worse off than the country. The same management which brought this country to the point where it has a $30 billion deficit this year and acumulative deficit of $150 billion has allowed the important agricultural industry to get to the position where it requires a continuous infusion of capital to keep going.
If farm income had increased to the point where the farmer could be assured of a return on production, there would be a little extra for each generation to have the security that is necessary. Instead the Government brings forward a Bill, which I agree is necessary, that only takes care of a very small group of farmers.
Before resuming my seat, I want to point out that although we will support this Bill, we admonish the Government to look at the total agricultural industry and do all that is necessary to put it on the basis where our children and our children's children can depend on a secure farm industry in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Some Hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 25, 1982