1984-05-03

OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw a comment which appears on page 3347 of Hansard concerning the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. That comment was a private jest and not meant to be taken seriously. However, in the cold light of print it assumes a character that is untrue and unwarranted, and I apologize to the Chairman.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved:
That this House recognizes the tremendous financial difficulty that farmers have been placed under and therefore recommends that the government immediately consider injection of much needed cash into farming through:
(1)	the immediate payout of a substantial initial payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund in order to assist with seeding costs;
(2)	the repeal of all sales taxes, well-head taxes and other taxes being charged to fuels used for farming and fishing; and
(3)	an immediate interest rate reduction on Farm Credit Corporation loans so that viable refinancing of farms can take place.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the situation for farmers in Canada is so critical that my Party has decided to take the time of Parliament once again to try to convince the Government that it should take some action in the farming area. This is the third day that we have debated agricultural issues in the last month or so. We hope in the process of repeating that possibly the Government might learn something. We hope that government members are not the slow learners they appear to be.
The motion before the House is an attempt to point out to the Government that it has some responsibilities and that there are some areas to which it can react and act very quickly. The three points that we chose as possible methods of injecting funds into farming are as follows. First is the one about which we have been talking for the last year or so, the triggering of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. The second is a rebate or repeal of the taxes on farm fuel. The third is a reduction in the interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation which would
help some farmers who happen to fall into that particular category.
There are many other ways in which the Government could inject cash into the farm economy. However, what we have chosen to emphasize are only three ways in which the Liberal Government could act now and immediately inject funds into the agricultural industry and therefore have some immediate benefit. The Government could proceed with these changes this week or next week. Although for many farmers it would be too little and too late, it would provide relief for some.
O)
I want to quote from the Catholic Bishops Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis. This paper was reinforced by the Bishops recently in a statement to the Macdonald Commission. It reads as follows:
-we firmly believe that first priority must be given to the real victims of the current recession, namely-the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor-pensioners, native peoples, women, young people-and small farmers, fishermen, some factory workers, and some small businessmen and women. This option calls for economic policies which realize that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich; that the rights of the workers are more important than the maximization of profits; that the participation of marginalized groups takes precedence over the preservation of a system which excludes them.
It is difficult to believe that I am making that quotation refer to the prairie farmers and other Canadian farmers. Farming is the number one industry in Canada. This Government has allowed it to slip to the point where many farmers are disappearing from farming entirely. They are on the poor end of the economy.
Recognizing the farmers as a marginal group is a real shock to those of us who grew up close to the farming industry. We have to credit this to the unconcern of this Government and its lack of understanding of the farming industry. It is not only the grain producers but farmers all across Canada who feel this neglect by the Government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will probably stand in his place and tell us that the Canadian farmer is better off than farmers anywhere else in the world. That may be so, but he will be misrepresenting the situation on the farm these days for many farmers. In 1979 there were 124 farm bankruptcies in Canada. In 1983 this had increased to 488 bankruptcies, an increase of over 250 per cent. Comparing January and February of 1984 with January and February of 1983, there was a 63 per cent increase across this country. In the west there was more than a 100 per cent increase in bankruptcies.
Anyone who knows the farm situation recognizes that bankruptcies are only the tip of the iceberg. The Canadian Federa-
3354
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1984
Supply
tion of Agriculture states that for every farmer who goes bankrupt, there are 10 in trouble or who will pack their bags and leave the farm. During the last five years, close to 20,000 farms have disappeared. I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to state that that is good for agriculture and good for Canada.
This motion contains some very simple proposals which can be put into effect immediately. First, it proposes an insured pay-out from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. It proposes that the Government make that pay-out now and not at election time. I know the Minister will tell us that that cannot be done, but where there is a will there is a way. As was suggested by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) yesterday, the Minister could make an interim payment. We are told that that has been done before.
The Minister could put the enabling legislation before the House. In the last two years since we have known that the triggering system did not work very well, the Minister has had enough time to do so. He could put the enabling legislation before the House now and have it passed as quickly as possible. If he would propose a Bill which would be honest, above-board and do what it is supposed to do, it would have our support. However, we will not buy a pig in a poke. Such a Bill could contain a triggering system which would be retroactive to the last calendar year and the initial payments could then be made for the 1983 calendar year, with a final payment if necessary at the end of this crop year.
Let us not allow the Minister or the Government to use such a Bill as a lever to get less palatable Bills through the House simply because opposition members want the Bill passed quickly and are more concerned about farmers than the Government. Let us not hear government members say: "We will pass this Bill if you will pass some of the others". These kinds of shenanigans are evidence of the low priority the Government gives to farmers' problems. After having witnessed the promising Liberal leadership contenders invade Saskatchewan last week, such shenanigans would show a great deal of contempt for Saskatchewan.
The Minister has made a great to-do about where the money for these projected pay-outs would come from. The last payout from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund was made in 1978. Since that time farmers have put $300 million into the fund. The Government has committed $600 million to the fund but it has never had to find that money. Not one cent of the payment which the Government is now suggesting would come directly from the Government. In the accounts of Canada I cannot find anywhere an item indicating that the Government has actually paid that money into the account. The Government has made paper transactions by theoretically putting money into a trust fund and then borrowing it back. The Government has never had to pay any money out and it would not have to pay any money out if it made a payment right now. Unfortunately, even if farmers were to receive a payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, it would be too little, too late for many beginning farmers.
The second proposal contained in our motion is the repeal of taxes on farm fuels. Farmers will spend approximately $1.5 million on farm fuel this year and because of the recent increases it may be considerably more than that. That figure does not include the energy that is used to produce fertilizer, another large portion of the costs of farming these days. Of the cost of farming, upward of 20 per cent is made up of taxes which are put in place by the federal Government. If the Government had a great desire to help farmers, it would do something immediately for the primary producers like farmers or fishermen. However, in this particular motion we are more interested in the farmers. The Government could reduce by 32 cents per gallon-approximately 7 cents per litre-the cost of fuel. That would be a reduction in fuel costs of approximately 20 per cent. Farmers who use a considerable amount of fuel would be helped by $1,000, or more in their costs. For every thousand gallons of fuel that farmers bought, they would save $300. That is a sizeable injection of cash into the farming industry.
The third area of concern that is brought forward in the motion is the matter of the interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation. This would help a few farmers who have Farm Credit Corporation loans, but the problem is much greater than those loans. For example, just last week The Leader-Post of Regina carried a quotation from the Royal Bank of Canada. It reads:
The Royal Bank, one among many, told 84 Saskatchewan farmers last fall that they should get out of business.
"The year before, we didn't tell anyone they should sell out," ... "But it's just not worth it for some of them to put another crop in the ground. The problem is definitely getting larger."
That statement was made by the Royal Bank of Canada. It told farmers: "Quit, before you get too deep into trouble". The quality of farming does not count any more. The best farmers in the area are finding themselves going under because of interest rates. The Farm Credit Corporation could relieve a few of them.
Presently, with capitalization of approximately $132 billion, farmers owe over $20 billion. These are 1982 statistics. That is approximately 15 per cent. That does not sound too bad, but there is a catch because the interest rates are killing the farmers who are trying to start a farming operation. For instance, if a farmer had a $1 million investment in a farm- which these days on the Prairies is a fairly modest farm; a couple of sections of land-and borrowed money at a modest rate of 10 per cent, he would be paying $100,000 interest. In an average year that farmer would be very lucky to make a profit of $80,000 from those two sections of land. If there were no other costs involved, he might be able to meet the interest payments. The only farmers who are able to survive under those circumstances are the farmers who have already capitalized and do not have to depend on the production of their land to keep them going.
[Stage Direction]
Considering all farmers-those who have paid for their land and those who have not paid for their land-of every $2 that they take in income, they pay $1 to the banks and the Farm Credit Corporation for the financing of their operation. What we are recommending is a small relief for that particular problem. We must put the credit on a realistic basis for farmers. We could be very nostalgic about this. A realistic basis for farm credit is approximately 5 per cent. In the days when farmers were able to borrow at 5 per cent, they could make a go of it. As well, the profit margin was greater then. We must put before the agricultural industry some kind of a credit operation which will allow it to farm and continue farming and to finance farming from within the agricultural industry.
In my last few comments I want to put before the House a kind of comprehensive plan for agriculture. In simple terms, which the Government might possibly recognize and understand, we could establish some kind of income stabilization plan which would recognize all of the problems of high input, high taxes, lower returns, high cost of credit and high cost of transportation. Recognizing all of these costs, we could put before the farmers some kind of income stabilization plan so that in the years when things are tough they can survive and in the years they do well, they will possibly make a profit.
If we do that, not necessarily at a rich level but at a secure level, taking into consideration all the factors of production, we can then provide something for the farmers which would keep them going in tough times. I know that some of our friends from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party may not value the industry enough to try to control the markets in such a way that we are able to do this, but let me say that if the Government cannot bring itself to put forward an income security plan for the farmers, taking into account all these considerations, then we are going to have to do it on a piecemeal basis. And that is really what we are suggesting today.
However, in the long run we really have to go beyond the three suggestions in our motion. Besides providing adequate credit, we must protect the farmers from bankruptcies during the periods they are affected by weather and low prices. We must provide a tax system which would allow a farmer to get started. Right now, it is very difficult for a new farmer to get started because the moment he starts making a littie profit in a good year, he loses it to taxation.
We must establish national marketing agencies which take the speculation and unfairness out of production of some of the crops. We must establish stabilization plans for as many of the products as possible. We must provide low transportation costs and costs of fuel at a level which has some relationship to the price farmers will get for their crops. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a holistic approach to agricultural problems so that farmers can survive.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A question period is now provided for. Are there any questions or comments?
Supply


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment directed to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I begin by saying I know from previous experience that the Hon. Member's remarks are always well prepared and given very seriously. This was no exception. However, I was attracted to his closing remarks when he used the phrase "an income security plan", and I would like to ask him if he would mind giving us a little more detail. For example, is it a form of stabilization? Is it a plan which the Hon. Member envisages would be based on costs of production for a wide variety of agricultural commodities? Or does he envisage a plan which is more or less on the traditional stop-loss concept based entirely on the market price situation? I feel it would be useful if we had a little more detail.


Mr. Hovdebo:: I see an income stabilization or security plan as one which possibly allows us to dismantle the model situation we presently have which assists the farmer when his apples freeze, but not when he gets hailed out. That is covered by insurance. Right now we have a series of hit and miss stabilization plans, insurance plans and income security plans. Instead of taking each of the crops separately and saying that when you do not make it in this particular crop, your income from your operation, to stay alive, should be within a certain area, I would like to see a method whereby the moment you start hitting that area there is a place where you can go. Perhaps it has to be an insurance plan where you pay in some years and receive in others, such as with the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. Mainly, however, I think we want to put before the farmer some kind of security so that he knows that even when things are bad he is at least going to cover his expenses.
I know there is a problem. U.S. farmers, for example, said, when we were talking about a stable price for grain, well, if we gave $5 a bushel for wheat right across the board they would be ploughing the raspberries under and seeding wheat because there would be some security there. Basing it on price has some dangers. I know from experience that basing it on anything which does not fluctuate to some extent relative to production has some dangers. It is a very complex situation but I think it should be tackled; otherwise we are going to keep on losing farmers at the same rate.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, the second part of the Hon. Member's motion refers to:
(2) the repeal of all sales taxes, well-head taxes and other taxes being charged to fuels used for farming and fishing;
I would like to know how many cents per gallon the Hon. Member is talking about there. I would like to know if they have done any research on what the figure is because I have written letters to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), as well as trying to do some compilations ourselves, and there does not seem to be any hard and fast figure as to how much tax is

May 3, 1984
Supply
actually collected. Can the Hon. Member supply us with any information he might have?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I do not have the figures with me but our understanding is that the total amount collected is something less than $250 million.


Charles James Mayer: For farmers and fishermen?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: No, just farmers. For primary industries, I guess we were looking at when we were doing it. Our Party in Saskatchewan did a compilation and came up with seven cents a litre in provincial and federal taxes which could be removed without affecting the amount received by the oil companies. That comes to 32 cents a gallon. Whether you can take it all from the federal level or not is difficult to figure out because some of it is very indirect. Increases in the well-head tax are not always directly attributable to the cost of fuel. But our understanding is that it could be seven cents a litre.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask the Member a question. I received a letter today from a farmer who felt he just could not make it, so he called an auction sale. He thought he could get enough to satisfy the banks. When the bids came in he got a $3,000 offer for a $50,000 tractor and a $500 offer for a machine worth $75,000. He saw that he was not going to be satisfied that way and had to call off the sale. What he is going to do is sell some of his land from a two-section farm sufficient to satisfy the banks. The farmers are in dire straits and they are now having difficulty keeping their land. Two sections is not very much, and when they have to start selling part of that to satisfy the banks, where are they going to be a year from now? I would like to have the Hon. Member's comments.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I know exactly what the Hon. Member is talking about. The moment they sell that land they reduce their productive base and are less able to pay interest on what they have left. They usually do not reduce their debt, just the interest. Right now in the Western Producer there are ten columns of ads for land for sale, which is about three times as much as there usually is. In my area around Nipawin, Tisdale and Melfort there were over 200 quarters of land available for rent or sale. Farmers are trying to get out now before they have to spend the money to put another crop in the ground. They are farmers, they cannot see the land sit there without producing so they are going to borrow money and put the crop in the ground, but they would rather have someone else do it if possible because they know they are not going to make it. For every farmer who goes bankrupt there are ten who pack up and leave or sell out.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, just by way of a comment, there are two federal taxes on vehicle fuels. The first is the 9 per cent tax which works out to roughly three cents a litre, and then there is the excise tax of 1.5 cents a litre. That is refundable upon application to farmers, fishermen and commercial users. I wanted to put that into perspective in case
anyone thought that the total federal tax was of the amount stated, seven cents or eight cents per litre.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: There is a variation between the amount of tax on fuels in the various provinces. The total amount which could be removed in Saskatchewan is seven cents and that is the basis on which I made my comments. I am not that familiar with the taxes and I must agree with the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) when he says it is pretty hard to figure out exactly how the well-head tax collected by the federal Government, which the Hon. Member did not mention, really increases the cost of fuel as well. It is a tax regardless of whether you call it a royalty or not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Resuming debate.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where is the beef?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wonders where the beef is. I know where the baloney is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I want to say to the Hon. Member who moved the motion today that I visited his area on Sunday evening last and I am fully aware that there are farmers in difficulty. I met about 400 of those farmers in a place called Hudson Bay, a small and fairly nice community of about 2,200. Some of those farmers have not had a crop in three years and they are in a very difficult position, not so much because of what the Government did but because of the weather. Certainly we in the Government have a lot of authority but not enough authority to direct what kind of weather farmers should or should not have. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of that. He comes across as if it were the Government's fault.
He also talks about the loss of income. World prices of grain have gone down as much as $48 a tonne in less than six months. Is that because of something the Government of Canada did? Our system of supplying the world market with grain through the Canadian Wheat Board is probably one of the most efficient in the world. I am sure the Hon. Member approves of that system. He did not say that, but I have heard him talk about if before. I know his Party stands on that.
He also did not say that there are quite a few farmers in different parts of Canada who do not fit into the bracket he is talking about. Very few of the farmers who have organized themselves into a marketing system and are efficient producers are in economic trouble, unless they did something way outside of normal procedure and good farm management. About 50 per cent of our farmers are still in very good shape in Canada. These are farmers who perhaps did not expand. They are farmers in the kind of productive entities which I mentioned earlier.
May 3, 1984

The Hon. Member quoted the Catholic Bishops. I would like to quote a priest, Reverend Paul Mooney, who was raised on a farm in Essex County and now lives in Zurich, Ontario where he has a parish. He is quoted in the London Free Press as saying:
Many farmers have gone broke in the last few years. Many got big because the government and banks told them to get big, then everything went haywire. There's been a tremendous human cost in stress and even suicides.
The article goes on:
The greatest enemy is the farmer himself... he's a rugged individualist, Mooney says, not mincing words. I'd hoped the recession had maybe gone deeper so it would get them on their knees and they would do something.
When things are going great farmers are rabid capitalists and free enterprisers for that system. However, when things go bad, even Conservative Members of the House of Commons want the Government to step in and become involved in the free market system. They condemn Crown corporations, but today they are asking us to get more involved in the lending system with the Farm Credit Corporation because the banks refuse to do this for people.
I am pleased that the Members opposite have given us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I am glad that they share my concern for farmers and my enthusiasm about the potential for the industry as well. The motion asks that the House recognize the tremendous financial difficulty that farmers have been placed under. That is something which Members on this side of the House have recognized for a long time, Mr. Speaker. We have gone beyond recognition to action. We have undertaken a whole series of initiatives to help farmers deal with the pressures of a difficult economic time.
I can list a host of programs which the Government has initiated. It has initiated advance payments for stored crops, stabilization plans, support for fruit and vegetable storage construction, shared cost programs with the provinces for agricultural development, special interest rates for farmers in financial difficulty, and enabling legislation for national marketing programs. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members talk as though the Government had done nothing.
The Hon. Member who tabled this motion comes from the Province of Saskatchewan where agriculture is the basic and most important industry. What have their previous NDP and present Conservative Governments done with agriculture? They have done very little compared with what the federal Government does. In Saskatchewan the federal Government spends practically double what either the previous or present governments have. We also provide the benefit of the Farm Credit Corporation and advance interest-free loans on crops. The total involvement of the federal Government in Saskatchewan is nearly $500 million a year, whereas the province contributes less than $100 million a year.
The Hudson Bay district is called a disaster area. However, the Premier of Saskatchewan has never officially written a letter to me, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or anyone else saying that it is a disaster area and they would like the Government to participate in the program. They have told me they are going to put money in their budget for this and want
Supply
the federal Government to participate. I told them we would listen to their representation as soon as it was made. However, up until yesterday we had not received such a letter. The Government of Saskatchewan brought its budget in several weeks ago and has never made that official request. That government allocated $4 million in its budget and suggested the federal Government match that. However, that request has never been officially made in writing although the Minister of Agriculture and Premier of Saskatchewan know the proper procedures.
The motion mentions three specific things and I will try to deal with them in order. The suggestion that the federal Government issue an interim payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund is very tempting, Mr. Speaker, to say the least. There is no doubt that many western grain farmers are experiencing financial difficulty. That is why we have taken the initiative to amend the Act so that the payments will be based on a crop year rather than a calendar year and that the triggering mechanism will be changed to take into account per unit cash flow as well as total income.
As I said in Winnipeg last week, the Western Grain Stabilization Act is the main federal program protecting incomes of prairie grain farmers. It is a voluntary Act, Mr. Speaker. Farmers may join it if they want to. About 75 per cent of the grain farmers joined it and 25 per cent have not seen fit to join. Through that program the federal Government contributes $2 for every $1 contributed by the farmers. We administer the Act and pay interest on the total accumulation of funds every year.


Charles James Mayer: It is like a black hole. All the money goes in and nothing comes out.


Eugene Whelan: The basic concept of the program is very sound, but we need to change the pay-out mechanism to provide a more stable level of support, especially during prolonged periods of depressed world prices and markets. World prices and world markets have a greater effect on farmers' incomes than anything else, and they know it.
On the surface it would seem that to make an interim payment would be an easy thing to do. Let us first look at some practical considerations. When we made interim payments in the past it was after the end of the year under review and because we knew the receipts had projections of costs. With all this data the existing formula indicated that a payment was going to be required. That formula today does not indicate a payment will be required for 1983. There is no way the present legislation can trigger a payment. That is precisely why, on April 25, the Government announced that legislation would be introduced to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We are planning to improve the program and expect that these improvements will trigger a substantial pay-out to producers for 1983-84. I expect the Western Grain Stabilization Act to be introduced within a matter of a few days.
Earlier I indicated that we were considering the possibility of making an interim payment after the Bill had received

May 3, 1984
Supply
second reading if it was clear the legislation was going to pass. However, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has informed me that we cannot do so until and unless the amending Bill receives Royal Assent.
Let us take another look at the question of making an interim payment. We must first remember that a major thrust of this legislation is to make payments more promptly. The proposed switch to a crop year instead of a calendar year means that a farmer would only have to wait until October or November, just two or three months following the end of the crop year, for a payment. Under the existing Act, Mr. Speaker, there is a delay of nearly 10 months from the end of the calendar year until payments can be processed. The legislation does not allow any triggering. Last year 37 million tonnes of grain were sold, the largest volume in Canada's history. We do not have the time to study the formula here, but the western grain stabilization people in Winnipeg will show you exactly what triggers the plan.


Charles James Mayer: That has nothing to do with it.


Eugene Whelan: It does not trigger under that volume system. However, by greatly reducing the length of time between the end of the crop year and a possible pay-out, the new legislation should correspondingly reduce the need for interim payments.
[DOT] (N50)
There would also be substantial administrative problems to overcome if we were to make an interim payment under the new legislation. The thing is that expenses considered under this program are calculated by Statistics Canada using a July 1 reference date, and it takes a couple of months after that to produce the final figures. It would be difficult to project those figures in the absence of the survey data.
It is also difficult to project receipts. What about when you run into unforeseen problems such as what happened when the St. Clair River was plugged full of ice? The boats could not move and millions of dollars were lost every day. That situation had never taken place in the Great Lakes since shipping was started in the Great Lakes system. There were over 100 boats held up. At least 50 per cent of those boats, I would think, were boats coming from the Lakehead or boats going up to the Lakehead load up with grain. That cost millions and millions of dollars and there was a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cars of grain sitting on sidings because the elevators in the Thunder Bay area were chock full of grain. Everything was supposed to go according to schedule, but it did not go according to schedule because of the ice phenomenon that took place in Lake Huron and in the St. Clair River.
Finally it must be noted that if the legislation is passed, we will likely be making a payment of roughly $300 million in late October. I would argue that prairie farmers will need that money just as much in the fall as in the spring. Many farmers operate on a line of credit. They borrow in the spring and repay the money in the fall. Farmers also make a lot of their machinery purchases in the fall. Land payments are usually made in the fall also.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bankruptcies take place in the spring.


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the stabilization money which can be upped to $6,000 per producer would be well appreciated in the fall. I would urge all Members to give speedy passage to the Bill-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bring it in.


Charles James Mayer: When are we going to get the Bill?


Eugene Whelan: -so that payments can be made at that time.


Charles James Mayer: Bring in the Bill. You cannot pass a phantom Bill.


Eugene Whelan: You have a Bill right now. Mr. Speaker, they have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments later on.


Eugene Whelan: There is a Bill before the House to which they can give speedy passage, just like that, if they want to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Where is it?


Eugene Whelan: I am talking about the one that is before the House increasing advance payments, doubling. That is before the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bring it in.


Charles James Mayer: Where is it?


Eugene Whelan: It is before the House. Deal with it, if you want to. Show your real sincerity by giving that speedy passage and adjourning this debate-


Charles James Mayer: Where is it?


Eugene Whelan: It is in the House. It has been tabled in the House.
The second part of the motion refers to fuel taxes. It is always interesting, Mr. Speaker, how quickly the opposition members turn to elimination of taxes when they want the Government to do something to help some sector that is having financial difficulties. Then in the next breath they will be criticizing the Government for not doing enough to bring down the deficit. Their Leader says he is going to bring down the deficit. He is going to bring it down by billions of dollars, et cetera.


Charles James Mayer: So do some of your leadership candidates.


Eugene Whelan: He is going to bring it down by abolishing taxes. That is what they are advocating at the present time.


Charles James Mayer: One of your candidates says he is going to eliminate your Department.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How about the member from Bay Street? He wants to bring down the deficit.
May 3, 1984

Mir. Whelan: Federal taxes on fuel are made up, as the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) mentioned, of 1.5 cents per litre excise tax on gasoline and a 9 per cent sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. The 1.5 cents per litre excise tax is rebated to all commercial users, including farmers. And there is no excise tax on diesel oil or propane.
Exemption from the sales tax on fuels used by farmers would save Canadian farmers an estimated $91 million a year. The Government, however, would not only lose that $91 million in revenue, but it would have to set up a complex and expensive mechanism for policing such a rebate.
In the past decade, a major consideration in government policy has been to maintain a close relationship in farm fuel costs with the United States. Fuel price monitoring by the Government has shown that between 1976 and 1978, the U.S. enjoyed a small advantage of one to two cents per litre over Canadian retail fuel prices. The advantage turned in Canada's favour by 4.5 to six cents per litre during 1971-1981, even though taxes in Canada remained two to four cents a litre higher than in the U.S.A.


Charles James Mayer: That is ancient history. This is not a history course.


Eugene Whelan: During this period, prices in both Canada and the U.S. remained substantially lower than in the European Economic Community countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy and West Germany, again countries with which we compete.
In the last couple of years, we have witnessed a very substantial rationalization in the Canadian petroleum refining sector. This is partly due to the deep recession we have been through, and partly due to the successful conservation efforts by all sectors in Canada. Rationalization has brought with it retail price wars which have benefited all consumers, including farmers.
The Government is always willing to discuss ways in which input costs to food production can be reduced. As you know, a Private Member's motion is presently before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade, and Economic Affairs. Debate on this subject will provide ample opportunity to review farm fuel taxes in relation to other sectors.
The final portion of the motion, Mr. Speaker, deals with interest rates and the Farm Credit Corporation. I am proud of the record of the FCC over the years in providing long-term credit for farmers and I am equally proud of the responsive way it has helped farmers in the last several years.
Subsidizing interest rates is an expensive business, Mr. Speaker, but we have been glad to do it for those farmers who are in serious difficulty. As I will show in a few minutes, there are very few farmers who are paying the current interest rate of 15 per cent.


Charles James Mayer: Those paying it are going broke.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Some pay 16.5 per cent.
Supply


Eugene Whelan: I would first like to point out that the FCC has loans outstanding to 79,000 farmers. That means that there are some 225,000 farmers who do not feel they need long-term credit from the Farm Credit Corporation. They are farmers who own their own land and carry their operational credit with banks and other lending institutions.
The recent increase in interest rates is of concern to all Canadians. Like other Canadians, farmers will undoubtedly alter investment and borrowing plans because of changes in interest rates. However, it must be recognized that the Government has initiated programs which will, and do, go a long way in reducing and stabilizing the cost of credit to the farming community.
You are all aware of the Small Business Development Bond Program under which a total of 17,263 loans were made for $2.7 billion to December 31, 1981. Of this amount, 2,902 loans for $587 million were extended to farmers and fishermen. On December 31, 1981 the program changed to the Small Business Bond and has been used for debt consolidation purposes. Since January 1, 1982 a total of 2,878 loans for $562 million have been approved to farmers.
This program in collaboration with commercial lenders provides credit at interest rates substantially below the current market rate, about half the regular cost of borrowing money. When the interest rate was 20 per cent, farmers could borrow under that program at 11 per cent, and a lot of them did.
The Farm Credit Corporation has been a major force in providing credit to the farm sector under reasonable terms and conditions. In the fiscal year that just ended on March 31, 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation extended 5,736 loans for about $758 million, the largest level of lending activity in its history. These funds were extended at interest rates of between 12.75 and 13.5 per cent. Of all the loans extended, 962 loans for $175 million were extended under the Special Farm Financial Assistance Program where farmers receive a four percentage point rebate for two years. These borrowers have an effective interest rate of 8.75 per cent for two years, which cost the Government approximately $29 million in subsidies. When the Opposition said we did nothing, I gently remind them that we did a lot.
I see you are motioning to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, as on a number of previous occasions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has tried to make the point that the federal Government puts far more money into agriculture in a particular province than does the provincial government. Today he used Saskatchewan as an example. Since he has made this argument a number of times in the four years that I have been here, could he present to the House the amounts of money collected from farmers by the federal Government and the provincial governments? It seems

May 3, 1984
Supply
to me the federal Government is collecting at least in proportion to its double pay-back what the provinces do.
As an example, the provincial share in Saskatchewan of income tax collected from farmers this year was 51 per cent. I think it will be a little more next year, but it is only 51 per cent of the federal tax. Farmers are paying premiums for federal programs on which the province does not collect. For instance, there is the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. Crop insurance premiums are met by the federal Government, but the province does not become involved except to handle some of the administrative cost. The programs were developed as federal programs. Because farmers pay far more to the federal Government than they do to the provincial government, they deserve to expect to collect back far more income through the federal Government than through provincial sources.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed that the Hon. Member would rise and say that. The facts are available to anyone. They show that the provinces are by far the biggest spenders. Sure, we collect the taxes, but we have the block funding to the provinces aside from the programs about which 1 have talked.
The Hon. Member talked about the program for crop insurance. Last year his province alone received $56 million of federal money that went into crop insurance. The producers pay the other $56 million. Under that great Conservative Government of Saskatchewan, the province administers it, and it even appointed a minister in charge of crop insurance. I believe for one million people that Government now has 31 cabinet ministers in Saskatchewan. I must congratulate Hon. Members from Saskatchewan. I understand the other day that province reached the million point in population as a result of an increase in the birth rate and people returning to Saskatchewan from such rich provinces as Alberta.
When the Hon. Member is talking about funding, does he not realize that in Saskatchewan we are paying nearly 80 per cent of the cost of all post-secondary education? That is block funding which goes to them. Also there is all the money which goes to them for hospitalization and medical care. Again that is block funding, and we have no control over it whatsoever. The provinces and municipalities in Canada today spend nearly 68 per cent of the tax dollars collected, not the federal Government. It is block funded and transferred to them by the federal Government.
I am sure the Hon. Member could hear a better lecture from the Department of Finance or even from university students. I was chastized in the House by one of his colleagues when I said that we gave $5 billion to schools of higher learning. Then university students who have an office here in Ottawa contacted me and said: "Mr. Whelan, you were wrong". Do you know what they told me, Mr. Speaker? They said that it was $6.4 billion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson).


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) stated that he hoped we would give quick passage to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It must be made clear for the record that our Party has been calling for this since last fall; for months we have been calling for this.


Charles James Mayer: For a year and a half.


Leonard J. Gustafson: My Leader, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he would bring it in before the Easter recess, but the Government failed to act. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) sent a letter to the Government House Leader asking for quick passage, but that has not happened. Yet the Hon. Minister is telling us that he wants quick passage. Certainly we will give it quick passage, because farmers need the money this spring.
Also the Minister said that they will pay out $300 million. There is close to $1 billion in that fund. If they were to pay out $300 million, they would not even give back the money farmers have paid in since 1979. Certainly the Minister must be able to make a calculation based upon the fact that farmers have paid in since 1979 $900 per year, except for last year when it was $1,200. That would amount to $4,800 per farmer. If they were to pay interest on the money, it would amount to $7,100 per farmer. Certainly the Minister must make a fair assessment of the needs of farmers in this situation. We on this side of the House have been calling for it for months.


Eugene Whelan: The Hon. Member makes it sound so simple. Under the Act at the present time the calendar year is used.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Answer my question.


Eugene Whelan: Just a moment, please. The calendar year, because of tremendous volume of sales, et cetera, does not allow for any triggering. This is why the Act has to be amended.


Charles James Mayer: Oh.


Eugene Whelan: That is what the legal advisers told me. A payment cannot be made until the Act has been passed and has received Royal Assent.
We know what the Act will do. There can be a payment and there will be a payment in the next two years, probably, unless market conditions improve. The Hon. Member is suggesting that we should bankrupt the program, and that there is $1 billion in the fund. We pay interest on the money. Even up until today farmers have received every dollar which they put into the two payments. They were ahead of the game for a while, but now they are even. The Hon. Member is trying to get across that we should make the plan unsound. It is an actuarially sound plan, and we have the Western Grain Stabilization Act Advisory Committee comprised of farmers. I met with them in Winnipeg. They are farmers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They said that what we are doing is satisfactory, along the lines that they want the Act amended and how they want it to work.

May 3, 1984


Leonard J. Gustafson: You are playing politics with farmers' money.


Eugene Whelan: These were the facts they brought forward after meeting with farmers in grain-producing areas of the prairie provinces, including the Peace River district of northern British Columbia.
Let us be factual and put the facts on the record, rather than trying to make out that the plan is not administered properly and that we can just reach into it, like a well, and grab a pailful of money and run away. He knows full well that that will not save a lot of those farmers because their debts are so high. Those are the ones who will not reach the maximum anyhow, the $6,000. The average pay-out according to the figures show that it will be somewhere around $3,000. Bigger farmers who paid in the maximum amount will be getting about $6,000, but they are in the minority. Also he knows that 25 per cent of farmers have not seen fit to join the fund. Many of them are in financial difficulty and they will not receive one penny from that plan.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is the fact that the Minister said that even if the Bill passes, there will be no payment before the fall. I do not know what the representatives on the advisory committee are hearing from farmers. However, we as rural representatives on this side are being told by our farmers that they need the money now, that they cannot wait until the fall, that they have to buy fuel and fertilizer. If they cannot pay for these products, they either cannot get them or have to ask merchants for credit, and the merchants are in trouble.
Has the Minister considered the possibility of bringing in an amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, an emergency section, that provided for an immediate initial payment of $2,500 or $3,000 maximum for farmers of western Canada? That would pass within a matter of minutes in the Senate. I am sure with the electronic equipment of the Western Grain Stabilization Board in the form of computers and so on, they could turn out those cheques in a matter of two or three weeks. Has the Minister considered this?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for questions and comments has expired, but the House may want to hear the response of the Hon. Minister.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the circumstances, and since it is not very often that we have an opportunity to question the Minister, would it be possible to obtain unanimous consent of the House to extend the question period for another 10 minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the Chair is in the hands of the House. I shall put the question. Is there unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period for another 10 minutes?
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the press conference in Winnipeg during the adjournment of the House was to implant in the minds of people and the lending institutions that we are interested and want to do something so that money can be obtained to buy fertilizer, seed, fuel and so on. I have said in the House that I was under the impression, and the legal people have corrected me, that if the Bill had received first and second reading and gone to committee, the intent was clear and you could probably pay half of the money if you wanted. I was told I would get into trouble with the Auditor General. I would not mind getting into trouble, even with the Auditor General, if we could make a payment. We will do what we can.
We are considering all of the options, including some that the Hon. Member mentioned, even making the Bill retroactive to 1982-83, starting it in a different year so that a payment could be made as soon as possible.
As the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) said, there is money there. It is not like taking it out of some envelope. Everyone knows how much money there is, how it has been contributed and how the interest is being paid. I am as concerned as other Hon. Members about supplying money to those farmers. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) knows that a good portion of them will need much more than can be supplied under the Western Grain Stabilization Act or under the Farm Credit Corporation. They may need some kind of a system as that suggested by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). A large group in his area are asking me to buy or take over their farms, rent them back for three years, and if they become economically viable, they want the option to buy them back. We are considering all of these suggestions. I do not want to be in the land ownership business. Many banks are becoming some of the largest land owners in Canada. Of the money we took from the Farm Credit Corporation last year, approximately 60 per cent went to the banks to refinance farmers, consolidate their mortgages and that type of thing. I have the same concern as the Hon. Member from Moose Jaw about trying to get money into the hands of farmers as quickly as possible.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about putting facts on the record. There are a couple of facts that should be put on the record. First, he is part of a Government that paid literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to an aircraft company that cannot manage its affairs, one which has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Second, he is not willing to pay out money that producers have contributed. He should know that in many ways money is like another barnyard commodity. When you pile it up, it causes a big smell; but if you spread it around, it does some good. What we want to do with the Western Grain Stabilization Act is spread some of that money around.
The Minister quoted a Reverend Mooney and said that farmers should be on their knees. Surely the Minister of

May 3, 1984
Supply
Agriculture for this country is not advocating that farmers should be put on their knees and have to come grovelling to the Government for programs. If that is his attitude, he is a total embarrassment to the Canadian farming population and should resign. I would like the Minister to clarify what he meant by putting farmers on their knees. That was a disgraceful statement to make.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I quoted from the London Free Press relating to a priest I know. He meant they should be praying for better weather, crops and so on. The London Free Press is a well-known paper. I quoted verbatim from it. I am not suggesting anything like that to Hon. Members.
When I suggested anything previously, I did not receive any support from the Opposition. When I suggested in 1977 Government approval of 100 per cent of income assurance for farmers, they said: "There's Whelan interfering now". Now they want me to rush in and spend billions of dollars. If we had done what I suggested in 1977, there would not be the hardship there is today for the farmers. I do not pretend to be any Messiah, but a blind economist on a galloping horse could see what was going to happen to some farmers if world prices collapsed, as they did. We did not know for sure that they would. The farmers had no protection against that. Prices were on an ever-increasing spiral. When there was a change as a result of inflation, they went down. That happened to many of them.
The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is the official agriculture critic for his Party. He has not told me how bad or good his own farm operation is. I am told that he is a good farmer. I take it he is not in financial difficulty. He knows that what he did in his own operation is probably slightly different from what some of the other farmers did, those I quoted from the London Free Press, who wanted to expand under encouragement from government. He will find very little encouragement from this Minister for that kind of expansion. I am a strong believer in the family farm being protected and staying alive. The Palliser growers and some others are talking about getting bigger and bigger, doing more farming and becoming more efficient.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) quoted the Catholic Bishops. He knows that it is not so much the little farmers who are suffering. The priests talked about those who expanded rapidly and got caught in the spiralling inflation. Then the economic depression took over.
The Bill I was referring to was Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. It received first reading on March 8. They have not passed that. They are so concerned about that. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) brought that Bill into the House of Commons on March 8. They say they do not know anything about it. Why are they not pressing for that Bill if they are so concerned about farmers? Why not get on with that Bill and pass it in ten minutes?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister should make it clear to the farmers of western
Canada that the advance payments grain Bill was given first reading and the Opposition indicated it would give fast approval to the Bill. However, this Government and its House Leader have not brought that Bill forward in the House. If he brings it in tomorrow, we will pass it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In the opinion of the Chair, that is not a point of order. It may be a point of clarification or a contribution to the debate.


Charles James Mayer: It's a good point nevertheless.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points. First, does the Government not feel any responsibility to those who are good farmers and are in trouble for a variety of reasons, one of them being the policies of this Government? Second, in 1974-75 when the original Bill was passed, the Opposition put before the Government at that time a recommendation that the net income be part of the Bill. If the Government would have had the common sense to accept it at that time, we would not have the problem of now having to change the Act.


Eugene Whelan: receive the support of any provincial government. I did not receive the support of farm organizations or the Official Opposition. I was not told that I was doing a great thing and should forge ahead with it. If that proposal had been given unanimous consent, we would not be discussing this matter here today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now resume debate.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the questions that still must be answered and the clarification that still must be made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to have a further ten-minute question and answer period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House grant unanimous consent to prolong the question, comment and answer period?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. Could the Chair have an indication of how long this period would continue, please?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, that depends upon what kind of answers the Minister of Agriculture gives. Further to that, it depends upon his honesty. I would not say that he has been-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is now engaging in debate, I am afraid. I take it for granted then that the question and comment period will be extended another ten minutes. I would hope that the questions and especially the replies would be brief and to the point, in keeping with the spirit of this question period.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I resent very much the implication made by the Minister that all those farmers who are in financial difficulties today are either bad farmers or poor managers. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply not true. I believe the Minister could only allege that if in fact he is completely out of touch with western Canadian farmers.
The Minister was in Saskatoon last week. However, I suspect that he met with the urban community and not the agricultural community. Every day of the last few weeks I have been in contact with farmers who are going bankrupt and quitting farming either voluntarily or otherwise. To suggest that they are all responsible for their own difficulties because of their own management failures is certainly to insult those farmers. Second, it seems to me that that suggestion indicates that the Minister is ignorant of economic conditions. Does the Minister really believe that all those farmers in western Canada who are in economic difficulty are either bad farmers or poor managers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the record will show that the Hon. Member has made a slight misinterpretation of what I said. I said that a lot of farmers were good producers but because of the collapse of the world markets at S40 a tonne and because farmers had over-expanded and were living
Supply
on inflation, when inflation went down they went down with it as well.
I am sure that if the Hon. Member would like to check my records, he would find that some farmers were bad managers. However, please do not put all farmers in the same category. A great many of them are efficient producers and are doing the very best they can. However, the markets for some of those products that they are producing like pork and beef are sick markets. These farmers have been led by the head of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association who has told them time and time again not to let Whelan put in a marketing board because it will destroy them.
Please do not tell me that I do not know anything about what farmers are saying because I probably attend more farm meetings all over Canada than any other politician in Canada. At one of those meetings, a farmer stood up and said: "Mr. Minister, in this democratic country it is my democratic right to go bankrupt if I want to go bankrupt by producing beef'. In two years he did go bankrupt because he would not follow the lead of other farmers who have organized themselves into marketing boards and have some say in the marketplace. Those farmers have some say in what they get for the product rather than letting some cigar smoking broker tell them what they must receive for beef or pork. That kind of thing is as ancient a marketing system as any other marketing system in the world.
That farmer to which I referred should have taken a look at the other farmers who are using a marketing board system. There are such systems in every province of Canada and some of them are very strong. I myself only deal with three or four of them but there are over 100 marketing boards in Canada run by provincial governments. The producers who belong to those marketing systems, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, do not find themselves in financial difficulty because they have some say in the market price.
There are a great many good, hardworking farmers who are using the best feeding programs but are still in trouble. A neighbour of mine held the record for the best transfer of feed into beef of any young farmer in Ontario. He got into serious difficulty and owed SI million because the market did not return his input costs to him. He over-expanded at the same time. With some help, he is now making a recovery.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in his speech I believe the Minister of Agriculture made a veiled suggestion that the federal Government might become involved in the land banking system. Was this intentional or was it a slip of the tongue? Is the federal Government contemplating entering into that kind of a program?


Eugene Whelan: I said very clearly that we did not want to enter into that program but that a great many producers are suggesting that we take over their farms. These suggestions have come particularly from a write-in program of farmers who live in an area of the Province of Manitoba which

May 3, 1984
Supply
encompasses parts of two constituencies. I could show the Hon. Member the letters written by these farmers. These letters outline how much money the farmers owe and indicate that the farmers will not plant a crop this year because there has been bad weather in that area for two out of three years and because there have been depressed prices. Some of those farmers have indicated that they did not even take out crop insurance this year because they felt they could not afford it. It was too big a risk and they were gambling on the weather being on their side and on having a good crop.
I do not wish to enter into the land banking business but I could tell the Hon. Member that there are a lot of banks entering into this business and the banks will be the biggest land owners in Canada. During my remarks I mentioned that out of the approximately 320,000 farmers in Canada, we have loaned money to only 79,000 farmers. There are 225,000 farmers who have borrowed money from sources other than the Farm Credit Corporation.
One banker told me that the banks do not want to foreclose on farms because they do not want to own that much land. He said that the banks knew the farmers were not going to be able to pay that money back but the banks lent them that money. Under the Bank of Canada Act, the banks have a responsibility, when lending money to farmers, to lend no more money than the farmers can pay back. However, a great many banks have done that and they realize that they made a mistake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for
Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave).


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) answer my question now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has had opportunity to do so. The Chair sees other Members rising. I would like to accommodate them as well. I recognize the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made his remarks, he made a rather brief but nevertheless firm statement about the two-way trade in agricultural products between the European Economic Community and Canada. He did not go into detail on this matter but I would like to ask him if he would respond now to questions that he has received on this matter.
I would particularly remind the Minister of the fairly recent and quite dramatic increase in imports of beef and other meats such as pork from such countries as the Republic of Ireland, Denmark and even Holland. The Minister is aware that these meats arrive in Canada with very significant subsidies which are paid by the governments of the exporting countries. Some of these subsidies are as high as 50 cents a pound in Canadian currency. Will the Minister recognize what is happening and respond to the sensible suggestion of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that a countervailing duty of the same amount be applied immediately to take this situation in hand?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say to the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) that I do not intend to get into the land banking business.
I wish to say to the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) that I am as concerned as he is about the beef and other meat products that are arriving in Canada heavily subsidized by the European Community. However, I am more concerned about those who are bringing the products in. Meat packers in Canada are bringing that meat in because they can make money on it. This is being done by good corporate citizens of Canada. That meat is not swimming across the ocean by itself. Those people are bringing it here.
Another startling thing I discovered on an Air Canada flight-the people's airline-is this. After eating a meat bun, I was informed that it was a new promotional program between Canada and West Germany. They said: "The meat you just ate was from West Germany". I said: "What in hell is going on now"? I was informed that Air Canada was trying to entice Canadians to go to Frankfurt; that it was a new promotional program and they wanted Canadians to realize what kind of meat they would eat when they got there. I have made representations to Air Canada about this matter, because I think it is terrible. I believe we have a countervailing duty already enforced on meat products. Revenue Canada held an investigation, has enough evidence, and if it has not done so already, it will shortly impose it.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Have you made that announcement?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is one minute left in the extended question period. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister two quick questions. First, why is the Hon. Minister misleading the country when he indicates that the Opposition is holding up Bill C-23, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act? He knows as well as the rest of the House does that the Government calls these Bills, not the Opposition. We are ready to pass it, so bring it in instead of spending so much time on corporations and lowering the morals of the country.
Second, why is the Minister working for the banks instead of the farmers? He says: "Let the farmers borrow money for their spring work". Does he not know that most farmers have already borrowed to the hilt, as far as the banks will go? They will not accept the promises of this Government to make a pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act and use that as collateral. The promises of the Government mean nothing. Why not work for the farmers for a change and forget the banks? The banks are doing all right by themselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unless the House is disposed to prolong the question and comment period-


Some Hon. Members:: Let him answer the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -we should now proceed to debate.
May 3, 1984


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a very interesting discussion between Members of the Official Opposition and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I would now like to take this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House today, a motion that very accurately reflects the recommendations my party has been making to the Government, especially in the past two years. We are stressing the importance of making a substantial payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund to assist with seeding costs; the need for repealing all sales taxes to help farmers; and the need for an immediate interest rate reduction on Farm Credit Corporation loans. These are some very pertinent recommendations the Progressive Conservative Party has been making and has been urging the Government, whose insensitivity is almost obscene, to implement.
Mr. Speaker, before going any further with my comments I would like to remind the House that I knew the Minister of Agriculture when he was a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I remember very clearly how he insisted on the importance of long term agricultural policies and how at every meeting, he would emphasize the need for security and stability in the agricultural industry. I must say that, as Minister of Agriculture, he has not succeeded in practicing what he preached as a member of the committee. Maybe it was easier at the time for him to say what he wanted and what he wanted his Government to do, but as Minister, he has not succeeded in giving this vital sector of our economy the stability and security he was seeking at the time. Of course, the Minister never misses an opportunity to point out what he has accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I admit there are sectors that are doing fairly well, and I am thinking of dairy farmers. It is a fact that there has been a very substantial improvement, and my comments in this respect must be positive. Where the agricultural industry as a whole has a turnover of $50 billion, the dairy sector's share is $18 billion. As I said, agriculture generates a turnover of $50 billion, and affects about one-fifth of the labour force. Considering that agriculture is a very special industry, as the Minister is no doubt aware, I would have expected him to explain how the agricultural industry differs from industry in general. If we agree, Mr. Speaker, that we have to eat in order to live, and not the other way around, we must be consistent when dealing with an industry like agriculture. We must explain with all due honesty, to all Canadians and Canadian business people, that the agricultural industry pursues that objective and that its needs are so special that we cannot make an economic assessment of agriculture as we would of any other industry. We must ensure the survival of agriculture and we must continue to promote agriculture, for the well-being of our fellow citizens. And if we are consistent, if we believe in this principle, we must propose and introduce legislation that is finely tuned to the needs of an industry that is vitally important to our economic development
Supply
and to the Canadian economy. Mr. Speaker, if we hold the principle that we must eat to survive, we must make it clear to all other sectors in this country that a government with any sense of responsibility, with any respect for its citizens and for this very basic need, has a duty to propose solutions-should, in fact, feel entirely justified in doing so-that may seem to discriminate in favour of this particular sector. However, let us remind these other sectors that before they can do anything else, they first must be able to eat.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I have raised this very important issue, namely, that in the agricultural industry, we will have to do some very special things that will be criticised by other sectors. Today, I would have liked to hear the Minister talk about this principle and the special measures that must be and that should have been taken in the agricultural sector. When the Government is criticized for not doing enough and for not providing safeguards, very often the Minister is quite content, in fact he is more than content, Mr. Speaker, which I find a little offensive, to point out that he has done more than some of the provinces. As though the federal Government and provinces should be competing instead of working together towards a common goal which would be, first, to feed Canadians and then to allow thousands of farmers to sell their products outside Canada. Are we doing this? No, the Department of Agriculture is being managed as though it were any other department. However, it has a very special mission, one that is very relevant to our responsibilities as Members of this House. Mr. Speaker, the Minister is going to say once again that he has spent millions and millions and millions of dollars which, in some cases were wasted through lack of planning. That is what we have against the Department of Agriculture and this Government, Mr. Speaker.
We would like to see an agricultural policy based on the principle that we must feed Canadians, and that we must do so without political interference. Ensuring that Canadians have access to high quality food is certainly a praiseworthy goal which we should be defending here in the House, and if that is true and if all Members of this House shared this view, Hon. Members would have no trouble rising above partisan considerations and establishing long term policies, instead of merely seeking payments just before an election. Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come to ask the Government, and 1 may point out that what I am saying in the House today arises from profound convictions and a very special concern that I have, first of all, for the farmers in my constituency and also for farmers in the West, the East and Ontario. We have to make sure that our agricultural policy is impartial. That is important. Bearing in mind the principles we are called upon to uphold in this House and our own responsibilities, we should be able to meet as often as necessary with the provinces, the agricultural sector and the farming communities involved so as to establish a truly long-term agricultural policy which puts the emphasis on both stability and profitability. Such is the

May 3, 1984
Supply
role and responsibility of a Minister of Agriculture and a Government whose primary concern should be to see to it that people have enough to eat. By the same token, we Canadians as a country might be still more generous than we have been so far with respect to the Third World and other nations where people are actually starving to death.
Our agricultural capacity is potentially unlimited and our climate enables us to initiate rather extraordinary endeavours. The technology is there, Mr. Speaker, but financing does seem to be a problem. Because he was unable to come up with adequate policies in hard times, the Minister must be held responsible for his failure to look far enough into the future to realize that our economic situation might worsen, as numerous precedents have shown. Precisely because it was unable to see what the future had in store for us, we are quite justified in censuring the Government for such unforgiveable oversights which have put thousands of farmers in a precarious situation, even though the Government is not doing anything to help them out of their predicament. Why did this Government in particular wait until it was confronted with urgent problems, instead of making concerted efforts with the provinces and the people directly concerned in an attempt to face up to the situation and find policies designed to restore stability? Nothing has been done. The Government chose to take a band-aid approach every time a group of farmers or agricultural communities from Eastern or Western Canada sought assistance. As a result of such undependable policies, thousands of farmers have been forced right out of the agricultural sector in the past few years.
Mr. Speaker, I too represent a province where agriculture is a significant economic component. But again I must say that if we fail to keep in mind the basic principle that a Government must first make sure that the people have enough food on the table, all our arguments rest on meaningless premises, we are going the wrong way and we are not facing up to our responsibilities. I would go even further, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that all Members should realize that the agricultural context has changed so much that it is no longer possible to run farming operations the way it was done before. We are all aware of that and we know that family farms are not passed on from fathers to sons, but that they can be sold and bought. We know how much money is involved and we realize that young farmers today must carry enormous debts. We all know that, Mr. Speaker, yet nothing has been done to find a solution. We readily lend money to a farmer, but we are not quite so eager to sit down with him and help him get through hard times when he is experiencing difficulties with his operations. We are aware of that. Perhaps $15,000 or $20,000 would do nicely 25, 30 or 40 years ago, but these days we are talking in terms of $300,000 and $400,000.
The son of a farmer who owned his land can go into debt because the possibilities are there. There are tools, farm credit
is available, so he can apply for a loan. The problem is that he cannot make ends meet as a result of past and current interest rates. The farmer cannot meet his financial obligations and at the same time run a profitable operation to ensure his future on the farm. We are aware of that, but we have yet to take appropriate action. We shall have to consider developing policies to help the young farmer who wants to buy a $300,000 farm, because the Minister knows as well as I do that, with today's interest rates, and I am not saying that he is responsible for them, we cannot meet this need for continuity in family farms and the farming industry. We know about this and we have to be ready in the near future to examine with complete objectivity how and through which policies we can prepare and guarantee this takeover of the industry by younger farmers. As I said earlier, we have a basic responsibility to ensure the survival of the farming industry and this cannot be achieved without stability and security. Therefore, we must think it over seriously and develop policies designed to give the young farmers who are only too willing to continue in agriculture the financial means to purchase their parents' farms and this does not mean what it did 35, 40 or 50 years ago. It seems to me that this Government has yet to understand this situation which is still quite new but which now exists and will continue to exist.
In the circumstances, we clearly cannot be satisfied with a Minister of Agriculture telling us what he has done, the efforts he has made and the millions he has spent, wasted or handed out. Of course, the Government has done certain things, but it was always to solve a problem which was already something of the past, when the harm had already been done. This is a piecemeal approach, Mr. Speaker, and not a long term policy. I therefore urge the Minister of Agriculture today to think seriously of the co-operation which he should promote instead of fanning competition with the Provinces as is now the case. What I want to hear, Mr. Speaker, is not that the Minister has given more to the Quebec Government or that Mr. Garon should have invested in Quebec's agricultural industry. What I want to hear is that the Federal Minister is willing to discuss, negotiate and find a solution about marketing boards, for instance, especially as concerns the joint pork plan. What I want to hear, Mr. Speaker, is that something has been done to compensate for the weather problem last summer in the Province of Quebec, and probably elsewhere. In any case, I have received representations telling me that the farmers lost millions of dollars. This was not easy to accept in view of the increase in interest rates, but the farmers have pulled through. A request has also been made to the Quebec Government, and it seems that the Federal Government is waiting to see how Quebec will respond. I urge the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of thousands of Quebec producers to call a meeting if need be. If there is any lack of good faith on the part of his Quebec counterpart, I urge the Minister of Agriculture to organize the meeting by himself in the interests of the farmers. It does not matter to me whether the Federal Minister of
May 3, 1984

Agriculture likes or dislikes his counterpart in Quebec, Saskatchewan or any other Province. What is important is that the Federal Minister of Agriculture should know that he has a duty to the farmers and the Canadian population to ensure the survival of our agriculture. Mr. Speaker, that is why I would like to see policies based on an objective approach that would rise above partisan considerations which certainly do not have their place in an area as vital as the future and survival of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I had to say, and I did not want to spend my time criticizing the Minister of Agriculture but rather, I want to ask him to start concentrating now on the survival of the agricultural industry and the policies that will ensure its continuation, policies that should be developed in co-operation with all sectors concerned and with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, I appeal today to the Minister of Agriculture, in the spirit of true federalism, and I would do so to any Minister of Agriculture, to bear in mind the concerns of our farmers. Many other sectors are equally concerned about economic policies that have failed to achieve the results promised by this Government and anxiously awaited by all Canadians. Once again, the Minister must realize that agriculture is a vital industry, that it is not like any other industry in this country, and that there is one objective, one goal we must all strive for, which is to give Canadians access to quality food at a reasonable price.
We must be prepared to act responsibly and realize that this industry is very special and requires special measures which we have a duty to take and are expected to take by the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the Hon. Member if he is aware of what is going on. It sounds as if we treat provinces differently. Quebec does not receive treatment different from any other province. It has refused to sign the agreement on crop insurance. Every other province has agreed to it.
Does he also not realize that almost 50 per cent of the farm income in Quebec is from the dairy industry? Does he not realize that the industry really started to become healthy from November, 1972? Does he also not realize that on the matter of frozen apple trees the federal Government moved in, not only in Quebec but in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, because they had a variety of trees which were uninsurable, and it cost us over a period of two years about $56 million?
He intimates there is confrontation. Quebec producers have made representations to me about crop losses. Under the agreement we have with all the provinces, if the province feels the loss is too big for them, then they make representations to the federal Government. I have not received that kind of
Supply
representation from the Province of Quebec. They have said they will participate in the plan but they have not made that kind of official representation to the federal Government. I take it for granted that it is the provincial government which refused to do that because the last time I met with the provincial minister in Ottawa we talked about a stabilization program for pork and he seemed to be very agreeable at that time. I do not know what his position is at present. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are very much aware of the fact that we do not have a potato marketing agency for eastern Canada because Quebec, not the producers but the province, has refused to go ahead with that. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that I take over total authority for agriculture? I do not know for sure but under the Constitution I probably could.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, first of all to answer the Minister's question I would like to point out that I did not accuse the Minister of any lack of co-operation or objectivity in his dealings which the Government of the Province of Quebec. I did not accuse the Minister of being less than honest with the Government of Quebec. I merely said, Mr. Speaker, that assuming that at some time, certain provincial ministers ... I remember hearing about losses incurred as a result of weather conditions last summer. When the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to make a recommendation, I will also be prepared to consider it. Obviously, it is always the same old story: Is it the province or the federal Government? I am simply asking the Minister, in view of his responsibilities, to make his position clear. While the Minister cannot be blamed if a provincial minister turns down a generous offer or ignores a positive response from the federal Government, on the other hand, we ought to know exactly what the federal Minister is prepared to do about a given request, depending on the situation. In any case, I suggest, and this is not meant as criticism, I suggest and I recommend increased co-operation for the purpose of establishing a national agricultural policy, corresponding to the needs of all sectors and all regions.
I feel the principle of decentralization with respect to farm products and agricultural sectors should be seen within the context of a broad national policy. I would especially urge the Minister to show even greater willingness to co-operate and to consult with the sectors concerned.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member not realize that I am probably the most approachable and co-operative Minister of Agriculture on the Federal and provincial scene?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Minister does not know how to co-operate, but when I see how important the agricultural sector is and when I see the need for setting up agricultural policies that should rise above partisan consideration, and I assume the Minister agrees with me, I

May 3, 1984
Supply
want to ask the Minister to set up agricultural policies that are not subject to political pressures and especially not introduced the day before an election.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, has the Hon. Member not studied the agri-food strategy which developed after 180-odd meetings across Canada? In my view and that of many other people, this is the most advanced 20-year agricultural program of any country in the world.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said before, and I do so willingly, because I think it cannot be said often enough. What is important in Parliament, as the Minister is aware, is that we can use a motion to demand immediate proposals. We regret the delay with respect to measures that must be taken to cope with the problems facing farmers today. I also urge the Minister, speaking on behalf of millions of farmers, to show greater willingness to consult and hold meetings with the sectors concerned in order to develop policies that will provide security for farmers, which is what we are seeking, and especially stability and the assurance that their farms will survive, which is far from certain today, considering the economic situation. That is all we want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no further questions, the House will now proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky).


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, could we perhaps call it one o'clock and I could begin my comments as soon as the House resumes debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree?
[ Translation]
Agreed. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12:55 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, every Hon. Member of the House, along with thoudands of Canadians, has grieved with the parents of the babies murdered in the Toronto Children's Hospital, as the stories on the Grange Commission's inquiry appeared in front page news throughout Canada. How could anyone kill such innocent and helpless babies?
Yet every week across this nation, not only in Toronto but in every major city in the country, helpless unborn babies are being aborted, and the daily press scarcely mentions these murders. More space is given to the hue and cry when baby seals are killed than when these helpless human beings are denied life. It is ironic that there is so much interest in trying to find the person responsible for the terrible deaths in Toronto, while at the same time many in our society condone or say nothing about respected doctors and hospitals in their own communities removing unborn children, human beings, from the wombs of their mothers.
When are the Government and the House of Commons going to show concern for unborn babies equal to that which they show when a born baby is killed? Neither should be accepted, and yet taxpayers' money is now being used to encourage abortion, not to save the life of the mother or of the child, but as a birth control measure. These innocent and helpless babies, born and unborn, are created by an omnipotent God. How long is Government going to condemn one and condone the other?



AGRICULTURE


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, CP is showing substantial profits, especially on its railroading-no pun intended. In fact, The Globe and Mail reports this morning that CP is "heading for a speedy recovery". Western farmers should also be aware that at a time when they are experiencing record financial problems the CPR is making good profits, and that John Turner has just been re-appointed to its board of directors.
That is typical of the Government, Mr. Speaker, because it has a miserable record as far as Canadian agriculture is concerned. In fact there is only one bill on the Order Paper in this session pertaining to agriculture. That is Bill C-23, a Bill to increase cash advances on prairie grain. This morning in the House the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) berated the Opposition for holding up this Bill. In fact, the opposite is true. We on this side have supported the Minister and promised quick passage of the Bill, but even our support does not appear
May 3, 1984

to be enough for the Minister, because the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) has not even called the Bill for second reading yet.
The same is true for two other measures the Government is apparently proposing; a red meat stabilization plan, and amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The Government has asked us for support, but surely we cannot be expected to support phantom Bills. We must see the Bills before we can support them, the only thing that has been passed in this session pertaining to Canadian agriculture has come from this side. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) had a motion passed referring the Agri-bond concept to the finance committee. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) also had a motion passed asking for a reduction in federal taxes on fuels used in farming and fishing.
We on this side are serious about assisting producers of food. The Government, unfortunately, is only interested in putting the blame on someone else for its own inadequacies.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on de Havilland in Toronto and the latest leaked report about the difficulties of that Crown corporation. I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some time ago, and he turned it back on me saying that it was a question of either jobs or cash-we had to give the cash to keep the jobs and, if we did not give the cash we would not get the jobs. Well, we have given the cash, and now we are going to have cutbacks in the jobs. That is an untenable situation.
I checked with the people on the shop floor of de Havilland this morning. I found that de Havilland has top heavy management. For example, in 1981 there were 3,500 employees on the shop floor and 1,900 management employees. In 1984 there are 1,300 floor employees and 1,400 management employees. I found out that there is a slush fund for management retirees, and nothing for the workers except further lay-offs.
On behalf of the NDP I would like to suggest four things. One, we must support this industry. I remember, from my childhood in Etobicoke, the difficulties AV Roe had when the Avro-Arrow was cancelled. We must support our aeronautics industry. Second, we must support export credits, as other countries are doing that. Third, we must have some new initiatives. We must update. We should be flying to Ottawa in Dash-8s rather than DC-9s, for short hauls. Fourth, we must have accountability. We must have a corporate plan ratified by Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, for the third time I rise in the House to deal with the injustice which is being perpetrated on gratuity income earners throughout Canada and which the Minister responsible at the federal level has not deemed advisable to rectify by making it possible for them to get benefits consistent with their global incomes. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you will realize why, on behalf of the 60,000 gratuity income earners in Quebec alone, I must beseech and beg the government to introduce the necessary amendment as soon as possible, so that these workers who must bear the brunt of these hard times may be eligible to unemployment insurance benefits consistent with their incomes.
Mr. Speaker, 1 dare hope, that the six dozens of Hon. Members from Quebec who certainly realize the importance of my motion, will not hesitate to twist the arm of the Minister responsible to settle this matter before it is too late.
The reason I had to rise in the House today to deal again with this issue is that so far I have received no reply from my hon. friends opposite.



THE MONARCHY


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, 1984 marks the date for two significant anniversaries in the life of our nation. The visit to Canada of our country's head of state, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is a fitting tribute to celebrate 200 years as a province in New Brunswick, and the bicentennial of the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in Ontario.
As Head of State, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is an important part of our Canadian heritage.
The Queen's visit will promote enthusiasm and interest in those areas where she will be present, and will provide local tourism with a much needed stimulus, particularly as unemployment remains a problem in Canada.
A decision to cancel the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for a summer election would be viewed by Canadians with considerable regret. The suggestion in today's edition of The Citizen by a Liberal source, which reads: "Those who would be really upset by the cancellation of the Royal visit don't vote for us anyway", should read: "All Canadians regardless of political stripe won't vote Liberal if a cancellation occurs for partisan political reasons."

May 3, 1984
As our national Head of State, the Queen is above partisan politics. I invite government Members to consider the seriousness of this irresponsible newspaper quote before any hasty decision is made to cancel the Queen's visit for any reason.



RAILWAYS


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Prairie farmers are now getting the opportunity to see first hand the effects of the new Crow rate regime at their local elevator. Freight charges are to go up a whopping $1.90 a tonne, or an increase of 35 per cent on August 1 this year on average, with increases of up to 45 per cent for farmers in Manitoba. This comes at a time when farm bankruptcies have gone up by 78 per cent on the Prairies over the same period last year and grain prices are falling.
Farmers were worried about the cap on federal contributions, and we in the New Democratic Party tried to have this cap removed. Now, because farmers have moved a larger volume of grain in an attempt to pay their bills, they are being penalized with an average increase of 35 per cent in their freight rate even though actual costs for the railroad have risen only 4 per cent in the same period.
Government advertisements last year said rates would increase "gradually from the current 13 cents per bushel to about 25 cents in four years". Actually on average farmers have had to pay an extra 1.5 cents per bushel from January 1, 1984, and now with an additional 5 cents per bushel on August 1, 1984 this amounts to an increase of 6.5 cents per bushel in just seven months. So much for government promises compared with government actions.



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, approximately two years ago the bells rang in this House continuously for almost two weeks. The work of the House stalled, the Official Opposition went on strike, with cause. I was concerned. I wrote to then Speaker Madame Sauve on March 9, 1982, and I said:
Without firm and direct action by the Speaker to resolve this question, a dangerous precedent will be established for the future-one that will allow Opposition Parties to abruptly halt the work of Parliament at will and for indefinite periods of time.
Yes, the precedent set by this Parliament has spread. The ringing of the bells was used in the Manitoba Legislature, resulting in adjournment of its session. Then it was used in Saskatchewan by the Official Opposition. It will spread to other legislatures. In the Alberta Legislature, the Official Opposition consists of two NDP Members. Are they to be
permitted to shut down the Alberta Legislature at will by a bell-ring episode?
The Canadian people are just beginning to realize the enormity and the consequences of the use of this unusual procedure to halt the nation's business. I believe that a constitutional amendment is necessary to place bounds on this growing cancer. To stimulate discussion on the matter, it is my intention to bring forth a Private Member's Bill incorporating a constitutional amendment to limit and place bounds on this growing disruptive parliamentary practice.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, and of the Minister of Finance on the day the Bank of Canada rate comes out, it is difficult to know to whom to address a question. I will ask the Acting Prime Minister, if there is one. There are seven of them out in the country acting now as though they would like to be Prime Minister.
The Bank of Canada rate has just gone up again to 11.13 per cent, a considerable increase, which means that bank prime interest rates and all interest rates will be going up. Interest rates have gone up over 2 per cent on 365-day bills since the Budget was brought down. The Canadian dollar has decreased in value something like 3 cents since the Budget was brought down. Our gross domestic product is going down and not up, and the country is in a desperate economic shape. Will the Government now bring in new policies or a new Budget, or take some action that will start to reverse these horrendous economic developments since the Budget of February 15?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite is being his usual exaggerated self when he speaks of the economy being in-what was his word-horrendous shape. Of course the economy is not in horrendous shape. The economy is in very good shape, and it is getting better all the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roy MacLaren: If the Member opposite had any ability to understand economic facts he would know perfectly well that the growth in the economy is proceeding at a stable and effective rate. We are seeing improvements in the manufacturing industry. Interest rates and unemployment are not increasing at any level which should cause real hardship or real concern today.
When the Hon. Member opposite speaks of the impact of interest rates in the economy, he should realize that the
May 3, 1984

increases have been of a minimal nature. They are not of a substantial character. They arise in part, as he knows perfectly well, from interest rate increases in the United States. Over the longer run the circumstances of the Canadian economy will ensure that those interest rate increases are not of a massive nature.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of Finance has come into the House. I want to ask him about interest rates. As he no doubt knows, the Bank of Canada rate has just gone up to 11.13 per cent. The Minister of Finance heard the halting and unintelligible answer of the Minister of State for Finance when I asked him my question.
The Minister of Finance said on March 22, 1984:
Our policy is to keep interest rates as low as we can sensibly keep them in this country and still have an economy which will grow.
In view of the fact that interest rates are now going up again and the economy is not growing, will the Minister take action to reverse this state of affairs? Will he admit that his February 15 Budget was of no assistance, and will he now take other actions and bring in other measures before this House to try to reverse the terrible position in which we now find ourselves?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, First I heard not an unintelligible but a very intelligent answer from the Minister of State for Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: We didn't.


Marc Lalonde: If it was unintelligible, the problem is with the Hon. Member who asked the question, not with the person who gave the answer.
As far as interest rates are concerned, indeed the bank rate went up today by 0.29 per cent of a point. That follows a situation where we have upward pressure in the United States, as the Hon. Member knows, but even at the present moment the prime rate at the banks, which is the rate that affects people most, is still half a point below that in the United States. My hon. friend knows that.
As far as the economy not growing is concerned, my friend is wrong again. The Canadian economy is growing, and it is growing at a rate that compares favourably with most other industrial economies at the present time.
As far as the request which the Hon. Member has put forward is concerned, I have indicated that the Budget of February 15 contained a number of measures, and some of them are already before the House. I hope they will get quick and early consideration by the House. I was disappointed to see that some measures that would have helped business, in spite of an agreement with some spokesmen for the Conservative Party, have not received the early consideration that we were promised. I hope we will be receiving quick and early
Oral Questions
consideration of those measures because they will be beneficial to the taxpayers of this country.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister's policies have had a singular lack of success. In the United States there is growth of over 8 per cent this quarter, whereas in Canada we are having a decline, not growth.
The Minister said in the House on March 26 that he was monitoring the situation carefully. Everything that has happened since March 26 has been bad. He went on to say:
If need be, we will make the necessary adjustments. In the meantime I see no reason to change the basic policy that we have been following.
Since then the unemployment rate is up again, and over 1.5 million Canadians are out of work, interest rates are up, and the dollar is down. When will the Minister show some concern? When will he listen to Canadians and take some steps to try to relieve the situation in which we find ourselves? The answers he has given in the House are unsupportable, unsavory, and unsatisfactory. When will he take some steps to adjust the situation in accordance with these facts which today show that interest rates will go up again?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 was ready to welcome the Hon. Member back to the House because he has been away for quite some time, but I did not know that he had been outside the country as well. Indeed, he will be happy to hear that, contrary to what he said, the Canadian economy in the first quarter did not decline. It has increased. It may not have increased as much as the Hon. Member would have preferred, but it has increased.


John Carnell Crosbie: What did it do in February?


Marc Lalonde: What he says is completely wrong and false, and the rest of his question follows on that false premise.


FEDERAL DEFICIT-STATEMENT BY LIBERAL LEADERSHIP CANDIDATE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. One of his colleagues and Liberal leadership candidate, John Turner, is promising to cut the federal deficit in half, or by $15 billion, by streamlining social programs, running a more efficient bureaucracy, and by other measures. When he was Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner doubled government spending and he expanded, tripled, and indexed many of these same social programs. If the Minister's former colleague feels that $15 billion could be cut from the Budget, does the Minister agree that this can be done? If so, why is he not doing it?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Conservative Opposition

May 3, 1984
Oral Questions
Members are worried about the dynamic and very challenging proposals made by the various candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party, which will hold its convention in mid-June. I should think that my colleague might perhaps be better advised to ask the candidates what means they intend to propose to achieve that objective. The Hon. Member knows that, in my budget, I said that we had to steer towards a progressive and systematic decrease in the deficit. That was my proposal. If the race for the leadership of my Party provides some of my colleagues with an opportunity to make concrete proposals to be implemented in the next few years, I will of course be delighted to entertain them, should I be a member of that Cabinet. Second, I would suggest that it shows that, unlike the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party does have people who think about the future.


PROPOSAL TO DISBAND THREE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If historic patterns repeat themselves, all we will see in the future is increasing deficits from any Liberal administration. He talks about other proposals being made by his colleagues. The Minister of Employment and Immigration suggests that at least three federal Departments should be axed-Economic Development, Social Development, and Labour-to save the taxpayer money. Does the Minister of Finance agree that the Liberal Government is wasting taxpayers' money, or does he feel that these three Departments should be shut down?


Marc Lalonde: Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of question which should not be directed to me, but perhaps I might give the same answer as the one I gave to the previous question and say that at least the Liberal Party has people who think about the future.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ORDER BANK RATE ROLLED BACK
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the increase in interest rates. He has just suggested to the House, in his smiling way, that the increase is not really that great. He will now know that the rate is at its highest level in 18 months. Also he will know that we have had a record number of small business bankruptcies in the past two years, that farm bankruptcies are increasing this year at a rate, depending upon the province, of 100 per cent to 150 per cent or 160 per cent, and that all businessmen across Canada are saying that, if we do not have lower interest rates, whatever recovery we now have may be stopped.
Considering that the Liberals promised in the 1980 election campaign to have a made-in-Canada low interest rate policy, will he deliver what they promised and order Governor Bouey
to roll back the interest rate increase which was announced today?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party keeps asking the same question over and over again. I have already given him an answer on this subject.
I have clearly indicated to him that I shall not give any instruction to the Governor of the Bank of Canada like the one he is suggesting because it would be counterproductive in terms of the development of the Canadian economy.


John Edward Broadbent: Just for once the Liberals should learn to be consistent. If they are not willing to fulfill their promises, they should not make promises in the first place.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER IMPOSE CAPITAL OUTFLOW TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the economics argument which the Minister usually makes on this question. He has told us in the House that, if they lowered the interest rates as they promised, there would be an outflow of capital to the United States. If the Minister is concerned with that, will he do the following: lower the interest rate, but then bring in a money-changer's tax and levy such a tax on all outflows of capital beyond a certain level? Most Canadians will keep their money in their Canadian bank, as they ought to do, but those who want to speculate and take advantage of the dollar situation should have a tax imposed on them. Will the Minister do that?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is interested in preserving Canadian jobs, if he wants small businessmen and farmers to survive, and if he wants mortgagors to be able to maintain their homes, will he tell the House why he gave a negative answer? Why is the Minister unwilling to levy a tax on speculation, on large amounts of money going out of the country which ought to be reinvested in the Canadian economy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, for the very simple reason that I want to preserve jobs in the country. I want to help people in the housing area. I want to ensure that there will be confidence in the Canadian economy from Canadian investors as well as foreign investors, and not resort to the kind of naive intervention which the Hon. Member is recommending.
May 3, 1984


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Prime Minister or the Minister responsible for reporting to the House on de Havilland. It is a very simple question. Does the Government have in its possession a Cabinet document predicting that its present policy respecting de Havilland will cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars and will result in the loss of hundreds of jobs at de Havilland this year? If the Government has such a document, will it send the contents of the document to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons so that Parliament can see all the facts about the de Havilland arrangement, and come to its own judgment as to whether or not this matter, which is now being kept secret by the Government, is in the national interest?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling the Hon. Member missed a few sittings of the House and standing committees, otherwise he would have known that the Minister responsible appeared many times with the projections and financial statements of those corporations, including de Havilland, and provided committee members requesting information with every detail on the corporations' financial situation and development plans.
If I remember correctly, the same Minister will appear shortly before the Committee of the Whole with other financial statements, and all Members in this House will have an opportunity to ask questions on the corporations' financial situation.


PROJECTED FINANCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is missing much more than a few sittings of the House, he lacks honesty, as he is fully aware that the figures that were available some months ago are not those we are concerned with today.
I would like to put the question to him once more. Is it true that the government now has a Cabinet document, dated around mid-April, pointing to the loss of millions of Canadian dollars, and of at least 300 jobs at de Havilland this year?
Is there such a document? If there is, in the interests of letting the whole truth be known, will the Minister put those facts before the committee? We are talking about facts that came to the attention of the Government since the committee hearings he has talked about. Will he tell the whole truth?
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Without any hesitation, Mr. Speaker, first I must point out to the Hon. Member that, as a former Minister, he cannot have forgotten what a cabinet document is. He is nodding, so there he has part of the answer to the question he should not even have put, if he remembers what a cabinet document is.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the document to which the Globe and Mail referred is the same document that was mentioned some weeks ago, and about which the Minister in charge made a statement explaining those figures.
As far as jobs are concerned, this is no novel thing either, because due to the slowing down of business at Canadair, various forms of lay-offs are expected. However, this government will endeavour to ensure competitive financing of the Dash-8 on markets abroad, in order to keep abreast of our competitors, and support other business activities within the corporation, not only to maintain existing jobs but to create new ones, which remains this government's goal.


COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, two facts are clear. One is that Canadian jobs at de Havilland are going to be lost by this Government. Second, facts which the Government has, it is hiding from the House of Commons. We want to have those facts and save those jobs. Has the Government prepared a cost-benefit analysis of its present de Havilland proposal? Does it have that cost-benefit analysis, and will it make it available to the House of Commons?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, earlier the Hon. Member wanted to teach the government honesty. I must point out it is dishonest of him Mr. Speaker, to state that the government is hiding the facts on de Havilland's or Canadair's financial situation.
The Hon. Member simply ignores that at many sittings of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and of the Standing Committee on National Accounts, these corporations' financial statements were reviewed and all pertinent questions answered by the Minister.
He did not mention either that there will be more committee sittings where other financial statements will be tabled, and the Minister in charge will appear to answer all questions.
As far as de Havilland's marketing and viability studies are concerned, it has always been the intention of the Canada Investment Development Corporation, from the start, to make such studies so as to ensure the financial and marketing consolidation of those corporations. Studies are now in

May 3, 1984
Oral Questions
progress, and recommendations will be submitted to Cabinet in due course.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister has been blaming American interest rates for our problems. He will know that this week the Americans were able to borrow their T-bill money at 10.68 per cent. We had to pay 120 bases points more than the Americans. He will know that the American economy is on a roll. American government policies create jobs; our Government tears down jobs. The Minister will not bring forward a new Budget. Will he at least do one thing to establish confidence in the country? Will he change the method by which the Bank of Canada rate is established? Will he direct the rate at which the Bank of Canada will advance money to the chartered banks in a way that is consistent with keeping jobs in the Canadian economy and building the economy, instead of having our whole interest rate structure depend on a daily or weekly option of Treasury bills?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the commercial Canadian bank rates are not purely determined by the weekly auction by the Bank of Canada. The best evidence of this is that the Bank of Canada rate has moved up over the last several weeks without a similar increase in the prime rate by the commercial banks. There is no automatic relationship between what happens with the Bank of Canada rate and the commercial rates that are available to Canadians from the commercial banks.
If my friend looks at the daily comparison of selected Canadian and U.S. yields, for example, he will find that on 30-day prime corporate paper, in March and April the Canadian rate has been lower than the American rate, not higher, and that the 90-day prime corporate rate has been very lightly over the American rate. In fact the latest figure I have is at the same level as in the United States. I do not think my friend can argue seriously that Canadian rates are systematically higher than American rates. Evidence in the last several weeks has been to the contrary.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SET BANK RATE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot fool us any longer. The Canadian dollar was under pressure. To take the pressure off, he increased the rates in Canada. The Minister knows that the problem goes further than that. The Treasury bill option is a deal at the margin. In this country people are altering their interest rate expectations by the price that the Government of Canada pays at a Treasury Board auction once a week. Will the Minister do something to inspire some sense of confidence and give the
people of this country some feeling that the Government, and not the Bank of Canada with its Treasury bill auction, is in charge? Will he at least set a Bank of Canada rate appropriate to the economy of this country so that we can keep what new jobs we have?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to hear the spokesman for the Conservative Party advocating a complete rejection of the market system. I thought the Conservatives were rather favourable to the notion that we have a market economy and that the market determine the prices of either money or products in our society. My friend is proposing a very novel approach for the Conservative Party. If it is one that the Conservative Party wants to put forward, and if it does represent the view of the Conservative Party, I will be very interested in studying it further. In the meantime I see a lot of his colleagues nodding their heads negating this view taken by the Hon. Member on behalf of his Party.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SEIZURE OF UNLICENSED SATELLITE TRANSMITTERS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. Can the Minister confirm that the CRTC, along with the RCMP and the Department of Communications, carried out a series of raids within the last week on operations of unlicensed transmitter satellite TV signals? If so, how many of these raids were carried out in Canada? Was the community of Red Lake, in the district of Kenora, one of the communities affected? What does the Minister intend to do with regard to the equipment that has been seized and the people who have been denied television signals?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation that exists at the moment is that the CRTC has indeed been enforcing, as is its duty, the Broadcasting Act of Canada. I am informed that some of these operations are re-transmitting signals, either in competition with licensed cable operators or using the airwaves to transmit to a number of people. Quite obviously, this must be done in accordance with the Broadcasting Act of Canada as passed by the House of Commons. These groups which are indeed operating broadcasting undertakings need licences to do so.
May 3, 1984


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and deals with only one aspect of interest rates, that being mortgage interest rates. In answer to a question put to him by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Minister indicated that there is no direct relationship between the Bank of Canada prime rate and interest rates charged by the chartered banks. Surely he must know that between February 16 and today the prime rate has risen by 1.29 per cent, and between February 16 and last week interest rates for mortgages have risen 1.5 per cent. This would show quite clearly that there is a relationship between what the Bank of Canada charges and what the banks charge for mortgages.
Since he is often quoting figures from the United States, the Minister will also know that in the United States mortgage interest rates are regulated. Will the Minister take steps now, before it is too late, to put regulations in place that will assure those people who wish to purchase homes in Canada, or who wish to renegotiate or must renegotiate their mortgages, that the banks will not be allowed to charge in excess of what is now being charged for mortgages that are currently available?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I refer my hon. friend to the answer I gave to the previous question. I did not say that there was no direct relationship between the two; I said that there was no automatic relationship.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, now I see.


Marc Lalonde: Suddenly the Leader of the NDP understands. I indicated that what was happening on a daily or weekly basis with Treasury bill rates auctioned by the Bank of Canada did not automatically signify an immediate rise in interest rates. I showed the Hon. Member that the best evidence was the prime rate itself which has remained stable for several weeks in spite of fluctuations in Treasury bill rates. Concerning the Hon. Member's question about mortgage rates, he spoke about the banks, but he should also speak about the credit unions, co-ops, financial institutions, trust companies and all private lenders. The answer to that question is no.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Minister will allow interest rates for mortgages to rise as high as they rose in the last two to three years, and it is clear that he will see people lose their homes because he is too stubborn to recognize the realities in Canada at the moment.


MORTGAGE RATE PROJECTIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister knows that, with the present rate of interest, only 14.5 per cent of all renters can in fact qualify for mortgages. Surely the Minister knows that out of the 200,000 housing
Oral Questions
units that we require in Canada yearly in order to meet the current need, we are currently building at a rate of only 109,000 housing units a year.
Is there no way that we can convince the Minister that allowing mortgage interest rates to continue to rise can only create further unemployment on the one hand, and tremendous hardships for people who must renegotiate existing mortgages on the other. Will the Minister not take any steps now to ensure that mortgage interest rates will not be allowed to reach a level that will make it impossible for average Canadian families to own a home?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can engage in all the dark fantasies he wishes. If he wants to believe and act as if the interest rates were going to rise to 20 per cent and 22 per cent, he is free to do so. I do not believe that that is what will happen, and I do not want to act as if it were going to happen. That is the responsible thing to do at this time.
In the Budget, I put forward a number of measures concerning mortgage rate interest protection. I intend to introduce that piece of legislation before the end of the month. I hope we will get the support of the Opposition when it comes to dealing effectively with these issues, dealing with the Interest Act and with mortgage protection, rather than getting the foot dragging that we have seen in the opposition Parties in the last few months when dealing with economic measures.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Once again, three of the Government's most important Ministers who have a significant influence on the high unemployment figures in the country are not present in the House. I wonder if the Prime Minister could comment on the division of the time of Ministers between their duties in the House of Commons, particularly during Question Period, and their duties in Standing Committees. I would single out the Minister of Employment and Immigration who was present this morning and appeared for the first time in over two months before the employment committee, at which he gave the indication that he was not returning soon. Could the Prime Minister comment on the importance of Ministers' presence in the House during the week, performing the duties for which they are paid?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me to comment on this. I think it is particularly ungracious for the Member to comment on ministerial absences when our ranks are so full today, and when most of the front bench of the Opposition, with one or two smiling exceptions, is away. Does the Hon. Member not feel that it is his duty, and particularly the duty of the Leader

May 3, 1984
Oral Questions
of the Opposition, to be present in the House once in a while, Mr. Speaker? Our Minister was here yesterday.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, government Ministers have an obligation to attend to the business of the nation. That is why they are paid to be here, and that is why they ought to be here.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister comment on the over $20 million that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is expending on government advertising, most of which contains his name printed in the corners, with many blank spaces, since that program is apparently under the jurisdiction of a friend of the Minister from Toronto, a Mr. Peter Zarry, who has been under government contract to the tune of more than $400,000 for administering these programs which are apparently in support of the Minister's leadership campaign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is just a jumble of inaccuracies and allegations. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is indeed spending a lot of money to create jobs in the country. He is also a leadership candidate. I do not suggest that he should stop trying to create jobs for Canadians simply because he is also running for the leadership of the Party.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minsiter who is responsible for Canada Post. At the present time the principal director of the office of the Auditor General is conducting an audit into Canada Post. However, under his terms of reference he is restricted when examining the horror stories told about Canada Post.
As an example of those horror stories, employees in Toronto report that a $750,000 sorting machine had to be disconnected because it was inefficient and was causing delays. As well, employees report that Canada Post is continually forgetting trailers full of mail in its parking lots, and as many as 54 trailers have been forgotten for up to six weeks. Will the Minister take the necessary steps to see that the Auditor General can begin investigating these horror stories, and others, which are being told about Canada Post?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his appointment as official Opposition critic for matters relating to the Canada Post Corporation. Within the Official Opposition Leader's team being against bilingualism seems to be a good thing to get promotions. As for the question asked by the Hon. Member, I shall refer it to the President of the Canada Post Corporation.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Minister does not know what he is talking about.


WEEKEND OVERTIME
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 the Times Colonist of Victoria reported that since March 18 management in the Victoria office has been paying employees extra money for working weekends in order to prepare mail for non-existent Air Canada flights. Will the Minister also see that Mr. Warren, or the Auditor General, will investigate this horror story?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the horror stories referred to by the Hon. Member are more akin to figments of his imagination than to anything factual.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question would be directed to the Secretary of State if I could have his attention. The core funding for native organizations is long overdue. It has been delayed by a full month now.
Native leaders are starting to come to the conclusion that these funds are caught in the tangled web of the Liberal leadership race. The Minister supports John Turner, while the Dakota Ojibway tribal council gave a donation to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is there a legitimate reason which the Minister can give this House of why the funding for native organizations has been delayed a full month?
[ Translation]


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's phrasing is a little subjective. The main reason for the delay is, basically, the fact that over the past year, many provincial and national associations have had to cope with various changes including a large number of new associations. With a view to establishing objective criteria that, in the fact of such problems, would be used in acknowledging these
May 3, 1984

associations, we have tried to reach a consensus and an agreement with representatives of the major associations.
Next week I shall be meeting with representatives of the Metis, in an attempt to seek a solution to this problem. As soon as we have reached a consensus, payments will be made in the manner agreed upon with the organizations.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Government changed the funding policy for native organizations. When it does that, it has to accept the responsibility to see that that policy works. That funding is still a month overdue. When is the Government going to sit down with native leaders in order to make that policy work, or does the Liberal Party only care about native people when it is thinking about votes?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is upset but I feel he does not know the facts. If he had spoken to representatives of the main associations concerned, he would have realized that six months ago I started informing each association that we were going to revise program criteria to allow for the new situation that was created last year when a number of national associations were split and when many associations were set up provincially. It was to cope with this new situation that we initiated negotiations and exchanges, and as I said in my previous answer, we are discussing criteria for acknowledging these new situations while maintaining the program's objectives, which are to give the representing associations the financial base they require to carry out their responsibilities. That has nothing to do with the inferences being made by the Hon. Member, which, I feel, are only aimed at poisoning relations in a situation that is very difficult, although in the past, we have always received the cooperation of native representatives.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is a very easy question, designed to enhance his leadership ambitions so long as he gives the right answer. What action are the Minister and his Department taking to counter the high priced, high powered propaganda put forward by the anti-trapping lobby which is a danger to the Canadian fur industry and to the livelihood and way of life of thousands of Canadian trappers?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I wish, Mr. Speaker, through you, to
Oral Questions
say that I totally agree with the conclusions reached in the preamble to the Hon. Member's question. I believe it is a dire and unjustifiable threat to the livelihood of many of our northerners. I can only say that I am, combined with many of my colleagues in Government, putting together a governmental policy necessary to mount an educational advertising campaign designed to impact upon the mentality of many of the foreign countries which are contemplating taking prejudicial action against the product of our trappers.


RAILWAYS
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that the new freight rates for western grain are announced. The average rate is $7.70 per tonne. That is an increase of a full 33 per cent over the current year. These rates which have been announced are for the next crop year. The main reason for the increase is the interim adjustment, and the reason for that is that the producers are being asked to pick up the full shortfall in the estimates. Would the Minister tell the House why the Government is not picking up its share of the adjustment fund?
The Bill did not come into effect until January 1, yet the interim adjustment is going to be totally picked up by the producer at a time when the producers are experiencing considerable financial difficulty and the railways are experiencing pretty good financial health. The differnce is something like $20 million to $25 million. Would the Minister look into this situation and do what he can to ensure that the railways, or the Government, pay their share of that extra charge, instead of asking the producers to pick up the full $20 million to $25 million extra in cost?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I met yesterday with the Senior Grain Transportation Committee at its monthly meeting. We discussed the new rate which was set as of August 1 by the Transport Commission. I believe it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that the primary reason for the increase in the rate is due to the additional volume of grain which is being moved. The cap which was set under the formula was at 31.3 million tonnes. The fact of the matter is that there will be an additional three million tonnes moved this year. The farmers will, of course, receive a substantial income from those quite substantial additional sales above what was expected.
The important consideration which should be looked at is that there was virtually no increase in the costs which would affect railway rates. In fact the cost of the railways was about parallel to what it was last year. Therefore, there was virtually no inflationary increase in railway costs. Any increase in the rate was really due to that substantial increase in the sales, and in volume of grain which is being exported through our transportation system.

May 3, 1984
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW FIGURES
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, either the Minister does not understand my question or does not understand the formula by which rates were set. Very simply, the Government picked up the first five-twelfths of the increase in the present crop year. The producers picked up the next seven-twelfths. What has happened is that the volume estimate was low, and the Government is now going along with the formula which suggested that the producers pick up the full interim adjustment. Instead of the Government paying its share of the first five months, it is asking the producers to pick up the full year's share. Very simply, that is going to cost the producers $20 million to $25 million.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. The volume estimate for next year is only 31.8 million tonnes, as I understand it. That is down substantially from this year. Therefore, the total reason, almost exclusively, for the increase in the rates next year is due to the interim adjustment this year, of which the Government is refusing to pay its share.
Let me ask the Minister again to go back and check the figures and see what he can do about ensuring that the producers do not have to shoulder that extra $20 million to $25 million.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting that his interpretation is the one which has to be accepted by this House. I would suggest to him that he in fact look at the statement which was issued by the Canadian Transport Commission, which states it is the additional cost related to the volume which raises shippers' charges in the 1984-1985 crop year, because these additional costs have to be factored into the new rates scale.
The fact of the matter is that the CTC itself, which has studied these factors, is indicating that the increase in rates is due to the additional volume of grain-


Charles James Mayer: But you are asking the producers to pick up the full shot.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which is being moved, which, in fact, substantially increases the income coming into the farmers' hands because of the additional sales. I would simply suggest that the Hon. Member read what the CTC has to say.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Last week the Minister extended the time limit for the filing of income tax returns for communities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba which were hit by a snow storm. There are many communities in eastern and northeastern Newfoundland which have been denied regular mail service because of unusual ice
conditions. One of these communities is Bell Island in my own constituency. Will the Minister extend the time limit for communities such as Bell Island which have been denied regular mail service because of unusual ice conditions?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the St. John's taxation centre has set up a mechanism to identify the returns of the taxpayers who were affected by the pack ice in the area, and to allow them a filing extension on a case by case basis. I want to assure the Hon. Member that in these cases there will be no late filing penalties applied.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and is supplementary to the subject raised previously. My understanding is that the Minister's scheme to impoverish the farmers in western Canada and to enrich the railways has resulted in a per share earning for the CPR of about $3.50. Will the Minister tell us what his estimate of this plan is in terms of enriching CPR shareholders?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that really is a kind of nonsensical question. The Hon. Member has been in this House long enough to know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult to expect a Minister to be able to answer that kind of a question without notice. I suggest it should be on the Order Paper.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on Wednesday, May 2, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can ask the Government House Leader his intentions with respect to the business of the House for tomorrow and possibly into next week, if he is in a position to let us have that information.
May 3, 1984


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to confirm the business of the House for the next few days, in the following order: Tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday we will consider Bills C-24, C-10 and C-25; Bill C-32 on Wednesday; and I wish to designate next Thursday as an Opposition day. As my colleague knows, of course, all those plans may change but, as I usually do, I will give the Official Opposition advance notice of any change.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, did the Government House Leader mention what was going to happen concerning progress on the farm stabilization legislation? I did not catch it if he did.


Yvon Pinard: No, I did not mention that, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, can the Government House Leader tell the House when, if at all, the Government is going to proceed with that legislation?


Yvon Pinard: We usually proceed with Bills on the Order Paper and, as my colleague knows, that Bill still does not appear on the Order Paper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour that point, but the Government House Leader will know that this matter is very much of interest to members of the Opposition. The Minister will know that this morning his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, gave his iron-clad guarantee that the western grain stabilization legislation would be introduced for quick consideration at the earliest possible date. Has there been consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and will the Bill be brought in, for example, during the course of the next week? That is one possibility.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we would plan to introduce that Bill next week. I would like to remind my hon. friend that according to Standing Order 22(2), and I quote:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the Government determines.
We will assume our responsibilities in due time.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 2,200 of the 10,000 residents of the City of Noranda in my riding. Those people are complaining because Canada Post has closed their post office and they have to go to Rouyn for service, a location whose access is difficult and, I would even say, dangerous for the elderly.
Those people therefore humbly ask this House that the service to which they are entitled, be restored and, needless to say, they have my full support.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 1,200 persons from my constituency and others. It is a follow up to an earlier petition of 6,000 names in which the petitioners request the Government to withdraw Bill C-10, the provisions of which are totally unacceptable to them.



CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES ACT


A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-235, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and to provide for standardization of warranties and to define the minimum provisions thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this Act would clarify the rights and obligations of consumers as they exist regarding warranties, and would provide for a single, uniform regulation of warranties.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 3, 1984
Introduction of Bills BROADCASTING ACT



AMENDMENT RESPECTING TAPING BY SCHOOL BOARDS

A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-236, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (educational use of programs).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member should have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this Bill would enable school boards to tape radio and television broadcasts for use in schools at a cost which is not prohibitive, without incurring liability for copyright infringement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this Bill would ensure that a public servant or employee of a Crown corporation hired prior to the day of the coming into force of the Official Languages Act and still employed without being rehired since that day is able to continue to occupy his position or compete for any other position without his ability to perform in his second official language being taken into consideration. In essence, this Bill will restore the merit system to the RCMP, the Armed Forces and the federal civil service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-238, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (collective agreements).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this Bill would ensure that the administration of a collective agreement would not have a discriminatory or detrimental effect on the employees covered by the agreement in comparison to other employees not covered by the agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 260, 728 (revised) and 747.
[Text\


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	In the 1982 annual report for the Northern Transportation Company Limited (NTCL) under Section 7, Property and Equipment, with regard to buildings, other structures and site development, was there an increase in expenditure from $19,665,000 in 1981 to $28,701,000 in 1982 and, if so, for what reason was this increase necessary?
2.	What equipment was purchased and, in each case, what was the purchase price?
3.	What buildings were bought and/or sold and (a) where are they located (b) what were their individual costs (c) what are their appraised values (d) what were the total site development costs and, in each case, where are the development sites located (e) how much was spent on the sites?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows:
1.	During consolidation, certain assets of a subsidiary company, totalling $4.1 million, were inadvertently classified under "Buildings, Other Structures and Site Development" whereas these assets should have been included under "Other Equipment". This error was detected very shortly after receipt of our 1982 annual report from the printer but because the
May 3, 1984

total value of property and equipment was correctly reported, it was decided not to recall the 1982 annual report.
For 1982, Note 7, Property and Equipment, should have read as follows:
	1982 ($000's)
Land	S 2,049
Vessels Buildings, Other Structures and	68,001
Site Development	24,632
Other Equipment	20,846 115,528
Accumulated Depreciation	67,468 48,060
2.	Total purchases of property and equipment for 1982 amounted to $8,260,000 and are correctly reported on page 12 of the 1982 annual report.
3.	Included in total purchases of property and equipment for 1982 was the construction of a new camp facility in Tuktoyak-tuk, Northwest Territories, at a cost of $4,448,000 which included site improvements and development in connection with this camp. In addition, another $500,000 was spent on site development, purchase of mobile homes and miscellaneous upgrading of existing structures at other locations.
No other buildings or structures were bought, sold or constructed.
SUPPLY REVOLVING FUND Question No. 728 (Revised)-Mr. Blenkarn:
With respect to the Supply Revolving Fund, in the fiscal year (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84 (c) 1984-85, what was the forecast or actual total expenditures and revenues for the Advertising Management Service and was this ever shown as a separate item in the Main Estimates and, if so, is it so indicated now and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: In 1982-83, the actual total expenditures and revenues for Advertising Management Services were $49,664 million and $48,557 million respectively. In 1983-84, the forecast total expenditures and revenues are $51,310 million and $52.0 million respectively. In 1984-85, the forecast total expenditures and revenues are $54,914 million and $55.0 million respectively.
Advertising Management Services was shown as a separate item in the Main Estimates in 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Advertising Management Services is not shown as a separate activity in 1984-85 because it is a sub-activity of the Printing and Communications activity. In 1983, the Treasury Board approved the Operational Plan Framework for Supply Administration which effectively reduced the number of activities from thirteen to seven. All departments and agencies are required to submit Operational Plan Frameworks in accordance with the requirements of the Policy Expenditure Management System. This framework including a program activity structure must be approved by Treasury Board. The relationship between the old activity structure and the new is depicted
Order Paper Questions
on page 3.55 Supply and Services, Canada, 1984-85, Part III of the Main Estimates Expenditure Plan.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Aeronautics Advisory Board and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Board meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. The
Aeronautics Advisory Board has lapsed. It had advised on research and development projects between March, 1979 and January, 1983. Members were drawn from different parts of the Canadian aviation community. The chairman received a per diem, and travel expenses were reimbursed for members who were retired or came from a university.
2. During fiscal year 1982/83 the Board met four times at its own discretion and considered the Canadian Air Transportation Administration (CATA) Research and Development program and other federally supported development programs in aeronautics. The Board produced an assessment of Research and Development activities in CATA.


John Leslie Evans: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have raised before with the Parliamentary Secretary the subject of the response to question No. 679 which has been on the Order Paper since mid-February. It was on the Order Paper in the previous sitting. Can he tell me, first, when that question will be answered? Second, can he give me a guarantee that that question, which has to do with the appointment by the present Prime Minister of Ministers to Cabinet, will be answered before the Prime Minister leaves his responsibilities as Prime Minister?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows I will do everything in my power to see that the question is answered. He also knows that I have absolutely no power to make that guarantee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1984

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House recognizes the tremendous financial difficulty that farmers have been placed under and therefore recommends that the government immediately consider injection of much needed cash into farming through:
(1)	the immediate payout of a substantial initial payment from the Western
Grain Stabilization Fund in order to assist with seeding costs;
(2)	the repeal of all sales taxes, well-head taxes and other taxes being
charged to fuels used for farming and fishing; and
(3)	an immediate interest rate reduction on Farm Credit Corporation loans
so that viable refinancing of farms can take place.
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this particular Opposition motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), that this House recognizes the tremendous financial difficulty that farmers have been placed under and therefore recommends that the Government immediately consider injection of much needed cash into farming through the three points mentioned here: the immediate pay-out of a substantial initial payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund in order to assist with seeding costs; the repeal of all sales taxes, well-head taxes and other taxes being charged to fuels used for farming and fishing; and an immediate interest rate reduction on Farm Credit Corporation loans so that viable refinancing of farms can take place.
This particular motion is threefold and focuses on things that have been emphasized in the House over the last little while. It focuses on the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, the question of sales and well-head taxes charged for fuels, and the question of Farm Credit Corporation loans in order that farmers who are refinancing their loans at this time would be able to refinance at a reasonable rate.
I have received letters on all of these issues from farmers in my constituency, Mr. Speaker. All of them have been requesting action on each of the points mentioned above. Regarding the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, a farmer from Sifton in my riding writes:
I feel that the formula should be re-written to tie in the cost of production along with returns for production, i.e. net returns as opposed to gross returns.
Grain has not changed drastically, however, cost of production has skyrocketted, thereby placing extreme burdens on farmers.
The letter from this farmer in Sifton continues:
Perhaps Eugene Whelan would be willing to re-examine the present formula in view of the fact that he is considering running as leader of the federal Liberals and he needs western support.
This need for an immediate pay-out is something which all of us in the New Democratic Party have been raising. I was glancing at the statement I made on March 5 in the House which pointed out the fact that the projected net farm income
in Manitoba for 1984 is lower than the actual net income in 1973. Before the Easter break we offered the Minister all the co-operation of the New Democratic Party to have these amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act passed but nothing happened. We had the announcement during the Easter break and still nothing happened. On April 30 we were here, Mr. Speaker, and nothing happened. May 1 came around and nothing happened. May 2 came around and nothing happened. Today is May 3 and the Minister appears to have been talking through his invisible hat. It is rather like the clouds that bring no rain.
You may have heard it said, Mr. Speaker, that farmers and others are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place. I would submit that at the present time the farmers are not merely caught between a rock and a hard place, but are caught between an anvil and a hammer. The situation which many of them are facing is very drastic. Within the northwest region of Manitoba there are some 5,000 farmers. Many of them have been surveyed and at the present time 65 are in such desperate straits that they can get neither a bank nor a trade loan. In other words, there is no bank willing to give them credit in order for them to buy the seed they need to go on to the land. There are no companies prepared to give them the necessary loans to get into the seeding operation. These are the types of concerns I would like to underline as I speak on this motion put forward by my colleague.
It is often said that a picture speaks louder than words. I would like to share the type of representations I have been receiving on these matters that the farmers are facing. I have a letter dated April 19, 1984. This is another illustration of a farmer caught between the anvil and the hammer. This is a farmer who is being beleaguered by Revenue Canada. I would like to show you the repercussions that this type of thing has. This farmer writes:
I am a farmer and a school bus driver. As bus driver wages I earn about $6,000 which is certainly not enough for a family of five to live on. My gross farm income the last years has averaged about $20,000 with a net of about $4,000. I spend much more time working on the farm than the bus job. Besides, my wife and our older daughter do much farm work. Now I am being taxed on my farm home as though I am not a farmer. I am being penalized because I am not earning more on the farm than off the farm. How unjust can our tax system become. My family is working hard to make ends meet. Now, if I could net more income on the farm, I would have more money, but I wouldn't be taxed on my farm home. Gross injustice. What are you doing about this?
This is an illustration of the anvil and the hammer that the farmers are being caught between at the present time. I am receiving these letters on a daily basis. I have one dated April 24 which says:
I'd like to express my appreciation for what you are doing for us here in northern Manitoba. Also I'd like to express my concerns about the plight of many farmers in our L.G.D. of Mountain.
That stands for the local government district, Mr. Speaker. This is an area of municipal jurisdiction which does not have all the status of a municipality. The letter continues:
I thought it might be of interest to you to see how much land is up for tax sale in the L.G.D. It seems to me Mr. Whelan should be able to see that all is not well with the farm if every year there is a considerable increase in land going up for tax sale.
May 3, 1984

I counted the number of properties listed for sale for arrears of taxes in one small L.G.D. There are 34 municipalities in our constituency. I counted 56 pieces of propety in a small local government district which are up for tax sale.
As was mentioned earlier in the House today, there are many farmers who are concerned about increased freight rates. The worst fears of the farmers are being realized. According to a report in the Manitoba Co-operator:
Government officials said the 10 per cent safety net on the export basket price of grain won't be triggered by the projected increase.
A Government official said the process simply means farmers have more money in their pockets this year, but will have to pay it back in freight rates next crop year.
Some of these fears are plaguing many of the farmers because they cannot afford this. This is particularly true in constituencies such as mine where the average income of people is around two-thirds of the national average. This can represent a substantial loss to the farmers.
Perhaps you have been wondering whether I have been referring to people who are constantly writing to MPs. I just want to give you an illustration that there are many people who because of the drastic situation on farms are writing to me for the very first time in their lives. As a matter of fact, some of these people who are writing and phoning me as their Member of Parliament are contacting a Member of Parliament for the very first time. Another letter I have received reads:
I have never written to you before-
He goes on to say:
I do not like what is happening in Ottawa lately concerning the Western farmer-
He goes on to explain the expenses on the farm and the difficulty farmers are facing in these tough times. He continues:
Perhaps you have heard all about this before, but I think we should have ail or some of the federal or provincial taxes of gas, diesel, etc., removed. FCC should have more money given to them at lower interest rates-
He also comments on the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the necessity of amending this Bill so there would be a pay-out. Just to give you an indication, Mr. Speaker, of the type of alienation farmers are facing in western Canada, this individual goes on to state:
The Liberal Government does not care or knows nothing about what the West wants ... the Liberals have been in power for about 13 or 14 years and promised a lot of things for the west and we have seen very little done, mostly for Ontario and Quebec.
The lack of recognition for the needs of western farmers is something that I do not think has sunk sufficiently into the minds of Cabinet members.
I want to give you another illustration, Mr. Speaker, of the type of representation we receive. I am doing this basically to try to convince the Government of the types of problems the farmers have. I am going to read a resolution that was passed at a pot luck supper meeting held in Swan River. I pulled this
Supply
particular illustration from my riding because the Hon. Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been to Swan River. In fact, this is where he got his green hat. I thought the Minister might be interested in knowing what the farmers who gave him the green hat have to say about his lack of involvement in dealing with agricultural problems. This is why I have chosen this illustration from Swan River from among the other representations I have received.
This particular resolution was passed on April 26. It was passed at a pot luck supper to which I was invited. It was an excellent meeting. Just for your edification, Mr. Speaker, I will indicate the way some of these rural people operate. Farmers and others brought food for the supper. As part of their own fund raising, they also collected a minimal sum at the door regardless of whether they brought food or not. It is almost a tradition. They invited me to speak. Once you speak you are subjected to questions and answers. These questions and answers go on for one or two hours. I think the Minister of Agriculture would be delighted to face some of these meetings. He would be able to understand some of the feelings and learn about the personal experiences of the farmers. These are not just statistics, they are personal experiences. This group made up of well over 100 people unanimously passed the resolution I will now share with you:
Whereas the Government of Canada has announced a payment of $300,000,000.00 from the Grain Stabilization Fund and Whereas this payment represents only the money farmers have contributed to the plan, and
Whereas this payment is intended to be made in October, and Whereas many farmers are in desperate need of Financing for current expenses of planting a new crop, and
Whereas farmers were promised from the outset of the plan that the Government would contribute $2.00 for every $1.00 farmers contributed,
Therefore be it resolved that the payout be increased to include an equal amount of Government money and be it further resolved that this payout be made immediately so as to assist farmers with their spring seeding expenses.
During the course of his speech the Minister of Agriculture, in response to some illustrations and examples which my colleagues from Saskatchewan gave, asked: what the provinces are doing. He seemed to indicate that the federal Government is doing everything for the farmers while the provinces are doing nothing. I want to correct that for the record. I want to give a couple of illustrations of what has been happening in Manitoba.
The New Democratic Government headed by Howard Pawley has been working diligently on the whole agricultural question. For example, the government has established a beef stabilization program. When this was introduced it was pooh-poohed. People said he would get no participation, that "Maybe you will get 7 per cent of producers participating", he said. But what has happened? Seventy to 75 per cent of the producers representing 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the province's livestock are in this beef stabilization program. Some $25 million has been given to this program.
Also a hog stabilization program at the provincial level has been introduced. Some $7 million has been expended on the program. The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has also been working very aggressively. It has been providing

May 3, 1984
Supply
loans to beginning farmers at reduced interest rates. We find in the interest relief reduction program that some 1,300 people have participated. Some $6.7 million has been expended at the provincial level. In addition, some farmers have been able to buy down their interest rates. This has helped farmers who have had ready cash and were caught in a high interest rate situation. They have been able to buy down the high interest rate. Some 600 people have benefited from that program.
If you were to take into account the amount of money which the provincial government has given by way of program or subsidy to the farmers in the two years the New Democratic Party Government has been in office, some 30,000 farmers have profited. The impact per average family farm has been $6,400. I would challenge the federal Government to match that type of assistance to farmers.
I see my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, but I want to mention a few other points concerning the farm fuels sales tax and the well-head tax on farm fuel. At the same meeting in Swan River on April 26, another resolution was passed. Let me read it for the record:
Whereas some of the corporate fuel companies have reduced the cost of farm
fuels by 4.5 cents a litre or 20 cents a gallon if paid for within 30 days,
And whereas federal tax on farm fuels is high,
Therefore be it resolved that the federal government match the corporate oil
companies by eliminating the federal fuel tax.
Some companies have been taking this kind of action. The particular group assembled there have given this challenge to the Minister to respond in a favourable way. As I talk to many of the farmers in my riding, they tell me that their farm fuel bill has doubled in the last couple of years. There has been a tremendous increase in expense in farm fuels. For most farmers right now it is their number one cost. Many farmers had been involved earlier in loans and refinancing. For them, their number one cost is still interest rates. I want to emphasize the importance of this. As was mentioned earlier, we are always getting conflicting statistics from the Government as to what the exact amount is of the farm fuels sales tax. This is something which should be investigated and acted upon.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to a letter that I received from a farmer in the Swan River area. I use this as an illustration simply for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He wrote:
We are always told that our products have to compete on the world marketplace. But Sir, how can we compete when our own Government in its bid for taxes and power puts us farmers at a disadvantage? Just look at the price of fuel in the U.S.A ... Hope you don't think I'm a born complainer but unless the Government in Ottawa does some serious thinking about their policy, we will all go down like the Roman Empire.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a comment rather than to put a question to the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky), and he may want to add to it. I followed his remarks during the course of his speech and each time he referred to an increase in costs, I made note of it.
This is what I wrote down: a 15 per cent increase in Farm Credit Corporation interest rates. I do not know what has happened to the six and five as far as that corporation is concerned. Also he referred to a 30 per cent increase in grain freight rates. Again I do not know what happened to the six and five. Then he referred to a 35 per cent increase in fuel costs in the last few years; no six and five there either. I do not have the figure for fertilizer, but I understand that it has increased as well. There has been a continual increase in input costs. What effect is that having on farmers in the Dauphin-Swan River area?


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that it is having a disastrous effect upon farmers in Dauphin-Swan River. As I indicated, based upon a survey conducted in my region, 65 farm families are in such dire straits that they cannot obtain money from any bank or trade company to put seed into the ground this spring.
Of course, farmers are very enterprising. I know members of their families will help them and chip in, but I am afraid that there will be an increased number of foreclosures and bankruptcies in my area. Our farms are not particularly large. They are not the size of those south of the Trans-Canada Highway. Farmers there are experiencing a very difficult situation. Unless there is some immediate pay-out from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund or some other action, I really fear for the farmers in my area. Once we take farmers off the land, city boys or girls will not farm land in rural areas. Any impressionistic or other observations I have made indicate that if we are to have a vibrant agricultural economy in our area, our farming sector, our vital food sector, will have to receive some kind of support. Farmers cannot really cope with these types of increases in our area.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) a question. A recent press announcement indicated that the Farm Credit Corporation was making available some $825 million this year in long-term loans and so on. If the Hon. Member were really doing his job by getting out and encouraging farmers in his area to take advantage of this long-term credit, he would know that this is the difficulty. At least in my area that has always been the problem. Of course, interest rates are a concern as well, but it is really important for farmers to obtain long-term credit. The FCC has that $825 million. I think it is a couple of hundred million more than it was a few years ago. I wonder whether the Hon. Member is really doing his job of ensuring that his constituency receives its share of long-term Farm Credit Corporation loans.


Laverne Lewycky: My response to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is, yes, I have been doing my homework. I have talked with farmers about the Farm Credit Corporation. I have asked them to see the FCC people. They have told me that they are unable to obtain these loans and that they are far in excess of what they are able to pay by way of interest rates. They have told me that when the interest rate is compounded, they end up paying more than the 15 per cent.
May 3, 1984

Perhaps it is the Parliamentary Secretary who ought to be doing his own homework. He would see then that some action has been taken in this regard. Perhaps he should do that rather than shoot off his mouth glibly without having conducted any investigation on this issue. It is a major problem. We would not be receiving that kind of representation from people when we are talking to them in the coffee shops or wherever if it were not important. We have been talking to farmers in our area about that. Obviously he has not been doing his homework, if that is the kind of feedback he thinks he is getting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments? For debate, the Hon. Member for Welland.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, one might ask why a Member of Parliament from southern Ontario who has largely a blue collar constituency would enter into this debate. I have farmers in my area, in the Niagara Peninsula, and as Hon. Members know, farmers are among the most productive sector throughout Canada.
The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) quite realistically put forward some of the problems in his area. I sympathize with the plight of some farmers in that area of Manitoba. There should be no doubt in the minds of anyone here that many farmers are under tremendous financial pressure. The extent of their difficulties varies depending on the individual, the size and type of the farming operation, the commodities produced and so forth.
Spring is traditionally a time for hope and new starts in the agricultural sector. Judging from the planting intentions of prairie farmers-and this is what the Hon. Member was talking about-there is hope for a good crop year. Recent surveys indicate that prairie crop producers expect to increase seeded acreage by 2.7 per cent over 1983 plantings. In March, a survey by Statistics Canada also indicated that Canadian farmers expect to increase fertilizer used this year by 4 per cent over 1983. Surely these are reasons for hope.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: And the price has increased by 5 per cent.


Gilbert Parent: Surely the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) will have his turn in a few moments. If he will let me share some of my information with him, perhaps he will be able to question me on it at the end of my remarks. I would be happy to answer his questions.
Hope alone will not help farmers to put in the new crop or keep them going until their livestock is ready for market. As we approach planting season, there is heightened concern about such mundane matters as cash flow and credit and, ultimately, who will make it through the season and who will not. We are dealing with a highly industrialized sector of the economy. I am talking about the farming industry, because many of the implements used by farmers are state of the art. Whereas it used to take thousands of men and women to man our farms, only between 4 per cent and 5 per cent of our entire population is involved in that industry at the present time.
Supply
The federal Government is aware of and extremely concerned about the Financial pressures and important decisions facing farmers at this time of the year. This is why we have taken a number of major initiatives over the past few months to help strengthen and support the financial position of Canadian farmers.
I would like to discuss some of these initiatives and explain some of the positive effects they have had and will have on Canada's agricultural economy, starting with some of the concrete financial assistance programs that have actually put cash in farmers' hands in recent months. One of the oldest and most reliable is the Agricultural Stabilization Program. Under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, we have been spending an average of about $350 million a year on stabilization payments for named and designated commodities.
Early in the winter, the $66.8 million stabilization program for eight designated commodities was announced. These commodities included 1982-83 crops of winter wheat, apples-I see the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) is here; he would have an interest in that and can corroborate what I am saying-greenhouse cucumbers, onions, carrots, cabbages, rutabagas and white beans.
As of a week ago, the federal Government had processed claims and issued cheques to nearly 17,100 producers of those commodities. The accusations of the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River are not totally accurate when he says we are not doing anything to help the farmers. I would also point out that all farmers do not live in the west. As I will point out in my speech, many farmers in Ontario, Quebec and, yes, even the Maritimes, are going to be affected by the acts and actions of this Government.
In February, a support payment of $4.48 per tonne for the 1982-83 grain corn crop under the same Act was announced. Claims from some 1,200 corn producers have been processed to date. In total, the federal Government expects to pay out $14.8 million to corn producers this spring. About 80 per cent of that will go to Ontario farmers. We have a broader spectrum here than just the farmers of the west. Our farmers are situated in every province of this country.
Other federal programs have put money into the pockets of the fruit growers this winter. This is where I become involved. In our area, the Niagara Peninsula, where we grow such fruits as apples, pears, peaches and, of course, grapes-we produce 80 per cent of the grapes of Canada and 80 per cent of the wine in Canada-we are affected by what happens to the fruit growers.
In late December, cheques were delivered to all apple producers eligible under the Eastern Canada Apple Industry Compensation and Re-establishment Plan. Under this program growers whose orchards suffered frost damage could receive $40 per standard tree affected. This money will help them to re-establish their orchards this year. Meanwhile, British Columbia fruit growers received cash assistance under two other federal programs. One of these was a $4.84 million
3386

May 3, 1984
Supply
purchase and resale program to help the East Chilliwack Agricultural Co-operative process its 1983 raspberry crop. Under the other, the Agricultural Products Board agreed to buy up to $3.2 million worth of B.C. peaches and pears to help fruit growers in that province market their 1983 crop.
These are positive things that the Government has been doing. We should be telling Canadian farmers and the public at large about these. All of those programs have helped to improve the cash flow situation of the participating farmers, providing them with funds with which to pay their bills and purchase inputs for the 1984 planting season. I hope we will hear more about this as the debate continues in the House today.
On April 1 the federal Government increased the target returns level for industrial milk and cream production by 1.5 per cent, from $43.18 per hectolitre to $43.83 per hectolitre. This increase will help dairy farmers cover higher production costs. Changes to yet another program will help Newfoundland livestock feeders. I am referring to the increase in feed freight assistance rates to all destinations in Newfoundland. This was announced a mere two weeks ago.
Agriculture Canada spends over $1.2 billion annually to assist the nation's agri-food industry. Many of the programs funded by the Department are aimed directly at farmers. Among these is the federal-provincial crop insurance program. The federal Government contributes around $150 million a year to this important and successful program.
Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, we make it possible for farmers to borrow more than $200 million a year, with the interest rates being at a lower rate than would otherwise be possible because the federal Government guarantees these loans. The federal Government also helps farmers' cash flow situation through to advance payments programs. In total, about $500 million a year is advanced to farmers, with the Government paying the interest charges. This allows them to pay their bills and market their products in an orderly manner.
A couple of months ago the Government introduced Bill C-23 to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River alluded to that in his remarks. Under the proposed amendments, the maximum advance for individuals will double from $15,000 to $30,000. Emergency advances will also increase. Both Opposition Parties have expressed support for this Bill. I am hopeful that it can be passed in the very near future.
While we are talking about programs in support of prairie crop producers, I want to mention initial grain payments. The initial payments for spring wheat, Durum and designated barley will decrease this year, that is true. However, initial payments for feed oats, feed barley and designated oats will increase from 1983 levels. These levels are, of course, based on world grain markets. However, you can be sure that it was the Government's intention in setting these prices to help farmers as much as possible to maintain cash flow.
This discussion of initial grain prices brings us to another important program for the prairie grain producer. I mention this because some Members on this side have been paired with western ridings so that they can have direct input to our caucus. I am paired with the riding of Wetaskiwin. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) stepped out of the Chamber for a minute. I am sure he will be back. This discussion of initial grain prices brings up the matter of the other important program for prairie grain producers. One program that has been debated this afternoon is the Western Grain Stabilization Act. In the Speech from the Throne in December, it was announced that the Government would be looking at ways to make the Western Grain Stabilization Act more responsive to the needs of producers. In January, we lowered the level of producer contributions to the program from 2 per cent to 1.5 per cent of eligible receipts. Just eight days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board announced proposed amendments that would make the program more flexible and more responsive to the needs of the grain producers. At that time they also outlined the key changes Parliament will be asked to approve. This is a lot of quick action on a major program in a very short time, yet we hear calls for a large initial payment from the program immediately. It takes time. It has to filter through the system. I am sure we would all like to see a pay-out from the fund as soon as possible to help farmers with their seeding cost. However, the formula will not trigger a payment until the laws governing the programs are changed. That is what we hope to do in this Parliament as soon as we can.


Charles James Mayer: When?


Gilbert Parent: The Hon. Member from the opposite side has asked when, and I say to him that as soon as we can get the co-operation of all sides of the House, I am sure that this Bill will go through right away.


Charles James Mayer: You have it right now.


Gilbert Parent: According to preliminary calculations, each eligible producer could receive about $2,500 or slightly more this fall if the program is changed as proposed. Very shortly, the Government will be introducing the legislation to change the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Meanwhile, I would simply point out that administrative costs of issuing an interim payment and a final payment only a couple of months apart would hardly be warranted.
I hope that when the legislation does come before the House-and it will be here before too long-the Opposition will see that it receives speedy passage for the sake of the western grain farmers. I am sure that it is obvious from all of the activities to which I have referred that the Government has been working hard to help Canadian farmers cope with the financial pressures of producing food today. We have not ignored the plight of the farmers in the west or those in the east. I hope we can count on the support of every Member of
May 3, 1984

the House to continue to improve the lot of the great Canadian food producer.
I would be willing to answer any questions that Hon. Members may have with regard to the remarks I have made.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent), particularly when he set out all of the various programs of the Government under which payments have been made over the past year. He spoke about payments to corn and grain producers in eastern Canada, he spoke about payments to fruit growers and apple producers, and he spoke about changes in feed freight assistance. I would point out to him that all of these programs are government funded programs and non-contributory programs. There is never any problem when making payments to producers under these programs.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program is a contributory program. The farmers of western Canada contribute to that program yet are not able to benefit from it. They have not benefited from that program since 1979, and yet the farmers in western Canada are in serious trouble. They need those payments and they need them right now.
The Hon. Member spoke about the co-operation of Members on this side of the House. The amendments to the western grain stabilization Bill have not seen the light of day in this House. When they do see the light of day, we will be told by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Senator in the other place that the payment will not be made until the fall. That will not help the farmers of western Canada.
The amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act will be of some assistance, but that Bill has been sitting on the Order Paper of the House since last March. There has been no attempt on the part of the Government to bring that Bill forward despite the fact that members of both Opposition Parties have indicated to the Government time and time again that they would pass that Bill and give it three readings in one day. Does the Hon. Member for Welland feel that it is fair to the farmers of western Canada that we have no western grain stabilization Bill and that the advance payment Bill is sitting on the Order Paper?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, I would say that his points are well taken and I agree with him when he says that this legislation should be brought before the House just as soon as possible. Hon. Members may ask why we have not done so yet. I do not have the specific answer to that question except to say that the legislation with which we have been dealing has been important for all of Canada as well and I for one, along with the Hon. Member and all of my other colleagues, would surely urge that this particular legislation be brought forward at least before the end of this session and, if possible, even before the end of this month.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Welland if he and other members of his caucus have raised this issue in caucus meetings and if they have pressured the Minister of Agriculture and the Senator from
Supply
the other place to bring this legislation forward. If they have not done so, I would ask the Hon. Member why they have not done so.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, and as must be the tradition in his caucus as well, I would first point out that what is discussed in caucus stays there. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister in the other place have been approached by members of this caucus, and I am sure that those Ministers are very much aware of the feelings of the members of this caucus.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member two short questions. First, did I understand the Hon. Member correctly when I heard him say that he was not in favour of an interim payment because of the costs involved in mailing both an interim payment and a final payment? Is that what the Hon. Member said?


Gilbert Parent: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make and a question to ask. Perhaps it is clarification that I require. I was in the lobby at that particular moment, but I understood the Hon. Member to say that the initial prices of barley had increased. I wonder if the Hon. Member is not forgetting that, between the time of the last change in price and this one, there was an interim increase thus making the present initial price of barley lower than it was a month or two ago.
Second, if the maximum payment to farmers will be $2,500, and if the person who receives that $2,500 is likely to have paid $1,200 into the fund this year, because I believe that is the maximum amount that may be paid in, that means that the farmer will receive only an additional $1,200. That is not as large an amount of money as the Hon. Member for Welland has indicated. Those are the comments I wished to make.
Third, I wish to ask the Hon. Member a question. The Hon. Member suggested that the prairie farmer would not do too badly this year because of the increase in the amount of grain that will be seeded and because of the possibilities of a better crop. Of course, that is a pretty dangerous statement to make because right now a good part of the west is pretty dry. As well, there will be an increase in fertilizer costs, an increase in fuel costs and an increase in transportation costs. Possibly we will grow a little more grain. Could the Hon. Member tell me how much the initial price that is being paid for grain will be decreased and how relative that is to the increased amount of grain that will be grown?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, there are three questions involved here and I would like to answer the last one first. No, 1 cannot give the Hon. Member a specific answer to that question because I do not have those figures in front of me. However, I will try to answer the other two questions.
When speaking about the programs in support of the prairie crop producers, I said specifically that the initial payments for

May 3, 1984
Supply
spring wheat, Durum and designated barley will decrease this year. I also said that initial payments for feed oats, feed barley and designated oats will increase from 1983 levels. I believe that that answers the specific question asked by the Hon. Member.
Regarding the $2,500 that will be received, I have no quarrel with what the Hon. Member has said. He said that the farmer will have paid into the fund up to $1,250.1 suppose my question to him is simply this: when someone pays in $1,250 and gets out $2,500, most businessmen in Canada would consider that a pretty good investment. When the Hon. Member said that that is not a lot of money, that statement is an expression of his judgement. Surely help like this is better than no help at all. When someone puts 50 per cent into any kind of investment and gets out 100 per cent, I think that that is an improvement.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to clarify the situation. There has been no pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan since 1979. If a farmer contributed the maximum to the plan, as most farmers did, that farmer would have contributed $1,200 a year for four years, making a total of $4,800. If interest rates paid by the banks were added to that contribution, the farmer would have to his credit over $7,000. We only suggested that an initial payment of $2,500 be made, about one-third of the amount the farmer has already paid in. That is his own money and that is all he is asking for.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, the comment is duly noted and I am sure the Minister as well as I myself will take notice of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For one brief comment or question, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, just to indicate how the farmers feel about this, I attended a meeting in the town of Strathmore, to which farmers drove several miles, to discuss the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Of that group of farmers, there was not one who did not want to opt out. They felt that they would do better to keep the money themselves and place it in a bank to make interest. This is not a stabilization program. The Government should start realizing that. It is not being fair to the farmers who are contributing. The Minister makes a lot of the fact that some farmers do not contribute. Well, quite simply, they did not join the plan. Those who did join the plan cannot get out. If these farmers were given the option, there would not be anyone left in the plan, because they are so dissatisfied with it. I think the Government should realize this.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that specific comment, I take it the Hon. Member at this point is in favour of all farmers opting out of any of the stabilization programs that we have. I put that in the form of a comment or question, Mr. Speaker-I do not know if I can ask questions of him. It
would seem to me that he is taking a position now. If I understand him correctly, that is what he is saying.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)- Labour Conditions-Allocation of food provided by Vancouver food bank, (b) Benefits of economic recovery, (c) Productivity increase-Effect on employment; the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Western Grain Stabilization Act-Request for early introduction of amending legislation; the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)- The Administration-Liberal Party leadership campaign- Role of contract employee, (b) Ministerial staff guidelines.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That his House recognizes the tremendous financial difficulty that farmers have been placed under and therefore recommends that the government immediately consider injection of much needed cash into farming through:
(1)	the immediate payout of a substantial initial payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund in order to assist with seeding costs;
(2)	the repeal of all sales taxes, well-head taxes and other taxes being charged to fuels used for farming and fishing; and
(3)	an immediate interest rate reduction on Farm Credit Corporation loans so that viable refinancing of farms can take place.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the subject we are debating today is certainly not new. The subject, in perspective, is simple, namely, interest rates. In listening to the discussions in this House today, my mind went back to the introduction of the Western Grain Stabilization Act some seven years ago. I remember at the time trying to understand the formula. I expressed my concerns at that time in the House to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I said, "There is no one who can understand the formula. It will not work". He said, "I understand it and it will work". Seven years later, we are back to reality.
May 3, 1984

As one of my colleagues said a moment ago, the happiest guys in western Canada are the ones who stayed out of the plan. It is essentially a lottery.
What the Government has done in this academic-type of formula is to average out a farm area which extends a thousand miles east and west. There are whole sections in that farm area which have had two, three, four or five bad years in the last seven years, yet the farmers there are not allowed to collect. The plan is based on an average over the whole area- the largest, homogeneous agricultural area in the world.
That was the fault of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act of 1938. That Act was scrapped in 1957 and replaced with a crop insurance program. Any pretence in the House that legislation, which was brought forward to cope with the difficulties under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, will be resolved in the next two or three weeks and presented to the House is nothing but sheer, unadulterated fraud and scam. It would take the best brains in the world to improve this Act to make it work. That is why my colleague was quite wise when he said a moment ago that the luckiest guys are the ones who did not join the plan. They can take the amount of their contributions, put them out at bank interest, and have three times as much coming as the Government is attempting to provide under these amendments. It is the farmers' money. They do not even use government money.
In my area, we passed a resolution on this nine months ago. We knew the Government's plan would not work. We decided to pass out all of the money, have the interest come back, and we would do our own stabilization. We decided to let the nitwits in Ottawa spend the next 100 years trying to figure out a new formula that would work. It would take them that long when dealing with such a vast agricultural area where the weather cannot be controlled by public servants or by Ministers.
The motion by the NDP is very timely and supports what has been going on on this side of the House for four years. I went back and looked at a motion brought to the House three years ago by the Conservative Opposition, dated June 1, 1981. It read:
-extending the Small Business Development Bond to unincorporated farmers,
That was part of the Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), under the administration of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), which set up the small business development bond concept. The motion was rushed through and became law before the Government was defeated. It applied that principle to individuals as well as incorporated individuals and incorporated companies. It was a motion put forward on June 1, 1981, by the Official Opposition in answer to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) request of the Opposition that it put forward ideas which would be helpful and constructive, ideas which the Government could act on. That was the first proposal.
The second proposal was to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act, the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the capital gains tax to ensure that Canadian farmers had access to
Supply
necessary and sufficient funding. Those were the general resolutions put forward in a motion by the Opposition on an Opposition Day three years ago less one month. The next year, the Government brought forward amendments to these pieces of legislation. That was on March 30, 1982-two years plus a couple of months ago.
The Government brought in legislation. One piece dealt with the Farm Credit Corporation to get away from the high interest rates that the Treasury of Canada was charging the Farm Credit Corporation. The Bill recommended that the Farm Credit Corporation be allowed to borrow money by any means. I stood in the House and congratulated the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that he should be so lucky as to have an amendment before him that allowed him to do anything he wanted in order to get interest rates down. He accepted that praise. He went on television and made a statement that he would be doing that immediately. That was in 1982. It was two years and two months ago that all this happened. The Minister stood in this House today and said that even if the Bill did come before the House and the amendments were passed, the Government would still be unable to make a payment until the fall, and then only a small fraction of it because the Government cannot bend the formula too much.
Seven years ago, when this Bill originally came out, I wrote to my constituents and recommended that they stay out of the plan. I told them that it was like a lottery and that the only people who should participate are young farmers, farmers so young that they might live until they are old enough to have a chance in a million of getting something out of it. I suggested that they should start farming at 15 and plan to die at 75. It is a matter of luck. They are gambling on the weather as well as everything else which affects the growing of crops.
I do not want to push the point too far, but this was lousy legislation from the very beginning, supported by academic minds going back to Cornell University 60 years ago. My God, the Minister had to stand and take the rim-rocking he took today. He spread through this Chamber vapours of fertilizer that covered the whole area for an hour, but it still is fertilizer.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer is meeting a cash flow situation, and not just in the west where the western grain stabilization is in effect, but all across the country. His gross income is steady, but the cost inputs have risen so dramatically during the last seven or eight years that even the most efficient farmer in the world cannot accomplish a net gain because there is a cost in there which grew over which he had no control. It was foisted on him by a government which pushed the banks into a deliberate policy of high interest rates thought up by the morons in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance who believe you can stop inflation by raising interest rates. Exactly the opposite is the truth, Mr. Speaker. I have said in this House over and over again that interest rates are the main cost. Interest rates are the inflation.

May 3, 1984
Supply
If one looks at the figures for 1982, one sees that every large corporation in Canada averaged out all its costs. If you isolate the main cost, you find that 62 per cent of all the costs of every major corporation in Canada in the year 1982 was in interest. If that does not get through the fog, the brick wall which surrounds the minds of these mandarins who follow a theory which was proven wrong 30 years ago, then this country is doomed, as is the United States and all of Europe as we follow willy-nilly this nonsense that the civil servants of all our countries can plan so much better than the individual. That is the issue here. I would say that this motion, put into this perspective, serves once again, Mr. Speaker, to remind the people who are listening, reading, watching and worrying, that there is still hope.
This Parliament has amended the Farm Credit Corporation Act which enables that corporation to borrow money at half the interest rates and lend it out at half the interest rates, not costing the federal Treasury a nickel but ensuring that there is fair value for the money. In the original Farm Credit Corporation Act we charged the farmers by statute a maximum of 5 per cent. This Government, which has been in office for the last 20 years, ignored that statute, ignored that pledge of honour to the farmers in all parts of Canada. Now there is a long-term interest rate of 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
We must honour this Minister, who is not an evil man. He would do the right thing if he only knew what it was. He was all for the Farm Credit Corporation Act three years ago when he introduced it. All Parties supported him in 1982 when it was suggested that it be amended. He said he was going to do it. Why has he not? Because there is another clause in that legislation which says, "With the approval of the Department of Finance". You can understand now, Mr. Speaker, the candidate for the Leader of the Liberal Party when he says, "When I become Prime Minister I want to be able to fire Ministers of Finance which ignore Parliament". Well, he can start right now. There are three of them all along the line, such as, for example, the Hon. Mr. Turner, the Hon. Jean Chretien, and I am naming them just to make it clear. They are now candidates. Four successive Ministers of Finance have bent their knees to the dictates of a few in the Department of Finance who say that they and God walk alone with the truth.
It is not a new phenomenon. It happens all over the world. When Ministers, and ex-Ministers particularly, get down to talk to their counterparts from all the countries of the world, whether it be Russia, China, the United States, Great Britain, France or Italy, it does not make any difference to the civil servants which Party is in power. They call the tune. That is the real issue we are facing across Canada and in many other nations. When are we going to tackle this mythology that only the elite can rule, the self-styled elite? They actually believe religiously that once you graduate from a well-known university, climb up the ladder with your nose in the right attitude and arrive at the right place, you alone speak with God.
On this particular motion, I know where the hearts of every Member of Parliament are. We are all together on this issue, whether we are Liberal, NDP or Conservative, but the time
has to come sooner or later when Cabinet Ministers are willing to resign their positions if Parliament's wishes are being changed. Until a Cabinet Minister is willing to resign on principle and say why, there will be no change.
That is the question which should be asked of these candidates who are running for the leadership of the Liberal Party today. Are they going to volunteer to resign if they become leader and Find themselves overruled by their own employees? That is the tragedy of what we are witnessing today. This is not a matter just for farmers. It is a matter for small-businessmen, young people trying to buy a home, older people as well as people trying to go into the export business with the great risk and uncertainty that goes with it. Even the great and the mighty are on their knees: Massey-Ferguson, International Harvester, General Motors, Ford. You never saw such great enterprises coming to Government so fast to get help. The fact is that we are not fighting a mist, we are fighting a belief, a single belief which is quantitatively wrong. Therefore, let us, as Members of Parliament, once again reassert the dominance which the people have given us by electing us and say that we are willing to vote against our own Party, that we are willing to resign from positions of power, if Parliament's wishes are broken. But Ministers just seem to accept this situation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has apologized to this House. Parliament has said that all children, orphans or not, have equal right to family allowances. Yet regulations put through by Order in Council, which the Ministers do not know anything about, said that neither orphans nor pregnant teenage girls can get family allowance. Who else in Parliament has stood up with me and kept pounding at that issue? There are no votes among the orphans who are under 18. And here is a similar case where the will of Parliament, supported by all Parties of this House in 1982, on the question of interest rates, on these four subjects, is being flouted and ignored, and the Minister does not even know it.
There was an advertisement which appeared three weeks ago in all the rural papers of Saskatchewan with the picture of the Minister of Agriculture. He is preaching the views of the experts in his own Department. I do not know whether or not he read it. He is talking to the people of Saskatchewan, and this is what he said:
World demand for grains and oilseeds is expected to increase by up to 50 per cent in the next 10 years.
There are also new markets appearing for our meat products in many Pacific countries too.
It is exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker, of what his colleague in the other place is telling the farmers and what the Minister said today. There is a great future for agriculture in every country of the world! The Minister knows it. We all know it. There is a great future for our forest and fibre industries, as well as our fish industry. Everyone knows it. The World Food Council has been warning the world, asking us to rally our strength and produce all we can. There will be money made by all countries out of this. Yet we cannot change the law. My God, all you need do is to bring in an item in the Estimates,
May 3, 1984

get it through and you will correct it when you get around to changing the law. They do it all the time.
To sit here as a representative of a rural area and have to listen to that claptrap, Mr. Speaker, comes real hard. I have looked into the faces of these farmers who have fought so hard to get up and going these last 30 years. They have seen all they fought for put in danger today because the Government would not follow the laws of this Parliament which allows them to cut interest rates in half and no one loses any money.
I speak with some feeling, Mr. Speaker, because I have dealt with this subject for many decades. But I say to this House once again that there is no place for any one of us to hide on this issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? For debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to inform the House about what the Government has done for farmers over the past years through the Farm Credit Corporation. 1 realize there are still some serious problems in the agricultural industry, but the situation is not as gloomy as some people would have us think. The federal Government is providing substantial assistance to Canadian farmers who are suffering the effects of the present economic situation. The Government's intervention is not a temporary affair but goes back to 1929, when the Canadian Farm Loan Board was created to help farmers who were unable to obtain all the long term farm credit they needed. The Board and its successor, the Farm Credit Corporation, have been meeting farmers' needs for 55 years now.
To give Hon. Members an idea of the funds invested by the Corporation in farming, the Corporation now has about 79,300 active loans, representing a total investment of $4.7 billion at this time. This clearly represents a substantial contribution to the financial well-being of Canadian farmers. During the Financial year ending on March 31, 1984, the Corporation approved some 5,736 loans under its regular credit program and the special Farm Financial Assistance Program, totalling $758 million, which represents an increase of $141 million over the previous year. Not long ago, the Government approved a budget for approximately $825 million, the funding that will be available to the Farm Credit Corporation for loans to Canadian farmers in 1984-85.
The mission of the Farm Credit Corporation is to help young farmers and farmers who are just starting, in other words, farmers whose assets are not sufficient to serve as collateral for loans from commercial lenders. The Farm Credit Corporation plays a vital role. Young farmers and owners of small, developing farms are far more vulnerable than estab-
Supply
lished operations. They have fewer assets but need considerable capital to establish and maintain a viable operation. Furthermore, they must be able to borrow capital on favourable terms, something the commercial sector is unable to provide. In fact, the floating interest rates or rates adjustable at frequent intervals that are offered by the commercial sector do not take into consideration the particular constraints of the agricultural sector.
Throughout the Canadian labour force, the only people who are really suited to primary farm production and who are anxious to work in this area are the sons and daughters of farmers. They are, in fact, the only people with a knowledge and practical experience of farming.
We must therefore facilitate the transfer of farm operations to the younger generation, so as to keep this human resource in the farming sector, and maintain and increase productivity in the agricultural industry.
This will happen only if we offer interest rates at reasonable levels as well as favourable credit terms, something commercial financial institutions normally do not do.
In addition, family farms are transferred gradually. In general, the son or daughter will purchase the farm bit by bit while acquiring the assets and experience needed. Eventually, they take over the whole operation. As the land itself is the basic requirement for most farm producers, beginners generally need credit to purchase land. On the average, farm real estate represents close to 80 per cent of total investment needs in agriculture. Credit requirements for land purchases are therefore very high. While parents generally want to help their son or daughter get established on the farm, they must recover the assets accumulated in their farm to be able to retire, or to distribute their property equitably amongst the family members. Even young people who are getting started with the assistance of their family will therefore need credit on terms not generally offered by the business sector. This is where the Farm Credit Corporation comes in. At the present time, the FCC offers the farm community loans of up to $350,000 or $600,000, depending on whether the operation involves one or more eligible applicants.
The Farm Credit Corporation loan limits were increased twice during the last three years to meet the needs of farmers more adequately. In view of the special financing requirements of farm operations, the Government has offered them, by way of the Farm Credit Corporation, long term farm credit programs on terms not generally available either to them or to other small businesses, to promote farm production. These terms include mortgages at interest rates frozen for Five, ten or thirty years, repayment periods of up to thirty years, flexible repayment schedules, a recovery policy which takes into account temporary financial problems and the cyclical nature of farm income, loans of up to 100 per cent of the assets stated as equity as well as a financial advice and consultation service for farmers.

May 3, 1984
Supply
The Farm Credit Corporation puts a lot of energy into its consultation services program because the farmer needs a sound understanding of financial management in order to succeed. The FCC offers advisory services at the preliminary stage, when the loan is approved and at various subsequent stages. While financial advice is available to all farmers, the FCC concentrates on its new borrowers or on other borrowers in need and those who request assistance.
The purpose of the advisory services offered by the FCC is to help farmers manage the financing of their operations in such a way as to eventually reach their personal and economic goals.
The FCC borrowers who need advice are generally those with limited assets and a high level of indebtedness, with an expanding operation but little experience, with a high-risk operation or financial difficulties. The credit advisors of the FCC provide borrowers with the assistance they need to start a bookkeeping system, and to interpret and analyze financial data so that they can identify and solve problems as soon as these crop up. Borrowers normally follow the program for two or three years. This is long enough for them to learn to manage their financial affairs efficiently. As of March 31, 1984, 4,800 borrowers were registered in the consultation services program, which accounts for 30 per cent of all FCC borrowers.
In addition to managing these credit programs, the FCC co-operates with other federal agencies and departments, provincial governments and private credit institutions to meet the special needs of the agricultural industry. For several years now, it has been co-operating with the Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Alberta and has been involved in their interest subsidization programs. The FCC has intensified its efforts in this field in 1982 and 1983 by being involved in the Saskatchewan farm purchasing program as a lending institution.
Last year, the FCC signed an agreement with the Province of Ontario to act as a lending institution under the assistance program for new farmers.
The FCC lends to farmers who represent high risks for the private sector. A survey carried out by the corporation has shown that the average Canadian farm had net assets of 85 per cent. On the other hand, those farmers who obtained a regular loan from the FCC had net assets of nearly 50 per cent in the last five years. The average net assets of farmers who obtained a loan under the special Farm Financial Assistance Program were even lower, namely 35 per cent in the 1983-84 fiscal year and 40 per cent in the previous year.
The loan-to-equity ratio is also indicative of the risks involved. As the FCC was authorized in 1975-76 to lend up to 100 per cent of the value of the property offered as equity, the loan-to-equity ratio is increasing. The FCC has granted a
greater percentage of its loans to farmers who offer less equity than in the past. This tendency to lend to farmers with lower net assets and a higher loan-to-equity ratio results from the fact that the corporation is lending to younger farmers with limited resources, and also from the difficult economic situation.
The special Farm Financial Assistance Program was reintroduced in the June 1982 budget. Loans to farmers under 35 continue to account for the larger part of the funds loaned by the FCC, making up 62 per cent of the total. Most of these farmers own little land and have few personal assets. Whether they want to get into farming or to extend their operation, these young farmers must borrow larger amounts for longer periods. Many of them, especially those who must consolidate their debts, cannot offer additional equity, which means an even higher loan-to-equity ratio.
As Hon. Members are aware, the FCC has administered the special Farm Financial Assistance Program since its implementation in November 1981.
Under this program, farmers facing financial disaster were offered for a two-year period an interest rebate on their loans from the FCC. Parliament allocated funds to the FCC to cover the rebate guaranteed on these special loans.
When the program was launched in November 1981, the Government had set aside an overall budget of $50 million, including $5 million for interest rebates of 5 per cent, the key element. The funds earmarked for the program were soon exhausted and it ended on March 31, 1982.
This time the interest rebate has been set at 4 per cent and the $200 million allocated to the program have made it possible to pay out $16 million in interest rebates. The program was renewed in the April 1983 Budget with an additional $100 million Government commitment.
Between November 1981 and March 31, 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation spent in excess of $341 million under this program and more than 2,200 Canadian farmers had received or are still receiving assistance thanks to the program.
When the program was set up, the Government was expecting the economy to pick up steam during the two-year rebate program. We all know that the recovery was sluggish in the agricultural sector, and the Government is now considering the possibility of extending the rebate period or other mechanisms to help farmers who are still strapped for cash. As the Minister pointed out, a decision will be made soon.
Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize that the role of the Farm Credit Corporation is to make mortgage loans available only to those farmers who are now considered as high risk ventures. The Farm Credit Corporation was not established to assume the responsibilities of the banks or extend credit to commercial agricultural operations. In the late seventies, when the agricultural economy was booming, commercial lenders asked for a larger slice of that market. Despite a decline in agricultural
May 3, 1984

activities, I expect that they will continue to make farm loans. The Government is keeping a close watch on long-term agricultural loan market trends and is considering various alternatives to provide funding for the Farm Credit Corporation. For its part, the FCC is now seeking ways to reduce rates on those high interest loans. The Government is firmly committed to support the agricultural community and we are trying to find the best means to shore up that industry just as it is getting out of the doldrums.
I should like to remind Hon. Members that the Farm Credit Corporation is one of the very few lending institutions whose loan recovery policy is geared to the cyclical nature of farm income. As long as an agricultural operator stands a reasonable chance of pulling himself out of a precarious financial situation, the FCC will give him free rein.
The federal Government helps Canada's agricultural community through credit programs on which farmers can rely to make their operations more profitable. It is through the Farm Credit Corporation long-term mortgage loan programs and the medium-term loan program under the Farm Improvement Loans Act that the federal Government makes sure that Canadian agriculture remains one of the most efficient and most productive sectors of our economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? For debate, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate inasmuch as it affects the area which I represent, namely, that of Okanagan-Similkameen. I congratulate you on your correct pronunciation, Mr. Speaker. Some others have failed in that regard.
The farmers in Okanagan-Similkameen, and in British Columbia as a whole, face, I believe, the most desperate circumstances of any farmers in all of Canada. Therefore, it is appropriate that we speak to this resolution today.
I have in my possession a letter which I recently received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), which begins with this statement:
It was with some dismay that I read a report in the British Columbia Grower's News, entitled "M.P. Raps Government" ... the report cites statements by you criticizing the scarcity of funds available through the FCC and the outrageously high rate of interest for what loans the corporation does make.
The letter goes on to say:
1 would like to take this opportunity to inform you of some of the things Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Government have done, and are doing, for the fruit farmers of British Columbia.
I believe he must have circulated his three-page letter to everyone in his caucus because there has been a repeated recitation of the points made in the Minister's letter to myself. The Minister is certainly justified in explaining to me, to the House, to Canadians, and to the world-wide constituency, of which he is so pleased to speak and which he claims to
Supply
represent at every opportunity, the contributions of the federal Government to Canadian agriculture. No one disputes that. Likewise the farmers of Canada, and of British Columbia in particular, are justified in telling the Minister of the areas in which he is failing them. They are significant to their difficulties.
In the statement recently circulated by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which deals largely with farm credit, a number of resolutions and points are made to which the Minister, I think, should pay attention because they would assist the farm community. The Federation of Agriculture had a resolution about the elimination of the 9 per cent federal sales tax on farm fuels. We agree with that. It speaks of Section 31-restricted farm losses and the application of that section. We agree with that. It speaks of amendments to the capital gains tax law. It speaks of duties and sales taxes on imported agriculture products. It speaks of tariff protection. It speaks of stabilization payments. Most specifically, it focuses on the Farm Credit Corporation, its policy and the ability of the FCC to address the concerns of the Canadian farmer.
Yesterday, Mr. Jack Wessell, General Manager of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, together with Mr. Harold Allison who comes from my riding, a rancher of note, Vice-president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and Chairman of the B.C. Cattlemen's Committee, were in Ottawa bringing a message of special concern from B.C. farmers of the very special and damaging circumstance with which B.C. farmers must contend, circumstance which this Government and this Minister seem inclined to ignore and gloss over in their statements and policies. These deal with the high cost of labour, land, equipment and supplies, which are the highest costs in Canada. In many cases they are the highest costs in the world.
I would like to point out to the House and to the Minister, because I know he will read my speech with rapt attention, the labour situation that exists in British Columbia. This is an area with a highly organized labour force. Farmers in British Columbia must compete with other areas of employment. Just last week we met with a group of mining executives from British Columbia who pointed out to us that the costs of mining in British Columbia are the highest in the world. The labour costs in British Columbia mining are the highest in the world. In the forest industry in British Columbia the situation is the same. The labour costs are the highest in the world. In transportation as well the labour costs are the highest in Canada and perhaps in the world. And then we have food merchandising. Let me read from the March 1984 issue of Country Life, which is British Columbia's agricultural newspaper. The article reads:
According to a recent article in the Vancouver Sun, these food workers are now approaching the second year of a two-year agreement which saw wages rise 85 cents an hour last year, and will see wages again rise 76 cents to 83 cents this April.
These raises will bring the hourly wages of a part-time clerk stocking shelves in the store to $16.78 an hour, while full-time clerks in the same category will earn $618 for a 40 hour week: a total of $32,136 a year.

May 3, 1984
Supply
It goes on to explain that on top of that there is an additional about 40 per cent in benefits. The article continues:
To add insult to injury, a comparison of the wages of the retail employees to similar employees in other parts of North America is in order.
It goes on to compare the $16 an hour in B.C. for food handlers to the $12 in Ontario. It is much less in Manitoba and much, much less in the State of Washington, U.S.A. The writer of this article states:
! don't think it is hard to understand why local fruit growers only receive less than five cents a pound for apples, while consumers pay more than 50 cents a pound.
That is the cry of agriculture in general. Why can we not get more of the money which the consumer pays? The Minister knows that these circumstances exist and that they plague B.C. agriculture. He has been there. He has met with farmers in British Columbia.
A few weeks ago I participated in a meeting in Kelowna at which the Minister met representatives of the B.C. fruit tree industry. This meeting was a direct result of representations which I made to the Minister following a very dramatic Labour Day rally in Penticton at which nearly 1,000 farmers, many with tractors and trucks which tied up highway traffic, took their protest to the public.
During the meeting with the Minister, one intelligent, industrious, keen orchardist-and I see the Minister coming into the House and he will remember that man-explained the situation of high costs. I think it was Rob Dawson who indicated to the Minister the high level of wages which must be paid to Okanagan farm labour, high in comparison with other areas of Canada and in comparison with other competing areas in the world. He posed a question to the Minister: How do we survive in this circumstance? I remember well the Minister's response. He said, "I hope you are not suggesting that you should pay lower wages". I am sure the Minister remembers that. Of course, that is not the position which the farmers of B.C. take. We know that farm workers are not overpaid for what they do. We know that we must maintain wage scales competitive with other segments of the B.C. economy if we are to have labour on farms.
I recite this episode because it demonstrates an absolute contradiction in the position which the Minister is taking with respect to the B.C. farm community. On the one hand he says, as he did to Rob Dawson in Kelowna, "I hope you are not suggesting that you should pay lower wages", in other words go on paying the highest farm wages in the world. Go on paying for all the social benefits which are demanded as part of your employment payments. Go on paying the highest cost for agricultural land in Canada. Go on paying the highest costs for water, power, services, farm equipment and supplies. In telling the farmer to keep on paying these highest costs, the Minister contradicts his position as indicated in his statement on stabilization. Now he changes his tune and says that he recognizes no differences in input costs and that stabilization is at the same level from coast to coast. Not only did he state that, but he indicated that if a provincial Government recognizes that these cost differences exist and does something to
assist farmers to cope with higher costs, the federal Government will penalize them. In other words, he is saying that if the Province of British Columbia helps farmers to stay in business, to keep from going bankrupt, to pay their bills and labour costs, the federal Government will penalize them by refusing them stabilization. Mr. Wessel and Mr. Allison came to Ottawa to plead with the Government on behalf of B.C. farmers. They wanted the Government to recognize the circumstances because if it did not B.C. farmers could not exist. I suppose we could say, so much for co-operative federalism, so much for the philosophy or the attitude of the man who has hopes to lead the Liberal Party!
Only a few days ago we heard an Hon. Member on the government side talking in the House about getting payments out when they should get out. We should get them out to the people when they need them. At that time I rose to speak about the Minister's kind letter to me in which he mentioned stabilization payments being made on behalf of apple growers for the 1982 crop. It was marvellous, but the problem was that the payment came in 1984. We must remember that farmers started having input costs to produce their 1982 crop in November, 1981. Many farmers have told me, the Minister and anyone who would listen, that by the time the payment arrived they had used up most of its benefit in bank interest. They should get the payment out when it is helpful. I am sure the Minister appreciates that. Farmers appreciate it when it comes in the form of a cheque with a date that means something to them.
The Minister is aware of some of the irritants affecting farmers. We should not be nit-picking over detail when they are in trouble. I am thinking of the protest in the Okanagan which was brought to the attention of the Minister at a meeting in Kelowna. I know it is a tough, controversial issue. It concerns retroactive changes to the crop insurance program which prejudice the interests of orchardists who signed up in good faith and discovered later that the program had changed. I believe it was pointed out to the Minister that some $1 million was involved or had been reduced from payments made to farmers who were already in deep trouble. Many of them will probably be unable to survive.
I had occasion to meet with guests today from the Okanagan who told me that three or four orchards in south Okanagan have gone into receivership or bankruptcy. They told me about their peach operations, how advance payments were made and then at the end of the season they had to repay money to the packing house which advanced payments, through the federal Government program I admit. The payment from the market to peach growers in the Okanagan was $58.84 per tonne. This is what the selling agency was able to send to packing house organizations for distribution to growers. However, it cost about $400 per tonne to produce the crop. Certainly their costs are higher than in other areas of Canada, but these are the facts.
May 3, 1984

How can the Minister justify saying to farmers faced with deficits that he knows it costs $400 per tonne to produce peaches, that the market returns $58.84 per tonne, but if the provincial Government gives them any assistance, they will be penalized in the national interest? That does not make sense. No farmer in British Columbia will accept that philosophy, nor should they be asked to accept it.
Farmers know what appeared in the headlines of the Osoyoos Times over a dramatic picture of a dump truck dumping tonnes and tonnes of packed peaches last year because there was no market for them. Why was there no market? It was because the federal Government allowed imported peaches into the country as fresh fruit and in canned or processed condition. There were no hindrances. The anger of the farmers was demonstrated in the Labour Day rally. They asked for some protection to be provided, not against reasonably-priced products but against products that were dumped from other producing countries, notably Australia. The Minister knows the effect of Australian packed fruit, processed and canned fruit, in the Okanagan. It has resulted in the closing down of every cannery in the Okanagan Valley but one, and it is now in the process of being sold.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets interrupting the Hon. Member, but his speaking time has come to an end.


Frederick John King: I am sorry too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member will be able to answer questions in the 10-minute period provided for questions or comments.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I left Cabinet committee to come down here to hear the Hon. Member. I hope I heard all his comments, but quite a bit of what I heard was a little inaccurate, I might say.
He talked about imports. He knows what representatives of his own province said when there was a discussion about controlling imports. They said that they could not do that because they exported lumber. He knows very well that they export apples to some 30 or perhaps 40 countries and have done so for years. When we talk about imports and exports, it is a two-way street. If we are to be rough on some imports, we can be sure that someone will be rough on our exports.
Also he talked about the crop insurance changes. He knows full well that the province initiated the changes in crop insurance. It was not the federal Government. We practically okayed what they wanted. The members of the advisory committee on crop insurance were asked what they thought about it, according to the records that I have, and they did not see much wrong with it, until they discovered that the new plan in some instances was not as good as the old one, and they wanted to change it back. When talking about controlling imports, I remember a provincial Minister in British Columbia saying that British Columbia was one of the biggest exporters of lumber and of other horticultural crops to other parts of the world.
Supply
I am sure the Hon. Member knows quite a bit about crop insurance. He was an agent for that federally-funded program. Imagine, that terrible federal Government! He was actually an agent selling that insurance where the federal Government funds 50 per cent of the premium, the producer pays the other 50 per cent, and the province administers the program. As an agent, he was paid for doing that.
The Hon. Member knows that stabilization is not the same from coast to coast, unless it is a nationally-marketed commodity. There are eastern and western regions for stabilization. The Hon. Member could have read the whole letter and stated how many millions of dollars I was able to send to the two different groups. I am going by memory, but I believe it was a total of $8 million to buy surplus products in their warehouses so there would not be distressed selling. That money was provided interest-free. When you add all that we spend in British Columbia, you find that we care as much about agriculture in that province as does the provincial Government, and maybe a little bit more.
The Hon. Member talked about using income from the provincial plan. Does he not consider income from a government the same as income from a factory? He talked about treating people with equity. You have to take into consideration all of these programs. We offered 100 per cent income insurance under the stabilization program. That plan, which we offered federally, was superior to everything that British Columbia had, except the cow-calf program. They refused to join. They agreed that it was better for the other crops in British Columbia.
I repeat what I said earlier. We offered the plan, and not one province came forward and said it wanted the plan, that it would work out some kind of agreement. They did not accept it in 1977, but now they are asking for it. That is about all I want to say. I did not hear the rest of the Hon. Member's comments. You will notice that most of my comments were corrections to what he said.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister had been here from the beginning because I did mention his letter. I said he was certainly justified in explaining to everyone the federal Government's contribution to Canadian agriculture, and nobody disputes that. I also said that farmers have an equal right and justification to tell the Minister the areas in which he is failing.
With respect to tariffs, let me read what the British Columbia Minister of Agriculture said. I quote the following from the Penticton Herald of September 9:
Agriculture Minister Harvey Schroder said Wednesday he is seeking imposition of temporary tariffs on imported fruits and vegetables when they are surplus in British Columbia. The request was made on an informal base to Federal Minister Eugene Whelan.
It is true that crop insurance changes did originate with the provincial Government. The provincial Government asked the Minister and the federal Government not to impose those changes for one year. The provincial Government, which ini-

May 3, 1984
Supply
tiated the changes after seeing the implications, asked that they be withheld for one year.
I do not remember the point that was made regarding stabilization. I do remember the Minister saying that everything the federal Government was offering was superior to anything available in British Columbia. In that circumstance, why then are the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association here and why has the BCFGA made representations? Why are they making these representations if what the Minister is offering is superior? Obviously it is not superior. It is obvious that the provincial program of assistance recognizes that regional input costs are grossly higher than those which the federal Government notes on a national basis.
Obviously the provincial Government's program is much more attractive. It is the only reason why farmers in B.C., the Okanagan Valley in particular, are in existence today. It is because of the assistance provided by the provincial program. The Minister can laugh, but if he imposed his will, farmers in British Columbia would be put out of business.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must be aware of the recent B.C. budget which cut the Agriculture Minister's budget by several million dollars. The controlled atmosphere temperatures for storage for the fruit industry would not be there if it were not for the federal Government. They used half the federal budget in British Columbia. I congratulate them for that. The producers were quick to recognize the legislation and to take advantage of it. They did that to their advantage.
They did have a couple of bad years. The Hon. Member also knows they had ten good years previously when they were able to use the storage for their apples. The Hon. Member talked about stabilization for 1984. He knows that the final sales are not made for nearly a year. With the controlled atmospheric temperatures, you can keep apples that long. They are in excellent condition when they are taken out of storage and put on the market. The market can be supplied for 12 months of the year. The Hon. Member is intimating the 1982 crop was all sold in 1982 but the payments were not made until 1984. He knows the year-end is not until the new 1983 crop is about ready to be harvested in September.


Charles James Mayer: It should have been paid sooner.


Eugene Whelan: Why don't you just shut up for a minute? The Hon. Member makes noise, but that is about all he does. He has opposition in his own riding. When I was in Winnipeg the other day, I was told the Hon. Member has opposition in his riding because he is not right-wing enough. You asked me to say that, Charlie, and I did.


Charles James Mayer: You said you would come out and campaign for me. That would bring me back to the left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. We will resume debate at this time.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate because of the importance of the agriculture sector and the resource sector. The summary of the challenges and choices which came from the royal commission headed by the Hon. Donald Macdonald was made available a week ago. It states that one of the challenges is the resources and the environment.
One challenge is to manage Canada's resources for maximum benefit over time and to ensure a pattern of development in harmony with enhanced environmental quality to continue the emphasis on the primary sector engine of economic growth. It stresses "to continue the emphasis". Under our very capable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), this industry has gone forward. Unlike other sectors, we are subject to world economic conditions.
In his book entitled The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler points out that we can no longer isolate ourselves from the impact of conditions or policies that are put in place by other countries in the world. I look at this statement in the context of the huge surpluses and subsidies that are paid out in the European Common Market. I look at it in the context of the dropping commodity prices in the Canadian market. This is where we must look for assistance for Canadian farmers.
We have one of the highest standards of living of any country in the world. Consequently, we have set the precedent of a domestic price and an export price for some products that have been grown in Canada over the years. I believe that assistance to the farmers must come through the marketplace itself in co-ordination with the various policies that are brought forward by the Government and the Minister of Agriculture in particular.
I should point out that the sales tax which has been discussed here today is not a new tax that was brought in under the National Energy Program. That tax has existed for many years. In fact, the November, 1978 Budget reduced that tax from 12 per cent to the current 9 per cent.
To put this in perspective, I would like to place on the record some estimates of savings to farmers. After depreciation, fuel costs amount to a small percentage of a farmer's total costs. As a percentage of total costs after depreciation, fuel costs amount to approximately 8 per cent. Therefore, we are talking about a saving of a per cent of the cost of farm fuels, which account for 8 per cent of farm costs. In fact, we are talking about 9 per cent of 8 per cent. The excise tax on fuels is 1.5 cents per litre and is refundable upon application. This tax is not a net expense to the producer.
Another point I wish to make abundantly clear is that it is not only the federal Government that applies taxes to oil and gas producers. For example, in Saskatchewan, provincial royalties can be as high as 30 per cent although some wells and developments may enjoy three-year to five-year royalty holidays. Under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act in Alberta, a levy is imposed on the operators of oil and gas wells and oil
May 3, 1984

sands projects. This levy is basically a provincial Crown royalty on crude oil and gas, varying with production, based on a two-tier formula. This levy could amount to as much as 36 per cent, but at the present time is only 20 per cent.
On February 1, the Government of Canada reduced to zero the tax on natural gas and gas liquids. Was this saving passed on to the consumer? We must remember that farmers are consumers of natural gas as well. As most of us realize, natural gas is an ingredient of ammonia-based fertilizers. On checking the price of fertilizer, I have not found that it has decreased. In fact, the cost of natural gas to the consumer increased at the same time as this tax was removed.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Opposition is, if this tax to which we are referring is reduced, will that benefit be passed on to the farmers? Can members of the Opposition give me the assurance that this will happen, or will the prices simply increase to make up the difference between what it is now and what it will be if the tax is removed? I know that they cannot assure me that this benefit will be passed on, yet they are basing their argument on the assumption that the price to the farmers will be reduced automatically if the tax is removed. It did not happen with natural gas and I would certainly want some assurance that it would happen in this case.
Opposition Members have not suggested that there should be a reduction in royalties and taxes at the provincial level as well. However, members of the Opposition did not mention what happened in Ontario when dye was introduced into farm fuel. The Ontario Minister of Revenue passed legislation two or three years ago which required that colour be added to the diesel fuel used in farm vehicles and tractors to distinguish between that diesel fuel and the diesel fuel used in highway vehicles. What happened when that was done, Mr. Speaker? A great many of my constituents suffered severe damage to their farm equipment. Not only were the filters on those tractors and combines plugged up, but in some cases the injectors and engines were ruined. The introduction of this dye was legislated a few years ago and that type of dye was only changed last year after tremendous expense to the producers. If that type of dye were to be used in the fuel for highway vehicles, I can imagine what would happen on our highways, especially during rush hour. However, there must be some way of distinguishing between the fuel used for food production purposes and the fuel used for highway vehicles.
One point that neither of the Opposition Parties mentioned is that as a result of the Government's pricing agreement on energy, there has already been a huge saving to the Government. This saving has affected not only Canadian farmers but all consumers, and it came about because of the blended energy price formula which was brought in under the National Energy Program. Opposition proposals would have created a higher price which, from what we understand, would have been effective until 1984. It is now the year 1984 and the Government's blended price is in place. That saving is accruing not only to the farming and producing sector but to our entire economy.
Supply
I believe that Canadian farmers should realize that there are other areas of savings that have been passed along to them. I would like to go one step further and point out to Canadian farmers that under the National Energy Program, we achieved self-sufficiency as of last November. Over 4,000 oil wells were drilled and completed in Canada in 1983. I am speaking now of oil wells and not of gas wells. Previously, the best year for the drilling and completion of oil wells was 1980, before the National Energy Program came into effect, at which time approximately 2,600 oil wells were drilled and completed.
I could go one step further and compare those figures with United States figures. The ratio is approximately the same. Approximately 10 times the number of wells were drilled in the United States during those same years as in Canada. The National Energy Program has been a success and has increased the level of Canadian ownership from approximately 28 per cent to 38 per cent.
The Government has moved in these areas to make sure that one of our strategic resources has been Canadianized. We have also made sure that we have become self-sufficient. Although we do not have a long-term security of supply in the oil sector yet, judging by the number of oil wells drilled and completed in Canada this year, we are well on our way toward achieving that security of supply.
We do admit that there has been a decrease in the number of gas wells drilled. In the Province of Alberta alone, there are something like 11,000 gas wells which are capped because the market for natural gas is not sufficient. Consequently, operators haved eased off on the drilling of gas wells. However, this has been a success, and I would like to indicate that there has been tremendous progress made since the federal Government introduced the National Energy Program.
I would like to reflect back just for a moment. I see here the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I know he would like to speak and I intend to give him ample time.
A little over two weeks ago I spoke in the House about the rural economy and the pressures that farmers are facing. I am well aware of the hardships, particularly those faced by farmers who do not have a large amount of equity in their operations-young people who are trying to get established. They are confronted with higher input costs on the one hand and lower receipts for the products they sell on the other. They are caught in a very difficult position. The Farm Credit Corporation, as was pointed out earlier today, has increased the amount of funding available to them. That is not the only answer. We must have in Canada a countervailing force in the marketplace to counteract the buying power of the very large retail chains which have formed buying groups to put pressure on the marketplace. In many cases it is fair to assume that producers' prices are set at the retail level and reflected downward-everyone else having a share of the profit if there is one. We have to re-examine the whole pricing sector in Canada if we are to achieve the maximum potential of our resource sector.

May 3, 1984
Supply
I said at that time that farmers should study the legislation available to them, both at the provincial and at the federal level to enable them to establish a price at the farmgate that would reflect their costs of production, plus a reasonable return on investment and labour.
I do not think there have been any suggestions presented here today or two weeks ago when there were two Opposition Days in the same week. I do not think any of the proposed actions, individually, will put the farm sector back on its feet. It has to be a co-ordinated effort involving programs put forward by the Minister of Agriculture. The House must consider some new programs, which I will speak about at another time. I have been in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture regarding some new proposals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions? Are we resuming debate? Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this afternoon on the motion, but I want to be fair to my hon. friend from the NDP who wishes to say a few words. I will attempt to split with him the time that is remaining. I know that the Minister, who is here, would like to hear both of us.
There is no end to the problems in the agricultural industry despite the fact that the Minister, in his condescending way, and the Member who has just finished speaking tell farmers how well off they are, how good they have it and how benevolent a government they have looking after their needs. This Government is managing the crisis in agriculture. It has and it will. There are no programs. There are no schemes. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. They are managing the crisis. And yet the farm economy in our country is measured by the bankruptcies that are experienced every year. It is measured by increases or decreases in the farm economy every year. The Minister and the $800 a day royal commissioner will tell us that we have to look at the history. At the turn of the century 49 per cent of the working population of this country was involved in some agricultural-related activity, today it is less than-what is it, Mr. Minister, 3 per cent?


Eugene Whelan: It is 4.4 per cent.


Frank Oberle: It is 4.4 per cent. Well, it is less than 3 per cent in the United States. So I assume that the Government plans to reduce that percentage and reduce family farms-this rural, unsophisticated, smelly kind of business-to get on with concentrating and integrating farm operations. It will get into it in a big way because this Government obviously thinks that big is always better. The Government thinks that the family farm is really a way of life that belongs in the past. I say that it is not a way of life that belongs in the past, although I agree that it has become a very expensive way of life.
Farmers pay very dearly to live on the farm. They contribute much of their energy and resources to keep the family farm alive, despite the Government. Farmers throughout the country agree that it is high time and a matter of urgent
priority for Canadians to bring about a change in government. We need a government that is committed to a different set of priorities in terms of the industrial and economic structure of our country-priorities which put emphasis on the prime resource sectors of our economy; agriculture being the main pillar, along with mining, fishing and forestry. We must concentrate on our natural strengths once again and rebuild our economy that way. Only then can we pursue the high-tech, value added schemes for secondary manufacturing industries.
I would like someone to tell me, particularly the Minister of Agriculture who travels around the world, how are we to live with the high-tech revolution, our secondary manufacturing schemes, particularly in the aeronautics field? How are we to replace between $30 billion and $35 billion of foreign exchange earnings that are generated by agriculture, forestry and mining? It is a dream that is far in the future. We have to rebuild our prime resource sectors.
What are the problems in agriculture? It does not matter where you touch it, it is like an elephant. There is a problem everywhere you touch it. The key problems are laid out in this motion, the immediate pay-out of some of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, which incidentally belongs to the farmers. There is no intention of paying out any of the Government's money, as I understand it, from this fund. All that is being paid out is the farmers' money.
When we are told there is a fund, I do not believe there is a fund. Certainly, there is a bookkeeping entry, but the money is in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government. Of course, there is an accrual of interest, but there is not a fund. The Government has not paid into a fund. It is a bookkeeping entry. If the Government had paid into a fund it would have had to go elsewhere to borrow money to sustain its operations. Let us not be fooled about that. The Government has not been too generous. It does not pay anything toward this fund.
Why are we asking for an immediate pay-out of some of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund? The reason is that the average farmer in Canada does not have enough money to put in his crops. This, as it happens, is the season of the year when farmers put in their crops. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture understands that. It is in the spring when crops are planted. Whether it is tomatoes or wheat, whatever is put in, it is usually put in at that time of year-


Mr. Benjamin:: He is putting in a crop of a different kind.


Frank Oberle: That is right. He is trying to seed a crop of a different kind. His harvest is on June 16. Indeed, it will be one of the earliest crops. It will be a hail-out.
We do not want to be unkind to you, Mr. Minister, but it is not funny. The farmers are in this kind of financial situation because of a number of factors. They have all been enumerated here today and will be again in future debates. The input costs have increased out of all proportion, and what is particularly serious about the input costs is that they are uncontrollable. I suppose that if you cannot afford a new combine, you
May 3, 1984

can always buy a used machine. There are all kinds of used farm equipment one can pick up at auction sales. In our part of the country, there are all kinds of auction sales and every morning when you turn on the radio you are told about at least five or six of them because farmers just cannot hack it any longer. So you have some control over that. You can delay purchasing a new combine and buy a used one. But there are certain costs, so-called input costs, over which you have no control, such as fuel tax, and related to that is the cost of fertilizer. For the Minister's edification, when you plant a crop you always put on fertilizer right after, so that is a cost which accrues to the farmer at this particular time, not in October when the Minister is planning to make a stabilization pay-out. They are faced with these costs right now.
I will tell the Minister something else. The suppliers who supply the fertilizer and the fuel, the bulk plant agent in the farm community, do not have the flexibility either to carry the farmer for these five or six months. There is no flexibility left in the small and medium-business sector. It needs its money now.
The former speaker said that farmers should not be so ungrateful but should look at what we have done. We have secured ourselves of enough energy for the future and, not only that, we have Canadianized the industry. We now own the industry. Well, a big help that has been to the farmers! We now own PetroCan. We have paid out $6 billion to own a part or a greater share of the Canadian energy sector. That $6 billion has had to come from somewhere, and the farmers are paying a big share of that $6 billion. Has it created a new barrel of oil? Has it created any jobs? Of course not. We have our priorities all wrong. We should have established some priorities to save the family farm. We should have taken $2 billion of that $6 billion to help the farm economy. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the farmers have never asked to get anything for nothing.
We here in the capital decided that it is much better for us to have a so-called cheap food policy, that it is much better to make sure of our standard of living, and it is quite true, we do enjoy a very high standard of living in this country. However, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not owing to this Government. It is not owing to most of the other workers in our society. It is to the credit of our farmers who are working for nothing to grow cheap food so we have to spend only 24 per cent or 25 per cent of our disposable income on that commodity. That is not because of good management. That is because we have killed our farm economy and the farmers are working for nothing. They are not receiving any kind of return on their investment. Their investment is high. Land costs are very high. Machinery costs are very high. Yet the farmer still produces cheap food.
The Government says that if we did not have that cheap food policy and if the farmer were to get a return on his investment which is commensurate or equal to the return on the investment of any other industry, be it lumber or any other industry, food prices in this country would have to treble. That would happen if the farmer were to get a decent return on his investment similar to what is earned in any other industry.
Supply
Therefore, if the Government permitted that to happen, we would have to find some other way to help people buy food. We would need to have a sort of negative income tax or more welfare. Certainly, old age pensions would have to be doubled. That is the incredible situation which exists, and the Government has no flexibility, so it dumps it on the farmer. What makes it worse is that after having a cheap food policy in this country, we turn around and export that cheap food. We sell wheat and cereal grains below the cost of production everywhere in the world, to Japan, to Russia, and to the European Economic Community. A couple of years ago we sold barley to the European Economic Community. I believe it was at $ 140 a tonne. The European Economic Community knows that without a decent agricultural policy, if it relied on the rest of the world to provide it with its food, it would be in serious trouble. It is a sophisticated, modern industrial society, but it pays a lot of attention to its farm economy.
I do not know what the prices of barley are today. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) could tell us what they are a little later because he was involved with it on a daily basis, but two years ago the European Economic Community resold our barley. It bought it for $140 a tonne and resold it for $230 a tonne. Do you know what it did with the $90 profit? It gave it to its farmers in the form of a subsidy. That makes a lot of sense. We are the only innocent traders in the world. We are the only people, a lower middle power in terms of the industrial scheme in the world, who think that you should give away food. We think we should not enter into supply-management arrangements with foreign countries to protect our own interests. We think we should give everything away and pay what it costs in return for everything we import.
If this Government really wanted to do something, what it ought to do is to get together with the United States, Argentina and Australia which, combined, sell 95 per cent of the wheat and cereal crops, not to form a cartel or anything like that but to determine what the cost is of the production of the wheat which we give away to the rest of the world. Then we should arrive at an agreement, which may have to involve some production management and some schemes which would increase and decrease production. Then we could agree that no one would sell below that break even cost, and that break even cost would of course have to reflect the cost of production, including some return on the investment of the farmer, and the transportation costs.
After debating the Crow rate in the House for a year and a half, after we fought over who should get the subsidy and who should pay it and where it should go, we did not subsidize our farmers. We did not subsidize our railways. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, whom we are subsidizing. We are subsidizing Russia, Japan and the European Economic Community, because they are the people to whom we are shipping our grain. We are exporting our cheap food after spending a year fighting over who pays and who receives a subsidy. Not once did the Minister mention that we are not really subsidizing any of our own producers or our own railways. The cost of transportation

May 3, 1984
Supply
is a cost of delivery and production of this most vital of our prime commodities, and we are giving it away.
Has the Minister talked to the United States, to Argentina or to Australia to see what they are doing, because they are in the same fix. I have gone to Washington with some of my colleagues and talked to some of our counterparts down there. They are saying, "What a great idea. We must do it. But every time we talk, because we are the leaders in the field, we get it in the neck from Canada because it will underbid us. It does not want to talk to us".
Has the Minister ever given any thought to producing a kind of policy which would give us a reasonable return? Of course, the rest of the world is saying, "What a cruel hoax that would be, to arrive at a supply-management agreement among the food producing countries when the whole world is starving for our food production", and that is quite true. Naturally, we should make a contribution to a world food bank. We should be responsible in terms of the unique position we are in and of our potential and ability to grow food. We should recognize also that there is great need for our production out in the world. Is it really the responsibility of the food producing countries only or should the other industrial countries make a contribution? What would a scheme look like which would involve all industrial countries, including the communist countries? They should make a contribution to a world bank which would be there in times of need so that millions of people would not starve to death from time to time in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. An ambulance driver should not ask whether he is going to get paid when he picks up an accident victim. What a cruel hoax it would be for an ambulance driver to say: Can you pay for the ride? But he has to be paid. He is not going to leave someone lying in the ditch, but eventually he has to be paid.
The same is true for a food-producing country. It cannot be the responsibility of the farmers only in countries like Canada, Australia and the United States to maintain a cheap food policy which permits domestic consumers a very privileged standard of living. It cannot be the responsibility of producing countries only to maintain a cheap food policy to feed the world. No, there has to be a broader responsibility.
What can we do? We can get together with our industrial partners in the world. There is a starving world out there. We have the capacity to produce but we need help to produce cheap food. There is no shortage of demand for our food in the rest of the world, but there is a shortage of demand for food with a price tag attached. We could commit ourselves to producing the necessary infrastructure, storage and handling facilities to get our food to places where it is needed. Then the other industrial countries such as Germany, France, Japan and others would pay into the food bank. They would then ask: What would it cost? Well, it costs us $4.50 or $6.50 to produce a bushel of wheat. That would reflect transportation costs and everything else. That would be the floor price. The other industrial countries would pay into the food bank, we would
control and manage it and we would have one crop year of wheat in our storage bins ready to be delivered anywhere in the world. But we cannot do it on our own.
I am asking this Minister, sitting there smiling and grinning in his condescending way, if he has ever thought about anything like that? Has he ever talked to the other industrial countries and asked them whether they accept the responsibility of feeding a hungry world? Or is he going to continue to dump the social responsibility we have to the underprivileged in our country and the rest of the world on to the backs of our farmers? That is his policy now, but it is high time for a change.


Eugene Whelan: I just have a short comment, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to say that we have discussed this many times with our trading partners. But the United States refuses to become involved in that kind of venture. I think it is most necessary. I have said many times that it is wrong for us to subsidize our producers because they do not have enough of a return to give them a decent living and we are supplying food to other countries at a price below the cost of production. Some of those other countries may not want to produce their own grain so long as we are going to continue that kind of system. The U.S. spent $15 billion or $20 billion this year purposely to interfere in the market system, trying to make the commodities scarce.
Both the Hon. Member and I know that in Canada we have a system which is old, but it guarantees a year's supply of stocks on hand which will supply the market in an orderly fashion. I discussed that with the Minister of Agriculture of France, Michel Rocard, this week. I am really surprised, but happy, to see a Conservative suggesting this kind of a controlled marketing system, bringing order in the marketplace. I am very happy and it has been worthwhile listening to the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions? Resuming debate the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I found it fascinating to listen to this debate today. The first thing I want to say is that it would not have been necessary to move this kind of motion had the Government learned anything from the difficulties experienced in agriculture over the last 15 years. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was in this House when we dealt with the first grain stabilization Bill in 1970-71. At that time there were some Liberal Members of Parliament from western Canada. I invite the Minister, who sends out more speeches than any other Minister, to get his speech writers to do a little research into the record of debates. I also invite him to talk to his colleague at suppertime instead of doing so while I am speaking.


Charles James Mayer: They do not understand, so they will explain to each other.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister to talk to the former Member of Parliament for The Battlefords, Cliff
May 3, 1984

Mclsaac, and find out what he had to say about the western grain stabilization Bill in 1970-71, and the second Bill in 1974, 1975 and 1976.
In his press release the Minister said something about basing payments or triggering payments on cash flow. I and other Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, moved amendments on both grain stabilization Bills starting in 1971 to have the payments based on net income, not gross income. Well, he learned that much, but I want to remind him that he had better have two or three other amendments in his Bill, if and when he puts it in front of us, so that payments should be based not only on an overall basis but on a regional basis in the Canadian Wheat Board district. They could also be made out according to an individual crop.
The Bill is designed to protect the grain producers' income according to what the market is doing. Crop insurance will protect them from the weather and this legislation is supposed to protect them from the market. It is a double-barrelled operation. When we suggested that the payments should be made according to individual crops, as and when their prices fluctuate, the Government of the day, the then Minister of Transport, told us that we were getting into crop insurance. I invite the Hon. Minister of Agriculture to stay in the House and to check Hansard from 1970 to 1975.


Eugene Whelan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really want to stay and hear the Hon. Member but I have to catch an airplane. He can rest assured I will read Hansard and the great contribution I know he is going to make.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I must include in my comments a mention of the efforts made by many Members of the House to get a grain income stabilization program to protect grain producers from the fluctuations of the world market. To expect producers to bear the burden by themselves in competition with the treasuries of our competitors is totally unfair. The nation as a whole should share those costs.
I listened to a number of candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party last year, Mr. Speaker. I am now suffering through listening to seven Liberal candidates for the leadership of their Party this year.


Ralph Ferguson: You will not be disappointed this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hear them saying they are going to come up with new ideas. Well, what is wrong with the old ones since they have never been implemented? Old ideas such as, to quote Mr. Diefenbaker, parity, not charity. Old ones from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s: price related to the cost of production plus a decent living. What is wrong with those old ideas? They have never been implemented. Let us blow the dust off them and do it. The legislation, if and when we get it, must include additional amendments to those the Minister has proposed in his press release, which none of them want to announce in Parliament. They want to do it somewhere out in the hills.
Supply
I heard the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and other Members talk about higher freight rates. That is amusing, ironic and disgusting. This Party brought in legislation to raise the freight rates for farmers and forced it through. The ink was hardly dry on the legislation when a former Minister of Transport, executive vice-president of James Richardson and Sons, went out to Regina a week ago and cried about these poor grain producers having to pay higher freight rates and higher fuel taxes as a result of a Conservative budget in Saskatchewan. Where the heck was he last year? Mr. Lang was one of the leading spokesmen to erect the statutory grain rates and cause farmers to pay higher freight charges. The Tories are the ones who agreed with the Liberals that the Crow rate had to go and freight rates must go up. I agree that they said it should not be done today but, rather two or three years down the road. That is like cutting the dog's tail off one inch at a time instead of all at once. They both supported higher freight rates for grain producers, Mr. Speaker.


Charles James Mayer: So did you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know what happened to the old idea of parity, not charity, of prices related to the cost of production plus a decent living. Mr. Speaker, they have had parity all right. Since World War II there has been parity for banks, lenders and large corporations. They get their cost of production and profits. However, if it is a grain producer, a fisherman, a little storekeeper, or a lower middle income homeowner, they must tough it out and tighten their belts. They must show restraint.
Our agricultural producers cannot compete in a world market in terms of exports or imports unless this nation as a whole will commit the finances necessary to make sure they survive. There was a famous episode in the Parliament of the United Kingdom when Mr. Churchill brought in a reduction in the rations on coal and fish. Aneurin Bevan said to the then Prime Minister that England was an island of coal surrounded by a sea of fish and only the organizational genius of the Government could see to it that they have a shortage of both. It has only been due to the organizational genius of successive national governments in this place that we have lost three quarters of a million farmers across Canada since 1950. This wild rush to bigger-is-better and to make sure that banks do all right has resulted in the Farm Credit Corporation being nothing more than a lender of last resort at rates that are as high or higher than banks charge.
The Western Grain Stabilization Act needs to be dealt with quickly, Mr. Speaker. We can assure the Government that it can go through all stages in three days at the most. I am sure the Senate will need only a couple of hours when it comes to doing some work. When it comes to leisure, they can take weeks, but when it comes to doing some work, they will deal with it in a couple of hours. We can have Royal Assent on the evening of the third day. I will be willing to remain here for an extra hour if necessary. However, the amendment had better

May 3, 1984
Supply
include payments being triggered not only on a net income but based on a regional basis and on individual crops.
I hope the one farmer who is left sitting over there will ask the Minister to renew and reopen the ability to opt in and out under the revised grain stabilization Bill. The 25 per cent or more of the grain producers who opted out were smart. They realized that it is going to be four, five, six or more years before there is another pay-out. Most of them are ahead of the game. They would have liked to have come into the plan, but they saw what the plan would involve. It is like some insurance policies. You must be struck by lightning at high noon in front of the city hall on a Tuesday next year in order to collect. That is what was wrong with the grain stabilization Bill. The ability to opt in or out must be revised and updated. The Minister must include those additional amendments in the legislation. He had better table it for first reading and get going on second reading by next Tuesday or Wednesday.
The next item in the motion, Mr. Speaker, deals with the repeal of fuel taxes. As I mentioned earlier, the former Minister of Transport, the guy who helped kill the Crow rate, is crying because of the increased fuel taxes on railroads meaning higher freight rates for farmers. He was right. The headlines of recent weeks say that the new freight rates starting August 1 will be higher than expected. They are going to be higher than expected every year until 1991, Mr. Speaker. I hate people who say, "I told you so", but I did tell you so last year and the year before and the year before that. I hope that people on the Government side will believe me now. Mr. Speaker, those kinds of taxes on primary production are totally out of place, whether on farmers, fishermen or forest products. If we need to raise revenue we should raise it through our general tax system for all citizens based on ability to pay and based on the taxable income they earn, no matter how they earned it.
An immediate interest rate reduction requires that we do some of the things which Mr. St. Laurent did during the Korean War and which Mr. Diefenbaker did in 1959 and 1960. Sometimes they were ridiculed for it. They pegged the dollar and the interest rates and put on foreign exchange controls. They did not worry about what our dollar was worth compared to the American dollar. The issue is what our dollar is worth to us in Canada and what it is doing for us here. I do not know if my colleagues in my own caucus would agree with me, but I personally hope the Canadian dollar goes down some more compared to the American dollar. That is great for our exports.


Charles James Mayer: Exactly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But it makes our imports more expensive, so Canadians will buy more goods made in Canada. That is not protectionism. However, it is protecting our own people from what is going on in the rest of the world. I am not suggesting we can insulate ourselves entirely, but those are some of the things we can and should be doing.
I wish my Party had not had to move this motion today, Mr. Speaker. It should not have been necessary. I hope it will
persuade the Government to make efforts so that the whole nation will contribute to our tax system to cover costs for our farmers, fishermen and other primary producers whether it be for interest rates, grain prices, or whatever. That is a must. Let us quit worrying so much about the welfare and good order of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar, or the welfare and good order of bank profits and bailing out corporations or ensuring corporate profits. None of those corporations pay their fair share of taxes toward the cost of running this nation. Let us get the priorities reversed, as my colleague from Prince George-Peace River said. Let us look after the overwhelming majority of people in this country rather than the few to whom the Government has been consistently pandering for the last 15 years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please, it being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), to advise the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there is an economic emergency in my home province of British Columbia. I would like Members of the House of Commons to know about it.
Recently in the House I told the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) during Question Period that there was a record number of people making use of the Vancouver food bank. Now local newspapers in my riding, such as the South Vancouver Review, the Highland Echo, and the East-Ender, to name three, are reporting that people are being turned away from the food bank. What a terrible situation it is in 1984 to have food banks to feed poor people.
In The Globe and Mail for Saturday, April 28, 1984, the headline read "B.C. employment level highest since Depression." It reported that 39.5 per cent, almost 40 per cent, of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 in British Columbia are unemployed and that 25.9 per cent of those between the ages of 20 to 24 are also without jobs. Those figures are surpassed only by Newfoundland parts of New Brunswick and West Virginia, areas which are notoriously depressed areas in North America.
May 3, 1984

I think that British Columbia must be declared a national emergency area. An emergency federal-provincial meeting must be held. I urge the Minister of Finance to meet personally with Premier Bill Bennett as soon as possible. B.C. has already qualified for the First time in its history for a fiscal stabilization grant. That means British Columbia for the first time is a have-not province.
We need more federal initiatives than this for Western Canada economic development. For example, in forestry we could use emergency funds right now in the short-term for tree planting. That would put some of the young people to work this summer. In the long-term we have to replenish our resource base in British Columbia. Tree planting would help that. In fisheries we need more federal funds for salmonid enhancement to improve our Fishstocks. We need more environmentally sensitive economic planning.
We are also hurting in British Columbia because of our provincial government. Many of my constituents are afraid that come the next federal election, we have Brian Mulroney or John Turner as Prime Minister, we will see Premier Bill Bennett's policies on the federal level. There has been much talk of turning B.C. into a high-tech area like Japan. While I am in favour of high-tech, in facing the future we have to be careful. Our real strength is in our resources in Western Canada and in British Columbia. A wise person would say concentrate on your strengths, concentrate on your resources.
We need in the longer term a regional plan for Western Canada to get our economy back on track. Our industries are resource based, they are cyclical; for example, Fishing, mining, forestry, agriculture, oil and gas. These resources are being gutted right now by federal and provincial inaction. Our future is being sold and we will be left with nothing. We are losing our forests. We are losing our fish stocks. Our agriculture is being threatened by a provincial government which will not live with the agricultural land freeze. We need a sector by sector approach to deal with Western economic development. That is the real way to develop the West.
We should look at the Pacific Rim for markets. We should have an Asia-PaciFic Foundation as soon as possible. We should look to education and training of our young people so that we can develop industries in British Columbia. We should diversify our economy through secondary industries in British Columbia. We have to improve our labour relations as well. I think I know of a way whereby we could do that. We should stress worker ownership which would reduce unemployment and inflation. There would be less capital flight and less alienation among our workers. There would be greater productivity and greater competitiveness. Finally, we should look for regional marketing and ways to get people to reinvest their proFits in British Columbia.
There is a national emergency in my province. Surely in 1984 people should not have to go to food banks. We in the NDP have a proud tradition; we are and have been advocates of the ordinary people. Now, more than ever, we are deter-
Adjournment Debate
mined that people in British Columbia will obtain jobs and not have to go to food banks to get their daily necessities.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) questioned where the economic recovery in Canada was going and asked who was getting the benefits of the recovery. He particularly zeroed in on the problems in British Columbia. Fie mentioned tree planting and unemployment.
I should like to indicate that the federal Government has already taken steps to put the unemployed people of that province back to work. I will just refer to one example, the Environment 2000 program, into which we are putting funding because the province was not doing it. That is not only the case with British Columbia but with other provinces as well. I worked on that particular program because I realized how the forests were being ravaged and that no replacement planning was taking place, not only to provide for future forests but also to maintain the spawning beds of fish in the streams and rivers. I am pleased that the Government of Canada has been able to assist in this sector.
In the budget forecast, real GNE is expected to increase 4.9 per cent in 1984 or roughly about 1 per cent real growth per quarter. This represents a moderating pace of economic growth compared with the very strong real growth obtained in the first four quarters of the recovery. This pattern is typical of economic cycles in Canada.
This economic growth is projected to be accompanied by a stable inflation rate of about 5 per cent in the near-term, followed by further modest reductions over the medium-term. The rebound in productivity growth which was first witnessed in 1983 after nearly a decade of lacklustre activity performance in Canada is expected to continue in 1984 and beyond. This sharp movement in productivity growth, combined with a consolidation of Canada's hard-won gains on the inflation and cost fronts, will serve to improve Canada's competitive position internationally and lay the framework for sustained, non-inflationary real income growth in Canada over the medium-term.
Some further economic data have become available since the Budget. While month to month movements in economic indicators are always very volatile, the information to date indicates that the economic recovery in Canada is continuing. This view is shared by Canadian forecasters. The most recent survey of real growth prospects by the Conference Board indicated that Canadian private sector forecasters are looking for an average 4.4 per cent real growth throughout 1984.
Here are the facts. Compared with the levels of a year ago, average real Gross Domestic Product for January and February was up 6.1 per cent. Over this period industrial production has risen 12.8 per cent and retail sales are up 5.6 per cent in real terms.
Since the final quarter of 1983, employment increased 0.2 per cent in the First quarter of this year. The unemployment rate for March, 1984 is 1.1 per cent below the rate of one year earlier. Housing starts remain rather low, averaging 145,000

May 3, 1984
Adjournment Debate
units over the first quarter. A record trade balance of $25.2 billion was recorded in January, although the figure fell to $13.7 billion in February. On average, over recent months the trade picture has been very strong. There has been a sharp deceleration in inflation. The year over year increase in March, 1984 was down to 4.7 per cent.
The Hon. Member asked who was benefiting from this recovery. Clearly all Canadians benefit from an economy that is growing and creating jobs, that is registering large increases in productivity and that is becoming more competitive. The financial health of the corporate sector is rapidly being repaired and in foreign markets Canadian companies are increasingly competitive. These trends are reinforced by the favourable improvements in productivity and production costs in Canada. These developments will continue to generate more jobs for Canadians and encourage new investment in business plant and equipment.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT-REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION.
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have a concern which I want to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary this evening. It goes back to a question on April 18, the last question in the House before we went home for the Easter break. I asked the question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) who at that time answered in the House in areas connected with the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Those areas have been well talked about. They were talked about today in the Opposition debate on agriculture.
We have a simple straightforward legislative measure designed to stabilize income from grain in the Wheat Board area, the three Prairie Provinces plus the Peace River country. It is designed on the basis of a dollar contribution from the producers to be matched by $2 from the Government. The formula in place is supposed to make payouts when income on the Prairies from the sale of grain falls below certain averages.
Anybody with vision, able to hear and think, has to know that that formula is not working the way it was intended. We are not being critical of the Government because when the Bill was brought forward in 1976 or 1977 it did not have the correct formula. We understand that it was not necessarily right at the time. In hindsight, things could have been done differently. We are talking about today. The Bill was passed by this House. It did not fall from Heaven like a tablet of stone, in which case it would be tough to argue and amend. It was made in this place and is capable of being changed or amended in this place.
The NDP and the Official Opposition both agreed to cooperate with the Government and pass amendments that would provide much needed cash to western producers as quickly as possible. We agreed to that. We on this side have indicated our concern for well over a year, back to February or March, 1983. We are asking that the Government come to its
senses and begin to spread around some of the money available through this fund.
A question I had on the Order Paper which was answered on January 27 of this year simply asked the amount of money in the fund at the end of December, 1983. I will place that figure on the record. It is $864,091,918.74; $864 million. The fund had built up to such a level it was considered enough of a nestegg to protect the solvency of the fund against any possible or future drawdowns. The fund was at such a level that it triggered an automatic reduction in the amount of premium the producer was paying. The producer's levy went from 2 per cent of his gross sales to 1.5 per cent. That is a clear indication that there was a lot of money in the fund.
Everybody knows that there are financial problems on the Prairies, of many kinds and in record numbers. I do not want to be dramatic and talk about this being similar to the thirties, but there are as many financial problems on the Prairies as at any time since the 1930s. On the one hand we have a measure that creates a fund which grows to such an extent that the contribution to increase that fund is decreased by a triggering mechanism. On the other hand, we have producers in financial trouble. There does not seem to be any interim mechanism so that we can get that money to producers and spread it around.
We on this side have offered to co-operate with the Government. In February, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) moved a motion in the Committee on Agriculture encouraging the the Government to do something. We showed support there. When the Minister responsible in the other place appeared before the committee on February 13 he said the problem was mentioned in the December, 1983 Throne Speech and it was his hope they would be presenting amendments during the session which would improve the responsiveness of the program and increase its acceptability to producers. That was in February. It is a simple measure, there is co-operation from the Opposition, producers have financial problems, money is available at least to address some of the problems of producers, and yet nothing happens. What do we get? We received a fancy press kit which was issued in Winnipeg a week ago yesterday. It does nothing. It is really only an essay indicating what the Government intends to do.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who just spoke said the Government does not want to do anything in the House. This is a clear example of that. We have been encouraging the Government to do things in the House and what do we get? We get a press release that was made outside the House telling people what the Government intends to do. What we need is action. The press release did not do anything. We have not seen any legislation. Even if we go along with the Government's intentions, nothing will happen until the fall. There is absolutely no reason why we could not make an interim payment, and there is absolutely no reason why we could not make that payment within two weeks. We could do that if the will to do so existed.
May 3, 1984

There are all kinds of electronic systems in place for mailing and for putting money into circulation. I believe there are several millions of cheques that go in the mail each month to various recipients across the country. This payment would involve something like over 100,000 cheques. That would be no problem at all as far as our capacity to put things in the mail is concerned.
What I do not understand is why the Government is in fact delaying this. The latest thing I have heard is that the Government intends to introduce a Bill in the Senate. If that in fact is the case, it is another indication that the Government has no intention of addressing this matter on an urgent basis. If it wants to get a Bill through quickly, it should bring it into the House where we will deal with it very quickly, and then it will go to the Senate. If it goes to the Senate, the Bill must first go through the Senate committee system. As a rule, we in the House do not pre-study Bills. If the Bill goes to Senate, it will further delay its implementation at a very, very critical time. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will stand and announce when the Bill will be presented so that we in the House may in fact do something to support farmers at an extremely critical time of the year.


André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), I am happy to announce that legislation to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act will be introduced in Parliament in the very near future. In fact, the text of this legislation is now ready, and, to my knowledge, it now is or will be the subject of discussions between the House Leaders this week.
We want to thank the Members of the Official Opposition for supporting quick passage of the amendments which will be submitted for parliamentary approval. It is good to know that the Official Opposition agrees with us on the need to amend this Act as soon as possible to make it more flexible and better suited to the needs of western farmers. The Western Grain Stabilization Act is the main federal program aimed at protecting the income of Prairie grain growers.
Adjournment Debate
However, this program must be amended, especially to provide better protection to producers against sudden fluctuations in prices and costs during the periods when increased volumes are being marketed. We therefore propose to add a unitary readjustment payment for making cash available to ensure that the program will be better suited to the financial situation of participating grain growers during the periods when production and the volume marketed are increasing.
For instance, under the present stabilization payment formula, no payment would be made for the calendar year ending December 31, 1983. However, if the recommended amendments are approved, a substantial payment of over $3 million could be made for the crop year ending July 31, 1984. Other amendments are also being considered following the recommendations of the Producers' Advisory Committee of the Western Grain Growers' Income Stabilization Administration and other organizations of the farming and grain-growing industries.
Among the amendments suggested, there is a recommendation that the program application period coincide with the crop year so that a closer relationship may be established between the income from a given crop and the production costs incurred for this same crop.
Two other measures providing for the participation of eligible spouses and the possibility for participants to withdraw from the program every ten years will eliminate some of the discriminatory provisions of the existing legislation.
It is obvious therefore that the rationale behind the program is not being questioned. The sole purpose of the proposed amendments is to make the system more flexible, to the benefit of Prairie wheat growers.
With the support of the Opposition, the new program will soon become a reality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. This House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
*

Friday, May 4, 1984