1984-11-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O, 21


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that this Government, following the example of its predecessor, has decided to further reduce immigration levels for 1985. It is a tragedy for our country as a whole and for the thousands of people who would like to settle in Canada.
The present act and the immigration levels set each year are based on the false assumption that immigration ought to depend on the state of the economy. This is merely a pretext to close the gates. We are trying to stimulate the economy in every possible way, and Canadians should know that immigrants create jobs. They bring with them a very special genius which is their determination to succeed. They want to show that their adopted country was right to admit them. Since 1982, we have in effect closed our doors to independent immigrants who do not have pre-arranged employment and are not entrepreneurs. These people often have relatives in Canada but may not enter the country because they are over 20 or 21.
1 hope the day will come when the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be worthy of her title and stop acting like a border guard.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile held its 11th anniversary in September, celebrating the blood-bath in which it drowned half a century of constitutional democratic government in Chile. Canada's ambassador joined in the celebrations, thus making Canada party to the vicious repression that Pinochet has renewed during the last three weeks of government terror.
Over 1,100 people have been arrested, and 467 people have been exiled internally. That means that they have been banished to isolated towns where they lack family, means of livelihood, and medical care. In other words, that is a sentence of slow death. Police have ignored habeas corpus orders made by the courts, have apparently killed one prisoner by beating, and have arrested 11 civil rights lawyers. Dr. Fanny Pollarolo, an internationally-known psychiatrist, was seized from a taxi and disappeared. In addition, 8,000 people have been arrested in police raids on the poor districts.
I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to censure Canada's ambassador for implicitly endorsing such systematic terror and violation of human rights, and to demand information as to the whereabouts and well-being of Dr. Fanny Pollarolo.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House a serious incident that occurred in my riding a few days ago.
The liftbridge over the St. Lawrence Seaway at Valley-field is now stuck half-way.
According to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the bridge cannot be made operational again before the middle of December.
As a result, road traffic between the two shores of the Seaway is blocked as well as all traffic on a waterway that is extremely important to the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, the economic repercussions are obvious.
However, there is also the social impact, because for all practical purposes, most of my riding is now cut off from the services it usually depends on, and especially the Valleyfield hospital.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister that this problem is not a recent one. The bridge has been out of commission in the past, for more or less extended periods, and I am sure that unless the Minister intervenes this time, there will be another recurrence.

November 23, 1984
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge the Minister to take the necessary action as soon as possible with a view to finding a definite solution to the problem.
Solutions proposed in the past included building an elevated bridge or digging a tunnel. These proposals should now be made the subject of a serious and thorough study.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is unthinkable that in 1984, users-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Elon. Member-


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, according to the background paper released last Monday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), if our birth rate remains constant, then 35 years from now deaths will exceed births and Canada's population, which is presently 25 million, will decline over time to only 10 million. This will happen unless we have an annual net immigration of approximately 125,000 people. This presents us with the need to make a major policy decision. Just how large should our population and our immigration quota be?
Years ago we had an open-door immigration policy, but today there is a great difference of opinion in Canada on the subject of immigration. On the one hand the unemployed, their families and friends, quite understandably advocate restricting immigration at least until the economy improves. On the other hand, equally understandably, new Canadians want to reunite their families in this country.
The study of the immigration policy announced earlier this week by the Minister will deal with all of the immediate problems that concern Canadians. I urge the Minister to take the study one step further and to begin to address the larger and longer-term question of whether our population should increase, decrease, or remain stable, and what impact each of these options may have on the economy and on the delivery of government services.


TOURISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: On many occasions during the last parliamentary session, Mr. Speaker, several Members of the Opposition took the former administration to task for failing to implement a coherent tourism policy for the various departments and organizations of the
federal government. Specifically, I am referring to the Opposition Member who stated in this House last February 8:

There is a lack of co-ordination between the various government Departments regarding regulations which end up being detrimental to the tourist industry.

And another Member said this last March 22nd:

-but our message should be that we as politicans realize we cannot raise taxes without first knowing what effect they will cause.

The same day, another Member stated:

"We will ensure departmental co-operation so that all federal decisions are arrived at with the complete understanding of their effects on tourism."

Now that they form the government, Mr. Speaker, where is that coherent policy? It would seem that there has been no consultation whatsoever between departments. First, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources increases oil prices, the Department of the Environment hikes user fees in our national parks, Transport Canada charges more for VIA Rail services, raises the air transportation tax and reduces ferry services.
The Department of Employment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time alloted to him has expired.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).

[DOT] (mo)


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last May, June, and probably July, there was considerable flooding in northeastern Saskatchewan. At that time the Prime Minister said that assistance would be provided for the farmers in that province and indicated that the assistance would be on a two-to-one basis from the federal Government. In other words, some $16 million would be provided by the federal Government.
There was an election campaign and the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that he would keep that commitment. In fact the Conservative candidate, who is now the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen), said that it would not be on the basis of two-to-one, or $16 million, but that it would be on the basis of three-to-one, or $24 million.
November 23, 1984

A lot of time has passed and there has been no pay-out. The farmers should have received money in September, but they did not. They should have received money in October, but they did not. As yet, the farmers have not received the money in November. Where is that money? Why is there not a pay-out? The farmers are waiting. They are telephoning our offices to ask where is that money and what has happened to the promise which was made by the Conservative Party. The farmers were flooded out last May and June, now they are being frozen out by the Conservative Party.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks I have received a fair amount of mail from constituents concerning pornography and the necessity of passing meaningful legislation to help stamp out this cancer from our society. It is my opinion that we will never deal seriously with pornography until we have substantial fines and other penalties, such as loss of licence for those who profit from this scourge.
Recently there have been new initiatives to fight pornography in the United States. This is certainly welcome in Canada. A crack-down on pornography in the U.S. will have a positive reaction here, as the United States is the chief source of our pornography.
In the United States, increasing fines to a $100,000 possible maximum for a first offence and $200,000 for a subsequent offence will, I believe, take the profits out of this industry, and industry is what pornography is all about. In Canada, by comparison, the fines in recent cases have been at the level of a few hundred dollars-not enough to be a deterrent.
In the United States, federal and state authorities are working together to get offenders more speedily to court. This is not happening in Canada.
Some of us who were here in the last Parliament pressed the former Government, without success, to deal with pomogra-phers more swiftly and with greater clout, by having amendments passed to the Broadcasting Act and to the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. It is my hope that the Government will soon bring the proposed changes before Parliament. I feel confident that, if appropriate legislation is brought forth, it will result in swift passage and will be supported by all Members of the House.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that the United States and the Soviet Union will meet in January to negotiate an agenda for talks on
limiting nuclear arms gives Canada an opportunity for leadership in the cause of arms reduction.
In view of the American announced willingness to discuss all issues, Canada has an opportunity to recommend that items of special concern to this country be on the agenda. One should be to strengthen existing non-proliferation agreements. A second should be the reaching of a comprehensive test ban treaty. More important still should be an agreement on mutually verifiable reductions of nuclear weapons. Most significant in the long run should be a pre-emptive ban on satellite and anti-satellite weapons in high altitude orbits.
To show our commitment as a country, Canada should continue its current reasearch on arms control verification techniques and make no expenditure reductions in this area.
In view of the disappointing history of previous arms control talks, Canada can contribute to the potential success of these discussions by calling now on both superpowers to commit themselves to continue the negotiations until adequate agreements have been made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the eyes of the world are focused on the tremendous tragedy that has evolved in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa.
As someone who spent a number of years living and working in East and Central Africa, I can testify to the unfortunate conditions that the vast majority of African peoples live with on a daily basis.
The contributions that Canada is making to assist the victims of the current crisis are remarkable. The people of my riding have also been extremely generous with cash donations, time, and services.
I ask the Government, however, not to lose sight of the many other human tragedies, acts of indiscriminate violence, and powerful discrimination in the world today. In particular, I refer to the murder and suppression of the Tamil people of Jaffra in Sri Lanka, and the untold horror which has taken place in recent months in the Hindu-Sikh conflict in Punjab state and other parts of India.

November 23, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There is a growing concern in the country with respect to plans of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to crack down on older workers.
The Minister knows that many older workers, male as well as female, do not have the physical capacity to accept any job which is offered to them. Many of them have spent their entire lives in certain skills and trades and it is difficult at a later age to transfer into a new type of work. Many older workers have spent the greater period of their lives in one community and find it difficult to relocate.
This Party is in favour of cracking down on abuses but, in doing so, it is important to consider the special situation of these older workers. Would the Minister assure us that she will bring the considerations I have mentioned relating to older workers to the attention of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and ensure that it will deal with older workers in a humane and compassionate nature under any new initiatives?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The Hon. Member is right to be concerned about older workers. Too often their plight has been ignored. Programs have been developed for one group within society too often at the expense of others. I give the Hon. Member assurance that this Government is working on programs and new approaches which will be able to help workers who, too often, have crashed into the future of the new work world and have had no resources to help them.


EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DIFFICULTIES FACED BY OLDER WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Recently, the Minister indicated that she was prepared to hold consultations with the provinces, business and labour concerning these new employment and training programs, and referred especially to youth related problems. Could the Minister assure the House now that during these consultations special consideration will be given also to the employment and training problems of older workers?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker I have already held meetings with
representatives of both business and labour and I can assure the hon. Member that the issue of older people and workers is quite important to us.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1985, Section 15, the equality section in the Charter of Rights, will come into effect. That Section, first of all, outlaws discrimination on the basis of age, among other things. It also provides for affirmative action programs. Would the Minister assure us that, in re-examining the laws and programs of her Department, the provisions of the Charter dealing with discrimination against the aged will be respected? And would the Minister consult with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Labour, and other Ministers who are concerned with this problem, so that there will be fairness in the marketplace for our older workers?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member that a cabinet committee under the direction of the Minister of Justice has already begun to meet on those very critical issues. I can assure the Hon. Member, as can other hon. members of this Cabinet, that the lot of older workers will not be overlooked or ignored. The matter is very critical.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
1985 ENTRY LEVELS-REUNIFICATION OF FAMILIES
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On November 21, when the Minister reduced the ceiling on immigration levels for 1985, she claimed in this House that family reunification would not be affected. I hope the Minister now realizes that this is only partly true and that the ceiling does include the vast majority of relatives, that is, older children, married children, nephews, and nieces. Would the Minister, in this time of economic recovery, recognize that immigrants to contribute to a recovery? They create jobs, they are willing workers, and are consumers and customers in the Canadian market. Will the Minister stop punishing families and raise the level to at least 100,000, as my caucus has been urging?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Hon. Member, having been in Cabinet, would have known how the immigration levels were arrived at and that there is no
November 23, 1984

ceiling on family reunification. He should know that. He should know that anyone who qualifies under the family reunification section of the Immigration Act is a top priority. He should also recognize that the Government that put restrictions on brothers and sisters, and other relatives, was the Government of which he was a member.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hope the Minister recognizes that different considerations should apply to setting levels in times of economic recovery as opposed to the past few years of recession. All Members of Parliament have cases in their offices where the ceilings do apply and where we are talking about relatives, brothers, sisters, older children, married children-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Member have a supplementary question, please?


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister admitted in the House that she was having further studies done, will she, while waiting for these studies, at least ease up and not make it more difficult for the reunification of family members?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Hon. Member and the Government of which he was a part did in the past, but I can tell him that this Government will take a very humane, and very fair, and very compassionate approach to the question of immigration. One of the reasons why we are not going with the three-year projections that the former Government announced is that we want to see a review of the Immigration Act and immigration levels, so that the very problems he raises can be addressed. I look forward to his co-operation in this effort.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the guidelines adopted yesterday by Cabinet on government communication with the public. These guidelines effectively make a mockery of the Government's commitment to openness and accountability. For the first time ever, these guidelines put a gag on public servants in their dealings not just with the media but with Members of Parliament as well.
How can the Prime Minister possibly justify this Draconian new rule which bars all off-the-record, background briefings, even on factual information, not just for the media but for Members of Parliament as well? How can he justify this massive denial of information to the media and Members of Parliament?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we are not going to do what the Hon. Member says. His statement is silly, inaccurate, and he knows it. The reason he knows it is that he was at my press conference this morning.
The fact of the matter is that we have released guidelines which are designed to provide access to information in every reasonable circumstance consistent with our obligation to try to present government policy first of all in the House of Commons. It is intended to open doors to the media and Members of the House of Commons. It is designed, as well, to ensure that public servants who are called upon to comment on government policy are allowed to do so on the record, and in full freedom. It is designed to open the doors and windows of secrecy which have existed here for 20 years.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister should read his own guidelines which are effectively designed to ensure that one message, and one message alone, goes out from the Government and that is the one which the Prime Minister and his Deputy approve.


OFF-RECORD, BACKGROUND BRIEFINGS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not confirm that, pursuant to Guideline No. 2 with respect to off-the-record background briefings, although these briefings were permitted up to the present time, they are not to be permitted in the future, either with the media or with the respect to Members of Parliament who are defined as members of the public in paragraph 1 ? Why on earth is it that Members of Parliament are being denied the basic right to off-the-record briefings with public servants who work on behalf of the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that they are not. There are guidelines, but we circularized as well, this morning, a letter that I sent to Deputy Ministers and Ministers. As I indicated at the press conference, it is to be read concurrent with the provisions of the guidelines. On page 3 of the letter it states: "The guidelines also stress that all contacts with the media by public servants should be made in an open on-the-record basis. Off-the-record background briefings will be permitted in exceptional circumstances and must have prior ministerial approval."
That is entirely appropriate because it is entirely consistent with the oath of office of a public servant. The oath of office of a public servant is to make available information and to explain public government policy, not to criticize or defend it. That is the commitment of a public servant.
We want to ensure that the integrity and non-political dimension of the Public Service be retained at all times. We believe in the integrity and independence of the Public Service. That is why we are establishing what we believe are fair parameters which place them-

November 23, 1984
Oral Questions

-beyond criticism or suspicion.

We are trying to take them away from partisan criticism so that they can feel free to speak on the record so that the Canadian people can feel comfortable with them.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT-REQUEST THAT IMPACT STUDIES BE RELEASED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister makes the Secretary of State for External Affairs look like the Apostle of Light.
In view of the Prime Minister's alleged commitment to openness in government, will he in fact confirm that background studies have been completed with respect to the impact on ordinary Canadians of the budgetary statement, the increases in sales tax and so on? In this spirit of openness and accountability to the public, will the Prime Minister not agree to table and make public the statements of the devastating impact that these financial cuts and increases in taxes will have on the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is not only an Apostle of Light, he is one of reason, thoughtfulness, and concern for the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is an outstanding Secretary of State for External Affairs as the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount said, quite properly, this morning. I agree with what he said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: All information with regard to the economic program, which has received wide approval


David Berger: What is this, a mutual admiration society?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is wrong with that? The NDP have been holding hands with you fellows behind the curtains long enough. It is time they were nice to us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to complete his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Consistent with the guidelines and our philosophy, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board set out various reductions in public expenditures first in the House of Commons. I hope they were detailed to your satisfaction. Ministers and governmental officers were made available to respond to any further inquiries you had.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Multiculturalism. Throughout, and immediately following the election, he promised that a formal apology to the Japanese-Canadian community would be forthcoming. He also favoured the establishment of a committee to examine redress. When will this apology be forthcoming? When will he establish and define the terms of reference, as well as the membership from the community and from Parliament, on this committee?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the apology to the Japanese Canadian community is certainly uppermost in my mind and that of the Government. What happened to those Canadians during and after World War II is and was unforgettable and unforgive-able. The Government is determined to make changes in light of the grave injustices that took place. Hopefully there will be an announcement in the not too distant future.


DISCUSSIONS WITH JAPANESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my grave concern is that there is no consultation with the Janapese Canadian community. In that respect will the Minister confirm that he has unilaterally proposed to Cabinet a chair for Japanese Canadian studies as compensation and, if so, will he immediately stop that proposal and first consult the Japanese Canadian community?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member that his information is incorrect. That is not the case in terms of the chair for Japanese Canadian studies. There have been ongoing discussions with the Japanese Canadian community. My staff and I have met with them. I will be meeting with them this weekend.
The President of the Japanese Canadian Community is a good friend of mine. He lives in the City of Winnipeg. We have good relations, and we intend to keep them that way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the new guidelines, is he now prepared to apologize both to the diplomatic corps and the journalists whom he maligned in recent statements, and in the guidelines that he set out within the last week, for what I consider to be
November 23, 1984

his somewhat intemperate and certainly impudent lack of respect for their good judgment?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would not question the Hon. Member's status as an authority on impudence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will take no such action, because no one was so maligned.


Ian Deans: I studied impudence by watching the former Prime Minister who once thought that he had a majority.


GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given the guidelines that were set out today, how does the Secretary of State anticipate that senior diplomatic officials abroad will be able to carry on their day-to-day functions which, out of necessity, require that they discuss not only the policy that is now in place but also how they anticipate policy will be developed? The guidelines set out today state quite clearly that public servants shall not speculate about policy deliberation or future policy discussion. How can they exercise their function abroad, given these guidelines?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that has been in the guidelines of Canada for at least the last five years.


Ian Deans: That is true, but they were never forced in this way.


Charles Joseph Clark: Canadian representatives abroad have been able to carry out their responsibilities with effectiveness in the past, as they will be in the future.


MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The people in my constituency and many others are eager to learn the intentions of the government with respect to the progressive establishment of a merchant marine in Canada.
I know that the matter was referred to a committee set up last May. If the government would rather wait for the report of that committee, will it,in the meantime, at least make a policy statement which would be a step towards a real maritime policy in Canada, especially concerning coasting vessels and those sailing under a convenience flag?
Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, a committee on the merchant marine was indeed set up last year. Its terms of reference were extended to April 1985. We will of course wait for its recommendations before considering any future policy. I think that we will then evaluate the conclusions of the report and act accordingly.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
She has just cancelled the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program, which provided financial assistance to employers willing to meet the training needs of their employees. Nothing is more important during this critical period, especially for young people and women. I would therefore like to know why the Minister chose to cancel this program, on what criteria she based her decision, and even more difficult to understand perhaps, why she decided at the same time to cancel the Summer Youth Employment Program.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I may say that an analysis of that program showed that it was not working effectively. I wish the former Government had taken a hard look at it. It was not working effectively because it was not leading to permanent jobs. Too often it was offering short term subsidies only to businesses, and was not reaching its desired goals. Therefore, we have undertaken a whole new approach to training which will lead from school, to work, and into permanent jobs. Let me also say that one of my concerns about that training program was that fewer than 25 per cent of the training places were allocated to women.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that is good rhetoric when we talk of permanent jobs, but one program about which I asked the Minister was the summer program for students. During this critical period students depend upon summer employment to finance their educational costs. This program is being terminated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald James Johnston: -with no replacement. Why did she do that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question came after I rose. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to put his question now.


Donald James Johnston: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I missed that.

November 23, 1984
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I rose because the Member was making a long preamble before his supplementary question, which he knows is not our practice. Perhaps he would now repeat his question.


Donald James Johnston: My question is: why was this Summer Canada Program terminated so abruptly?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member has not been in the House when this question has been raised on a number of other occasions.


Mr. Gauthier:: We never got an answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will tell him and other Members that we have allocated $1 billion for new job opportunities and training programs.


Donald James Johnston: Summer programs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can assure him that there will be summer job opportunities for young people in place in time for next summer.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, concerns consultation. The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have said that they intend to consult with the rich before moving with any kind of a minimum tax. Would he comment on the double standard that is being applied here? Why is there not consultation with those groups that have now gone public to say they want to know and be involved in the kinds of slashes that will be applied to the CBC before the process of program cuts in the CBC proceeds?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is endemic to the NDP personality, but I do not know why he would make inaccurate statements by way of prefatory remarks. At no time did I say we were going to consult with the rich; I said very clearly that we were going to introduce a minimum tax in the tax system to assure fairness for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The President of the CBC is quite properly responsible not only for the running of the CBC but to make determinations as to where cut-backs could most properly be made. He is conscious of the wish of the Government that they be least hurtful in regard to individuals, and he is conducting himself in that spirit, as he always does.
When he and his colleagues have decided, pursuant to their consultations across the country, where they believe these decisions can be made in the best interest of the CBC, he will
be advising the Government and we shall impart that information to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the Minister of Finance, whom, I assume, the Prime Minister supports, told The Globe and Mail that the tax will not be imposed without the Government first hearing from those who would be affected. That seems to me to mean that the rich will be contacted in some way for some kind of consultation before the tax is introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I be absolutely clear to the Member? I have already cut off one Member for trying to use a long preamble prior to a supplementary question. If the Member persists in a preamble this time, he will not be recognized for a supplementary question. The Member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is in terms of consultation. Would the Prime Minister explain to this House why, in terms of the environment cuts, there was no consultation whatsoever with environmental groups who have roundly, soundly, and properly condemned those cuts as being the most inappropriate that could possibly occur in the environment field?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, even though we are fundamentally committed to the process of consultation I do not claim perfection in that area or any others inasmuch as, and I think the Hon. Member will agree, it was proper that Parliament receive the first advice, on the floor of the House, of the intention of the Government. Within those constraints and because of that requirement, we were, prior to the filing of the documents here in the House, somewhat limited in the extent to which the consultative process could be on-going. I want to assure the Hon. Member that if there are deficiencies, as I am sure there are in our consultative process, this in no way diminished the genuine commitment that we have to involve all sectors of society in the evolution of governmental policy.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Transport). He is certain-
November 23, 1984

ly aware of the situation involving the bridge over the St. Lawrence Seaway near Valleyfield. The mobile section of this liftbridge is now locked at midlevel, with the result that both highway and maritime traffic will be paralysed for at least two weeks at a time of the year when shipping is at a critical stage. Can the Minister tell the House whether he intends to take immediate action to prevent a recurrence of such an incident?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed aware of the incident involving the Valleyfield bridge. This incident causes the bridge to be too high for road vehicles to travel on and too low for maritime traffic to go under. We took the necessary action to correct the situation immediately, but the information received suggests that it will be at least two weeks before the situation is back to normal. We are perfectly aware of the consequences for shipping on the Seaway. However, it is impossible to act more quickly. As for future policies in this regard, we shall have to look into the matter.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my honourable friend, the Government House Leader.
Earlier this week, the Leader of the Official Opposition questioned the Deputy Prime Minister and brought to light the conspicuous absence of French-speaking members on the powerful committee advising the Government on budget cuts. The Deputy Prime Minister recognized his error, saying it was an honest error, and on this side we trusted him. Now, Mr. Speaker, for the second time in the same week, there was another honest error committed against French-speaking citizens and their rights in this country . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Jacques Guilbault: I am stating the facts, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, during the setting up of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources put forward a shameful motion to allow on grounds of efficiency the tabling of unilingual documents in that committee. Can the Minister indicate whether this is a new Government policy aimed at retroducing unilingualism through the back door in the House of Commons committees? I put this question to him particularly in his capacity as High Commissar in charge of committee organization.
Oral Questions


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker.


RESEARCH
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary to the question put by the Hon. Member for Skeena to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
In his answer, the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that because of parliamentary constraints, he may not have been able to make all the necessary consultations on cut-backs concerning the National Research Council, and more specifically, its toxicological and environmental research.
Would the Prime Minister be willing to allow a committee of this House to meet with officials of the National Research Council and see whether there is a more effective way to implement these cuts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend has any suggestions as to which approach would be most effective, we would be pleased to hear them.
The Minister and his colleagues proceeded with the budgetary cut-backs in close co-operation with the scientific community, believing, and 1 think rightly so, that it was the best they could do in the circumstances.
I am sure we can learn more on the subject from the Hon. Member and other colleagues, and we are prepared to listen and to take note of any information you may have received from the scientific community.
However, we do feel that the cuts were done properly and objectively.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In his answer to me with regard to the Churchill rocket range and the Gimli testing site, he said that the closing down would be phased in over three years. In talking with departmental officials I found out that the Minister was wrong and that the shut-down will occur on March 31, 1985.

November 23, 1984
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: And he had permission to do it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Under the Prime Minister's new guidelines, would it be possible for me to find out from the departmental officials when the Minister is indeed wrong?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite capable of making that determination because, according to the Member's honourable tradition, the Minister is never right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact nothing in the guidelines precludes honest and open communication between a Member of Parliament and a member of the Public Service. They encourage it. We invite the Hon. Member, as indeed we all have the privilege and the right to do, to communicate with public servants in that area. I want to assure the Hon. Member that I view his observation seriously and nothing should be read into these guidelines-because it does not exist-that would do anything other than try to be helpful to the free and proper flow of information.


Ian Deans: The free flow of proper information.


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guideline No. 2 says that off-the-record statements can only be given in exceptional circumstances with the Minister's prior approval. In this case the Minister did not approve. I went directly to the source and found out-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a supplementary question?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, under the new guidelines would departmental officials be able to come to Members of Parliament and say: "No, my Minister is wrong"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines, I think, I hope anyway, properly cover it. If the Hon. Member refers to paragraph two it reads:
Public servants should be prepared to openly provide factual information to the public and the media within their areas of responsibility that describes or explains programs and policies that have been announced or implemented by the Government.
Indeed, we invite the public servants, in the interests of openness and to avoid unfair accusations against the Public Service which would affect their integrity, consistent with the spirit of openness we believe they should be on the record. We encourage them to be on the record and to be identified, without any fear of reprisal of any kind. We think this is part of an important new step toward openness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Even Ministers are afraid to say something in fear they will be cut down.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, I will direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Answering my question last Wednesday, the Minister said that Statistics Canada will be in a position to gather the data required for the establishment of an affirmative action program, without the 1986 census. Considering that an internal Statistics Canada report, which I have here, indicates that the census is the only source of detailed information on professions in the labour force, how can the Prime Minister explain this obvious contradiction?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to read the full report, part of which was published in an Ottawa newspaper this morning. But I can say that government officials have given us the opposite advice, and it was on the basis of that advice that the Minister has made the decision of which you are aware. I will be pleased to take a closer look at the report and attempt to reconcile the facts; should there be a contradiction, the appropriate measures will be taken. However, we did receive objective advice to the effect that we could proceed this way without undue concern.


AUTHOR OF OBJECTIVE ADVICE RELATING TO CENSUS
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister tell me and the House who gave him that objective advice, because all the information we have had so far from all interested parties in government, in the public at large, in social groups and in industry is the exact opposite?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The committee of Deputy Ministers which had been established on the basis of our analysis; a fair amount of the data referred to this morning can be found in monthly reports of the Department of Labour. Other data is available elsewhere on a monthly basis. The collation of this data is an important responsibility of the Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues. I should think that the Deputy Ministers did consider those facts before providing us with the data in question. I can assure my colleague that I will again look into this matter and discuss it with the Minister who will certainly get back to the Hon. Member.
November 23, 1984


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, during their unsuccessful invasion of Prince Albert the Conservatives promised that they would relieve all of the farmers' financial problems. My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week the Minister of Agriculture indicated that the request for aid to the disaster-ridden farms of northeastern Saskatchewan was before the Treasury Board. Since his Government and the Hon. Member for MacKenzie have promised this aid, will the Minister tell the House the present status of that proposal? Will he confirm that the amount to be paid will be $16 million, which is what the legislative level would be in provincial pay-outs of that kind?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to respond again to that question. It was put to me last week, at which time I indicated that I had been to western Canada. I discussed the matter with my provincial counterparts, particularly with the Minister in Saskatchewan. I indicated in my response last week that we had prepared a submission and that it had gone to Treasury Board. When 1 met with my provincial counterparts, we agreed that perhaps we should enter that project on a 50/50 cost sharing basis. The minister from Saskatchewan agreed. That is exactly where we are at the moment.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The promise was three to one.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. When can we expect payments from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, which should have been made already? Also, when can we expect a change in the formula which would allow further payments from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. If he goes home this weekend he will find that the cheques for the final payment are in the mail. They were put in the mail on Wednesday. I am sure that some of his neighbours will have them by the time he gets home.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: This leads me to address the concern that all of us have over providing enough financing for farmers to get their crops in the ground next spring. We intend to do everything we can to have an interim payment in their hands prior
Oral Questions
to next spring. We will not be fooling around like the previous Minister did. We will get some action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment or whomever wishes to reply in her place. It has to do with a meeting that is to take place in a very short time with her U.S. counterpart, William Ruckelshaus, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. What arguments will be used by the Government to convince the U.S. administration of the necessity of cutting millions of tonnes of sulphur that are being dumped by the Americans on Canadian lakes and forests? Also, what arguments will be used to persuade him to take immediate action to halt the flow of chemicals into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the former Minister very much for his question. I assure him that the Minister has had discussions regarding this very important question. I am pleased to take his very specific question to the Minister for her response on her return to the House.


DISARMAMENT
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the Canadian people's hopes for limiting nuclear weapons being raised by the announcement that the United States and the Soviet Union will return to the bargaining table, and in view of repeated disappointments over the years with previous arms control talks, will the Minister consider calling on both superpowers to commit themselves to continue their negotiations until adequate agreements have been reached and, to show Canada's good faith, will the Minister assure the House that the Government does not plan to reduce its current expenditures on researching arms control verification techniques?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that the Government of Canada intends no reduction in our current level of expenditures on arms control verification techniques. I welcome this opportunity, and I am sure all Members of the House of Commons join with me in urging both superpowers to pursue the discussions and negotiations, which have been so recently renewed, relentlessly and with the knowledge that the

November 23, 1984
Oral Questions
people of this country and the people of the world are waiting and looking for some break in the deadly buildup of armaments on both sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEDICAL CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Canadian Health Coalition is meeting this weekend regarding health concerns in Canada, will the Minister guarantee that federal financing to the provinces for health care will not be chopped by his Conservative Government?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that this Government, and the Prime Minister has stated this many times, views health care as a program that is not only a sacred trust but one that we will maintain. It is a universal program. We have no intention to follow the suggestion made by the Hon. Member in her question.


PREVENTATIVE COMMUNITY HEALTH DELIVERY SYSTEM PROPOSAL
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, what initiatives will the Minister take to begin to move into a preventative community health delivery system for health care, which would be far more cost effective in the long run?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in putting forward that proposal. There are many areas that we can work on jointly. There have been reports in recent days in terms of tobacco and its effects both on smokers, and secondary smoking, the question of alcoholism, and the question of fitness. Obviously the long term preventative health care benefits are a great quality of life and a return in terms of the Treasury, short term or not, in terms of financial aspects. I welcome the Member's encouragement. We are obviously moving in that area as quickly as we can.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader, who is answering on behalf of the Solicitor General today. While the unemployed see the world coloured in grey, the inmates at Matsqui prison will see it in living colour because the Government is installing cablevision there. Is this an expenditure that was allocated by the previous Government,
or is it a more recent one? If the country is supposed to face cut-backs fairly across the land, would it not be good to include this as an element of fairness?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, this installation took place before the last election. There is a provision, though, with respect to the installation of cable into the prison whereby the inmates will pay for their own television sets and bear part of the cost of this installation.
If the Hon. Member wishes any further information, he can direct his question to the Solicitor General who will be returning this weekend and will be able to give him specific details with respect to costs.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) on Thursday, November 22, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's occurrences in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, to which I referred earlier during the oral question period, were a breach of my rights and privileges as a Member of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a bit of a problem here, because the Hon. Member is now referring to something that happened yesterday in committee. No, no, no. He referred to it during the oral question period, 1 agree, but he was referring to something that occurred yesterday. I assume the Hon. Member is aware he is entitled to give me notice of a question of privilege, but I must be given one hour's notice, and I think the question of privilege he is raising now does not arise from events that occurred during the oral question period.
November 23, 1984


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I shall do as you suggest. In any case, you now have been advised verbally of my intentions. I will make sure you are sent notice in writing, and I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows he has that right.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to this House a petition from the residents of Napanee and area who call upon this House to address the issues of capital punishment, mandatory supervision release and parole procedures.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 (NO. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority.


[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. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
___________________________________________541
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre) moved:: That this House urges the Government to take immediate action to address the financial needs of Canada's farmers by immediately:
(1)	declaring a moratorium on bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings;
(2)	establishing a debt review agency to act as a neutral third party between borrower and lender with power to change repayment schedules and to reduce the accumulated interest; and
(3)	setting out a clear mandate for the Farm Credit Corporation in order that it can make viable, low-interest loans through Agribonds or other means for farmers, including such financing for operating credit over the first five years of the loan,
and further, that a farm incomes policy based upon a guarantee of production costs for domestically used farm products be implemented to provide parity pricing for Canada's farmers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Opposition motion that has been put today. Our motion recognizes the extreme hardship in which Canadian farmers have been placed over the last several years.
This is not a situation that has suddenly faced us. It has taken years for this situation to develop. It has taken years of neglect by the public sector and, I suspect, years of neglect by the consumers of Canada as well. At any rate, right now in November, 1984 we are faced with a situation in which one in five of the viable farms of this country is facing severe financial hardship. For most of these farms, the situation will end in either bankruptcy or foreclosure.
The information that we have now departs radically from the information that we were being fed through official sources during the past year. A year ago the banks pooh-poohed the circumstances of Canada's farmers. Bankers said: "Oh, it is not so bad as all that. Perhaps only 5 per cent of farmers are in trouble". Even the then Minister of Agriculture suggested that perhaps the banks' estimate was just a bit low.
We now have a report prepared by the Farm Credit Corporation which did a fairly thorough survey of farms. The Farm Credit Corporation reports that in fact a total of some 39,000 or almost one in five farmers are indeed in severe financial distress. The report defines that by pointing out that a farmer is in severe financial distress when interest payments exceed 40 per cent of a farmer's total sales revenue or when the net worth of the farm is less than 15 per cent of its total assets.
That criterion is not particular stringent, Mr. Speaker. I am sure a great many farmers whose interest payments exceed 30 per cent of their total sales revenues are also having great difficulty surviving and I am sure that farmers whose net worth is 20 per cent or 30 per cent of their total assets are also facing great difficulty. However, using that criteria, the Farm Credit Corporation has arrived at a figure of nearly 20 per cent of farmers who are in difficulty.

542

November 23, 1984
Supply
As of October, there were 465 official farm bankruptcies. That is up almost 20 per cent from the same period last year. More important, the total debt load of farmers continues to increase. It is now in excess of $21 billion, an increase of $1 billion over last year. In addition to that, the assets farmers have to place against that debt load have been reduced by $4 billion, indicating that machinery is depreciating and not being replaced but mostly indicating that land values are going down in response to the economic realities facing farmers.
I have been raising this question in the House for the last four years, ever since I became a member of the House of Commons. I must repeat again something I have repeated many times in this House because there has been no change in the situation. In 1974, 10 years ago, the net income of Canadian farmers was $3.5 billion. This year, in spite of inflation and in spite of the fact that the cost of running a farm has gone up by more than three times, we are looking at an expected net farm income of $3.4 billion. While the rest of the economy has been able to keep up with inflation to some extent by keeping incomes in line with costs, farm net income has taken a real cut of 300 per cent. Farmers have one-third the net income they had in 1974. No wonder farmers are in great difficulty.
I submit that knowing that, Hon. Members must take quick and immediate action. For that reason, we have proposed for debate and I hope for the serious consideration of Government members today the immediate declaration of a moratorium on bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings. There should be a moratorium on not only those proceedings that are under review by the Farm Credit Corporation. The Minister has already placed a moratorium on those few hundred bankruptcies until January 15, 1985. After that point in time there is no clear indication from the Government where those particular farmers will go. The Government will have seen them through Christmas and have avoided the embarrassment of pushing farmers off their farms during the Christmas season. However, there is no indication what the Government is proposing to do after January 15.
We feel it is time for the Government to take immediate action and establish the debt review board, which was often mentioned during the election campaign. The Government should establish the debt review board to act as a mutual third party between borrowers and lenders. The Bank Act, which was passed in 1981-82 with the concurrence of both the Liberal and the Conservative Parties, no longer gave consideration to farmers. Banks decide when a bankruptcy should occur. The banks place the receivers into position. In effect, the receivers are working for the banks. Therefore, farmers feel that there is no recourse. There is no third party in the process, which is mutual. The farmer is always short-changed.
To begin with, farmers do not have enough money. They cannot afford to hire a lawyer-if a lawyer can be found who will act against the banks. In addition, lawyers could not be certain of payment and are therefore loath to take on such
cases. It is clear discrimination, which has placed great pressure on farmers and their families. I think it is time that we recognized the pressure which has been placed on the people in rural areas.
The people who are isolated are the farm wives. They are the partners in the farms. In many cases they have no one to talk to other than their husbands. Over the last four or five years, some of them have recognized the great pressure which they and their families are under. Some of them have set up network groups which have become prominent in various parts of Canada. There is a group in Prince Edward Island, one in eastern Ontario and another in the Grey-Bruce area. In addition, some have developed on the Prairies. The National Farmers Union has a special women's group which has looked into these problems over the last number of years.
The problems which emanate from the financial pressures show themselves in several ways-many of which are predictable. Those pressures often result in drinking and family squabbles which may involve the beating of spouses and children. There is no place for these people to turn for help. Often the pressures result in murder and suicide.
The amount of income available to farm families has been reduced from the 1974 period, when over 40 per cent of the sales which the farm made resulted in net income. At the current time, approximately 15 per cent of total sales may result in net income. There is great pressure to produce more and to sell more. Meanwhile, the costs have increased three to four times since 1974. Essentially, farm families are being asked to live on the same income which they had ten years ago.
This situation is not forced on any other group, yet the Government and the provinces-because the provinces have some jurisdiction in this area-have not taken proper account of the terrible pressures under which we have placed these people.
As the resolution indicates, immediate action must be taken to put in place a moratorium which will provide a third party to review cases in order that they can be dealt with clearly and fairly. There must also be a clear mandate given to the Farm Credit Corporation, hopefully before January 15, in order for it to be able to handle these cases and provide the means to set out repayment schedules that will make it possible for farmers to remain in business. Otherwise, Canada will lose 20 per cent of its rural population over the next year and we will no longer have viable organizations in rural Canada.
This resolution also calls for the Government to set out immediately to attack the whole farm incomes problem by implementing a system of guarantees for production costs on domestically-used farm products. Steps have been taken in this regard with several products. Eight or ten years ago guarantees were implemented for dairy farmers. Dairy farmers receive a guarantee on the cost of production of an efficient unit for their milk and the milk that goes into other dairy products. A similar arrangement has been established for products which are included in national marketing plans with supply management. Egg producers receive a guarantee on their basic production costs as part of their pricing formula.
November 23, 1984

Poultry producers, who produce broilers or turkeys, also have a similar set of guidelines and rules for establishing their prices. However, for the remainder of the commodities produced in rural Canada, the market has produced very low returns for farm families.
The inadequacies of the market indicate that immediate stabilization programs are required to recognize the cost of production as a base for the pay-outs, rather than an inadequate market, which is the current method of deciding whether pay-outs under stabilization should be made. There must be either a change to the stabilization programs or a change in the marketing systems to ensure that producers will be guaranteed the full cost of production for the products which will be sold.
1 have outlined the resolution quite briefly and succintly. I could spend all afternoon discussing the way this situation has been affecting farmers and their families. However, I will only mention one very typical case. There are many more cases listed in the Farm Credit Corporation's study which are very similar to this case.
This case is not as emotionally telling as some, because the young farmer involved is not married and has no dependants. However, it will give an idea of the kind of pressures that have been created and the kind of giving that has occurred in farm families. In this particular case, the parents provided a security of a half section of land for their son, along with $130,000 to enable him to buy additional land. The irony is that he had the assistance of an agriculturalist from one of the banks helping him set up his operation. They took the half section of land and the $130,000 and purchased nine quarter sections of land in northern Saskatchewan. It was agreed that he would pay approximately $75,000 twice a year as payment and interest. Why an agricultural specialist would make that recommendation I do not know. It is virtually impossible to generate those kinds of funds with that size of operation. However, the farmer and his parents were told that it was a viable operation.
Predictably, after having run the operation for two and a half years, and having paid this extra $400,000 to the bank, they are now losing everything. There goes a lifetime of work for the mother and father who have no retirement funds because their land and money were given as security in order to help their son. That family has now lost everything it had for two full generations. That is just one of the less unfortunate stories we could tell here.
Action must be taken immediately, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Government to declare a moratorium not just on Farm Credit Corporation cases which are in front of it, but an immediate moratorium on all bankruptcies and foreclosure proceedings until such time as an incomes policy can be brought forward which will ensure that farm families can survive in this country of ours. If something is not done, about 20 per cent of them will be forced into bankruptcy within the next year.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), regarding the situation of farm women, having talked to a number of these women in my contacts with women's groups across the country. The Hon. Member referred particularly to the isolation of women who are living in rural areas and carrying a very heavy work load. I am told that with the increasing economic stress, it is not unusual for farm women not only to carry on the traditional role of wife and mother and help with the farm work in peak seasons, but to carry another load, either part-time or full-time work in town, in order to pay off debts or to provide cash flow during tough times.
Could the Hon. Member indicate whether or not this is becoming a fairly general situation? This is more evidence of the stress rural families face, particularly rural women. Could the Hon. Member also indicate whether there is any trend now to provide more financial recognition of the contribution of farm women? I am particularly thinking of the situation where farm women have an income as, perhaps, a member of a company, or an employee. Is there a trend towards splitting pensions as well?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can report that the number of farm wives who have off-the-farm jobs has always been fairly high and has increased substantially over the last number of years. I do not have accurate data in front of me but I do know that there is a statistically significant increase of off-the-farm jobs for farm women. This creates further pressure within the family.
It attempts to alleviate some of the financial pressure but it means that child care has become the responsibility of the family. Often times in rural areas there are no day care facilities available. It is quite common for pre-school children, in particular, to accompany their father around the farm as he does his farm work. They ride in tractors and occasionally get hung up in grain-moving or haying equipment. There are reports virtually every harvest season of children being killed or maimed in that type of equipment. This happens in part because one of their parents has to work off the farm and the remaining spouse is left to do the farm work and look after the children at the same time.
Facilities for day care in rural areas are virtually non-existent unless there is a grandmother or an in-law to help look after the children. In many cases, however, the financial situation has reached a point where most of these persons are putting their shoulder to the wheel as well, trying to keep the farm operation going by doing farm work.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague comment on one part of his motion, which is the reduction of accumulated interest and the change of payments. This accumulated interest appears to be a major problem. Does the Hon. Member have any comments as to what can be done?

November 23, 1984
Supply


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is one of the key powers which a debt review agency must have when it sets itself up between the lender and the borrower. It must be able to extend the repayment schedule, but even that is not enough power. It must also be able to set aside some of the accumulated interest.
The reason most of these farmers are in financial difficulty generally goes back to the extremely high interest rates which existed in 1981 and 1982. Some of these people were paying 22 per cent to 24 per cent interest. That interest accumulated and they had to borrow in order to keep paying the interest on the interest. The banks, in my opinion, have been fairly adequately compensated with those interest rates. I feel that in the interests of keeping the Canadian agricultural economy going, a debt review agency should have the power to reduce some of that accumulated interest as part of the repayment scheduling which is set out as an answer for the particular problem with which it is dealing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there are no other questions and comments, we will move on to the next speaker.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is customary and almost a tradition that in a debate of this kind, the Official Opposition is entitled to present its comments; the Hon. Member for G1 engarry-Prescott-Russel 1 (Mr. Boudria) was ready. However, 1 understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has an important engagement this afternoon, and we agree to allowing the Minister to rise in the House before the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Thank you. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.


John Wise: I would like to express through you, Mr. Speaker, my appreciation for the co-operation given to me by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and, particularly, to my long time friend and acquaintance, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Indeed, we are not setting a precedent. I acknowledge on the record that I am speaking second only through the kindness and courtesy of my colleagues across the floor. 1 appreciate their co-operation because it will allow me to keep my commitment to meet with some farm organizations later this afternoon.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) for bringing forth his motion today. It provides us with, I would say, one of those all too few occasions in the past, when we can discuss important issues in this Chamber and bring these problems to the attention of other areas across the country. I think we would all have to agree that, if past records were looked at, it would be found that the occasions were all too few when we could bring to the attention of the House, to the Government and, indeed,
to the country, the serious problems which we face in the agri-food industry.
Having made those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that as Minister of Agriculture I represent roughly some 318,000 of the most important businessmen and women in this country. These 318,000 persons make a significant contribution to the Canadian economy. They are Canada's 318,000 farmers.
Together our farmers form the basis of an agricultural industry that generates about one-sixth of all economic activity in Canada. It is a giant industry with a huge growth potential. It is also an industry with some very, very serious problems, the most serious of which is low and declining farm income. Out of 318,000 farmers it is estimated that a relatively small but very significant number, perhaps as high as 17 per cent, are experiencing serious financial problems. This fact, revealed in a recent survey by the Farm Credit Corporation, is distressing, particularly so because these financially troubled farmers tend to be younger operators. They are bright young people who started or expanded their operations during the optimistic 1970s. The FCC survey also showed that generally these farmers, the ones with low equity and a high debt burden, are among the most productive, indeed the most efficient, producers that we have. These people we will depend on for abundant supplies of food in the future. As a matter of public policy we cannot afford to lose tomorrow's farmers to today's high production costs.
The federal Government recently announced a number of steps to help strengthen the farm sector. First we have the three cents per litre fuel tax rebate for gasoline and diesel fuel purchased for off-farm highway use. In addition, a further rebate of 1.8 cents per litre will be given to offset the increase in the petroleum compensation charge. These rebates will put between $90 million and $100 million into the hands of Canadian farmers next year. This will help a great deal to lower farmers' production costs and improve their profit margins.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Parliament will soon be considering several major agriculture taxation issues. Hopefully the Government will be able to act on the results of the parliamentary study for the next fiscal year. The third priority is the establishment of a new voluntary stabilization plan for red meat producers, a plan that would help the producers remove the peaks and valleys in their income and help them raise cattle with greater assurance of longer term profitability.
More important than all these initiatives is the Government's commitment to deal with the immediate financial difficulties of this nation's farmers. This has been the focus of most of my work since being reappointed as this country's Minister of Agriculture some two months ago, and it will continue to be at the top of my priorities in the coming weeks.
It was suggested by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre that the federal Government should declare a moratorium on bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings. I am afraid he
November 23, 1984

is a couple of weeks late with that suggestion because two weeks ago I instructed the FCC to suspend loan foreclosures until early next year. This action gives the Government time to take a closer look at the farmers' problems and, more importantly, decide what programs would offer reasonable solutions and be affordable at this time when our resources are extremely limited. To extend such a moratorium beyond the FCC so as to apply to all bankruptcies and foreclosures would require an Act of Parliament. Moreover, it could very well have the effect of jeopardizing the private farm lending market.
I remind the Flon. Member of the moratorium on farm bankruptcies more than 50 years ago during the great Depression. That action drove away virtually all private sources of farm financing and eventually resulted in the establishment of the FCC. It was not until the 1970s, some four decades later, that the banks again became active in long-term lending to farmers. Insurance companies, I might add, were so soured by this experience that they still have not returned to the farm financing market. That is a lesson we should not forget.
At the same time I point out that the Canadian banks deserve credit for their efforts to be accommodating in at least those cases where the lender believes there is a promise of good management to rebuild farm equity. The banks are not getting much publicity for these actions but every week private lenders are writing down farm loans, believe it or not, and some of us who are involved in cases between our constituents and the lending institutions will have to face that. Not everyone is cut out to be a farmer, Mr. Speaker. Nor can all farmers facing bankruptcy and foreclosure be saved. Let us face the facts. A farm is a business and must be able to compete. There are potentially good operators who just need some time to get on to firmer financial footing and there are others who will always keep sliding backwards.
I have met with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture to discuss the alternatives for helping those farmers who can be saved. On November 7 and November 8 we met in Toronto to review the report of the task force on farm finances. A number of proposals came out of that meeting and they include extending the FCC's special Farm Assistance Program to provide debt consolidation loans and interest reduction to farmers in difficulty; expanding the advance payments for crop legislation to areas beyond that covered by the Canadian Wheat Board; establishing a registered farm investment fund; extending the Small Business Bond Program to 1989; permitting farmers with bonds coming due to negotiate new bonds; and amending the Farm Improvement Loans Act to allow for fixed rates of interest on intermediate term credit. We discussed a number of proposals that would involve changes to the Farm Credit Act and we discussed ways of improving co-operation with our private lenders.
Although a number of other proposals were considered, the common thread running through all of our discussions was the need for co-operative action. The solution to the farm credit problem in Canada does not lie solely with the federal Government or the provinces or the lending institutions. We must all
Supply
work together co-operatively to ensure the future of Canada's food supply.
During the election campaign a number of commitments were made to the farmers of this country and I have already discussed the action which has been taken on several of them. The 4.3 cents a litre rebate on farm fuels will offer Canadian farmers about $100 million next year in tax relief. We promised tax relief on farm fuels and indeed we have delivered. In the Minister of Finance's economic statement there was reference to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, the capital gains tax, and the subject of agri-bonds, all of which were referred to a parliamentary committee for study. It should be noted, however, that any changes to these tax measures will be retroactive to the 1984 tax year. Again, we are moving along on our commitments.
As well, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre has called for the establishment of a debt review agency. During the election campaign my colleagues and I recommended the establishment of a farm finances review board to act as a neutral third party between the borrower and lender. However, to establish such a review board legislation is required. I would also caution the Hon. Member that the establishment of a debt review board agency would have to be done carefully and responsibly. If not, we could run the risk, as in the case of the broad moratorium, of scaring private lenders out of the marketplace.
We have, Mr. Speaker, taken several other actions towards the fulfilment of our commitment to improve the financial situation of the Canadian farm community. My colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), has announced a final payment of $123 million under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, bringing the total payment for the 1983-84 crop year to $223 million. This payment was welcomed by western farmers and is a positive step towards relieving some of the financial pressures which they are experiencing.
We have announced assistance in the order of $60 million under the Canada-Alberta-Saskatchewan-Manitoba Prairie Livestock Drought Assistance Program. This federal-provincial program will help producers maintain their livestock herds in the face of serious drought problems experienced this year. By assisting the farmers in these areas to maintain their existing herds, we have made the coming years more secure for many farmers.
During the election campaign we promised to include tobacco in the National Farm Products Marketing Act to allow farmers in the tobacco industry a marketing board with supply management powers if they so choose. Yesterday I was happy to see that all Members of the House were co-operative in giving the Canadian tobacco producers that option. I hope that the Senate will act in the same manner.
Another commitment which we are fulfilling is the one made to the Ontario grape producers. In concert with the Province of Ontario we are working toward fulfilling the

November 23, 1984
Supply
commitment to purchase Ontario grapes. During the election campaign we spoke of the need for fair and equitable treatment of all commodity groups across Canada. We pointed out that in the case of advance payments the previous government doubled payment levels for western grain but neglected commodities in the other parts of Canada. As I indicated earlier, we are moving through the normal channels to introduce amendments to the Advance Payments for Crops Program.
We have also recognized the deficiency of the Agricultural Stabilization Act and have recognized that tripartite stabilization offers the best opportunity for improvement. Again, we are moving ahead with that commitment and I hope soon to be able to bring this legislation forward. When I say soon, I mean within a matter of days.
With a $35 billion deficit hanging over our heads this year, it is important to recognize the fact that the manoeuvring room of the Government is severely limited. For this reason, it is incumbent on all of us, as responsible representatives of the Canadian public, to ensure that any expenditures are carefully weighed and considered. We are committed to developing fiscally responsible methods of assisting the agricultural community.
I have only touched on a number of the areas in which we have made significant progress in the very short time that I have been in office. With regard to some of the suggestions that were raised by my hon. friend, the Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre, I can assure him that in the very near future we will be in a position to make some very major and significant decisions as to what we can do with and without legislative authority and what we can do in the best interests of Canadian agriculture with the resources we have available to us.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is such a thoroughly nice and decent man that I can hardly get over his being so hard-hearted. There was a previous 1.8 cents a litre refund on farm fuel tax. The Minister's Government has raised that by another three cents which will be collected from the farmers. As I understood it, the Government is then going to pay rebates of $90 million to $100 million, unless the Minister plans to give all the farmers a blanket exemption from paying the tax in the first place.
Is it not correct, Mr. Speaker, that that is not new money for farmers? They are either not going to pay a tax or they are going to get a refund on a tax they have already paid. Therefore, there is no additional money there.
My second point is about the grain stabilization pay-out of $123 million or $130 million. Once again, that is the farmers' own money. The farmers have already contributed over $300 million into the grain stabilization fund and the Government is not going to give them even that much back. What is the Government doing with the farmers' money? There is nearly $1 billion in the grain stabilization fund and the Government is going to give them back $130 million. That is not additional money from the Government. It is not costing the Government anything. Why is there such a low pay-out from the grain
stabilization fund? At least give the farmers back their own money, which amounts to more than twice as much as the Government now proposes to give them.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure the Hon. Member that my response will be completely accurate with reference to his first question regarding the farm fuel rebate tax. However, it is my understanding that that tax is taken off from the source so it is in fact of significant benefit to Canadian farmers. A number of people have made representations that it would be better to do away with the rebate process as well. However, if one looks at the mechanics involved one will see that we can hardly get out of the rebate business and ensure that the tax savings will flow to the primary producers, the people in mining, fisheries, or forestry. At the moment that appears to be the only tax method which can be utilized by the Government to ensure that some $100 million will flow to the benefit of Canadian farmers.
The Government is determined to maximize every opportunity, with the financial resources which are available to it, to ensure that every possible benefit does flow to primary producers. In the opinion of the Government this is the best way to approach the matter. If this were tallied up, I believe it would show a benefit to Canadian agricultural producers in the vicinity of 25 cents or 26 cents a gallon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It makes them no better off.


John Wise: The Hon. Member says that it makes them no better off. I cannot agree with him because if we had made a decision not to carry on with the rebate program or not to introduce these two new measures, then they would be worse off by about $100 million. That is not what we want.
The Hon. Member said that the western grain stabilization plan is a very good plan, as we all know. We know that farmers contributed one-third into the plan. One-third of any payments made out of the fund would be producers' money. However, I well remember the debate which took place last June during the committee hearings. An amendment was made last year to allow an interim payment to be made. I attended that committee hearing and my colleagues and I introduced an amendment which indicated that that amendment should not be only a one-shoat deal but should become a permanent feature of that Bill. All the members on the committee agreed that it should not be a one-shot deal but should authorize the Minister to make an interim payment in years thereafter.
Even though we were united in that the government of the day rejected it and we are now back in the situation-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will you bring it in again?


John Wise: You have heard me talk about it in earlier speeches. You have heard my colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, give a very positive indication. We are looking at every possible way in which we can provide financial benefits to Canadian farmers. Given the limited resources that we have, we must look at the western grain
November 23, 1984

stabilization fund as a way to deliver additional dollars to farmers in the spring of the year to enable them to improve their financial position to buy-


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Is Eugene Whelan back in town?


John Wise: He turned it down. We are not turning it down. We want to enable the farmers to buy fertilizer and seed and to enhance their position to secure operating credit from traditional lending institutions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I remind Hon. Members that there are approximately four minutes left for questions and comments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my question to the Minister. It concerns agricultural issues in eastern Ontario.
Could he enlighten us about the state of the new Canada-Ontario agreement which I understand is under negotiation between himself and his colleagues in the Ontario Government? The previous agreement expired earlier this year and it had serious repercussions on improvements in the area of tile drainage for farm land in eastern Ontario.
The Minister has just related the cordial state of relations between himself and Mr. Timbrell of Ontario. Perhaps he could explain to the House the status of the new Canada-Ontario development agreement. Has the subsidiary agreement for agriculture been signed yet? What is the status of those projects?
If and when the agreement is signed, will it include a component to improve farm drainage? In eastern Ontario, I believe that the key to improvements in agriculture is the improvement in tile drainage. That is really the only way that we can become competitive with farmers in other parts of the province and the country.
The Minister, being an Ontario farmer himself, will be knowledgeable about this issue and perhaps he could enlighten the House as to the progress in this respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would remind the Hon. Minister that he has approximately two minutes.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. 1 have some appreciation for his concern, particularly with reference to the part of this province that he represents. I am aware of the importance of the agreement because I can recall travelling to Kemptville when we were in government in 1979 and indeed signing the agreement.
As an old municipal politician, I have an appreciation of the importance of farm drainage. I must apologize to the Hon. Member that I cannot give him an exact, accurate update as to where we now stand with reference to the agreement or the subagreement. However, I would invite him to call my office where my officials would be very happy to brief the Hon.
Supply
Member on the status of the eastern Ontario agreement. That is, whether or not a subagreement has been signed.
I think something must have progressed because when I met the farm leaders of eastern Ontario last Tuesday, I believe, in their documentation one of the members applauded us for taking immediate action in providing funding for that agreement. They were extremely appreciative, so we must have made some type of progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The ten-minute period for questions and comments is now over.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask you for some guidance. Since there are only five minutes left, and in the same spirit of co-operation that we demonstrated approximately half an hour ago, I wonder if you could call it one o'clock. At the resumption of the House this afternoon, I would be able to make my remarks in full instead of their being split up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We will consider it one o'clock. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.54 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) had been given the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I notice that you had some trouble recalling the rather lengthy name of my constituency. I can assure you you are not alone, since even some of my colleagues have the same problem. I am sure that in time, all Hon. Members will find it a bit easier to remember.

It is a pleasure today to speak on behalf of our Party in this debate on the state of the agricultural industry, and more particularly on the need to act urgently in revising certain procedures, such as imposing a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation interest rates, debt review and other issues involving the agriculture sector.
Before we discuss those issues, I think it important for us to reflect on what has happened in the agricultural industry and elsewhere over recent years. Of course, some of the problems we have in agriculture relate to the high interest rate cycle that we have had recently, but there are other causes as well. For instance, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the
November 23, 1984

Supply
very low commodity prices to which farmers are subjected and have been subjected in recent years are certainly cause for great concern. Much of the cause for low commodity prices relates to the international situation and the subsidies other countries provide for their agricultural products.
In this respect one can look to the European Economic Community and to the United States of America, both of which have created downward pressure on farm commodity prices in Canada because we live in a global village.
How do we solve the dilemma? The previous government attempted to have price stabilization programs, market sharing quota systems and so on. By and large, where those systems exist they have had a meaningful impact on assisting farmers through the very difficult situations in which they live. But more has to be done, particularly now that we are picking up after the economic recession.
We notice that agriculture is much slower to recover than other industries but there are reasons for this. Agriculture is a very capital-intensive industry. It has often been said in the past that farmers live poor and die rich. A new variation of that is that in recent years farmers lived poor and, unfortunately, died poor even though they have all the riches of the farm, the implements and everything that goes with the farm operation. This has created a very difficult situation.
In an attempt to redress some of this, during previous elections the former government enumerated a few select programs which we felt could be achieved in the reasonable future. We felt those programs, if adopted, would assist this country's agricultural community.
The present Government has made quite a few promises. Those promises were not only in the area of agriculture. There were 331 promises made, out of which 20 were in the area of agriculture. 1 could read them all into the record today, but I am sure Members do not want to be subjected to having to listen again to all those promises which obviously will not be fulfilled by this Government. However, we should think of the few promises which the Government is bound to realize in the very near future and concentrate on those.
I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on his appointment. He obviously has a very strong feel for the agricultural community, coming from that community, unlike his provincial counterpart in the Ontario Government who has very limited qualifications in that area. I am being generous when I say that because many people argue that the Ontario Minister of Agriculture is totally devoid of any qualifications for such a position.
It is the hope of Members on this side of the House that the Minister of Agriculture will succeed in mustering the clout required to obtain from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)-"Mike the Knife", as I referred to him a few days ago- the funds required to fulfil the 20 election promises made by the Conservative Party during the election campaign.
When we talk about the in depth review process and the moratorium Bill, we are obviously dealing with very important issues. One of my Party's Members in the last Parliament introduced a Bill on farm foreclosures. Unfortunately, that Bill was not passed. We promised to reintroduce similar legislation if elected as the government. With the present Government in power, we hope it will introduce such legislation in the very near future.
There is another aspect to the Farm Credit Corporation that we should talk about today. I do not believe it has been addressed in the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). Nevertheless, it is a very significant issue. I refer to the delays in processing Farm Credit Corporation applications. As Hon. Members know, justice delayed is justice denied. Of course, a benefit delayed is also a benefit denied, in my opinion. A farmer applying for a Farm Credit Corporation loan may be refused six, eight, ten or twelve months later and then has to go through the whole process again. That does not constitute justice, in my view.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes to make Members aware of some of the hardships that have been created by delays in the Farm Credit Corporation in my constituency.

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents wrote to tell me she had applied to the Farm Credit Corporation on April 16, 1984. She said she handed the papers to the Farm Credit Corporation officer ten days later, and that at the time, she expected to get a loan at a rate of 13.25 per cent. It seems that on June 7, 1984, when she went back to the FCC office, she found that the rate had gone up from 13.25 to 14 per cent. She was told the application she made several months previous could no longer be "entertained" and that she would have to wait. So she waited a few weeks and then applied at the Ontario regional office-I am told the office is located in Guelph-and there was more delay. A week later she phoned again and was told the officer concerned was on holiday. You can appreciate that in late June or early July farmers have a lot of other things to do besides standing by the phone and waiting for a government official to call them. They are quite busy bringing in the crops and working the fields.
Finally, it seems that she got an answer from the Farm Credit Corporation on July 16, 1984 telling her that some information was missing. Hon. Members will recall that the whole show began in April. The two allegedly missing documents had been sent to the Farm Credit Corporation on May 31. Apparently they got lost. Anyway, the documents were found two days later on July 18. We are already several months later, Mr. Speaker. And so it went on and on-I will spare you the details-until September 1984 when my constituent still had not been told by the Farm Credit Corporation whether she was eligible for a loan or not.
I am told that she has now received that answer, that she has been turned down and has now initiated the appeal
November 23, 1984

procedure. And we wonder whether the Farm Credit Corporation will provide a final answer in time for next spring. Such delays are unreasonable in my view. If for instance the farmer has to ask a bank to wait for refund payments, I am sure the bank would not wait until next spring. Nobody can afford to wait that long. Certainly if another industry was waiting for a Government loan, it would go elsewhere if it was unable to get grants within a reasonable timeframe. It is my view that farmers also should be entitled to government service within a somewhat more adequate time period.
Mr. Speaker, being from Eastern Ontario, I find it hard to discuss farming without referring to the poultry farm situation in our area. They are faced with very special financial difficulties because the various levels of Government, especially the Ontario Government and its chicken marketing board, but also the federal marketing board have cut their production on the grounds that they have not reached their quotas in the past. That matter has been dragging now since 1978 before all sorts of administrative courts, courts of justice and so on and so forth, and has not yet been settled. However, producers still have to go on making payments on their facilities, and they have to live like everybody else, without their problems being solved and without their being able to find someone to help them so they can keep on operating their farms.
This is another example of a delay which creates great hardship for the farmers of the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell area.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an issue which was mentioned yesterday morning by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the Liberal critic for agriculture, namely the problems of Canadian hog producers. As we all know, most of the pork produced in Canada is exported. As is the case with other farm industries, hog producers were affected by very low prices. However, they must now face a new problem, that of marketing their product, since there are many rumours to the effect that the United States will curtail their pork imports from Canada.
I would urge the Minister of Agriculture to get together with his U.S. counterpart as soon as possible with a view to ensuring that the levels of exports of pork from Canada to the United States are retained and possibly enhanced. We do not want to see the loss of those pork exports to the United States. Those exports are very meaningful, not only because of the price but because the survival of that entire industry depends upon them.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), is also very concerned about some remarks that have been made in the House today by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the grape growers of the Province of Ontario. The Minister, who is not present in the House at this time, did say this morning that there would be assistance for the grape
Supply
growers. I am sure all Hon. Members of the House would want to know in more detail about what kind of help would be given to the grape growers of the Province of Ontario.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate a point that I raised this morning, and that is the need for a new Canada-Ontario development agreement. That federal-provincial agreement, particularly as it affects the part of the province in which I live, is indeed very important for the agricultural sector, particularly because of the farm drainage, farm improvement and other grants that are made available to farmers. We do not see how the farmers of eastern Ontario in particular will ever be able to compete with the farmers of the rest of the country until improvements are made to the technology and drainage of those farms. I would urge the Government to continue its negotiations with the Province of Ontario, not only so that a general agreement between Canada and Ontario is signed, but also so that subsidiary agreements as they pertain to the agricultural sector are signed, thus ensuring the enhancement of the agricultural sector of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure for me to take part in this debate today. Had I not done so, it would have been the first time in 22 years that a debate on agriculture had not included the Member for Essex-Windsor. I was tempted to mark the occasion by bringing a green stetson with me! However, 1 have resisted that temptation. I must say as well that I have promised my colleagues that I will try to speak in both official languages, unlike the previous Member for Essex-Windsor who claimed that he did not speak either official language!
Our Party's agricultural critic has described the national farm crisis in considerable detail. He has described the credit squeeze which has been hitting farmers throughout the country and the consequences of that squeeze not only for farmers but for the small communities which depend upon farm income and indeed for farm equipment manufacturers throughout the country. He has also outlined in today's motion some of the suggested emergency measures which we feel are crucial.
What I would like to do today is deal with two additional points. First, I want to discuss the dimensions of this problem as it affects Ontario. Second, as the economic development critic for our Party, I would like to suggest some of the broader economic development questions to which the agricultural sector must relate.
The Farm Credit Corporation has recently reported that the crisis that is hitting the farmers of the country is also present in Ontario. It has been reported that 18 per cent of Ontario farmers face severe cash flow difficulties, more than in any other province with the exception of British Columbia. In addition, 5 per cent of Ontario farmers are facing moderately difficult circumstances.
These circumstances are particularly severe for those farmers who live in Huron County, Bruce County and Grey

November 23, 1984
Supply
County. It is in those counties of Ontario that the farm survival movement developed over the last few years as a demonstration of just how serious that crisis has become.
We can see this crisis reflected very clearly in the Farm Credit Corporation's 1984 report on the financial circumstances affecting farmers across the country. That report shows that the net worth of farms in Ontario has declined by 14.2 per cent between 1981 and 1984. That is far more than the 4.3 per cent decline that has affected Canadian farms as a whole. This negative impact has been particularly hard on cash-crop farms, for which the decline in net worth has been 21 per cent as compared to a .2 per cent increase in Canada as a whole. It has as well been particularly hard on hog farms for which the reduction in net worth has been 35.7 per cent while Canada as a whole has only seen a decrease of something over 12 per cent.
From an economic development point of view, what is particularly significant is that the farms that are being hit are the middle and higher-level producers, the farms that are particularly effective and efficient. In the case of middle-level producers of Ontario, the decline in net worth has been over 20 per cent. In the case of the most highly efficient and effective producers, the decline has been over 18 per cent. Both these figures are far higher than the average for the rest of the country. The result is that the average Ontario farm in 1984 is carrying over $25,000 in short-run debts as compared to just under $3,000 in 1981. In three years it represents an increase of $22,000 in short-term debt. Again, that figure is much higher than it is for Canada as a whole.
The result of this is evident from what has happened to farm investment in the most recent years in Ontario. There have been decreases from 1981 of 42 per cent in equipment investments, 37 per cent in new livestock investments and 33 per cent in new land purchase investments. As the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has recently remarked, the result is that 65 per cent of the farm income of Ontario farmers is being used to pay interest costs.
[ Translation]
There are also major problems in Quebec. There has been a 12 per cent decrease in the net assets of field crop producers. There has been a decrease of 17 per cent in equipment investments and of 24 per cent in new livestock investments.

I want to focus briefly on the situation in my constituency of Essex County. It is a relatively rich area. It is an area which has a fair mixture of products-soybeans are particularly important, tomatoes, grapes, livestock, market gardening and some dairying. Despite the richness of the area, farms in that county are being hit by increased bankruptcies. In facts, bankruptcies have almost doubled in the last year. Land prices have fallen dramatically as a reflection of that. In the case of land used by small livestock producers and those farmers who produce lambs, the value of land has dropped from an average of $2,500 per acre in 1980 to $1,500 per acre in 1984. In the case of farmers with land suitable for producing tomatoes, the
reduction has been from $5,000 per acre to approximately $3,500 per acre. Many of the farmers cannot sell their land because the bottom has been taken out of the agricultural economy in that area.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture leaders in Essex County suggest that young farmers have been hit particularly hard. Farmers who began farming in the late seventies have been forced to assume the major debts associated with starting their enterprises. It is not only the young farmers who are suffering; even the more efficient and more established, older farmers find that economically they are not able to keep their farms viable and intact.
We are very pleased at some of the initiatives which have been taken by the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). He has established a freeze on foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation. That is very important in Essex County, because as recently as this past summer the FCC foreclosed on at least one farm in the area. However, not nearly enough is being done in the face of the very significant decline in the viability of the agricultural economy. That is why we have put the motion today.
I have spoken with Ontario Federation of Agriculture leaders in my constituency. Their feeling, which is quite nonpartisan, is that the kind of program which we are proposing today-a freeze on foreclosures, an independent tribunal to deal with debt renegotiation, and a serious effort to refurbish the Farm Credit Corporation-is a package which would represent a very important response to the real problems which Essex County, Ontario and Quebec farmers are experiencing.
A small point which I would like the Minister to consider is the Conservative Party's commitment of the removal of capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land. One of the points which we made during the election campaign that is worth considering is this. Rather than a complete removal of the capital gains tax, why not tell farmers that the tax will be removed if they put the money that they receive into agribonds under the Farm Credit Corporation? It would be a significant way by which to get the private sector and the farm sector to refurbish and rebuild the financial base of the FCC. Farm leaders in Essex County are quite willing to view that as a satisfactory alternative to the much more costly effort about which the Conservative Party has talked-the removal of all capital gains tax without those conditions.
Finally, I want to emphasize that this is not only a debate about the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector in Canada, historically and today, is a base of growth, potential prosperity and employment for the whole economy. We are not talking about a response to a special interest group or a response to a particular problem of a particular sector. It is one example of a philosophy which could be taken in an attempt to rebuild the economy. It is a philosophy which suggests that we must build on the resource base we have in Canada, not just in agriculture but in forestry, the fisheries and the mining sector.
We must make use of the resource base we have in Canada. We must build on that base and use the output from those
November 23, 1984

sectors as the input to our industrial sector to help us rebuild the industrial sector. In the case of agriculture, we should be building a much stronger and more effective food processing industry. We should revive agriculture to help rebuild the agricultural implements industry. Finally, we should rebuild agriculture and deal with the serious credit problems to ensure that small businesses in the small communities across Canada which depend on agriculture will once more have an opportunity to grow.
It is crucially important for us to deal with these problems in agriculture now. As an economist, I am shocked to see the survey figures which tell us about the major decrease in the net worth of our agricultural production land. Let us get involved in a major effort to rebuild the agricultural sector. Let us solve the cash flow problem in an emergency way and, in doing so, contribute to the rebuilding of our whole economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker


Ian Deans: You are not in your own seat!


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry; I shall go to my own seat. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don) whether requiring people to funnel the profits from the sale of the farm into agri-bonds rather than letting them save completely on the capital gains would harm the freedom of the farmer to use these funds for his retirement or in some other way? Would it not put a constraint on the farmer who is selling his farm if he has to channel part of the receipts from the sale into agri-bonds in order to benefit from not having to pay capital gains?
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member if he does not feel that there needs to be another flow of investment capital towards the agri-bond other than which already exists in the farming community. In other words, should not the agri-bonds be made attractive to other investors rather than just the people already involved in farming? If there is a constraint on the disposition of the profits from the sale of the farm, being the obligation to channel some of it into agri-bonds, is that not going to restrict the flow of capital other than from the farming community into the agri-bonds?
Finally, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether this particular constraint would also harm what we call in Quebec-

-the transfer of family farms from one generation to the next, because very often, a problem arises when parents are selling their farms to their children: when the family farm is assessed, the children cannot afford to pay a price which would enable the parents to support themselves during their retirement years. The children are then compelled to borrow on the public market, and if interest rates are too high, or if there is a limit on capital, they have a hard time taking over their parents'
Supply
farm. That is why I wonder whether if we restrict the capital flow, we do not make it more difficult for children to buy their parents' farms.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for her questions. What our Party has said with respect to this whole area is, first, that there should be incentives for an agribond program. Therefore, I would start, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the interest received from agri-bonds, under our approach, would be exempt from taxation. So there would first be that incentive and that would be an incentive which would apply to farm income and farm receipts put into agri-bonds and to other capital put into agri-bonds. I expect that would be an incentive, dealing with the second concern of the Hon. Member, which is the degree to which we could get other kinds of capital flow besides that from the farming sector.
To give a little more detail with respect to farmers themselves, I would say that our approach has been that the first $100,000 of capital gains made on a farm would be completely exempt from capital gains tax. We could give that much freedom to farmers so that they could put that money into the purchase of a house in town or wherever they wanted. Beyond that our concern would be to see that there is an incentive given to see that capital which is in farming stays in farming. I believe that could be accomplished by saying that to be free of the remainder of capital gains tax, you must put your funds into agri-bonds. It is a matter of judgment, Mr. Speaker, what the impact of that would be. My own feeling from discussions with farm leaders in Essex County is that many of those people share my concern that capital in farming should stay in farming, and the system of getting tax advantages if money is kept in the farm sector is quite appealing to a significant number of farmers.
I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that what it does is meet two objectives at once. It succeeds in helping to refurbish the funding base of the FCC and it provides relief for farmers so that they are able to receive income, which in itself would be tax free because of the way we treat agri-bonds.
With respect to the third point raised by the Hon. Member, my own feeling is that this system could be adapted much more effectively to the rather complicated, informal methods of financial exchange which are involved when a farm moves from one generation to another. It would be possible without very much money actually changing hands for that change to take place with the next generation incurring a debt to the parents and the parents having that debt, in effect, covered by an agri-bond with which they would be able to avoid paying capital gains.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the indication by the Hon. Member for the great riding of Essex-Windsor of his desire to work together to solve what we on this side of the House consider to be a major problem facing agriculture. I have some concerns, however, about some of the recommendations of the Hon. Member. Modern agriculture today depends

November 23, 1984
Supply
on large amounts of operating capital. I have a great deal of concern about where those farmers who require this operating capital are going to get it if we bring about a freeze which will scare away investors in agriculture. That is one point.
Many of the problems which we face in agriculture today have their roots in a lot of advice which was given in the 1970s by people who are called "economists". 1 want you to be assured of that, Sir. When the farm sector was trying to move ahead at a moderate pace, economists in the banking sector, in government and in other advisory capacities urged farmers not to creep, but to jump and jump big. That is where all our problems started and most of that advice was given by economists. The other thing I was interested in was the allusion to the problems of the dairy industry in Essex County. I understand that there is not a dairy herd left in Essex County.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points raised by the Hon. Member that I would like to reply to. My predecessor from Essex-Windsor also had a problem with economists. I think I may have personally contributed to that problem. Just as there are Members of Parliament and then there are Members of Parliament, so there are economists and then there are economists. Some have some wise advice, if I may so, concerning agriculture. Others perhaps less so. In fact,
I think the push to expansion to which the Hon. Member refers came not so much from economists as it did from bankers. A good many banks were assuring their farm customers: "No problem, borrow more". All of this occurred in the late 1970s when banks had a great deal of money to lend and interest were not particularly high compared to what followed. However, once those debts were incurred, the banks became far less interested in helping their farm customers.
I do not think you would scare investment away by a moratorium which dealt with this emergency, especially if it was tied to the other two points noted in our resolution concerning the desire to set up an agency which would renegotiate and reschedule payments. After all, Mr. Speaker, we do it with foreign countries like Argentina and Chile and we should be prepared to do it with our own farmers.
Finally, I think the cash crisis is so severe that we must take this move even if there is some potential danger in the short run of scaring some of the banks. The banks in this country have done very well out of the farmers, thank you very much, over the last few years. I think they should now be asked to help carry farmers through this crisis period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question and comment period is now over.

The Hon. Member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party made a commitment to help Canadian farmers. Well, we have already taken steps to meet that commitment and we intend to
continue. Since this Government came to power, we have been consulting actively with members of the agricultural sector and we have had some frank discussions. One comment that often came up concerned the role of the Farm Credit Corporation. This Crown corporation plays a very important role in Canada's agricultural industry. The corporation was created by the Conservative government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in 1958. It was set up in response to the definite desire of farmers to be able to obtain long-term loans. Farmers themselves gave their opinion on what the role of the Farm Credit Corporation should be. From the time of its inception, the FCC has shown great initiative and energy. It is time to give it the means to do what it is capable of doing. Mr. Speaker, there are many agricultural organizations that would like to see the FCC take its rightful place on the market.
Unfortunately, increasing restrictions on its activities and the lack of financial resources that have plagued it in recent years have been instrumental in diminishing its impact.
Mr. Speaker, our Government does not intend to follow the example of the previous Government and ignore the Farm Credit Corporation.
I might remind my hon. colleagues that the role of the FCC is an entirely indispensable one. It is very active in long-term financing. In fact, it occupies 39 per cent of the market and is considered to be the principal lender, followed by the chartered banks which rank only second, with 24.4 per cent. The FCC lends primarily to young farmers, "beginners" and those who cannot obtain favourable terms in the private sector. The majority of the loans offered by the FCC are made to farmers operating a family farm. The FCC makes it possible for such farmers to contract long-term loans at fixed rates for five, ten or fifteen years. It can even lend money over a period of twenty-nine years.
Considering the conditions peculiar to the agricultural sector, longer term loans make it possible for borrowers to balance their income and expenditures. Loans at variable rates or rates that are adjusted at frequent intervals like the ones offered by commercial lenders do not always allow for these conditions.
We now have a situation that is sometimes problematic. What is the situation? During the last decade, farm credit has risen spectacularly, from about $5 billion in 1972 to over $20 billion in 1982, the most significant incease being in the long-term market.
As far as short- or medium-term loans are concerned, the chartered banks and other institutional lenders have always played a significant role. Indeed, the private sector must continue to be very active in financing this industry, and my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) made this commitment before the provincial Ministers of Agriculture.
During this decade, Mr. Speaker, the real inflation rate, that is, the current nominal interest rate less the inflation rate,
November 23, 1984

has always been lower than 7 per cent. In two or three years, however, the situation has changed dramatically. Interest rates are up, inflation rates are down, and on top of that, the value of farmland has dropped significantly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that many farmers have very few debts. At the other end of the spectrum, a number of farmers have net assets that are proportionally weak, and they will have trouble surviving.
Farmers with an average proportion of net assets are facing problems, to varying degrees. The problems depend on three factors: first of all, the farmer's management skills; second, the nature of the operation-regulated or unregulated, new or well-established-third, the farmer's debt structure. In addition, there are some farmers who although they are very good managers, are nevertheless in difficulty. They have piled up deficits and find themselves in a bind as a result of high interest rates and the carry-over of a series of losses. Although that problem was solved to a certain extent by programs such as the special agricultural financial assistance program administered by the Farm Credit Corporation and by the Small Business Bond, their restricted availability did create difficulties. Besides, the FCC program is not available and the first applicants cannot even benefit from it any more. The first issues of Small Business Bonds are maturing, but no provision has been made for their renewal. While the Liberal government was spending money right and left, Canadian farmers were working like slaves on their farms. We must do something, Mr. Speaker. What should we do?
Last November 5, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) asked the Farm Credit Corporation to suspend most of its current recovery proceedings until next January 15. It would have been unfair and irresponsible to force about 300 farmers off their property at a time when we are considering the agricultural situation. In addition, some of those farmers will have their files reviewed by appeal commissions and the FCC which are themselves made up of farmers. In any event, farmers are expected to play a larger role within this Crown corporation. Since that time, we have met frequently with FCC representatives to decide what program might be set up and provide acceptable solutions.
Not all Canadian farmers are in a desperate situation. We must also help those who are in a situation which, although not critical, does require special attention. We are now trying to find mechanisms to enable farmers to refinance their debts at interest rates somewhat lower than prevailing rates in recent years. In our opinion, more than 3,200 farmers would stand to benefit from such a measure and thus bring their interest rates in line with the Farm Credit Corporation's current rates.
We are involved in a process that is calling into question all of the corporation's programs. We have asked the corporation to make sure that each one of them is relevant. As far as the
Supply
Farm Credit Act is concerned, various avenues are being explored to make sure it better fills the needs of those who comply with its requirements. We have discussed a shared-risk mortgage program that could be implemented whenever interest rates reach highly volatile and very high levels. There are still a few problems involved in such a program, however.
We have also discussed the possibility of developing a mortgage rate increase insurance program. That kind of program could be managed in part by the Government, or better still in my view by the mortgagees. There are similar programs in existence elsewhere in the world. We will undertake a study of the cost and risks involved in such an endeavour. There are similar programs in private industry, and it is important that they be respected.
The Minister of Agriculture met with his provincial colleagues at a federal-provincial conference on farm financing and credit, in early November. Following their discussions, the ministers of Agriculture have recommended that the special farm assistance program be maintained for another two years.
We are now discussing this with the Farm Credit Corporation which administers this program. We are in the process of evaluating the costs of extending it. Need I remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that under this program, farmers facing severe financial difficulties would obtain special loans to consolidate their debts. They would also benefit from reduced interest rates. They would then have a much better chance to get back on their feet.
Agribonds were also discussed at this meeting, Mr. Speaker.
I should point out that the agribond project is being reviewed in the context of the Farm Credit Act. Agribonds can be described as a financial tool designed to allow farmers to borrow at interest rates lower than regular market rates. Since there is a tax rebate on interest income from investments, this instrument is quite similar to the small business bonds. The difference is that small business bonds provide tax rebates to lenders such as chartered banks and not to individual investors as would be the case with the agribonds.
This idea offers many possibilities. However, it should be carefully scrutinized. In theory, it has many advantages. It would provide farmers with lower interest rates. It can be directed to specific types of farmers, which would make it even more effective. Losses in tax revenue could be shared between the federal and provincial Governments. Investors would certainly welcome this kind of initiative. There are many other positive points which should be considered as opposed to the problems created by this program. Our tax system is already complex. It is difficult to assess the cost of such a program as the loss in revenue is hard to evaluate. Lower interest rates could be capitalized as agricultural shares. The initial costs of such a project could be high, especially with regard to advertising and monitoring.
I would like to get back to the costs of an agribond program. The cost of such a program, whether we are talking

November 23, 1984
Supply
about losses in tax revenue or direct subsidies, depends on the volume of loans to which the program applies, on the repayment period for these loans and on the conditions chosen. If we were to grant direct subsidies, farmers would receive greater and more direct benefits from Government expenditures than they would in the case of tax rebates. For instance, let us suppose that bonds are issued for a period of ten years at the rate of $200 million a year, with a direct subsidy of 5 per cent, the cost would be about $10 million the first year, $20 million the second year, and so on up to $100 million the tenth year.
In his financial statement, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) asked that a committee of the House examine the issue of agribond management. This committee will have to report before the budget is brought down next spring. We strongly hope that the provincial departments of agriculture will make representations to the committee. Their co-operation is very important and even essential.
The committee of the House of Commons will also have the mandate to consider such issues as the capital gain tax on farm lands, as well as the administration of income tax in the case of part-time farmers.
Another avenue which we will explore together with the Farm Credit Corporation is a possible amendment to the Farm Syndicates Credit Act, to reduce from three to two the number of required participants. Such an action would encourage the co-operative purchasing of farm machinery. Moreover, we are considering the possibility of raising the ceiling for eligible loans from $50,000 to, say, $250,000.
There are also steps beyond the area of the Farm Credit Corporation which we could take. In this economic statement, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated that Canadian farmers would benefit from now on from a sales tax rebate on farm fuel, a rebate which will amount to some 4.5 cents a litre. Surely, such a move will not be prejudicial to farmers' interests. Quite the contrary!
On the other hand, the Farms Improvement Loans Act will lapse on June 30 of next year. The government is now looking into the possibility of amending its regulations. The Ministers of Agriculture have suggested amending this act to allow for fixed rates of interest on intermediate term farm loans. This recommendation will not be disregarded. If we decide to go ahead with this plan, we will certainly consult our farm organizations.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has indicated to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that he intended to encourage private lenders to make greater use of the Small Business Bond Program.
We made a commitment to improve the well-being of the farming community, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that the direction we have taken is the right one. We have sought the advice of the provinces and, with their co-operation, we have decided to take certain steps. We have also asked the working
committee on agricultural financing to consider some innovative mechanisms in order to meet the financing and credit needs of farmers.
To correct present conditions, a government program will not be enough, Mr. Speaker. The needs vary according to crops and regions.
A program could be quite satisfactory for a group of farmers and almost ineffective for another. To improve the farmers' situation, we will need the co-operation of the provinces, chartered banks and other credit institutions.
In the agricultural industry as in many other sectors of our economy, this government intends to take all means available to restore confidence.
The agricultural policy is a priority of our government. We are convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it is unreasonable to ask farmers to take all the risks in their sector while all Canadians benefit from their labour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), I must ask Members if there are any questions or comments.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on this allotted Opposition Day and speak to the NDP motion urging the Government to take immediate action to address the financial needs of Canada's farmers. The motion sets out a number of points which I will deal with more specifically later on.
Of course, 1 have some doubts about some of those points, but there are some which I feel deserve consideration. Indeed, the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has already acted on some of the issues raised in this motion. I am sure that Members opposite would agree that the Minister of Agriculture has done more for agriculture in two months than the last government did over a period of 10 to 12 years.
There is a real sense of optimism in the farming community that for the first time there is finally a government in Ottawa that is prepared to address their issues. I have spoken to a number of provincial ministers of agriculture. They were absolutely elated as a result of their joint meeting with the federal Minister of Agriculture. It was the first time they were genuinely consulted and their views were taken seriously. I have a list of joint actions that are being taken which are of great comfort to the farming community.
Let me make it clear that a very large portion of our agricultural community is in very deep trouble. Indeed, there is not enough money in this or most countries of the world to save every farmer in this nation who would like to be a farmer. It does not matter whether it is farmers in the free market end of agriculture, such as the beef farmers in my riding, whether it is farmers in the supply management form of agriculture,
November 23, 1984

the dairy industry or the poultry industry, there are farmers who are facing collapse and will not be saved. This is due to the policies that were imposed upon this nation for the last 10 to 15 years. Of course, I speak of inflation. It has been a curse that has destroyed many civilizations before us. Not only has inflation had a severe impact on much of our farming community, it has affected ordinary citizens who have worked their whole lives to save a modest amount of money only to see it halved and indeed quartered during the last ten years as a result of this pernicious disease of inflation that was imposed upon people by the Liberal government. Any time that there is a government that will practice deceit with the people who put them here-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are in government now, not Opposition.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is exactly what I am saying. We are in government and it is not going to happen again. The Liberals and the NDP would offer the people all sorts of solutions to their problems by throwing money at them. They would offer programs-


Mr. Riis:: Talk like a government member for once. Tell us what you are going to do. Be positive.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I am always amazed at how the NDP members jump in even now to defend those past Liberal policies that have reduced the number of farmers in this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Be positive for once. You are whining, snivelling and complaining. That is all we hear from you guys.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, $24 billion worth of Canadian taxpayers' sweat and toil will come off the top to service the debt.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What are you going to do?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Protect the banks. Say one negative thing about the banks.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Tell Canadians how many reforms you will bring into the tax system.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Hon. Members should sit patiently because then they will find out what this Government is doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tell us what the Government will do.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I just want Canadians to know that the NDP is once again defending the Liberal policies of the past.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There you go again. You are going to make a whole speech without saying one thing positive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: May I remind all Members that there will be a period of questions and comments after the Hon. Member has spoken.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But it is so quiet in here.
Supply


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is quiet, but I can always get the NDP members out of their lethargy when I remind them and Canadians that their inflation and tough times today are clearly still the result of the Liberal-NDP liaison.
As I said, the PC Government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, has done more in two months than the Liberals have done over the last ten years. It was just in a matter of days that the Minister of Agriculture signed a $60 million contract with the western provinces to help the farmers in times of drought. Just like that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture responded to a genuine problem in the West. The stabilization agreement was negotiated and signed within days so that the grain industry would have a degree of stability. For 10 years that had never happened in the West.
Concerning gas taxes, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) moved almost instantaneously, a three-cent tax is to be removed and as well the 1.8 cent tax is not going to be applied. Farmers will probably be paying 25 cents or 27 cents a gallon for gas. That is how much cheaper gas and diesel will be when they start to farm again.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is this a history lesson?


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is incredible action. For the five years 1 have been in this House, from 1979 to 1984, we kept asking for that type of relief. We got absolutely none. As a result, 10 per cent to 15 per cent of our farming community likely will not make it.
Those young farmers had no option. When the Government brings on an inflationary period, people have to jump into the fray, otherwise they would find their operations just too small. For instance, if you have an average size farm and the government brings on a period of inflation, a farmer has to expand, because when inflation is over, the farmer will find he had been left behind. When inflation sky-rockets and then starts coming down, 10 to 15 per cent of farmers cannot survive. This is tragic. What Liberals and New Democrats fail to realize is that there are human beings out there. In the agricultural sector we are losing very valuable skilled people. The average age of the farming community is about 55 years.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What are you going to do about it?


Blaine Allen Thacker: We need young people in agriculture. We are in the process of putting policies in place where a young man or a young woman will have the opportunity to get a long-term source of capital through agri-bonds so that a young man or woman can take the risk but have the chance to be rewarded at the other end.
The NDP has called for a moratorium on bankruptcies. That has been done, Mr. Speaker. There is a moratorium on the FCC in order that we can get a handle on what is happening. Members of the NDP would like to blame the banks. They have this insane belief that the banks deliberately misled people. The banks were caught up in that inflationary period as well.

November 23, 1984
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: What are they doing today?


Blaine Allen Thacker: The farmers had to borrow heavily. They did. Now they are paying for it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The banks made a lot of money. Canadian banks are the richest in the world.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Member is absolutely right. The way to keep banks from getting rich is not to bring on inflation. Banks always benefit from inflation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was 4 per cent last year.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The banks are getting rich.
The Minister of Agriculture has appointed a task force. This is the proper way to look at some of these issues. It is easy to say that the problem is with Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. But when you get into that section a little more deeply you find that Section 18 of the Income Tax Act has some very severe ramifications also. I think the Minister was wise to put this issue before a task force so that both sides of the issue can be looked at fairly and with some degree of concern over a period of time.
What about the capital gains tax? I have absolutely no doubt, based on experience in my riding, that we have to do away with capital gains tax, just as the high cost of operating today is knocking off cash flow for farmers. But in the longer run we have to eliminate the capital gains tax. We are a young nation, Mr. Speaker. We should not be taxing the creation of pools of capital. Why are we taxing away those pools of capital? As a government we should be encouraging people to work hard to accumulate wealth so that they are able to pass it on to their children. We should have independent sources of capital. If you were to follow the NDP philosophy, Mr. Speaker, you would find that no one would be permitted to act other than the central government, and then everybody would be dependent on that government. With the PC philosophy, we want people individually to have enough money to be able to thumb their noses at the government and say, "I don't need you. I will arrange my own pension. I will arrange all of my own affairs. Get out of my life, government." That is what we need.


Mr. Waddell:: You are not serious.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What have you been smoking? You don't want pensions? You don't want medicare?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Listen to them yelping on the other side, Mr. Speaker. I always tell a little story about the NDP. The New Democrats have a special school. We have never been able to locate it exactly. We expect it is in Saskatchewan. The Member who has been yelling does not really fit in the NDP. The school is called the "whiners' and snivellers' school".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have graduated from it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that their voices have to take on a certain cut. I think that by the end of this
next term, we will know where the school is. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) does not really fit because he does not have quite the edge on his voice. He is almost a decent fellow.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are astounding.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I often wonder why he belongs to that Party. Where will we be in five years?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In the Opposition again.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What we really want to talk about is the future. I believe that within five years we will have lost a fairly substantial portion of our farms. As the depression took hold, many farmers lost equity in their land. There is no way they can be saved. They will simply have to disappear. What about the 85 per cent who will survive? What do we need to do for them? First, we need higher prices. When you look at all the facts and you get to the bottom line, you find that the ordinary working Canadian spends only 13 per cent of his or her disposable income on real food. If you add all the potato chips and other fast-food items, 16 per cent of disposable income goes to food. This is simply too little.
The cheap food policy of the previous government-kept in by the NDP members, who are starting to quiet down, I better fire them up again-resulted in fewer and fewer farmers. This enabled consumers to have a cheap food policy, and the Liberal government could continue getting elected time and time again.
In Europe, the average disposable income spent on food is well over 20 per cent. It is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent depending upon which country it is. In any country governed by a socialist left-wing government, the amount of disposable income spent on food goes up to 50 per cent to 55 per cent. That is what happens when you get centralists and people who believe that governments can do everything.
We have to have higher prices. If the previous Minister of Agriculture had done his job, not just going around speaking to farm groups but also speaking to urban groups and explaining to city people why they have to pay more for their food so as to have a stable, solid, family-oriented farming community, Canadians would have accepted it. If we destroy the family farm, people will pay an enormous amount for their food. The family farm without a shadow of a doubt is the most efficient mechanism for the production of food. It provides stability and can carry on for generations.
In the international sphere, our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) must take it upon himself and as government policy to direct our efforts toward the European Economic Community. The most destabilizing influence in agriculture in the world sphere is the European Economic Community. Its common agricultural policy, which is another way of saying subsidies to agriculture, is costing something like $24 billion. That has disoriented and disrupted the honest and legitimate flow of goods. We have a natural economic advantage in producing beef, grain and food which we can
November 23, 1984

send around the entire world at the cheapest possible price. They take $24 billion out of their taxpayers' pockets to subsidize agriculture. They are producing food, but to excess. Then they ship it around the world. Grain farmers in my riding as well as ranchers are going out of business because of Irish beef coming in which is being subsidized to the extent of 45 cents per pound. It is absurd and it must stop.
Within our Canadian sphere, there is much that we can do. The first is already in place. The Minister of Agriculture is genuinely working with provincial ministers of agriculture to come up with national programs. Over the last 15 years we have destroyed the Canadian common market-and it is supposed to be a common market where goods, capital and labour can flow back and forth freely-as a result of the federal Government not being co-operative and not coming up with good policies. The provinces have had to step in. We now have 10 agricultural countries in this country, and it is affecting us all badly.
We have to so stop those programs which permit provincial top loading. We cannot do that by passing a federal law and then imposing it. We have to work with the provinces and convince them that we would all be richer if my region of the province were producing beef for all of Canada. On the east side of the Rocky Mountains we have miles and miles of natural prairie grass that is not worth a cent unless you can run a cow over it and turn that grass into protein. We have a natural economic advantage. We must look at the Crow rate because it is distorting beef production in the West.
We have feed freight assistance. While that gives the appearance of helping the eastern provinces, it is actually hurting them. By subsidizing the export of grain from the Prairies to the Atlantic provinces, we are cutting out farmers who could develop an operation there. We have to look at that. I know the Minister is starting to do that.
The Minister is extending the special farm financial assistance program, improving the cash advance program, establishing a registered farm investment fund, extending the Small Business Bond to 1989 and providing fixed rates of interest for terms of one to five years. In short, things are coming on hand. It is going to be better in the future. I am sorry we will have to lose some farmers. I do not want them to forget for one second that the inflation brought on in this country hurts the very people whom the NDP and the Liberals purport to protect. You do not protect senior citizens by bringing on inflation which reduces their pension plans by 25 per cent. What kind of protection is that? They rely on us in this House to be in a trust relationship. They should be able to trust us. We will not bring on inflation. I do not want them to forget who brought it on the last time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the last Member rather interesting. On one hand, he is in favour of
Supply
de-regulation. On the other hand, he extols the virtues of supply management. He wants a red meat stabilization program, but he says the federal government should not impose anything on the provinces. He says the farmer should not go out of business, yet he says that red meat producers should not exist in my riding, only in his riding. I find that difficult to accept.
I also find it difficult to accept the Member's statement that the previous Government did not devote the required attention to agriculture. In the announcements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), dairy programs are being cut by $6.2 million, departmental operations are being cut by $9.4 million, and Canagrex is being cut by $6.6 million. That would have been a very useful tool for the marketing of our agricultural products. The Government is deferring $4.9 million in the testing laboratory and research facility to be built in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, and Victoriaville. All this is from a government which pretends it is going to pay more attention to agriculture. How can it direct more attention to agriculture when it does not want to invest the funds required?
In the same document, we see that $32.3 million will be cut in agricultural services. The document states that fees are currently charged for services such as food inspection, agricultural input quality assurance and so forth and that the level of these will be increased. I find it very difficult to accept that this Government would make cuts in agriculture while at the same time saying that it is interested in agriculture. Where I come from, you put your money where your mouth is.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the comments of my friend opposite were rather interesting. I do not think I said I was in favour of supply management. I am in favour of each agricultural producer group being able to make that decision based on the unique circumstances of its own industry. The difference between the Government and the Hon. Member's Party is that when his Party was in government, it tried to impose supply management on every producer group for every type of problem they had. That was the solution of the former Minister of Agriculture.


Don Boudria: That is not true.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is absolutely true. If you want to check it, you will find it is true. Look at the beef industry. For years he denied the beef industry a reasonable stabilization program. To him the only solution was supply management. He knew full well that if supply management were brought in for the beef industry it would destroy the open border with the United States, which always worked to our benefit. By the end of every year, we have a substantial positive balance in beef trade with the United States.
There are cuts, and it is a tragedy. However, there is a tragedy that is far greater. If we do not get the fiscal management of this country under control, more and more of our tax dollars will flow to service the debt. I want the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) to appreciate

November 23, 1984
Supply
what happens. In 1974, 10 years ago, 16.6 per cent of our revenue went to service the debt. Ten years later, it is over 46 per cent. That means that off the top a greater and greater proportion of the tax dollar goes to service the debt. Tax dollars are the sweat and toil of our constituents. It is the miners who are getting black lung who are paying those dollars. The interest on that debt goes to people who already have enough money that they can lend it to the government, sit back in their chairs and get richer.
Look at the Third World countries. A small number of people at the top are fabulously wealthy and the rest have nothing. That came about as a result of inflation. It was Liberal government policies that brought inflation to this country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member's speech. I have before me a letter from one of my constituents, a Mr. Deptuck, East 15th Avenue, Vancouver. My constituent wrote to me saying that his gasoline costs have just risen two cents a litre, his telephone rates have gone up 15 per cent, his hydro company is going for another increase, his income tax went up in July with the announcement that he will no longer be receiving the standard deduction of $100 for medical expenses, but he has not had a raise for two years and is getting cut back to three days of work a week.
Did I hear the Hon. Member correctly when he said that he did not want to see more inflation but he was advocating increased food costs? Did he say that my constituent should have to pay more for his food? Did I hear him correctly?
Second, did I hear the Hon. Member correctly when he said that the goal that he saw was that people could arrange their own pension schemes and things like that? How far does he extend this goal? Does he extend it to medicare, to unemployment insurance, to family allowances? In other words, is his goal in fact to dismember the welfare state and to dismember all of these schemes? After all, I believe it was Sir Winston Churchill, and I believe he was a Conservative, who said that by having everyone contribute, we could provide a better deal for everyone.
Finally, I would like to ask the Hon. Member another question. He is almost a nice fellow. Why is he picking on members of the NDP? We were not government members last time, Liberal members were. We did not support the National Energy Program, contrary to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said when he was in Vancouver. We did not do that. The New Democratic Party governs in only one province. The Conservative Party governs all over the place. Why are Conservative members picking on us? I would like to have the Hon. Member answer those three questions succinctly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) that there is approximately one minute left in the question and comment period.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with Mr. Deptuck's letter because it covers the entire field. I have never had any trouble with anyone from the city; not even from the unemployed. It is easy to show them that if we let the agricultural community down and if we kill the family farms, Mr. Deptuck and people like him will pay three or four times as much as they are already paying. We need only look at socialist countries run by governments with the same philosophy as that of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). In those countries, people are not only paying more for their food but they are having to stand in food lines for four or five hours. When people from those countries immigrate to this country, they are just astounded by the amount of food that our farmers can put on the table.
Regarding pensions, how did we help the senior citizens and all of the people who contributed to the Canada Pension Plan and their own company plans, by bringing on inflation? These people worked for 20 years and finally received a pension of $800 a month. Within 10 years, that pension was worth $300 a month. We have not helped those people by bringing on inflation.
I am saying that inflation came about because of Canadian policies. We had to pay more for energy. If the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead had been left in power and if members of the NDP had not entered into an illicit relationship with the Grits in order to knock down the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, Mr. Deptuck would have a job today. He would have a job and he would not be suffering under this kind of inflation. His pension plan would still be secure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question and comment period is now over.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to rise in support of the motion that has been put by the New Democratic Party regarding the very critical situation facing Canadian food producers. I would like to take a moment to read the motion into the record. At the beginning of today's debate, we simply overlooked the actual motion having already read it on the Order Paper. The motion reads as follows:
That this House urges the Government to take immediate action to address the financial needs of Canada's farmers by immediately:
(1)	declaring a moratorium on bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings;
(2)	establishing a debt review agency to act as a neutral third party between borrower and lender with power to change repayment schedules and to reduce the accumulated interest; and
(3)	setting out a clear mandate for the Farm Credit Corporation in order that it can make viable, low-interest loans through Agribonds or other means for farmers, including such financing for operating credit over the first five years of the loan,
and further, that a farm incomes policy based upon a guarantee of production costs for domestically used farm products be implemented to provide parity pricing for Canada's farmers.
We felt that it was important to set aside an entire day of debate, not so much to hurl criticism at the past provincial and federal governments, not so much to harp about the nature of the problem but, more important, to identify ways and means
November 23, 1984

of resolving the very difficult problems being faced by the food producers of this country.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that what we are really debating here today is whether food producers in Canada will be family farmers and family ranchers or whether they will be agri-businesses. We must make a choice between the corporate farm and the family farm. If the Government does not take significant action and take it quickly, we will continue to see the slow movement toward agri-business and corporate farming as the main vehicle by which food will be produced.
I come from central British Columbia. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of both large and small cattle operations there. On an almost weekly basis, I come across a situation in which an often-times young family finds that the banks are initiating foreclosure proceedings. A receiver is identified and goes on to the land, padlocks are changed, machinery is taken away and cattle are sold. A young family, which has usually spent two or three generations on a ranch, finds itself no longer bona fide cattle ranchers but in fact wards of the state collecting welfare. This takes place day after day in my constituency, as I am certain it does in most of the rural or urban-rural constituencies of the country.
The important thing for us to recognize is that most of these failures have resulted through no fault of the operators. They have resulted from high operating costs and an interest rate policy of the past Liberal government and the present Conservative Government that encourages high interest rates. When a farmer is expected to maintain payments to the Farm Credit Corporation or to one of the traditional lending institutions at interest rates of 15 per cent, 16 per cent or even 17 per cent, there is simply no way he can make money and maintain his food production operation.
It is important that we recognize that the problems being faced by food producers today are, to a large extent, created by governments. Thus, by definition, many of these problems can be solved by having the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces take particular action. I believe that we have the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, to lay out what we feel are appropriate solutions to these problems.
I would like to take a moment or two to put into context just how serious the situation is and just what motivated members of the New Democratic Party to ask that an entire day be set aside to explore solutions to this virtual crisis situation. Very recently, we found out from the Farm Credit Corporation that about one in every five farms totalling nearly 40,000 farms are in severe financial distress. Severe financial distress is defined as a situation in which interest payments exceed 40 per cent of sales revenue or in which the net worth of a farm is less than 15 per cent of its total assets. I become particularly concerned, as a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, to find that the highest percentage of food producers who are in severe financial distress happen to be from British Columbia.
Supply
The Farm Credit Corporation report goes on to suggest that there are 1,700 farmers headed for inevitable collapses either this year or in the beginning months of 1985. Again, by and large, it is not the fault of the farmers but is the result of high production costs and an interest rate policy which makes it virtually impossible to be successful under these conditions.
It is important to recognize that we are dealing mainly with young farmers and ranchers who perhaps entered the business in the early seventies. Those are the people who are experiencing problems today. Farm bankruptcies until October of this year total 465. That is an increase of 19 per cent from the same period last year. When we are talking about the hundreds and hundreds of farm bankruptcies each year, we are only talking about the tip of the iceberg. For every farm bankruptcy, there are approximately six farmers who simply walk away from their operations. They voluntarily liquidate their operations. Of course, the major benefactors are usually the banks. They now own a good portion of Canada's farming units.
The total debt load of Canadian farmers is in excess of $21 billion. It represents an increase of more than a billion dollars over the last year. Meanwhile, over the past four years, the value of Canadian farm equity has fallen by more than $4 billion. When we ask ourselves how serious the situation is, it is important to compare it, for example, with the last decade. If we compared 1974 with 1984, we would find that in 1974 the net farm income in Canada accounted for approximately $3.4 billion. In 1984, ten years later-recognizing the ravages of inflation as was drawn to our attention by the previous speaker-one would expect that the net farm return would be significantly greater than $3.4 billion. Flowever, in 1984, the net farm income was again approximately $3.4 billion. In other words, the real cut which has occurred in farm incomes has been in the neighbourhood of 300 per cent. Today, farmers are receiving a net farm income which is approximately one-third of what they received in 1974.
Over the last number of years, the average farm investment has decreased, yet the average debt per farm has increased significantly over the same period. Investment went down and debt went up. It is interesting that the average debt increased across Canada by 16 per cent over the last three years. It is also interesting to look at the relative per farm capital investment levels. In 1981, British Columbia had an average per farm capital investment which was 56 per cent above the national average. It represented tremendous capital investments in the food production units of British Columbia. In 1984, that 56 per cent was reduced to 3 per cent above the national average. It is clear what is happening to the farm community in that province; it is being devastated.
One could go on and speak of the very difficult problems being faced by the food producers in Canada. However, it is more important to consider the solutions. I listened carefully to the speakers from the Liberal Party earlier today. They had some ideas of what might be appropriate in terms of resolving some of the problems, but I think it is important to remind

November 23, 1984
Supply
those Liberal members that last spring two Bills were introduced by the Liberal Government. One was Bill C-653, an Act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. In essence, that Bill was an effort to bring in a third party to negotiate when borrowers and lenders were in dispute. That Bill was talked out by both Liberals and Conservatives in committee. A subsequent Bill was introduced. Bill C-17, which was an amendment to the Small Business Loans Act. Again, it was permitted to die on the Order Paper. When the Liberals tell us that they have great ideas and suggestions, we must ask where they have been in the last 10 to 15 years. Why were those suggestions not introduced?
There are actions which could be taken. As our motion indicates, we should immediately put a moratorium on all farm foreclosures. We have seen that action taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and I applaud him for it, as the Government is associated with the Farm Credit Corporation. However, we must recognize that the moratorium will only be in effect until January 15, 1985. It is clear that the moratorium must continue until the Government tells us what will happen with the other support programs it may introduce. I suggest that it would be appropriate to place a moratorium on all financial institutions. After all, the record demonstrates very clearly that one of the reasons so many young food producers have got themselves into financial difficulty is that the banks of Canada tried to shovel money into them. The banks encouraged young farmers to expand, and farm advisers told them that, with the kind of cashflows which were projected, they could handle large debts. People had money pushed at them. What happened? The banks foreclosed on food producers across the country. These are banks which have the largest real interest rates in the industrial western world. They also represent a national banking system which is the most profitable in the entire world.
It is not unreasonable for the Parliament of Canada to ask the national banks to participate in a moratorium program until the Government can put into place financial support systems. That is not an unreasonable expectation, nor is it an unreasonable request. As the Minister of Agriculture has indicated, it would require an Act of Parliament. I suspect that Members on all sides of the House would be only too anxious to pass such a Bill quickly.
Of course, the whole matter of stabilization programs must be raised. We have heard from our constituents and we have heard in the House of Commons that our red meat industry is competing with Irish beef, which is subsidized to the tune of up to 45 cents per pound. That means Canadian beef producers cannot compete. Countries around the world are promoting exports of foodstuffs and supporting their industries in one way or another, but Canada still retains a policy from another era which expounds the virtues of free enterprise. The only players in this particular area now are some sectors of the Canadian food production industry. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the Government of Canada stepping in either to impose quotas on subsidized Irish beef, to bring in countervailing duties, or to ask for a voluntary restraint program on imports. It is time for Canadian food producers to recognize that there is a real need for stabilization programs based on basic production costs. We would not find many sectors of the Canadian economy with a price which is lower than the cost of production. However, that is the case of most commodity areas within the agricultural industry. The time has now come, Mr. Speaker, for the Government to take very seriously this need for stabilization programs.
I would like to comment as well on the need to take action on the agri-bond front. The concept of agri-bonds has been before us now for many, many months. The matter was at one time referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The inquiry was completed. We saw there was, indeed, an excellent opportunity for food producers where an agri-bond could be floated by the federal Government, an investor could obtain 6 per cent or 7 per cent return on his investment, and, with a tax credit, could equal the kind of return he would get in the open money markets. What that would do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a large pool of money, costing about 6 per cent or 7 per cent, which the Farm Credit Corporation could lend for 7 per cent or 8 per cent. That is the kind of cost of money which would enable not only the young people to get back into the field of agriculture but would enable many existing food producers to be successful during these difficult economic times.
In terms of dealing with the moratorium on foreclosures either by the Farm Credit Corporation or by traditional lending institutions, there should be a debt review board instituted to act as a third party and, again through an Act of Parliament, to arbitrate where there is a difficulty between a lender and a borrower, and to be able to extend the period of repayment. Perhaps in some cases it could recognize that the bank or other lending institution might well be able to take a small loss. After all, as previous speakers have indicated, we are quite prepared to ignore the debts of certain large corporations. I think it is time that we did the same for the food producers of Canada.
I believe the important thing is that there are solutions, there are answers, and many have been presented today. If the Government is concerned about the viability of the family farm or ranch, and if it really wants to take action to assist the agricultural community, there are a variety of options from which it can choose. Most of these options have been presented today, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to suggest that the first step ought to be action through an Act of Parliament to place a moratorium on farm foreclosures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have been most interested in the comments of the speakers from the New Democratic Party and, in particular, in their motion as it relates to the agri-bond.
I come from an urban riding. Although I do not claim to know an awful lot about agriculture or, for that matter, about the
November 23, 1984

agri-bond, part of my riding is represented by the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Ontario, so we do have some connection with the agricultural community in that sense. I was most interested in the comments relating to the agri-bond and the whole concept of trying to encourage investors, apart from the farm community, to come in and invest in farms and in agricultural endeavours by offering this tax incentive, a lower interest rate, I take it, and then some sort of tax exemption in order to induce the investors to come in. That sort of thing seems to make a good deal of sense to me and to people who may think in the same way as I do.
I am interested in two of these aspects from the point of view of the New Democratic Party. I wonder if perhaps the Hon. Member could say whether or not this would create another one of these tax loopholes about which the New Democratic Party has indicated some concern over many years. In other words, does it not create a situation where the rich can put their money into investments and receive a tax break and, therefore, would not have to pay any taxes or not as much in the way of taxes?
Second, if we impose or superimpose on top of the agri-bond concept the idea of a minimum tax on the rich, would that not perhaps discourage those people who might otherwise want to invest in agri-bonds from doing so, and would that not then be counterproductive to the whole concept of agri-bonds and the assistance to agriculture which they would create?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. The topic of agri-bonds is something which the Government in its economic statement has indicated it now wants to pursue. It will be striking a committee, hopefully soon, to examine the variety of routes which one can take to implement an agri-bond program. Other countries have different kinds of agri-bonds, and they are something we need in our country as well.
In terms of conflict with the position of the New Democratic Party on the tax system, we have always believed very strongly that there are certainly very legitimate tax incentives. Many of the provisions in the Income tax Act, in fact, do serve Canadians well, such as appropriate types of home construction, the agricultural community, the fishing community, and one can go on and on. Our Party says that there are hundreds of tax loopholes and there has never been in recent times an adequate review of who benefits. We are simply suggesting that many of those loopholes, in our estimation, in fact provide no general gain to the country. As a matter of fact, they often result in a net loss to Canada. There is no job creation or economic expansion as a result of these loopholes. If it is going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, nay, billions of dollars each year in lost tax revenues as a result of these tax incentives, I feel it is not unreasonable to obtain a very clear statement on who benefits and to what extent, so that we can measure whether or not a tax incentive is in the best interests of our country.
To answer specifically the question raised by the Hon. Member, I will say that we feel that a minimum tax, and an incentive program which would result in a pool of low interest
Supply
capital for agricultural purposes, is not inconsistent one with the other. There is room for both. We feel very strongly, however, that with a tax system which is voluntary-and I think it is important that we as parliamentarians remind ourselves of that fact-we must operate in such a way that the billions of dollars presently operating in the underground economy are brought to the surface. We must have a tax system which people perceive as being fair, where equity is part of the entire system.
All we are saying is that when we find that year after year thousands and thousands of individuals whose incomes are in the $500,000 to $1 million range, are paying no income tax whatsoever, and when we find year after year that large corporations, which are extremely profitable-and I emphasize that-pay not a single penny of income tax, we say that our tax system has got out of control. I do not believe there is a single tax lawyer or accountant in Canada who would not agree with that observation.


Mr. Pietz:: The Hon. Member genuinely expressed concern for the plight of the Canadian farmer and, most particularly, for the Canadian farm family. During the election campaign, the Leader of our Party, now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) while campaigning in the Niagara Peninsula promised assistance to grape growers, who are experiencing a serious problem this year because of surplus grapes. This promise was also supported by the Ontario provincial Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Dennis Trimbrell. He also promised provincial funds. The federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has today announced that the new federal Government will keep its promise and has in fact arrived at an agreement with the province and a decision has been made to purchase the surplus grapes from the growers.
This past weekend I visited grape growers in my riding and they were very pleased with this decision. Many growers, because of a lack of markets, would be ruined without this help. Grapes are a major agricultural product in Canada and in my riding in the Niagara Peninsula. I am pleased that the Government has kept its promise in this regard. I would ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) if he does not agree that the Government has kept its promise to the grape growers? And would the Hon. Member tell us why, when he is so genuinely concerned with the plight of the small farmer, he does not give recognition to this excellent effort by the new Government to assist grape farmers who, in almost all cases, are made up of small family farm units?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased that the Hon. Member raised this issue because it is important. I have no hesitation in recognizing that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had in fact assisted farmers across the country by his action with the Farm Credit Corporation. Indeed, he took steps to assist hard-pressed farmers in various parts of the country, and the Hon. Member named one.
I want to make the observation that before I spoke we heard a speaker from the Conservative Party going on and on about

November 23, 1984
Supply
the abhorrence of having government play a role hand in hand with agriculture. Ele espoused the myth of the free enterpriser. Quite frankly, it is a pleasure to hear this Hon. Member stand in his place and say, thank goodness there was co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and producers in the Niagara Peninsula. That is what the NDP has always stood for, the benefits and value of a mixed economy, recognizing that there is a role for the private entrepreneur and there is a role for government to play. I think the Hon. Member explained that mix extremely clearly and extremely well, and I thank him for that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is an urban planner and I want to know whether he feels there is a potential in the agricultural business for urban greenhouses. There has been extreme interest in some communities in my riding in this and I wonder if he has any ideas on this issue.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, urban agriculture is obviously a growth industry along with aquaculture and a whole variety of new and creative ways of producing food. We are still, by and large, producing food in the traditional way as we did 3,000 years ago. There are many new initiatives that ought to be taken, and urban agriculture is certainly one of them.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to this House on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). I represent an urban riding. As such, I think it is important that some of us from urban ridings put forward our views to demonstrate that the Government and its actions are supported not just by Members from rural areas, but in fact by all members of the Government.
The economy of Alberta is built on three foundations, Mr. Speaker: agriculture, energy, and transporation. The two primary industries, agriculture and energy, are of importance, not just to agricultural and rural communities but to the urban communities and the people I represent. I have some knowledge of rural life and farm life in that I grew up in a rural area of Alberta. I spent the first 18 years of my life in an area now represented by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowsky). I must say that over the years I have taken lessons from watching how he has conducted himself in his distinguished career, and I can only hope that mine will be as long and that in the next election I can achieve a majority similar in size to his.
The importance of maintaining a strong and dynamic agrifood industry has always been well understood by my party. Indeed, much, perhaps the majority, of federal agricultural legislation and institutions were established by Conservative governments. Going back to the days of the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and Ministers such as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), people from the West, indeed farmers and agricultural people from all over Canada, have recognized that it is the Progressive Conservative Party that represents their interests. This is in large part the reason we have enjoyed continual electoral success for many, many years no matter
what the political winds happen to be. The Canadian Wheat Board, the Farm Credit Corporation, crop insurance, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, ARDA and PFRA are primary examples of our concern for Canadian agriculture. These are examples of the items our Party has brought forward over the years to respond to the needs of the agricultural community.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that these institutions, organizations and legislation are only support mechanisms. They were never intended to interfere with farmers' personal freedom and responsibility for their own success. As a farmer himself, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre is aware of the harsh realities of agricultural life. He knows farmers have to be careful, frugal, work hard and live within their means because of the narrow margins, traditionally poor returns on capital, and the terrible risks they face both through natural hazards and market forces.
The market-place is no less threatening to farmers than flood or drought or frost. Each farm family must take primary responsibility for coping as best it can with the hazards. Farmers understand this. They understand there is no escape from the harsh realities, no excuse for bad management. In short, they must carry their own weight, take their own risks and live with the consequences. Every independent businessman must maintain that sort of attitude towards his or her enterprise.
However, the federal Government recognizes that there are some aspects of agricultural life which are unique, such as, for example, the vulnerability to weather and international political and economic forces, plus the historically low rate of return on capital, all of which require governments to adopt special programs for farmers. This is not done to guarantee every farmer a living, but to ensure a general environment and climate in which Canadian farmers may prosper, and also to ensure that Canadian consumers have a continuing supply of high quality food at reasonable prices. In addition, government support of the agricultural industry enhances that industry's contribution to the national economy, such as to the balance of trade.
Federal and provincial governments have adopted a wide range of programs to help the industry. At the federal level nearly $2 billion is being spent annually on agriculture. In ballpark figures, this includes $60 million a year in stabilization payments, $300 million a year in dairy subsidies, $140 million in federal contributions toward crop insurance, $250 million on federally sponsored agricultural research, $200 million on inspection and regulation, $650 million through the Crow benefit, and $110 million a year to the Western Grain Stabilization Program. In addition, there are many market development programs, including advance payments programs which provide around $450 million a year in interest-free cash advances to farmers. There is also freight assistance to areas hard hit by drought and other natural disasters and for feed deficient areas of Canada. There are agricultural subsidiary agreements under which we encourage market development, technology development and improvements to the natural and human resources of agriculture. Designed in co-operation with
November 23, 1984

the provinces, these programs are tailor made to get the most from the agricultural area of the country.
Through the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Speaker, the Government provides loans to thousands of young and beginning farmers who do not have enough equity to get loans from commercial sources. As I said, I grew up in a rural area. In fact, I might still be there. However, as all Members know, unless one has a family farm to take over, or a sizeable family fortune, going into farming today is nearly impossible. As a result of this, I chose to emigrate to the city and become a chartered accountant. 1 still hope, however, that I may be able to return some day to farm life in the rural community. If we can get things straightened out in the Government of Canada in the next few years, I may still be able to realize that objective. I realize of course that with the requirements of farming being what they are, I do not have too many years to wait. I must do it in my relatively younger years, but I hope to still have that opportunity.
In recent years, in response to financial problems that have arisen as a result of high interest rates, several special programs were introduced including small business bonds, small business development bonds and the special farm financial assistance program. Most recently, the Government has placed a moratorium on recovery actions by the Farm Credit Corporation to give us time to develop innovative credit programs for farmers.
One part of this motion calls for a moratorium on foreclosure. 1 think that we must realize that such a call must be viewed with skepticism in light of the fact that a moratorium has the potential to reduce the availability of credit for farmers who are in fact currently in a strong and healthy position, able to carry debt and take out new loans. We would not want to dry up the sources of capital that are available to farmers who are currently strong by imposing a debt moratorium. Any move in this direction must be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has placed a moratorium for a temporary period until January 15 of next year to give our new Government some time to study the problems farmers are facing. We also need time to determine what programs can be made available which would offer reasonable solutions.
Inter-generational transfers are being facilitated. We intend to proceed with the previous government's proposal to allow farmers to deduct up to $120,000 in taxable gains on the sale of farms after December 31, 1983, provided these funds are invested in an RRSP. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is co-operating with the provinces in exploring a whole range of credit and tax options. These were discussed at the federal-provincial Ministers' meeting in Toronto earlier this month.
In his economic statement to Parliament, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that the Government will soon be referring a number of agricultural taxation issues to a parliamentary committee. These include the taxation of parttime farmers, the question of agri-bonds, and the taxation of
Supply
capital gains on farmland. The Government will issue a background paper on these issues and will request the parliamentary committee to report expeditiously. Although not directly related to farm finance, the Minister of Finance also indicated that farmers will be eligible for a fuel tax rebate which, after considering fuel price changes, should be about 4.5 cents per litre. This should assist all farmers in strengthening their cash flows. I would hope that provincial Ministers of Agriculture would appear before this parliamentary committee on the issue of agri-bonds united in a common purpose.
I believe that the Western Grain Transportation Act, when considered with the motion and its mention of input costs, is very significant. The first review regarding the method of payment is in progress and will be completed early in 1985. With regard to the method of payment, I believe that paying the Crow benefit directly to the railways distorts local prices for grain and thereby creates a disincentive to raising livestock or to processing grain locally. By paying the railways directly there is also a clear bias toward using rail for transporting grain. Other transportation modes or other services might be more efficient in some instances, but they are at a cost disadvantage under the present method of payment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not true.


Murray Dorin: It is true. I believe that farmers are in the best position to decide how to allocate their resources and, in doing so, would introduce the greatest efficiency into the grain handling and transportation system. As such, I would suggest that the Crow benefit should be paid to producers, thereby giving the widest scope for choice to be exercised in the market-place.
Very soon the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will be introducing amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to allow for the creation of a national tripartite red meat stabilization program. Hopefully, this will be passed with the co-operation of Members opposite in the near future. That is another example of how we are looking for ways of providing better services and support more economically.
Even a cursory examination of the present stabilization program shows its flaws. Farmers do not know how much support they will get under the program until long after they have made their production and marketing decisions. It is a case of justice delayed is justice denied. Furthermore, under the present program, farmers often receive their stabilization payments just at the time when market prices are recovering. That is not only bad timing, but can also distort production decisions.
However, the program which we intend to bring in will be prompt and voluntary and will provide an improved level of support, without costing the federal Government much more than the program which it will be eclipsing. In short, Mr. Speaker, the new approach to stabilization will be in keeping with the whole thrust of the Government's fiscal strategy to spend smarter rather than more.
To summarize, it is clear that farmers understand their fundamental responsibility for the success of their individual

November 23, 1984
Supply
operations. Second, an extensive system of supports is already in place. Finally, new, innovative programs and policies are being developed by the Government to provide more effective protection and encouragement for farmers, but in a more economical fashion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make and a question which I would like to ask of this Member and the Government generally. I have heard Members speak on various agricultural issues today. There was only a very brief mention made by the Government about the wine industry. I noticed that the Minister and another Member gave themselves considerable praise for so-called rescuing the wine industry for this year by buying surplus grapes.
There is a much larger concern there for Canadian consumers. That is the fact that we must make Canadian wines more appealing to the Canadian consumer. I am thinking especially of practices which are in existence now in the Province of Ontario which clearly discourage consumers from buying Canadian wines. I believe that in the Province of Ontario and other provinces Canadian wines should be made more readily available than are imported wines. I am thinking, for example, of wines being available in grocery stores.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this relates to the provincial authorities. I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Legislature in the Province of Ontario for a number of years. I introduced a private Members' Bill for the sale of wine in grocery stores. That was continuously refused by the Conservative government of the Province of Ontario.
Have initiatives such as this been entertained in the dialogue which the new Government is supposed to be having with its Conservative provincial counterparts? In view of the fact that the love affair between the provincial government and the federal Government is still on, I think it would be incumbent upon them to have this bedside chat about Canadian wines being available in grocery stores. Also, I think we should have a clear policy to serve only Canadian wines on-board Air Canada. Certainly if we want to demonstrate that we have a certain pride in this agricultural product in our country, we should do it with this institution. Has the Government entertained that idea as well?
Perhaps we could hear comments from the Member about that very important sector of agriculture. It is very important in certain provinces, especially in Ontario and British Columbia.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I would have to preface my remarks by saying that I come from Alberta and we do not grow many grapes there. Therefore, I am not particularly familiar with the subject of the comments made by the Hon. Member. However, I believe that we can take some heart in the fact that the comments by my colleague, the Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz), earlier in the debate, seemed to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture is in fact reviewing with his provincial counterparts what might be done. It appears that
action is forthcoming in this area. I think he may wish to take that matter up with the Minister at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there are no further questions or comments, we will resume debate.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too could not resist the opportunity as an urban Member to address the subject of agriculture, which is an issue that is critical to all Canadians. As Members well know, one in five jobs in Canada is dependent upon agriculture. Therefore, it is not simply a question of equity for farmers or the cessation of capital gains for farmers, but an issue of jobs for all Canadians.
Just as there are many Canadians who are directly employed as farmers or employees of farmers, there are many, particularly in my part of Canada, the Niagara Peninsula, who work in the processing industry.
I was very happy to see the quick action of the Government today on the question raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Not only did he raise the issue of the grape purchase in the area of Welland, he was able to get an answer from a representative of the Minister. I am sorry that the Member for Welland is not here because I would like to congratulate him for making that quick announcement, particularly in view of the fact that he acted very quickly as a result of the efforts made by Liberal members on behalf of his constituents.
Since there are no opposition members from the area of the Niagara Peninsula at the moment, I believe it is incumbent upon Members such as myself and the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and others to ensure that issues like the grape purchase promise of the Government are not simply a package of goodies which the Conservatives have no intention of delivering but are promises that will be kept in the future. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I might just stress that the crisis in the agricultural community is something which all my constituents and all Canadian electors share in. We are talking about food in Canada, but in a much wider context, there is the worldwide food issue, food to feed everyone on earth. In the past few days and weeks, and even in the past few years, we have been made aware of the difficulties faced by Ethiopians who simply do not have enough food to feed themselves.

We heard a Government member say that Canadians have spent only up to 16 per cent of our disposable income on food. This includes money that is spent on potato chips and similar items. Yet there is a situation in other parts of the world in which people are dying of starvation on a daily basis. I speak specifically of Ethiopia.
The spokesman for External Affairs was quite clear in pointing out to Canadians that the current Government recognized the work that had been done for Ethiopian family relief by the previous government before any other nations through-
November 23, 1984

out the world began to understand and recognize the very serious problem of famine in Ethiopia.
I am sure the Government would also agree, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) already stated, that the former Member for Windsor-Essex was a Member who was extremely effective in bringing to the attention of Canadian people the importance of not only a Canadian agri-food policy but of a world agri-food policy. In fact, as President of the World Food Council, he brought to the attention of the world the concern of Canadians that we have food not only for our tables but for people all over the world.
The former Member for Windsor-Essex had many years of experience as Minister of Agriculture as well as the tandem experience in his private life in the farming business and involvement in communications. I believe he had a real passion for the notion of expanding food policy in Canada and developing a buy Canadian policy by the former government. You can imagine my shock and dismay and the shock and dismay of a number of Members on our side of the House at the shabby way he was treated by the present Government when, in an attempt to sweep clean the slate of Liberal past sins, it decided to deny him a role which would have put him at the forefront of developing a food policy not only for all Canadians but for people all around the world.
I hope that at some point in the future the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will stand in the House and say that the cancellation of Eugene Whelan's appointment was an insult to all Canadian farmers and particularly those who have spent a lifetime trying to develop a comprehensive and universal food policy for people all over the world.
Politicians and parliamentarians are occasionally asked to take a more global approach. There are times when we must set aside our petty partisan differences. If there was one person who set aside those differences in the area of food policy and tried to develop an all-encompassing strategy to fight world famine, it was our former Minister of Agriculture. In the Government's deliberations about developing a more comprehensive approach to the situation of the Ethiopian famine, I hope it reconsiders the decision it made concerning the appointment of Eugene Whelan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. However, I believe there is a rule of relevancy. I do not see anything in the motion before the House concerning the welfare and good order of the former Minister of Agriculture. I do not see anything in the motion about foreign food aid or Ethiopia, as important as that is. I was wondering if the Hon. Member could address her remarks to the motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member has such limited understanding of the importance of international trade with respect to the agricultural community. I am sure he must realize that in order not only for the Canadian economy to thrive but for Canadian farmers to venture into foreign markets, we must develop those markets with respect to an international policy. Incidentally, the agri-business was
Supply
referred to by his colleague in the House, to which the Hon. Member did not object. If he is suggesting that the current situation of farm bankruptcies in Canada is not at least in part due to our difficulties in marketing on an international basis, then the Member obviously does not have a very solid understanding of the agricultural community.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It still is not in the motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: As I understand the motion, it deals with the critical situation facing Canadian farmers. It seems to me that if Canadian farmers could find markets for their products, they would not be in the situation they are currently facing in which, according to figures quoted by a Government member a few moments ago, at least 15 per cent of family farms will disappear over the next five years. I believe that my Party, and certainly the former Minister of Agriculture, have a clear record in trying to develop policies that will prevent the kind of bankruptcies that are currently being faced by farmers across Canada.
I think the other issue that I would like to touch on very briefly, bearing in mind the limitations of time, is the issue of the buy-Canadian policy, especially as it pertains to the wine and grape growers industry. Hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the lush vineyards of the Niagara Peninsula have produced some of the finest vintage grapes to be found anywhere in the world. Because of the limited marketing practices of certain provincial governments, it has been very difficult for farmers, producers, vineyards and vintners, to have full access to ready Canadian markets and international markets.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz) made some remarks a few minutes ago concerning federal grants to buy grapes, I think. I was thinking of eggs, I do not know why. I am sure that farmers will be pleased should the government decide to buy grapes this year.
That is why my colleague the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) made a representation, and that is why I also wanted to say something about that.
But the over-all problem is not limited to buying grapes for one winter or one fall season only; instead we ought to open up new markets to sell Canadian wines. As my friend the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out, will the Canadian government buy them, for instance, even if they cost more, and if we go eat in the parliamentary restaurant next week, will everyone be drinking Canadian wines? Do they always sip good wines from Kelowna or Niagara Falls? Most people drink foreign wines. Even now, a big advertising campaign is underway about the arrival of the Beaujolais nouveau. In my opinion, our Canadian markets would be much better off if the Canadian government were to promote Canadian wines, much as they are already doing in the Province of Quebec. People in every province of Canada should have the right

November 23, 1984
Supply
to sell beer and wine in small corner stores-Canadian beer and wine, of course-so as to give our farmers an opportunity to expand their markets.

1 think it is excellent and I am very happy the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz) made an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the purchase of one great crop.
What is needed in order to develop a comprehensive strategy which will mean more grape and wine sales in the future is a decision by this Government to enter into an aggressive buy-Canadian policy with respect to our agricultural products. 1 need not even look beyond the Chamber where we are today, or even beyond the House of Commons, to know that wherever we go we are constantly facing the promotion of wine coming from other countries. We are now seeing the embarkation of the Beaujolais nouveau campaign with the Beaujolais coming from France. Why not embark, along with our provincial agricultural ministers, on an aggressive policy of buying Canadian that would include allowing beer and wine stores across Canada to sell Canadian grapes, wine and beer? This would permit the small independent entrepreneurs, who I know are so dear to the hearts of my Progressive Conservative friends, the chance to get out and market a Canadian product. At the same time it would allow the great vintners of the Niagara region, which happens to be one of the golden regions of Canada-and I invite all of you to stop in on your way to Hamilton if you are passing by going to Niagara Falls or the new James R. Allan Skyway bridge, depending upon your perspective-to market its great grapes to all Canadians along with the great grapes of British Columbia and other areas of Canada.
We do have an excellent product which should be sold not only to Canadians but also world-wide. We need a government prepared to set an example in this area. We need a government prepared to say to its provincial counterparts across the nation-and I look to the great dry province of Ontario-"Let us give our Canadian entrepreneurs a chance, let us give our Canadian small businessmen and women, who are scraping the bottom of the wine barrel to make ends meet, an opportunity by giving them an edge." Why not give them a chance to sell their products in independent grocery stores across Canada?
There are many challenges facing us in the agricultural field. As I said at the beginning of my few remarks, I realize that the agricultural field is one of the primary producing industries in Canada and is one of the areas that will create jobs for all Canadians. I urge the Government to take up the challenge of a universal global food policy as proposed by the Minister's predecessor, the former Member for Windsor-Essex. The challenges are great, the rewards are many. If we can market the Canadian product on an international basis, we will find the jobs, jobs, and more jobs promised by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) will have some possibility of coming to fruition.
I think the Minister of Agriculture has some real challenges ahead. I know that we on this side of the House want to assist
in meeting those challenges because we recognize that where there is growth in the agricultural industry, there is growth for Canadians. I just have one comment to make on this in passing. I think it was one of the Members for Vancouver who aptly questioned one of the Government Members on this issue. He talked about how the Government felt that the percentage of Canadian income spent on food was far too small. He quoted figures ranging from 20 per cent, 25 per cent to 30 per cent as perhaps a more realistic expectation of what Canadians can expect to pay for their food dollar as a percentage of gross income. Would the Government clarify, for the purpose of those Members who are trying to determine which is Government policy and which are individual Member's meanderings, whether the figure of 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent, or 30 per cent most accurately reflects the percentage of gross income which the Government will expect Canadians to pay for their food?
I am sure Canadians are most interested in this departure into new agricultural policy for Canada. I am looking forward to some clarification from the Government and the Minister as to whether a doubling of the cost of food in Canada was one of the campaign promises which the Prime Minister either failed to announce or is one of the unannounced promises he intends to deliver.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, to get back to the motion that is before the House, 1 would like to say a few words concerning the last paragraph of the motion which calls for parity prices for food produced for domestic use in Canada, and remind the House that of all the sectors of our economy just about the only people who cannot set their prices in order to recover their costs of production and maintain a decent standard of living, are the agricultural producers. Organized workers, organized labour can bargain for salary and wages to cover their costs of living and of raising a family. Our lawyers, doctors, chartered accountants and what-not can set fees to cover their costs of production and their costs of living. Our manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers set the prices to cover their costs of production and of doing business. With few exceptions, the agricultural producer cannot set prices. He is a price taker, not a price maker.
I do not know of anyone else in our society who would accept an income below his costs of production. He would not stand for it. For decades we have not only expected but required our food producers to operate at less than the cost of production. That is why we have lost three quarters of a million family farms in this country since the end of World War II.
I do not know of anyone else who would stand for that. It is only fair and reasonable that the Government should be able to implement a system of prices for farm products that are consumed in Canada that cover a farmer's cost of production.
November 23, 1984

If given his costs of production, which include high interest rates and high freight charges, he will be able to pay that. Until we do that, we will have nothing more than a perpetuation of the present situation.
The whole area of capital funds required to be borrowed by farmers for capital costs and operations has been a continuing problem since the end of World War II. There is nothing new about it.
I am amused when I hear the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and others who come here and tell us to leave them alone, they want the free and open market, the free enterprise system for the marketing of food. When the free enterprise system breaks down, however, who are the first to come to Ottawa with their hands out? It is the same free and open marketers. The so-called free and open market has not worked for food producers in the history of this country.
We expect our farmers to compete against the treasuries of competing nations. The European Economic Community subsidizes grain producers anywhere from $20 to $28 a tonne. The United States subsidizes grain producers $8, $10 and $12 a tonne. In Canada, the so-called Crow benefit amounted to $4 a tonne. Then we got the former Liberal government throwing the Crow rate out and the Tories acquiescing. They voted against the destruction of the Crow rate. They said they would put on a freeze. That still has not been done. Maybe by next spring they will put on a freeze on what has already been increased. They should be rolling back the statutory grain rates to what they were last January 1, or at least last August 1, if they want it to be a benefit to grain producers in western Canada.
I listened to a couple of Members on the Government side talk about private lending institutions, those poor fellows not being able to collect on their exorbitant interest rate loans from agricultural producers, fishermen and small businessmen. To hear them tell it would wring tears out of a jury full of bankers. Parliament and the Government have to tell the financial institutions, the banks and mortgage companies that they will get so much and no more. What they now collect used to be a criminal offence. It was called usury.
Farmers are still paying off loans at 18 per cent, 19 per cent and 20 per cent. That used to be illegal. Nobody can operate a farm or any other business with those exorbitant charges. There would be nothing wrong with saying to the financial institutions that, in light of the profits they have had, they must contribute to the welfare of our farm industry, fishermen and small businessmen.
They have been amply repaid in interest rates. Therefore, they should be told they cannot collect any more interest for the next year. A moratorium should be declared on all foreclosures and two choices given them: it is either compulsory or they have to, because they are not going to do it voluntarily. They have fleeced farmers for too darn long.
Supply
I remember in the 1950s the then Conservative Leader and members of all Parties talking about parity prices, that farmers were entitled to recover their costs of production and their living. Everybody agreed it was a great idea. We have accomplished it to some extent in a few small areas of agriculture, but we have barely scratched the surface.
We could be doing a lot more about self-sufficiency of food production in Canada. We need to be into massive greenhouse operations and using all available technology to make ourselves more self-sufficient.
We need to do something about the consumption of food that we produce. Two or three weeks ago, apples from France were being used in the Parliamentary Restaurant. In British Columbia they were throwing apples in the garbage. What the heck is going on? It is not a big deal, but it is a symptom of the disease in this country. We place too much emphasis on importing fresh fruit and vegetables from the United States during the winter. We have to import them because we do not grow them in the winter. Why not import from countries like Mexico, which desperately need foreign exchange and could use Canadian dollars? That gives farmers incomes that allow them to pay interest rates-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order to ask what this discussion has to do with the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Hon. Member was not listening. 1 am talking about parity prices and exports that allow farmers to pay their present interest charges. I am not talking about Ethiopia, as my colleague was doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There are approximately two minutes left to this day. Let us try to finish on a good note.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think we are finishing on a good note. In fact, I would be game to sitting past five o'clock. I will sit down in a minute and somebody else can get up.
The proposed requirement of a moratorium on bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings has occurred off and on since the dirty thirties. There is nothing new about it. There should be some permanent legislation the Government can invoke when we are in a situation such as we are in now.
Finally, with regard to freight rates being charged to western grain producers, my friend spoke glowingly in favour of what the government did last year. I knew the Tories were hand in glove with the Liberals on that item. We got the evidence today. Farmers in my province, the Saskatchewan

November 23, 1984
Supply
Wheat Pool and the Association of Rural Municipalities do not support that. Those rates have to be rolled back to reduce farm costs of production in order to lessen this terrible financial plight. This is no time to charge them higher costs by way of freight rates. It is inexcusable and needs to be corrected. I am patiently waiting for the Government to roll back those rates as it said it would do in September of last year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 62, proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, November 26, 1984