1984-04-13

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, despite continuing over-all balance of payments problems which have plagued Canada throughout the years of office of the Liberal Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has of late, in order to focus attention on some small bright spot in the economy, made frequent reference to recent merchandise trade balance figures which have been in Canada's favour. However, even in this traditionally favourable area we can see significant deterioration as a result of Liberal trade policy.
The February figures show a decline in external trade surplus of a billion dollars since January. The $2.1 billion January surplus has been reduced to $1.1 billion in February, surely a most alarming trend which, unless reversed, will result in further pressure on the Canadian dollar and, subsequently, higher domestic rates. We cannot allow Canada's financial relationships to worsen. Government policy has to be changed to encourage an inflow of funds into our country rather than the outflow seemingly favoured by the Liberals.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba farmers can expect little relief from the Government. This week the Farm Credit Corporation increased its lending rate to 15 per cent for long-term loans. At the same time the Government introduced Bill C-14 which will cut the effective rate of tax at the wellhead to 11 per cent for the oil companies, yet the Government continues to refuse to follow the lead of the Manitoba Government and eliminate sales tax on farm fuels.
In 1981 Manitoba farmers used 415 million litres of petroleum fuels in their operations that cost them the tidy sum of $124 million, of which $12 million was federal sales tax. I
cannot understand why the Government continues to be so willing to give tax breaks to the major oil companies yet still refuses to give just a little relief to farmers.
[DOT] (mo)
It is not surprising that farm bankruptcies have increased by a staggering 58 per cent in the first months of 1984. This is supposed to be a year of recovery, but it is very clear that that recovery is not touching farmers. Instead of being an agency that is helping farmers weather these tough times, the Farm Credit Corporation seems to be doing all it can to make life more difficult for them.
I related an example of this the other day in the House when I told the story of a couple of young farmers who live in my constituency. They went to the Farm Credit Corporation looking for help to meet their loan payments, and were rebuffed. I call upon the Government of the country to do more for farmers, and to save the family farm in Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) pondered and stalled during the time allowed by United States District Court Judge Curtin for Canadian intervention on the proposed Niagara S-Area cleanup settlement between Occidental Chemical Corporation and the United States Government. That time has now expired and, except for the Province of Ontario, the court offers only friend of the court status to others, limiting the opportunity to present and challenge evidence, to appeal the court decision, or to monitor conditions of settlement.
Environment Canada's consultants have determined that the proposed settlement is unsatisfactory. Canadian environment officials say that there are no guarantees that the containment program will do the job necessary to protect Canadian interests in the Niagara River. Too late the Minister cries foul, and says that he will once more ask the United States Government to withdraw from the cleanup plan and get on with the removal of the S-Area chemical dump.
There has been enough talk, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Canada can become involved, if not directly then by actively assisting the citizens' groups which propose to file a lawsuit, if they have not yet done so, against Occidental Chemical for alleged environmental damage created by that dump site.


S O. 21 INDUSTRY INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY IN MANUFACTURING
[Stage Direction]
April 13, 1984
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to counter the negative and false statements made by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) by drawing to the attention of the House a Statistics Canada report released last week which stated that, in 1983, Canadian manufacturing employees produced more for every hour worked than they have since 1971. In fact they out-performed all of our competitors. We also discovered last week that productivity in manufacturing increased by 6.9 per cent last year, and in the commercial sector it increased by 3.3 per cent.
By increasing productivity growth we have conquered one of the major economic maladies afflicting the country. This peak in Canadian productivity is reason enough for the government, and indeed for all Canadians, to smile. Among other positive benefits, productivity growth improves Canada's competitive position in international markets, is a key factor in determining the growth in our standard of living, and will give us strength in continuing to fight inflation.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has said: "Past performance and past spending habits will not sustain us in a fiercely competitive international marketplace. We must become better than the competition-better at producing and marketing goods and services-and better at working together for the shared economic interests of all Canadians". It is my firm conviction that the Government's economic program of action is definitely one which is leading Canadians from recovery to expansion.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, announced to farmers today was the startling news that the initial price of grain has dropped very severely to 27 cents per bushel for Hard Red Spring, and 54 cents per bushel for Durum. In the past week our leader has called for a western grain stabilization payment and a formula which would make payments to farmers to alleviate cashflow problems faced by farmers at this time.
The Government has increased fuel costs by 100 per cent in the last four years. The cost of production has risen very significantly. Interest rates have risen. Farmers simply cannot stand up to the costs of production they face today.
The former House Leader of the Official Opposition has called on the House Leader of the Government to bring about quick passage to the western grain stabilization program, but the Government has refused to act. Surely the Government must have more confidence in the farmers of western Canada and in the other farmers of the nation. I call for western grain stabilization and the disbursement of a billion dollars which would assist-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the House witnessed a shocking display of indifference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and ignorance by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) on what the NDP has advocated for many months, namely, the removal of the federal sales tax on diesel fuel for farmers and fishermen.
The Opposition Leader finally discovered Saskatchewan. He finally discovered the issue. In so doing he showed a wanton disregard for the facts about Saskatchewan and its incompetent Conservative administration. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the removal of the tax need not add to the deficit. The Prime Minister is ignorant of what was going on in Saskatchewan and so is the Leader of the Official Opposition. They could have pointed out that under two years of Conservative government, unemployment has doubled, housing starts are down, and bankruptcies are up. In three budgets in two years the good successful business Conservative Government has managed to run up $830 million in deficits, yet the Leader of the Official Opposition says the deficit is a prime matter with which he would deal.
Whether or not the deficit goes up, those excise sales taxes must be removed to help farmers and fishermen. With respect to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, it is a case of the blind leading the ignorant.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHINESE ACROBATIC TROUPE
Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Shandong Acrobatic Troupe, from Shandong Province in the People's Republic of China, who have performed in 16 Canadian cities over the past two months as part of a cultural exchange project. In particular, may I recognize the troupe leader, Mr. Yew Jand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 13, 1984



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has now met, I take it, with all the leadership candidates, unless another person threw his hat in the ring this morning. Yesterday my colleague, the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland, asked the Prime Minister to clarify the ground rules respecting the activities of persons on government payrolls who are actively involved in the leadership campaign. Do those same rules, though ill defined, apply as well to the staffs of Ministers who are not in the leadership campaign as individual candidates? Do those same rules apply to the ministerial staffs-the rules which the Prime Minister has laid out for those in the campaign itself?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they do.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. After the Prime Minister's meeting with certain candidates-and I said that the rules, at least for this House, were still unclear-the Minister of Agriculture, who is known for his public approach to these things-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -said this-


Mr. Beatty:: Where's the beef?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -the Minister said:
Mr. Trudeau told Ministers they could not travel with political staff when on government business. When you're a Minister, you're still a Minister .. . You're allowed one staff person to travel with you for government business, but that staff person must not be involved in politics. Staff people who work, you know, on a Minister's staff, the staff take a leave.
Is that an accurate reflection of the guidelines the Prime Minister gave to the candidates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I listened attentively. It seems to me, whether the Minister was misquoted or not, he began by saying the contrary to what he went on to say later.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is Eugene.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may be.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know the Opposition are sometimes reluctant to ask the Minister questions because they are never quite sure what he is going to answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mayer:: He doesn't either.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Pierre, you may push him to the front of the contest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House is in a good mood. May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, not to count this as a supplementary so that the Hon. Member could reread that quotation? It seemed to me that it did not quite flow.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's dilemma. We have had that dilemma with the Minister of Agriculture for a long period of time. If I am right in-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just quote it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The quote is this:
Mr. Trudeau told Ministers they could not travel with political staff when on government business. When you're a Minister, you're still a Minister ... You're allowed one staff person to travel with you for government business, but that staff person must not be involved in politics. Staff people who work, you know, on a Minister's staff, the staff take a leave.
That was the quote I gave.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will realize, the first phrase which the Hon. Member read is contradicted by the following phrases. I can only ascribe that to the confused press, as usual. They obviously quoted the Minister badly. The Hon. Member would not do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I noted the phrase that the Minister could not travel with political staff when on government business. That, of course, is not correct, and that is not the guideline. Ministers, when they are on government business, sometimes need departmental staff and they are entitled to travel with departmental staff. But there is no intention to exclude a Minister from also having exempt staff so-called political staff, when he is going on business. He may be on government business but very appropriately at some point be engaged also in political business. So I cannot accept that statement of the Minister's alleged intentions. I am quite sure he did not say that.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF GUIDELINES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. I appreciate the Prime Minister's explanation that political staff for ministerial travel is a necessity. I have no argument with that. But Canadians have a right to know the exact guidelines which will apply.
In view of the obvious confusion the Prime Minister has, that he claims the press might have and since Canadians have

April 13, 1984
Oral Questions
a right to know, and especially in view of the fullsome answers he gave yesterday on the same subject in which he said that these areas were worth looking into, for instance, people on contracts and so forth, would the Prime Minister be willing to make these guidelines public? In that way both Members of the Elouse and the public would actually know the guidelines applicable to Ministers who are in the campaign and to other Ministers and their staff who might obviously be supporting the various candidates? Then we and they would both know the guidelines which the Prime Minister will insist upon during the campaign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I beg the Hon. Member's indulgence. I believe he started by saying that I had conceded that I was confused. I did not concede that. I conceded the press might be confused, and that the Hon. Member might be confused.
It seems to me I have answered questions very directly in the House, and I will continue to do so. I have no written guidelines. I do not intend to make any written guidelines. On the use of government aircraft, the guidelines are written, but they were written for ministerial conduct generally, whether they are on leadership business or not.
On the general practice of not using departmental staffs for political business on government time, this is a rule which applies all the time whether you are on leadership endeavours or not. The sole reason I held discussions with the leadership candidates, Mr. Speaker, was to make sure that there was no unfair advantage taken by one Minister, or one candidate, over another by the fact that they were not using their staff in the same way. So in reality I got together with them to repeat guidelines which apply to Ministers all the time and, therefore, which continue to apply even more deliberately in the leadership campaign.
We expect further refinements of those guidelines during a campaign, and I explained those to the House too. For instance, an executive assistant is political staff. He is exempt staff. He can engage in politics. However, if the Minister were to use that executive assistant or special assistant to work not on his general political obligations, constituency obligations, and so on, but to recruit delegates, or to organize the leadership campaign itself, at that point I made it clear that there should be a leave of absence or a resignation. That is more in terms of not seeking particular advantage over other candidates rather than that it would be somehow improper to use taxpayers' money for political purposes.
As I pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition's exempt staff uses taxpayers' money for political purposes; that is not objectionable. However, I believe the Hon. Member's former Leader showed that, during their leadership campaign, he did not intend using his position of having exempt staff as Leader of the Opposition in order to give himself an unfair advantage.


Mr. Nielsen:: He did not.


Mr. McGrath:: He resigned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what I say. I think he set a good example for what we are doing. He handed over the leadership of the Party, difficult as the decision must have been for him, to the Hon. Member for Yukon. I do not condone his choice of substitute, but I do think his principle was right.


Erik Nielsen: You will never forget it, either.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ROLE OF MICHAEL RONAN-REQUEST THAT GUIDELINES BE PUT IN WRITING
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now says there could possibly be revisions in the guidelines in the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


Benno Friesen: That is just what you said. The Prime Minister said just now that in the future there could possibly be revisions to the guidelines. It seems to me that he is encouraging confusion, and possibly suspicion, if there are no defined, written statements on what those guidelines are. I urge the Prime Minister, in order to make sure that the press and public of Canada understand what acceptable conduct is, that there be clearly defined statements in a code of conduct for those people.
Recently, in answer to a question by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland, the Prime Minister said: "It is worth looking into" namely, the proper role of persons who have a government contract and are actively working on a candidate's leadership campaign. Has the Prime Minister checked, and can he report that no one on contract to the Government is spending a major portion of his or her time on political activities on behalf of a leadership candidate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did check, Mr. Speaker. I checked into the case of one Michael Ronan, I believe, which was brought up in the House. I found, as I had surmised, that he was on contract, but only part-time. I understand he works a maximum of three days a week on contract. Therefore, the other three days are his to spend as he wishes, either engaging in business with the private sector or involving himself in the political process. That is exactly as I had surmised it would be, and I even said that exempt staff who want to work on weekends, or for that matter civil servants who want to involve themselves in that kind of political activity permitted by the Public Service of Canada regulations, are entitled to do what they want with their off-time. So I am not making any revisions. I do not see any need to.
As to a written code of conduct, Mr. Speaker, I am used to making deals, and I can make a very simple deal. If the Leader of the Opposition will spell out a code of conduct for his exempt staff, I can tell him that ours will be the same or more severe. I gave the example of greater severity in my answer to the previous question. I do not think the Leader of the
April 13, 1984

Opposition has even explained to his own Member what the code of conduct is for his exempt staff. But if he does, and it is a proper one, I will obey the same rules, except with a bit greater severity for the leadership candidates.


ROLE OF DAVID ZUSSMAN
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned his view of the work of one of the members of the exempt staff, Mr. Michael Ronan. What is the status of Mr. David Zussman? He promised to check into the activities of that gentleman as well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did check into that too. I found out that Mr. David Zussman occasionally travels with his minister. He assists the Minister when the Minister is involved in particular departmental meetings of discussions. I was given two examples. One was when Mr. Chretien met with the Newfoundland Minister, Mr. Bill Marshall, last week. In that instance Mr. Chretien was assisted by Mr. Zussman. I am told the same is happening today. There is a meeting arranged with the British Columbia Minister on department related matters.


EXPO 86 POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the 1986 World Fair to be held in Vancouver. It seems to be on the verge of being cancelled today or tomorrow by Premier Bennett of British Columbia. Would the Prime Minister confirm that he told a journalist, Harvey Oberfeld of British Columbia Television, yesterday, referring to the Fair: "Really, I don't care about it at all"? Would the Prime Minister confirm that he said that? Is that the attitude of the Government of Canada toward this Fair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know if I should blame the Hon. Member or the reporter. I remember the circumstances very well. I was returning to Parliament after lunch and was met by a rather pleasant reporter who had tried to talk to me before. I stopped for a moment and asked what he wanted. He said: "There's a lot of discussion and controversy", I believe were his words, or "a lot of questions". I wish we had the tape. I am not sure what was reported. However, I do know the question was of the nature that there is some controversy on the holding of the Fair in British Columbia. I said: "I don't car about that", or "it". That is my position. I do not want to be involved in that controversy, and I do not care about it.
If indeed I was reported by that reporter as saying that the "it" was referring to the Fair rather than to the controversy, I say this is another example of why I do not want to go to the Goddamn press gallery dinner tomorrow night.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That is unparliamentary.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order, Mr. Speaker. Withdraw.


Erik Nielsen: He said goldarn.


MINISTER'S MEETING WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I will ask him to show the courage of the Sikhs and the acrobatics of the Shandong Troupe in dealing with this.
I would like to ask him seriously about this Fair. After all, the federal Government has put over $100 million into the Fair. The Queen, very publicly in the stadium in British Columbia, invited nations to Canada to take part in the Fair. Would the Prime Minister confirm that, on behalf of the Government, Senator Austin is meeting with Premier Bennett? Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether his Government has ever received any information that perhaps the public has not had, with respect to a financial analysis of how much this Fair is going to cost? Presumably the Government received that before putting about $120 million into the Fair.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, the federal Government is deeply involved. It is contributing $120 million, as well as putting enormous value in services at the disposition of the holding of the Fair. Not only is the Government building a very prestigious edifice in honour of and at the time of the Fair, but also I have personally, in my correspondence with leaders of other Governments, and in my travels, talked about the Fair and in many cases exercised some subtle pressure to get other countries to participate in the fair. That is why I am somewhat indignant at the interpretation given by the Hon. Member or by the media that, in a sense, the federal Government is not interested in the Fair.
We did look very closely at the financial situation of the Fair. I think we bargained quite well and fairly to make sure that we would pay a fair share of the Fair and be involved in the right way. We were very conscious of the danger of overruns. We all remember the experience of the World Fair in Montreal in 1967. I think all Governments now, provincial and federal, are very careful in such events to make sure that costs are kept under control.
Senator Austin has a mandate to hold discussions with the Government of British Columbia to ensure that our funds will be appropriately used and that the taxpayers of Canada will not be involved in paying surpluses or overruns which were not part of the bargain. In that sense, without having followed the file very closely, I can only commend Premier Bennett for making sure that cost overruns are held to a minimum. I am sure that Senator Austin will want to co-operate with the Premier to make sure that, from our point of view, that will be the case.

April 13, 1984
Oral Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister is not commending Premier Bennett for announcing a World Fair without having any financial analysis of how much the Fair is going to cost.


MINISTER'S MANDATE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the construction unions have proposed a no-strike contract, a waiving of the affiliation clause, that is, to work with nonunion people, which is not traditional, and that the work will be done at a negotiated rate. Does that not sound fair? It looks like Premier Bennett may cancel the Fair on what are really ideological grounds.
If the Prime Minister is in favour of the Fair, has he given Senator Austin a mandate to have the federal Government run the Fair and pick up the cost of the Fair if the provincial Government backs out? Is that the extent of Senator Austin's mandate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No Sir, not at all. I said exactly the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Senator Austin is not mandated by the federal Government to spend any more money than we have already agreed to spend. If there are cost overruns we do not intend to pick them up. Therefore it is proper for the Premier of that province to make sure that costs are held under control. He must do it within the law, and I suppose within proper boundaries of fairness.
I can recall that Premier Barrett of British Columbia, who was of the Hon. Member's Party and allegiance, scotched the 1972 Olympics for Vancouver, for Whistler Mountain, because he felt the province could not afford it at the time. I did not particularly agree with that, but I think he was wise to make the cost a very important factor of his decision. If Premier Bennett is doing like Premier Barrett, it would seem to me the Hon. Member should be the last to complain.


MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It is with regard to cabinet approval for a secret, private, fund-raising campaign of the Canada Museums Construction Corporation to raise an additional $25 million from corporate and private donors for the new National Gallery and the Museum of Man. Will the Minister assure the House and the 1,750 non-profit museums and galleries that this is a one-time only project, and that the Museums Construction Corporation will not go after the same corporate and private donors who are likely to donate to the regional museum sector? Or is this a new principle of fund raising that the Government intends to expand?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I would like to congratulate him on becoming the official critic for the Opposition on matters of culture and communications.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: If this is a secret decision, it is indeed a badly kept secret, with press releases actually being put out about this secret cabinet decision.
The Hon. Member may know, after having read the press release which was put out yesterday by Mrs. Boggs, the Chairman of the Museum Construction Corporation, that Mrs. Boggs does indeed consider that the moneys made available to her by the Government are sufficient to build the two galleries. However, as pointed out by Mrs. Boggs, if the two galleries are to reach a standard of excellence in appearance, which we would all like to see in the National Capital, there may be some need to enrich the amount of money necessary to meet those purposes. For instance, replacing the originally planned brick front of the buildings with stone cladding is a single example.
With respect to the question of raising the funds, the amount of money required has not yet been determined. I expect that the board of the Museum Construction Corporation will be reporting to me on that during the course of the month of May.
I would like to indicate, in response to the Hon. Member's very serious question, that it is indeed a once in a lifetime campaign on the part of the museums. We would very much like to see Canadians across the country have the opportunity to contribute to the museums and to feel pride in having done so.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I thank the Minister for communicating his good wishes. I will try not to make life too difficult for him. You fellows are having enough problems over there.


FUNDING OF REGIONAL MUSEUMS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, an internal memorandum of the National Museums Corporation warns against this kind of action, and notes that this fund raising attempt will be in competition with other museums and other arts organizations for what is really a very finite amount of dollars. Since the fund raising will free up some federal moneys, is it now the Minister's intention to ensure stable funding to the regional museums?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that there is a program within the National Museums of Canada which has as its main object putting funds into the hands of regional museums. I would hasten to add that, as far as regional museums are concerned, whether or not they have associate status with the
April 13, 1984

National Museums of Canada, there is also a responsibility on the part of provincial Governments, municipal Governments, and the municipality within which a museum is located, to help find the necessary level of financial support for a museum.
In regard to the general question of fund raising, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member, because of his obvious attachment to another political Party at Queen's Park, that the Royal Ontario Museum is embarking on the same type of campaign.


FISHERIES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There is growing uncertainty in Prince Edward Island surrounding the Minister's plans for reopening the Georgetown Seafoods plant in time for the new fishing season which begins in a couple of weeks, in early May, as he knows. Given that the ownership of the plant has not yet even been transferred to the new owner, National Sea Products, let alone the plant reopened, would the Minister tell the House what specific plans he has in mind, and what specific schedule he has in mind, for the reopening of that plant?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. First, I would like to remind him that the Official Opposition has taken a stand that National Sea should remain in private hands. That message was listened to by the Government.
Second, the Government decided that one of the conditions for our financial assistance to National Sea, to the private sector, is that they should also have the Georgetown plant within their company. Hopefully, as a result of the support of the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and particularly of the regional Minister for P.E.I., the company has accepted that request of the federal Government and has accepted to buy that plant for $1. The federal Government has committed to give up to $2.3 million in financial assistance to start up costs. Finally, we have also added 5,000 tonnes of Gulf red fish in order to add to the 5,000 or less that Nickerson used to truck to the Georgetown plant in the past. Thus, it will be part of National Sea which will be controlled by the private sector as the Hon. Member's Party has suggested.


SALE OF PLANT-REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES OF FUTURE
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just said that the plant in question is to be sold to National Sea Products Limited for $1, despite the fact that the plant will be worth approximately $5 million after the Government itself invests $2.3 million into upgrading that plant.
Oral Questions
In light of what he has just said, would the Minister tell us what guarantees the federal Government has obtained from National Sea Products in case that parent company gets into financial difficulty and is no longer able to operate the plant? What guarantees has it been able to get from the company to ensure that the assets of the plant and the fish allocation associated with it revert to Prince Edward Island and to Georgetown, rather than being absorbed into any financial difficulties, even bankruptcy, that the company concerned might incur?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, we cannot have it both ways. There is nobody in Canada whose job is guaranteed. What the federal Government has done is go to the limit of investing whatever money is needed to restructure that company along the wishes of the private sector. When you ask me what guarantee there is that the company will never fail, I frankly ask how the Hon. Member can put a question like that.
Every day, thousands of companies go under, and thousands of new ones are formed. All I can hope is that the private sector which has taken control of the company and has shown confidence by investing up to $20 million, will prove to be good managers. The federal Government, as the Hon. Member would admit, has gone to the extreme limit of allowing the private sector to show their capabilities. Of course I cannot guarantee to anyone in Canada, whether in the public or private sector, that they do not have to compete in this very competitive world.


REFUGEES
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada is concerned that there are Sikhs under refugee status in Canada who are daily being deported. In the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the Sikhs who are daily being deported at this time to Punjab, India.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the new National Security Act in India may mean that these deported refugees could be jailed without trial? Would he consider asking his Minister to hold these deportation orders in abeyance until something could be negotiated with the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, which is the national body of Sikhs, to enable these refugees to remain in Canada? In other words, would the Prime Minister undertake to ask his Minister of Employment and Immigration to hold discussions with the Federation on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the particular events and recent ones to which the Hon. Member is referring, but I do know the subject and I have heard of the problem. I have even discussed it with

April 13, 1984
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister of India on one occasion. I certainly will undertake to follow up with the Minister and try to ascertain if the Government is in a position to do anything in this particular case of which, I repeat, I am not informed.
I have very great admiration for the Sikh people, having been to Amritsar and their glorious temple, having seen their valour and courage over the years, and more recently having been awarded a very great honour by that group of Sikhs. I must say that I will take it upon myself to ensure that the Minister follows up on the question.


GROUP SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM SUGGESTION
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response of the Prime Minister. When he is discussing this matter with the Minister, could he suggest that one possible solution might be something that was done in the case of Vietnamese refugees whereby there could be group sponsorship programs for the Sikhs? I know that the Federation of Sikh Societies would be prepared to try to negotiate that type of arrangement. We would appreciate it if he would consider talking to his Minister in that regard. Could we have that undertaking as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite see the parallel that the Hon. Member obviously does, but I certainly will take notice of his question.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. As Dr. Kerwin, President of the National Research Council, has stated: "Each additional one per cent of Gross National Product that is spent on research and development will produce 800,000 new jobs". Since the federal Government's share of the national expenditure on research and development has fallen from 48 per cent in 1968 to 37 per cent today, will the Prime Minister advise the House why the federal Government has cut back its share, instead of giving leadership in increasing research and development and thereby providing the additional jobs which Canadians need so badly today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I begged the Hon. Member the last time when we talked about research and development to check the facts. He has and, I might have known, he checked two sets of facts and confused them. First he says that our share has fallen, which is true, and then he says that we have cut back. It does not follow that because our share has fallen we have cut back. What could very well follow is that the other participants in research and
development have decided to spend more, in other words, have followed the example of the federal Government.
The Hon. Member will remember that in our previous exchanges I said he was confused because he was talking about research and development as a global matter and blaming us for not doing enough. I said he should look-which he did, and I am glad he took my advice; he should do so more often-at the shares of the other participants and should realize that they have not been doing, in comparison with the private sector in other countries, and even with the academic sector in other countries, as well as they might. They heeded my advice. They are now spending more. They are spending a more reasonable share of the total. That is what is happening, and 1 am sure the Hon. Member will understand it if he spends the weekend on the problem.


George Harris Hees: I do not have to spend any time at all in absorbing what the Prime Minister has just said, as I will show the House.


INCREASE IN BUSINESS SHARE OF FUNDING
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said in answer to my question on April 5, and I quote his words, "The federal Government is much more generous and farseeing in its participating in funding research than the provinces and the private sector", and as private business has increased its share of funding of research and development from 31 per cent to 41 per cent, while the federal Government has decreased its share from 48 per cent to 37 per cent, would the Prime Minister not consider getting the facts straight before he answers serious questions like the one I asked him last week and today, instead of misleading the House as he has done on both occasions?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I obviously did not mislead the House because the Hon. Member started from my answer to do exactly what I said he should-check the facts. I think my previous answer should be studied with care by the Hon. Member.


George Harris Hees: Studied by you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He would see that the private sector-and he noted the business sector-is properly spending more money on research now. Indeed, that is one of the things the Hon. President of the Treasury Board was advocating at the time when he brought in our excellent Foreign Investment Review Agency in order to force the private sector to spend more on research and development rather than do it all in the United States. The Hon. Minister's policies and those of his successors are being met with success and therefore these figures, but the fact remains that we have not cut back, which has the Hon. Member's allegation.


George Harris Hees: You cut back on your share, and that is cutting back.
April 13, 1984


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have not cut back. We are spending more, and the Hon. Member knows it. Because other people are spending what they should does not mean we should cut back.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear a better example of trying to prove that black is white?


FISHERIES
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Aluminum Company of Canada has filed an application with the Province of British Columbia for development of hydro facilities in central British Columbia. There will be public hearings into this application. Is it the Minister's intention that his departmental officials will conduct these hearings or, alternatively, does he see the role of his departmental officials as being part of the panel together with the B.C. Utilities Commission which will hear interveners?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been having public meetings in several towns in British Columbia to hear the views of the people and to exchange views. My Department hopes that the B.C. Utilities inquiry will be a full and comprehensive one covering every aspect of the project. Also as the Hon. Member knows, that project is potentially most important and could have very important implications for fish habitats. Obviously those concerns have to be met.
In the last few days senior officials of my Department met with the president and executives of Alcan. The position of the Department is very clear. It is that, according to the law which governs our Department, we cannot allow a project of that size to be undertaken unless, of course, all the different safeguards concerning fish habitat are met.
I hope the B.C. Utilities inquiry will be a full and comprehensive one. I would gladly sit with my counterparts in the B.C. Government to ensure that the terms of reference of that inquiry are totally comprehensive.


Mr. Speaker:: There are various Members seeking to be recognized. Could questions be short? A short supplementary, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


FUNDING REQUESTED FOR INTERVENERS
Robert Lorne McCuish: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There will be a number of interveners. Is the Minister prepared to provide funding for the interveners and, if not, who does he see as being responsible for such funding?
Oral Questions


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I have given a lot of thought to that question and I would like to share my views with the Hon. Member. One of the duties of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the law is precisely to monitor any project of that size, or any project which could have implications on fish habitat. Half the workforce of that Department is paid by the taxpayers of the country. Almost 3,000 people out of 6,000 are scientists whose job is precisely to do what the Hon. Member is suggesting. I think it would not be prudent to have taxpayers pay twice- once to the officials of the Department to do an assessment of such projects and to release that information and, second, to fund groups which would like to make a second assessment of the projects. I think that once by the officials of the Department is enough. I am very happy to see the Hon. Member signalling to me that he concurs with my position.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize two Hon. Members for short questions, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia and the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, because there is no other Member from western Canada representing western farmers, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will know how important the initial grain price and an announcement concerning it are to the farmers. Could he clarify just exactly what was the announcement and why it was not made in the House by some of his officials? I understand and know that the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is in the other place, but surely western farmers deserve better treatment than the Government has been giving them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that he does not know what the other Minister was saying, yet I understand him to say that western farmers deserve better treatment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What was the initial price? Why was it not announced in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is the allegation of the Hon. Member? Farmers are getting an initial price which is in tradition with what it usually is.


Erik Nielsen: What is it? How much?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Hon. Members do not know. How can they say they are getting a bad deal if they do not know what that price is?

April 13, 1984
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON PRICE
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, surely the farmers of western Canada deserve better than this from the Prime Minister. In 1968-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member put his supplementary question?


Leonard J. Gustafson: My supplementary question is clear and simple. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the farmers exactly what the initial price is, or is he going to give the farmers the same answer he gave them in 1968 when he said: "Sell your own wheat"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they did not do badly selling their own wheat. They reached ever increasing records under the Liberal Government of Canada. The Hon. Member should not treat with contempt their abilities at selling wheat. I respected their abilities, and through the Wheat Board, which is their agent, they have done very well. The Hon. Member wants to know what the initial price is, yet he goes on to say that the farmers deserve a better deal. Let him find out what the initial price is and then he can decide if it is a good deal or not.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of National Defence. We were saddened to learn this morning of the loss of life in a CF-18 yesterday. Does the Minister have a report on that accident, and will there be a full investigation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad event. I thank the Hon. Member for giving me the opportunity of offering condolences to Captain Milligan's family, his wife and children. A board of inquiry has been convened and the investigation is ongoing. I am not in a position to provide any details at this time. I do share the sadness of the event, having been very much involved in the whole CF-18 project. I hope we will be in a position to provide more information in the very near future.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the financial statements of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, Canadair Limited, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited and Eldorado Nuclear Limited.


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. 534, 574, 644 and 706.


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: (a) and
(b) The Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada is composed of the Governor, the Senior Deputy Governor, and twelve Directors appointed by the Minister of Finance. The Deputy Minister of Finance also sits on the Board but without a vote. The members of the Board are as follows:
G. K. Bouey	Governor	Bank of Canada
R. W. Lawson	Senior Deputy Governor Bank of Canada	
M. A. Cohen	Deputy Minister of Finance	
J. H.C. Clarry Lawyer		McCarthy & McCarthy P.O. Box 48 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6
J. H. Dickey Lawyer		Mclnnes, Cooper & Robertson P.O. Box 730 Halifax, N.S. B3J 2V1
E. Finn		Canadian Union of Public Employees 21 Florence Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0W6
J. H. Fraser Owner and Operator		Highland Farm Limited Hazelbrook R.R. #1 Charlottetown, P.E.l. CIA 7J6
S. Kanee		Chairman
SooLine Mills (1969) Ltd.
7 Higgins Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0A1
April 13, 1984

C. LeBon Dean
A. A. LeBouthillier Notary
JR. Longstaffe Executive Vice-President and Director
Bureau du Doyen Faculte des sciences de I'administration Universite Laval Ste-Foy (Quebec) G1K 7P4
P.O. Box 297
Caraquet, New Brunswick EOB 1K0
Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 2800-1055 Dunsmuir Street P.O. Box 49420 Bentall Postal Station Vancouver, B.C. B7X 1B5
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: J. S. Palmer Lawyer
Mrs. Y. Lefebvre-Richard Chairman and General Manager
P.O. Box 280, Station "M" Calgary, Alberta T2P 2H9
J.B. Lefebvre Ltee 9950, Ray-Lawson Blvd. Montreal, Quebec HIJ 1L8
Canadian Commercial Corporation Officers J. E. G. Howarth* **
President and Chief Executive Officer
** O.l. Matthews (Cat. EX-2; salary range: $53,420-$62,850)
Vice-president and Director General, Export Supply Directorate DSS)
J. A. Stack Lawyer
M. Woodward Businessman
McKercher, McKercher, Stack, Korchin & Laing 374 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 1M5
Woodward's Oil Ltd.
P.O. Box 300 Postal Station "C"
Happy Valley
Goose Bay, Labrador A0P ICO
Executive Committee G. K. Bouey R. W. Lawson M. A. Cohen
Governor
Senior Deputy Governor Deputy Minister of Finance
Bank of Canada Bank of Canada
*** R. E. Pedersen (Cat. FS-3; salary range: $44,749-$59,525)
Vice-President
F. O. Kelly (Cat. approx, equivalent to SM; salary range: $45,250-$53,210) Comptroller
**** G. A. Belisle (Cat. LA-2A; salary range: $40,700-$56,600)
General Counsel and Secretary
This is a non-classified position. Salaries set or approved by the Governor in Council for non-classified positions range from $63,000 to $227,900. The President is also chairperson of the Board.
DSS Officer (Supply & Services Canada)
EA Officer (External Affairs Canada)
DoJ Officer (Department of Justice Canada)
Board of Directors (April 1, 1982-March 31, 1983)
J. H. C.Clarry Lawyer
S. Kanee
Mrs. Y. Lefebvre-Richard Chairman and General Manager
J. A. Stack Lawyer
McCarthy & McCarthy P.O. Box 48
Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6 Chairman
Soo Line Mills (1969) Ltd.
7 Higgins Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B0AI
J.B. Lefebvre Ltee 9950, Ray-Lawson Blvd. Montreal, Quebec H1J IL8
McKercher, McKercher, Stack Korchin & Laing 374 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 1M5
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 of the Bank of Canada Act, the fee paid to a director is $2,500 per annum plus $300 for each meeting of the Board which he or she attends and the fee paid to the directors who are members of the Executive Committee is in addition $2,500 per annum plus $200 for each meeting of the Executive Committee which they attend.
Name	Background Expertise	[DOT]Total Remuneration Fiscal Year 1982-1983C. Charland	Former Canadian Ambassador to Mexico	$ 0.-S. i. Bata	Director, Bata Limited (Business)	$3,611.52J. H. Dickey	Sr. Partner-Mclnnes, Cooper & Robertson (Barrister & Solicitor)	[DOT][DOT]$5,340.65R. Giroux	Director, Power Corp. of Canada Ltd. (Business)	$ 429.63W. A. Hadden	President, Champion Spark Plug Comp, of Canada, Ltd. (Business)	$2,917.50R. V. Hession	DM of Supply, SSC (Business and Government)	$ 0.-J. E. G. Howarth	President/CEO, CCC (Business and Government)	$ 0.-A. A. MacNaughton	President/GEO, Genstar Corporation (Business)	$ 700.00G. E. Shannon	ADM, Intern. Trade and Finance, DoF (Government)	$ 0.-
* Directors from the private business sector are paid a director's fee of $350/day and travelling expenses for each meeting of the Board (or one of its committees) they attend, or for each day, or part thereof, of any other service to the Corporation.
** Expenses for two meetings not yet claimed.
The positions of Governor and Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada are non-classified positions. Salaries set or approved by the Governor in Council for non-classified positions range from $63,000 to $227,900.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1. Are any exempt staff employed by the Minister of the Environment and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?

April 13, 1984
Order Paper Questions
2. Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 1.
Yes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
(a), (b) Title/Position
(c) Name
Senior Policy Advisor Special Assistant Private Secretary Special Assistant Special Assistant (Toronto) Special Assistant
Eileen Allen Brigitte Fortin Donna Mutter Gail Shannon-White Isabel Strickland Theresa Zanatta
2. Yes. (a) Isabel Strickland, (b) Ms. Strickland provides the use of her home in Toronto as a constituency office, through a lease arrangement at $120 per month from the operation of constituency offices allowance.

Mr. Nowlan: In (a) 1979 (b) 1980, did members or former members of the board of Air Canada, use their free airline pass and, if so, what is a list of their names and, in each case (i) on what date (ii) where did the flight originate and terminate (iii) what type of fare was booked (iv) what was the commercial equivalent cost of the fare?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Records for the period requested are no longer available.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 110 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SKI RESORTS
Mr. Stewart: In the past five years, did the government give (a) financial assistance (b) loans (c) loan guarantees for any ski resorts in (i) Ontario (ii) Alberta (iii) British Columbia and, if so, in each case, in what amount, to whom and under what conditions of repayment?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles James Mayer: That whereas the economic problems facing Canadian farmers today are largely the result of Government inaction and neglect, this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance of the agricultural sector and its contribution to economic growth in Canada and urges the Government to move quickly to reduce the farm fuel tax, introduce a red meat stabilization plan, expedite the passage of legislation respecting advance payments, resist the erosion of initial payments for Western grain, pass urgently needed amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and reduce high interest rates and take steps to facilitate the introduction of agri-bonds.
He said: Mr. Speaker, agriculture has had some exposure in the House this week, and justifiably so. There was an NDP opposition motion on Wednesday and some questions today on agriculture. It is an important topic for this country. Too often many of us simply take agriculture for granted. One reason that happens is that farmers basically are very efficient. As they become more efficient, there are fewer farmers and, therefore, less political influence and political clout. Nevertheless it is a subject that is extremely important.
I will put a couple of figures on the record. This has been done many times by those of us who speak on this topic. Agriculture accounts for 20 per cent of the employment in this country. In addition, it is a very substantial earner of foreign exchange. I suspect that Canadian agricultural exports in the past year will amount to close to $10 billion, a lot of money. Although the figures are not yet available, if you look at 1982 and what has happened in 1983, I believe $10 billion is a conservative estimate of the amount of exports for which agriculture was responsible. One way to illustrate what $1 billion represents is to point out that $1 billion amounts to $400 per capita. If agriculture was responsible for exports of $10 billion, that represents $400 for each person in this country. It certainly helps the over-all economy of this country.
As farmers have become more efficient, in the last three or four years they have been farming away some of their equity. If you look at the figures for 1983 over 1982 you see that in
1982	on average-you have to be careful when talking averages because there are wide variances-approximately 16.2 per cent of disposable income was used to feed Canadians. In
1983	the figure went down to under 16 per cent.
Farmers can take some pride in their efficiency. However, it is well known that farmers have been losing money. There have been record bankruptices in this country, not only in the economy in general, but agriculture in particular. One reason they have been able to feed consumers in this country for a smaller percentage of their disposable income is that every time farmers sell what they produce, they sell off some of their equity, some of the value they have in their farm. This cannot continue if we are to maintain a healthy agricultural industry.
April 13, 1984

There are other ways to make the same point. The percentage of the consumer dollar that is spent on food which goes back to the farmer is decreasing. It used to be that 50 per cent to 55 per cent of what the consumer spent on food went back to the farm gate. It is now under 50 cents on the dollar. Closer to 46 or 47 cents of every dollar goes back to the producer. That tells us the kind of services available with food. We have food that is out of season and food that is pre-packaged. It has been said many times that you do not get a potato into a modern kitchen unless it is peeled, or somehow processed. That is what consumers take for granted. Very seldom does a store not have milk in stock and on back order. A sour quart of milk is replaced without question. We are served very well by Canadian agriculture.
I wish to make a few points about the way Canadian agriculture is treated relative to the agricultural industry in some other countries around the world. Canada is a relatively small country with a population of 25 million people or thereabouts. The United States has approximately 10 times the population of Canada, as has the European Economic Community. We realize that this Government or any Government of Canada would not be able to spend the number of tax dollars supporting agriculture that either the European Economic Community or the United States is able to spend simply because Canada does not have the industrial base against which to tax in order to support agriculture. We are not suggesting that the Government give more subsidies to agriculture but we are suggesting that there are some things the Canadian Government could do. At the end of my remarks, I would like to make some specific suggestions and point out some of the things the Government could do without increasing the deficit in any substantial way.
A popular word these days is "megaproject". The oil sands has been referred to as a megaproject, as have other things. It has been said many times and is worth saying again that agriculture is an ongoing megaproject. It is a $20 billion ongoing industry. However, this means that it is easier for the Government to take the agricultural industry for granted. It is an extremely large industry, though, and involves something like 20 per cent of the labour force when including all of the service industries and manufacturing industries attached to agriculture. I would like to make sure that the Government and consumers in general understand what a large factor Canadian agriculture is in the economy.
As I said previously, we are very dependent upon exports. On average, 50 cents of every dollar that a Canadian farmer earns comes from exports. It becomes very important for the Government to do what it can to keep us competitive with our international competitors. We must remain competitive because we are not in a position to enter into any kind of a subsidy war with either the United States or the European Economic Community. It is very important for the Government to understand what happens when it starts to tax Canadian agriculture. We must have taxation systems in the country
Supply
which are as similar as possible to the taxation systems of our chief competitor, the United States.
Taking a look at the situation in the United States, something like $ 13 billion or $ 14 billion was spent by the American Government on the PIC Program. We cannot match those kinds of subsidies in this country. It therefore becomes very important that our input costs are as similar to American input costs as possible. My farm is located approximately 50 miles from the American border. A good number of people in the country live very close to the American border. If we were to go across the line and look at the input costs in the United States this spring, we would find that all of an American farmer's input costs are less expensive than they are in Canada. That includes fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, seed, machinery, repairs and everything else. A big chunk of the extra costs which we incur in Canada are the result of taxation.
Dealing with fuel, for instance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has told us how great the National Energy Program is because if we did not have that program and the Conservative Party had formed the Government, oil prices would have gone to world levels. The Minister has forgotten to say that a gallon of diesel fuel in the United States costs $1.20 or $1.25, yet the same gallon of diesel fuel costs 50 cents or 60 cents more in Canada. Spare us from what the Minister says is great because it is costing us more money and in fact putting us out of business.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) fail to point out that the Government places a tremendous amount of tax on farm fuels. I am suggesting that we had better be pretty careful when taxing some of these industries because to my mind, and I think a lot of people would agree with me, agriculture is a genuine creator of wealth in the country. If we do not realize this and encourage it and treat the agricultural industry as the Government treats the energy industry, this very basic, fundamental and productive industry will almost be taxed into oblivion. I can make that statement because there are a great many facts and figures to back it up, Mr. Speaker.
There are a few examples of this in southern Ontario and in fact in the Minister's riding of Windsor. In the last six weeks or so, I had a chance to talk to people who make their living in the tobacco industry. That industry is in an absolutely horrendous condition and will lose thousands of jobs this year largely because of the amount of taxation imposed by both levels of government. I am told that a package of cigarettes returns the producer something like six cents a package, yet the Government takes over $1 a package in tax. Without dealing with the morals of smoking, the point is that these producers exist and are very good at what they do. They have families and commitments and it seems to me that if we want to keep people on the land, we must look at the taxation imposed by governments.
A little over two weeks ago, I had a chance to talk to some people who work in the greenhouse industry and who are located very close to Windsor, the riding of the Minister. Those people told me that well over half their costs are
3034

April 13, 1984
Supply
associated with energy. A big chunk of the cost of energy is tax. We should get our act together because it seems to me that we will tax these producers out of business, which, in effect, is what some of these taxes on fuels are doing. This does not mean that Canadians will not eat cucumbers, lettuce or tomatoes; it simply means that those things will be imported from the United States.
It does not make any ordinary, common, barnyard sense for a government literally to tax an industry out of business and put Canadian producers out of jobs and then, in order to satisfy consumer demand, import fruits and vegetables from the United States. That creates jobs in the United States but does not do anything for Canadians. We all know that close to two million people in this country are unemployed.
Those are some of the questions which are being asked. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is experiencing these kinds of problems close to his own constituency. He should be responsible and sensitive to the entire Canadian agricultural constituency, but when the problems are that close in a physical sense to the area which the Minister represents and the Government is not prepared to do anything, it really makes me wonder what kind of understanding, if any, the Government has of the Canadian agricultural industry.
I would like to refer now to the Western Grain Transportation Act, a Bill which was passed in this House last fall. We know now that the figures we were given regarding the amount of capital expenditure to be made by the railways and the number of jobs that were to be created by breaking the Crow rate were wrong. When the railways tell us that they are now going to spend something like 25 per cent less on capital expenditures than they initially said they were going to spend because their costs are down and they can accomplish the same thing by spending less money, we wonder why the Government does not come forward and decrease the costs to the producers who are going to pick up a portion of these increases. We have not seen that happen yet and it is another example of how the Government is not concerned about Canadian agriculture. The Government is prepared to see an industry taxed and, in the case of the breaking of the Crow rate, is prepared to see an industry pay more than it should, on the one hand, and pay more than it is able to, on the other. This is something which concerns a great many people.
I would like to suggest to the Government some ideas which, if implemented, would help the financial plight of Canadian farmers now at a very important time. It is now the spring planting season and people are putting their crops in the ground. These suggestions would not only help producers financially but, almost as important and perhaps even more important, they would give farmers a morale boost. Farmers know that they cannot expect governments to bail them out of all of their financial problems. I believe that most producers are very realistic in that respect. If things could be done which would not add to the deficit in any substantial measure, it would be a signal to these people that someone cares and has a little bit of understanding of their serious financial situation.
There would be encouragement and hope for the upcoming season and for the following year.
One of the things this Government could do would be to reduce the level of taxation on farm fuels. We have heard our Leader ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether that could be done. There was an interesting exchange in the House between them and there was some concern over the deficit. But let me make a suggestion. One of the ways we could decrease the amount of money that producers need in order to put their crops in the ground this spring would be simply to stop collecting the seven cents excise tax on farm fuels which the federal Governmment collects. That could be done without increasing the deficit. This excise tax is collected and then refunded.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) is not here at the moment. He is a very beleagered Minister these days. I think that is an understatement after having seen some of the fire under which he has been in the House. Removing that excise tax would not only help the Minister of National Revenue, because he would not have to administer the program, but it would also help the producers. They would not then have to lay out the seven cents a gallon, have that money tied up with the Government for six months, or worry about filling out forms in order to get it back. Eliminating that tax would signal to the farm community that this Government has a little bit of understanding and compassion. This would not add one red cent to the deficit, and it would make good, ordinary sense.
Let me talk about what happened today concerning initial payments. Initial payments are down. The Prime Minister asked what are they. They were announced this morning. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) who asked the Prime Minister the question today certainly knew. It was obvious the Prime Minister did not. But initial payments are down 27 cents a bushel for hard red spring wheat. They are down 54 cents a bushel for Durum, 11 cents a bushel for six row barley, 12 cents a bushel for feed barley and they are down in the order of seven or eight cents for the two classes of oats. But the point is that initial payments are down. That is today, Friday of this week.
On Monday we saw the Farm Credit Corporation substantially increase interest rates it is going to charge farmers for new loans. I don't know how to be positive about this, but we had a very, very depressing week as far as Canadian farmers are concerned. At the beginning of the week we were told that interest rates were going up. Interest is a big cost to farmers because they are large users of capital. At the end of the week we see a Government that is not prepared to support Canadian agriculture to guarante these prices. We see grain prices reduced substantially, 27 cents a bushel, which on a percentage basis is 5 per cent or 6 per cent. That is significant. In the case of Durum, the price is down over 10 per cent. I suggest there is room on world markets for a little optimism as far as prices are concerned. My guess is that when the smoke clears,
April 13, 1984

and all the grain is sold, at the end of the coming crop year- and we are going to get a final payment-there will probably be a final payment on the prices announced today.
I see no reason why the Government should not have shown a little bit of faith in Canadian agriculture. It could have said: "We are going to guarantee that prices are the same as they were last year". It may cost us a little money as far as federal treasury is concerned, but if we are prepared to support the aircraft industry in Ontario and Quebec through Canadair and de Havilland by billions of dollars, surely we should be able to support this industry a little bit. It is a critical time of the year and we should give them some encouragement. The Government should be willing to do something on behalf of the agricultural industry.
I have suggested there are a couple of areas the Government could have acted on which would have provided some hope and encouragement to Canadian agriculture. If I am right in my assumption about grain prices, it would not have cost the Government one cent in increased deficit.
There are other things that could be done. We are in disastrous shape as far as research in Canadian agriculture is concerned. A major researcher in western Canada resigned this week because of his disgust at the situation. I cannot remember his exact words, but he threw up his hands at where this country is going in research. This Government could take that in hand. It could show some concern, some direction and some leadership in the research field. It would not cost any additional money. There is a substantial amount of money in the federal Budget for research. One of the concerns we have is that there does not seem to be any direction. Nobody seems to know where we are going. There is no longer enough of the excellent research that was done 15 or 20 years ago. I am told we are now behind the Europeans in many areas of research. This, again, is an area of concern to farmers and which would not involve expenditure of large sums. The money is there. It needs someone to take hold of the situation and show there is concern and some leadership in the Government.
There are two other areas on which we have been urging the Government to act and to act quickly. These are areas the Government said it would do something about in the Throne Speech. I am speaking of red meat stabilization. Simply an attitudinal change would signal that the federal Government and the Minister would support it and that would mean hope for the people in the red meat sector. It would mean they would have a plan and an operation for the calendar year 1984. We have encouraged the Government. We have offered to pass this legislation as quickly as we possibly can as soon as we see it. But we have no legislation. We saw advanced payments legislation introduced and given first reading, but we have not seen it come forward for second reading. We on this side are certainly prepared to support and support as quickly as we can anything that will help Canadian agriculture. It is particularly important that some of these things be done at this critical time of the year.
Before I close I want to comment on the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture to seek the
Supply
leadership of the Liberal Party. I think all of us realize he will certainly add a lot of colour to the campaign. We also hope in his new undertaking that he will not abdicate his responsibilities on behalf of Canadian agriculture. We will certainly support him in any legislation he chooses to bring forward as far as helping Canadian farmers are concerned. We urge the Minister to help farmers and to act quickly. Unfortunately, to date we have not seen much evidence that this Government either understands or cares enough about Canadian agriculture and the problems it is experiencing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: At this stage in our proceedings there is a ten-minute period allowed for questions or comments relating to the Hon. Member's remarks. Are there any questions?


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) spoke excellently. He is from the west but I think he has an appreciation of Ontario agricultural problems. Beyond the agri-bond and the red meat stabilization program, is there anything else that should be done to assist small farmers who cannot spend all their time on the farm?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that would assist farmers no matter where they are in Canada is simply to reduce the level of taxation which the federal Government collects on farm fuels. I mentioned that. We also think there is room for increasing cash advance legislation which would help producers in Ontario. The Hon. Member makes a very good point. If you look at statistics across the country, Ontario has more farmers than any other province. Ontario accounts for about 26 per cent of all farmers.
If we work together as farmers and as Members in the House, there are two things we could accomplish that would help everyone, including Ontario farmers. One is to pressure the Government to do something on agri-bonds and interest rates. The other is to pressure the Government to do something about what most people consider are the excess levels of taxation on farm fuels. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), one of our Ontario Members, has a motion before the Finance Committee to address the whole issue of agri-bonds. We on this side believe that there are some areas that could be addressed as far as the agri-bond concept is concerned which would provide stable, long-term interest rates to farmers without very much, if any, additional cost to the federal treasury.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, in Ontario we deal with much smaller units than in the west. There is no full-time employment for farmers. Many of them, because of the cost of equipment, have had to go out to work. There has been a certain amount of hindrance to farmers which the Hon. Member might address, which particularly applies to Ontario with its large number of small farms.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the taxation system as it applies to farmers. I have to agree with the Minister of Agriculture, who said in a statement back in February in Edmonton when he was addressing the annual

April 13, 1984
Supply
meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that he would much sooner see part-time farmers than absentee landlords. We all agree with that. But the Minister does not have to convince us or the farmers of that, but the people who do some of the assessing under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue. Certainly, there are some areas which could be helped if the Government was prepared to provide lower interest rates to starting farmers federally, as well as some of the provincial governments. What is wrong with being fair, never mind giving them a break? Why not just be fair in the way you treat people who want to go out and hold two jobs in order that they can some day own a piece of land? There is an area which could have a tremendous amount of improvement, and that is in helping people establish themselves on farms. No matter where you look in this world, the most efficient producer of agricultural products is the family farm. If we cannot encourage that through our taxation systems now, then we will rue this day in the future when we in this country find ourselves short of food.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would enlarge upon the question of the Western Grain Stabilization Act. As he knows, the question of amending that Act has come up in the House a great many times over the past year and a half or two years. There have been a lot of representations made by farm groups wanting to make changes to it. The Government has chosen not to introduce any amendments. Does the Hon. Member know of any way, short of retroactivity, any amendment, which would create a payment within the next few months, so that money could get into farmers' hands, or is retroactive application of the current rules the only way of doing that?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question, especially because it comes from the New Democratic Party. It shows the way in which we on the opposition side of the House are willing to co-operate.
Yes, there are ways to do it but, unfortunately, we cannot convince the Government. What we could do statistically is change it from a five-year to a three-year average. We could even do better than that. We could change it to a moving average so we would take this year's cost, statistically project next year's figures and use last year's figures. So if we were to take a three-year average and base it on the years 1983, 1984 and project the year 1985, we could trigger a substantial pay-out immediately.
When I say "immediately", Mr. Speaker, I mean that if this Government were prepared to do it, we could pass that legislation this afternoon. There is co-operation on this side but, unfortunately, there is no willingness on the part of Hon. Members opposite to recognize the problem and to provide the kind of leadership which is needed. Even though we disagree substantially with the New Democratic Party on many issues, on this issue we are co-operating with each other. It makes absolutely no sense that we in this House cannot act on
something as important as the fund referred to by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) that the Government of Canada reduced the natural gas and gas liquids tax to zero as of February 1.


Charles James Mayer: I know that.


Ralph Ferguson: The Hon. Member was commenting about the greenhouse industry and how much its fuel was costing, and natural gas was one of the large suppliers of heat for the greenhouse industry. From the information I have, the consumer price actually increased in Ontario when that tax was removed. I am also alarmed about the fact that the prices of anhydrous ammonia and ammonia-based fertilizers have increased this spring even after the tax was removed. I wonder if the Hon. Member has any comment on that.
I also wonder if the Hon. Member has any comment on the fact that just this morning there was a press release from Ontario Hydro indicating that the cost for hydro will increase by 9.1 per cent for 1985.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that we in this House do not have very much to do with provincial matters. However, if the Hon. Member wants to talk about the greenhouse industry, I will tell him that 56 per cent of its costs are energy costs. It is one thing to take off the 9 per cent excise tax, and we appreciate that, but that is only part of the game. We simply must stop treating these inputs which we have in this country as a base for this Government to raise taxes.


Ralph Ferguson: There is no tax on natural gas.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member says there is no tax on natural gas used in the greenhouse industry. Clearly he does not understand the situation, Mr. Speaker. We have energy in abundance in this country. It is shut in in Alberta because there are no markets for it. This Government taxes it at such a level producers are going out of business in this country. When they go out of business, as I said, consumers are still going to use those products but will have to import them, losing jobs along the way. This happens because we basically treat industries like agriculture and energy as cash cows in order to finance the vociferous appetite this Government has for money.
The Hon. Member opposite lives very close to that industry. If he chose to go down and talk to these people, he would have a better understanding of their problems than he obviously has from the silly questions he asks.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with these people in my own constituency. The natural gas and gas liquids tax was removed on February 1. I simply asked the question of the Hon. Member as to why the price to the producers was not lowered. He also did not comment on the Ontario Hydro increase. I also suggest that we should look at
April 13, 1984

the Ontario Energy Board pricing schedule within the Province of Ontario as to its costs to the producers.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the comment made by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) that, because of his concern for farmers, Hon. Members of the Opposition would take it easy on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I wonder, Mr. Speaker, do Members of the Opposition similarly have concern for natives and unemployed? If so, why have they not offered the same courtesy to those Ministers who are also leadership candidates?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) has time for a very short answer.


Charles James Mayer: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, the motion on opposition day today is on agriculture and that is my specific responsibility as far as the Opposition is concerned. I am sure that other Hon. Members of my Party who have responsibilities in the areas to which the Hon. Member refers would be more than happy to co-operate if there was legislation coming forward which was going to benefit other groups. I was simply making the point that we are more than willing to co-operate with the Government. I did not say we would make deals. I said we would co-operate and work together, and encourage the Government to do things. I am sure there are other Members on this side who have responsibilities for other areas, as far as criticizing the Government is concerned, who would be more than happy to offer the same kind of co-operation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: This puts an end to question period. We are resuming debate.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this very important opposition day debate. One of the most important points which I feel must be brought out this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is that immediate action has got to be taken by the Government in order to avert a crisis of some national dimension in the agricultural industry. The scenario, in effect, is building up at the present time for a substantial problem in the agricultural industry. All the signs and indications are pointing toward a very poor year in 1984 unless the Government itself really does take the problem seriously and addresses some of the questions which must be addressed.
We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, in which agricultural bankruptcies are up higher than they have been, I guess, since the Depression. The situation is building up in terms of the international grain prices which seem to be dropping. There has been some indication of just how far they may drop on the initial prices which have been made public this morning. When you start to combine these things, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time the Government seems to be turning its back on agriculture, it is plain to see that we could be in for a very, very serious problem.
Supply
I want to speak about bankruptcies, Mr. Speaker, because bankruptcy is one of the areas which is the window, in effect, through which we can see what it really happening to an industry, whether agriculture, the business sector, or any other area.
Bankruptcies in agriculture are quite substantial. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reports that in 1983 some 488 Canadian farmers declared bankruptcy. That is a 19 per cent increase over the 1982 level. Bankruptcies on the Prairies jumped by 97 per cent over 1982, some 154 in total. That is startling and it certainly shows the problem we are experiencing in agriculture. We are talking only about the hard bankruptcy; one can only guess at the number of people who have gotten out of agriculture before they went bankrupt. Therefore the problem is very serious.
The Province of Manitoba, where I come from, is the hardest hit with 62 bankruptcies, up 106 per cent over 1982. This was followed by Alberta with 47 bankruptcies, a 96 per cent increase. Saskatchewan had 45 bankruptcies, an 87 per cent increase over 1982. Everything points to bankruptcies continuing at a high level this year, particularly on the Prairies. Then we have international reports which indicate an excess of grain supply, soft market prices, and the Americans will be doing a number of things to sell grain really at any cost.
In 1979, Mr. Speaker, there was one farm bankruptcy in Manitoba and a total of 125 in all of Canada. In 1980 it jumped to 14 in Manitoba, 14 in 1981 and it jumped to 30 in 1982. Then in 1983 it jumped from 30 to 62, and a total of 488 in Canada.
These figures are an indication of just how serious the situation in agriculture is. It has not really been addressed by this Government over the last number of years. Lip service has been paid by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), but nothing concrete has been done. Legislation to help the Canadian farmer in the west, in Manitoba, has not been forthcoming. The only thing we have had to deal with in a meaningful way over the last number of years is, of course, the Bill to do away with the Crowsnest Pass freight rate, which this Party fought long and hard. We were concerned about the increased costs to the western farmer, primarily the grain farmer. Of course, that is coming true and with prices dropping, bankruptcies are up, which will mean one more input cost the western farmer will have to hear for transportation to market.
Young farmers are especially hard hit. They always are because they are not established and do not have the cash reserves. In my own riding of Lisgar in southern Manitoba many young farmers got out of university, in most cases, went back to the farm, farming it on their own and are struggling, literally just hanging on, because of the poor economic situation. Many farms with large capitalizations have incomes of $8,000, $10,000, $12,000, literally below the poverty line. Such a farmer works 12 months a year below the poverty line.

:
April 13, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments related to the Hon. Member's remarks? Debate.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the substance of my remarks, in which I will remind Hon. Members of the role played by the Farm Credit Corporation, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) and the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) for bringing this subject before the House today.
I believe that, whoever we may be in this House, whether from Calgary, Toronto, Montreal or any other Canadian city, whoever we are as Members, Mr. Speaker, we must all be thankful for the quality of Canada's farming community. I am pleased to note that the Hon. Members for Portage-Marquette and Lisgar emphasized in their remarks the extent of their respect and admiration for Canadian farmers who make up a small segment of our total population. We might think of them as being a minority of Canadians who feed the rest of us, Mr. Speaker, or consider that all those farmers throughout Canada were the ones who opened up this country for us all who became urban residents.
It is with pleasure and pride that I represent a rural riding, Mr. Speaker, even though its territory cannot be favourably compared with the spectacular expanses of the Portage-Marquette region, nor even with those of the riding of my colleague from Lisgar. However, it is my belief that, despite the difference in extent or volume of productive capacity-indeed, my region is known primarily for producing hogs, chickens and dairy products rather than crops-it is a fact that throughout the country, and I should think that this is what the Hon. Members stressed in their remarks, it is very important that, as decision makers in this House, we be ever conscious of the concerns, problems and difficulties which Canadian farmers must face. It is important that the Canadian farming community be a regular topic of debate in the House because we must find out what to do to make our farmers more productive, better adapted to prevailing market conditions and, I am tempted to say, so proud of themselves that they will be eager to produce even more.
Of course, I thought there was something that did not quite ring true in the speeches of my colleagues from Portage-Marquette and Lisgar, but that is to be expected in the House. I am referring to the fact that we do indulge in partisan rhetoric in our speeches, which is always a somewhat negative approach. It is never pleasant to hear someone say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is a total failure in the agricultural sector. I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Lisgar did exaggerate when he said that, but it is the kind of partisan remark which was to be expected.
In my opinion, the Minister of Agriculture is known throughout the country-and even throughout the world, since
Supply
he is President of the World Food Council-as a staunch defender of Canada's farming community. The Minister of Agriculture, along with his Cabinet colleagues and the members of the Liberal Party caucus, is always trying to advocate programs to help farmers. We also try to promote development research. We have research stations throughout the country, including one in the riding of Lisgar, and all those research stations need additional funds, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact of every day life, whether the Government in office is Liberal or Conservative-or, God help us, an NDP Government, but that can never be, it is only a very weird notion-and I think that research and development will always have to be a priority, as it is for this Government. As proof of that, the April Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) featured a recovery program in which additional funds were generously earmarked for new agricultural research facilities. Also, the Department of Science and Technology in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture has approached Canadian universities to try and consolidate the agricultural research capacity of Canadian universities with research centres of Agriculture Canada to achieve a greater impact with that basic research in terms of new products which will be of some assistance to our farmers.
I will carry on with my comments at 2 p.m., Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please! The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Lapointe) has the floor.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find this situation absolutely shocking! Although Hon. Members of the Official Opposition keep telling us every day that they want to take over the government, they just cannot assume their responsibilities on this allotted day as the House is called upon to deal with a motion they themselves have moved. That is not good enough ... I agree that baseball games involving the Expos are of the utmost importance and that their first game today is certainly most fascinating to watch on TV. Yet, I am thoroughly shocked to see that the Official Opposition on this allotted day, has been unable to get together 25 Hon. Members. How many are they in the House? I can hardly count 5 of them, Mr. Speaker, and as government Members, we must see to it that there are enough of us to ensure quorum, when they should see to that. Then they will come to me, in their sanctimonious attitude, and say that they are concerned about Canadian farmers. I suggest that by refusing to participate in the debate on this motion on this

April 13, 1984
Supply
allotted day they clearly demonstrated their contempt for the Canadian farming community.
Before the lunch recess, Mr. Speaker, I was reminding the House of the major investments in agricultural research which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced in his budget of last April. First of all, there are several agricultural research laboratories throughout Canada; it is a field where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is constantly trying to allocate additional funds to provide Canadian farmers with improved production techniques and help them increase their returns, which is not easy in these difficult times. Through his efforts and his work my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture looks quite satisfactorily, after this sector.
Then, there is the marketing issue. Hon. Members opposite discussed that too. One must not forget that it was against the Official Opposition's month-long filibuster that the government has implemented, on the Minister of Agriculture's initiative, the bill establishing CANAGREX, the corporation which is now responsible for developing new and major export markets for Canada farm products. And as the Right Hon. Prime minister was saying this morning during the Oral Question Period, we have set each year and for many years new wheat selling records, thanks to our farm producers and the Canadian Wheat Board.
O)
There is another area, or another tool which the Government has used quite generously to help farmers make it through the difficult period we have had recently and which is beginning to fade away. As I was saying earlier in my comments, I want to take this opportunity to mention the role played by the Farm Credit Corporation and take stock of its operations.
Of course, we all agree that the agricultural industry has many problems, but I do not believe that the situation is as dark as some people would suggest. The Canadian Government provides considerable assistance to the Canadian farmers who are suffering from the backlash of the economic situation. In addition, this governmental intervention is not temporary; it does not involve ad hoc programs, but rather permanent measures, considering that the Farm Credit Corporation and its predecessor, the Farm Credit Board, have been in operation for 55 years providing Canadian farmers with financial support, management assistance and investment counselling.
To give an idea of the amounts invested in agriculture by the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Members that the corporation now has something like 80,000 loans outstanding and this represents a total investment of $4.7 billion in the Canadian agricultural industry. As the Hon. Members can see, this is an important contribution to the economic welfare of Canadian farmers.
During the fiscal year which ended thirteen days ago, on March 31, 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation has approved
some 7,536 loans under its regular credit program and its special farm financial assistance program for a total amount of $758 million. This means an increase of $141 million over the 1982-83 fiscal year. Besides, the Government has recently approved a budget which will bring up to about $825 million the amounts available to the Farm Credit Corporation for loans to Canadian farmers in 1984-85. This is definitely an increase compared with a volume of loans amounting to $7 58 million in 1983-84. The Corporation has a budget of $825 million for the year 1984-85.
Mr. Speaker, the role of the Farm Credit Corporation is helping young and new farmers, who do not have the equity required to borrow from commercial institutions. The corporation therefore has an essential role to play. As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, new farmers and the owners of small farms who want to expand their operation are much more vulnerable because they lack personal assets, but they probably are the ones who need larger sums to develop and maintain a profitable operation and they must be able to borrow this money at favourable terms, something which the commercial sector cannot provide.
The loans with floating or frequently adjusted interest rates offered by the commercial institutions do not take into account the special features of the agricultural industry. It is very difficult for a young farmer or the owner of a small farm with little personal assets to borrow from commercial institutions at a floating rate over a period of 10, 20 or 30 years because the risks and the projections can vary too much.
The only way to help these beginners is to offer them reasonable interest rates and favourable terms, which financial institutions do not normally do. This is exactly what the Farm Credit Corporation is now doing. For instance, the corporation is offering farm enterprises loans of a maximum of $360,000 to $600,000 depending on whether the enterprise includes one or more eligible partner. The loan ceilings of the Farm Credit Corporation have been pushed up twice during the last three years to meet the needs of farmers more adequately. During a recession, the most difficult problem for farmers, as well as for small businesses and many individuals, is related to their special financing needs.
To meet these special needs and financing requirements, the Government is offering farmers, through the FCC, long term credit at terms not generally available to them or to small businesses in order to promote agricultural production. Indeed, speaking of programs developed during the last three years, especially during this period of economic difficulties, one may also mention that in addition to the Farm Credit Corporation loans, over half a billion dollars were offered to farmers to help them refinance their loans under the Small Businesses Development Bonds Program and the Special Farm Assistance Program.

t,

April 13, 1984

I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that the sole purpose of all this is to promote agricultural production, to help newcomers to agriculture, especially the young farmers, and to maintain in Canada the dynamic agricultural industry we now have, which is made up of men and women whose only objective is to improve their production and increase their profits. As the Minister of Agriculture has often said, we have the chance and the privilege in Canada of having the most dynamic agricultural community in the world and its level of production compares favorably with that of any other country.
The Farm Credit Corporation puts loads of energy into its consultation services program. I referred earlier to an amount of $758 million in loans in 1983-84, but in addition to those loans, as we are dealing mostly with young farmers and small farm operators, it is important for the borrower to have a sound understanding of financial management in order to succeed. This is why the Farm Credit Corporation offers its consultation services program to its borrowers. The purpose of this program is to help farmers handle the financial management of their operation so that they will sooner or later attain their personal and economic objectives.
As a general rule, FCC borrowers who need counselling are those with little equity or sizeable debts, an expanding operation, little experience, a high risk business, or financial problems. The corporation is there to help these people by offering them a management support program for two or three years. Generally, this is long enough for them to learn to manage their financial affairs efficiently.
As of March 31, 1984, less than two weeks ago, 4,800 FCC borrowers were involved in its consultation services program, which accounts for 30 per cent of all FCC borrowers. Besides administering credit, loans and financial management assistance programs, the Farm Credit Corporation works hand in hand with federal agencies and Departments, provincial Governments and private lending institutions to meet the specific needs of farmers. For many years now, it has been cooperating with the Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Alberta as a partner in their interest grant programs. It has renewed its efforts in that field in 1982-83 by taking part as lender in the Saskatchewan farm buying program. Last year, the FCC signed an agreement whith the Province of Ontario to make funds available under an assistance program designed for newcomers to agriculture.
Since I have only two minutes left, I would like to say in conclusion that between November 1981 and March 31 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation spent $341 million in the interest rebate assistance program. With the rebate set at four percentage points and a budget of $200 million for this program, it was possible to refund $16 million in interest rebates to Canadian farmers. As we all know, the program was extended with an injection of $100 million more in the April Budget of the Minister of Finance. When the Government established
Supply
that program, the economy recovery was expected to last for the two years of the program. The fact is that the economic recovery was very slow in the agricultural sector. As suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, the Government is now considering the possibility of extending the rebate period or certain other mechanisms to help farmers who are still in financial difficulties. As the Minister of Agriculture said recently, a decision to that effect will be made very soon, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There will be a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the Minister's remarks. He talked about partisan rhetoric and the fact that he deplored that in the Opposition. He said there was a far-fetched hypothesis around that we would form the next government. If he looks at the polls, he will realize that he was engaging in partisan rhetoric. I thought I should point that out.
Let me ask a serious question. We have suggested that one of the ways of reducing costs to both farmers and fishermen, and it would affect people from coast to coast, is for the Government to stop collecting the seven cents a gallon excise tax on fuel used on the farm and by fishermen. It would not increase the deficit because the Government collects the money and sends it back. I am sure it would help the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and cut down on the number of steps that have to be taken. It would reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved. If anything, it would reduce government expenditure and maybe help the deficit. Would the Minister support that kind of proposal?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy the Hon. Member has asked this question. I am glad the Conservative Party has now come to this conclusion. I remind the Hon. Member that this request has been in the platform of the Liberal Party for the last four years. This suggestion has been put forward by the militants of the Liberal Party. It is being studied very closely by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). When the time comes for the Government to evaluate this issue, I will give it a great deal of attention.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was very gracious in his reply. Could he be a little more specific? Will he do more than give it consideration? If it supported by the Opposition and his Party, surely he would not find it difficult to support that proposal and do more than give it consideration when it comes up?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. friend from Portage-Marquette to realize that I am not the Minister of Agriculture. I have always supported with much passion and interest the discussions in Cabinet on agricultural issues, whether it be the red meat strategy, the Canadian food strategy or what have you. Whenever the Cabinet deals with such issues, I am vitally interested. But it is

April 13, 1984
Supply
somewhat difficult for me, without any financial data which I do not have just now, because my colleague the Minister of Agriculture is the expert in this matter to reply by yes or no. I quite understand the logic of the Hon. Member; in fact our Liberal supporters have clearly indicated during the various conventions we have held over the past few years that the removal of the excise tax on the oil products which farmers and fishermen are using would greatly reduce their production costs. I follow the Hon. Member up to that point, but I lack the necessary data to be able to give my hon. friend a yes or no answer. However, his suggestion seems to me most reasonable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a question to the Minister. I am sorry that I missed part of his speech. Did the Minister deal with the 4 per cent subsidy, a program which has now expired for a certain group of farmers? Maybe he did. When will the Government take a decision in that connection? Is there a chance that it will be favourable to Canadian farmers?


Charles Lapointe: I thank the Hon. Member for his question, Mr. Speaker. As I said at the beginning of my speech, even if the Hon. Member represents a constituency in the core of the beautiful city of Vancouver, he is as much concerned with farming issues as all other members, because we know quite well that we owe Canadian farmers not only our fine standard of living but also our very country, because it is as farmers that our forefathers opened this country up to the West Coast.
As for the 4 per cent, I dealt briefly with it in my comments. I think that the Hon. Member is referring to the interest rebate which has been set at 4 per cent with $200 million earmarked for that program.
I said earlier that when the Government set up that program over two years ago, it expected that the recession would be over two years later. Unfortunately, as we all know, the economic recovery in the agricultural sector has been very slow. The Government is now considering a proposal from the Minister of Agriculture aimed at extending the 4 per cent interest rebate program. And my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture stated last week that he expects the Government to be in a position to make a decision soon.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in today's debate on the Opposition motion concerning the great many problems facing agriculture today. Two days ago we in the House debated a very specific aspect of agriculture. At that time we discussed some of the financing difficulties and some very short-term solutions that might provide farmers with the means to stay in business for another year. This was important in order to see producers right across the country through the new crop year. Today's motion allows
us to expand our comments further afield and look at the broader role played by agriculture in Canada's economy. Since that is the foundation of today's motion, I would like to spend some time pointing out the role agriculture has played in the expansion of the country.
In North America, the attitude has been taken that agriculture should be used as a means of developing and expanding new lands. That was the case in Quebec, the Maritimes, Central Canada and the Prairies. Agriculture followed the fur trade and the timber trade. As timber disappeared, farms were augmented. As our economy changed from one which was dependent on exports of furs, forestry products and fish, farm products and particularly wheat were added to the economy.
The development of the agricultural base in Canada has almost been completed. Only a few million acres of land are left that could be developed for agricultural purposes and are being used for forestry or wildlife grazing lands. The development aspect of the agricultural industry is almost complete. After the development of the arable land, we moved into a second stage. Throughout most of this century we attempted to utilize technology and mechanization to reduce the number of people required to produce the same amounts or increasing amounts of food. I believe we have come a long way in that revolution and have now come to the next set of crossroads. There are now a number of decisions to make about the kind of agriculture we want in the country.
I began by saying that Canada had followed what has been a North American pattern. I simply remind you of that, Mr. Speaker, because I am going to turn for a moment to the European pattern. Europeans have been producing food on a commercial basis for much longer than we have. Their expansion process ended several hundred years ago. The mechanization program in Europe is complete and Europeans have found that taking human resources away from the agricultural industry could create limits beyond which they do not wish to go.
In Canada we are at the point now where about 4 per cent of the population lives on farms. Since the last war Europeans have been looking at policies which would keep more people on the farms. That is a reversal of the North American policies that have been followed since the war. Most of our policies have had the result, if not the intent, of reducing the number of people on farms. That reduction continues in times like these when net incomes to farmers are extremely low.
If the agricultural industry were to use an accounting system similar to that which is used in most other businesses, we would see that farmers have very little net income right now. I have pointed out many times in the House that the net agricultural income in Canada amounts to about $3.5 billion. That amount has been about the same for the last 10 years. Agriculture Canada tells us that the investment in agricultural production in the country amounts to something over $120 billion. The return on investment alone is in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent or slightly below. However, because of the way the agriculture statistics are published, that return on investment, while it would account for $3.6 billion, does nothing to supply income for the families working in agriculture. They
April 13, 1984

have a choice of paying themselves wages or paying themselves a poor return on their investment amounting to 3 per cent or 3.5 per cent. That is the reality of the situation.
Previous Canadian governments have chosen to adopt certain farm policies that would adjust to the reality that only a certain amount of net income exists. In order to increase farm incomes, the number of farmers has been reduced. Those are the policy options which have been pursued. Since the war Europeans have decided for their own reasons to pursue a policy of more self-sufficiency. I suppose that is something that we on this continent will not understand until we have lived through the horrors of a couple of world wars and until we have been starved a few times. Until that happens, we will probably find it difficult to opt for a policy of self-sufficiency. But the Europeans, having had some experience in that regard, have decided that each of the states within the European Economic Community will attempt to become as self-sufficient as possible.
The EEC have adopted policies which have the effect in our eyes of subsidizing farm production. Until recently the subsidization program went fairly well. On any food products imported into the European Economic Community, the importer paid a very high tariff. The funds raised from those tariffs were used to subsidize the production of agricultural products within the EEC. The European Economic Community has now got to the point where it is self-sufficient in virtually all major agricultural products. There is a slight surplus in some which has created a problem for the EEC. Having become self-sufficient, the EEC no longer has the income from import tariffs to subsidize its internal production. As a result, exports from the EEC combined with the surplus grains in the United States have depressed prices for grain and subsequently for all agricultural production which uses grain.
Canada has this problem and we are facing this difficulty. We have to decide some time, and debates like this are good times to raise the question, which way we should go and whether or not we should opt for more self-sufficiency in Canadian agriculture.
There are some products we clearly cannot produce, bananas being one example. One can think of a number of tropical fruits which are in demand in Canada and which we can never produce here. Anything that can be produced in a temperate zone can be produced here. There are situations where greenhouse production can operate all year round by utilizing some of the waste heat from our power stations. Even in the extreme weather on the Prairies tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce are grown in greenhouse operations using what was before essentially waste heat. Warm air that is expelled from the manufacture of steam to drive power turbines runs through greenhouses, which aids in the production of vegetables. This operation is limited to the area around power stations and it is economical even though our border is open to the importation of fresh vegetables during the winter.
Supply
I think we must look at ways of augmenting the technology we have. Research has been mentioned a couple of times. Now we are at the stage of having to opt for a new type of agriculture. We should be watching where we put some of our research dollars.
We have developed a very high energy-use agriculture, one of the highest energy requirements per Btu of food output in the world. If you compare Canada's energy input-output ratios to that of some of the less developed countries, you would be appalled, Mr. Speaker. Our use of energy in comparison to what we get back from the food produced is only about a quarter to an eighth of the kind of input-output ratios you see in some of the so-called underdeveloped countries like Thailand or China. We have some way to go if the cheap forms of energy imported, oil and gas, are no longer as available as they were in the past.
There are some refreshing breakthroughs in biotechnology. This is probably the research area from which we will reap the most benefits. It seems to me that the development of new useful fungi moulds which can be used for creating alcohol and for attacking some of the crop pests requires far more financing than has been the case. However, it has, with its limited financing, shown some remarkable results. For instance, we have developed now a fungus that attacks the grasshopper. This fungus does not have any effect on the people who distribute the fungus in the fields. The effects of this fungus are almost as good as some of the chemicals that have been used against grasshoppers, and the danger to people and wildlife is almost zero. There are some great advantages to be gained in that area.
Along with changing the direction of agriculture, one of the first steps of which we must be cognizant is that farmers themselves must be allowed to increase their influence in the marketing of their products. We have noted with those products in which we have chosen to be self-sufficient and which we have not attempted to blast into world markets, such as dairy products, that producers have restricted their production and marketed that production to the population in Canada at rates of returns that are remunerative but not overly profitable. They have established that it is possible for farmers to produce goods and set prices in ways that will not only help the consumer to be certain of a product but will keep most of the producers of the product in business.
Products like eggs and poultry are controlled by national marketing boards which have the right to establish price on the basis of the real cost of production. That is absolutely vital if agriculture and farmers are going to be able to continue operating here in Canada. Some of the products in Canada are marketed under somewhat less stringent organizations.
I move now very briefly to the Canadian Wheat Board type of operation. Wheat is still our major export and is still subject to the price established on the so-called world market. It is established somewhere out there and we simply sell it at a price to meet the competititon.
There are some things we could be doing to provide a floor price. We did experiment briefly with the two-price wheat

April 13, 1984
Supply
system which was originally conceived by farmers to be a system which would allow them to charge a price in Canada equivalent to their actual costs and to market the balance of their production in world markets at whatever price they could get for it. Subsequently, once the proposal hit the Government and Parliament Hill, it got turned on its head. However, that is what happens sometimes with legislation once it gets here. It eventually turned out to be a way of providing Canadians with grain at a price even lower than the world price. I think the understanding of the two-price wheat system was not as well entrenched in the head of the former Minister of Agriculture, Otto Lang, as it had been in the heads of western farmers who proposed the system in the first place.
The only major area in wheat marketing where the Government has a stabilizing effect at the moment is in the establishment of initial prices. The board takes its proposals for next year's initial price, the first price the farmer receives when he delivers his grain to the elevator, and the Government underwrites that price. If the markets collapse, the Government of Canada will stand behind the price it sets and makes certain that the farmers get at least that amount of money. The tendency has been, though, for the Government to be extremely conservative on the establishment of the price. Almost always the final price is higher than the initial price and the Government of Canada does not carry any loss because the world price is higher than the Government's established price.
Today we heard that the initial prices have been established and that there is quite a marked reduction in the commitment of the Government to hold the line on grain prices, with the result of reduced prices in the order of something like 26 cents, 27 cents on red spring wheat, 54 cents on Durum, and I believe 11 cents or 12 cents on barley. Those are reductions from last year. That does not bode well for Canadian farmers who are already watching their net incomes deteriorate. They just received the message recently from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), through the Farm Credit Corporation, that the interest rates which will be available to farmers for longer term loans will be increased by one or two percentage points. The prospects for agriculture, therefore, going into this spring, are not particularly good.
I spent a little time outlining some of the directions I feel we should be looking to, but farmers going into this crop year need an injection of cash. They need the fulfilment of the promise made by the Government to change the western grain stabilization formula so it will trigger a pay-out. They would have appreciated recognition by the Government that grain prices were already low enough and that a further erosion of the price by way of reduced initial credit payments should have been avoided. They would appreciate it if that decision could be reversed.
As a result of our conventions which are held every other year, we have presented to Canadians a program for agriculture which we believe would eventually get the farmers of Canada back into a more viable position. We believe that for
the longer term we must have better marketing institutions to extract the maximum from the market. When that fails there must be, as a back-up, stabilization programs to act as insurance. For the short term, right now when farmers are faced with a critical situation, there must be an injection of credit and cash combined in order that our farmers can survive and we can get agriculture into a position where it can become again a part of the growing economy in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments. Since no one rises for questions or comments, we will continue with the debate.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the two Opposition Parties for choosing agriculture as the topic for debate on two separate days this week. This shows the tremendous respect and esteem-I hope not collusion-which is felt for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) as he launches his campaign to become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Prime Minister of this great nation. It has certainly focused public attention on the agricultural industry and its great leader.
The Minister of Agriculture not only commands great respect in Canada, but is a man of world renown as President of the World Food Council. This man, who had his beginnings as a humble peasant from Essex County, a trait which has always stuck with him, can now run for the highest office in the land, and on his behalf I would like to thank Opposition members for their assistance in launching his campaign. I am sure that farmers across Canada join with me in wishing his every success.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that both Opposition Parties have chosen agriculture as the theme for debate this week. It emphasizes what we on this side of the House have known all along, that agriculture is one of the most basic and important sectors of the national economy. The Government is fully aware of the importance of agriculture and of the role which farmers play in the Canadian economy. There is a long list of progressive measures taken over the past few years to make sure that Canada's farming community remains strong and that the industry continues to flourish. In particular, I would draw to your attention the major items in the December, 1983 Speech from the Throne and the February, 1984 Budget. Both contained extremely positive elements for Canadian farmers.
Let us consider first several new agricultural initiatives which were announced in the Throne Speech. These are initiatives which will help strengthen the agri-food industry in both the short term and the long term. For one, there will be a commission of inquiry into the potato marketing agency in eastern Canada. The potato industry has been suffering for a long time. The Government of Canada has paid out millions dollars in recent years to help stabilize eastern potato producers' incomes, but the source of their problem appears to lie in the marketing system or, I should say, lack of one. This inquiry will get to the root of the problem.
April 13, 1984

Just two days ago I spoke in this House and referred to the fact-a fact which was referred to also by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger)-that farmers have for too long been price takers. I suggested that they should perhaps take advantage of some of the legislation available to them, both at the provincial and federal levels, so that they can establish their price at the farm gate, a price which will reflect their cost of production plus a reasonable return on investment and labour.
I would like to read a short letter I received from one of my constituents. It is dated March 22, and I quote:
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
After being a pork producer for 10 years I have seen the effect of the ups and downs of the market, and the future does not look good. The American farmer is starting to complain about us dumping cheap pork on their market and what will happen if the hog numbers increase 40 or 50 per cent in the next three or four years.
Over the past four to six weeks I have been talking to a lot of pork producers and my feeling is that a strong majority favour a form of supply management voted through by the producers.
It seems to me that a two-price system would be what the industry needs; it is not perfect but let's work on it and make it work and then we can do away with subsidies because they do more harm than good. Subsidies are like wetting in your pants on a very cold day to get warmed up. Yours truly.
I believe this is an accurate reflection, Mr. Speaker, of some of the problems facing younger producers. I mentioned last Wednesday the fact that there really is not a countervailing force in the marketplace to ensure that the producers of Canada obtain a fair return for their products. There must be a countervailing force, whether it is in a democracy or in the marketplace. I believe we must look at this in the proper context.
I would like to refer to a few items which are available to the farmers of Canada in the way of tax provisions. First we have cash basis accounting. All farmers are permitted to use the cash basis method of accounting instead of the accrual method. This results in a considerable deferral of their tax liabilities. There is a provision for flexibility in inventory accounting. There is a provision for farm loss carry-forward which was brought in in the April, 1983 Budget. There is the five-year block averaging provision and there are the tax-free intergenerational transfers of farms.
We have a provision for clearing and improving land available as a deductible current expense. This is again a benefit to the farmers. There is a provision for farm buildings depreciation which quality for the higher rate of capital cost allowance. There is a provision for ten-year reserves. Farmers selling their farms to their children and receiving the sale price in instalments are able to establish a ten-year reserve.
There is the arbitrary expense allowance which allows fulltime farmers to deduct up to 25 per cent of all farm home expenses, including a capital cost allowance of 25 per cent on the capital cost of the farm home.
There is relief from quarterly tax payments for farmers and deferral of income on grain sales. This is available to the farmer who delivers certain types of grain prescribed under the Canada Grain Act to a licensed public elevator or a process elevator and receive a deferred cash purchase ticket. A special provision in the Act provides that the amount of the ticket can
Supply
be deferred until the following year. This is not available to us in eastern Canada but it is available to the farmers of western Canada.
We also have a deferral of income where there has been a statutory destruction of livestock. We have income splitting by paying a salary to spouse and children, the small business deduction, and then of course the investment tax credit. These are only some of the provisions available to the farm sector. Other important measures in the Budget make it easier to transfer a farm from one generation to the other. The family farm is of course the foundation of Canadian agriculture and the Government wants to keep it that way.
I am sorry I do not have a great deal of time because I have a plane to catch, Mr. Speaker, but I want to point out that Agriculture Canada is spending up to $237 million on research, up $35 million from the previous year. Our research program represents well over half the agri-food research done in Canada. I should mention that a capital improvement program for the research branch over the coming ten years amounts to more than $400 million.
Some reference should also be made to the role in international development and food aid through the support of the agricultural industry. The food that Canada provides to less developed countries through the world food program and other agencies, as well as that of our bilateral aid program, is purchased from Canadian farmers at regular prices. But the benefits go further than that. Canadian agricultural commodities given as food aid often serve to keep the door open for future export sales. Canada becomes known as a source of high quality food products. The goal of developmental aid is not to continue to feed countries which cannot feed themselves, but to help establish strong economies with commercial agricultural industries. Thus a country which is a recipient of our aid today will be our trading partner tomorrow. Exports already account for nearly half of net farm income to Canadian producers. As the world develops and our farmers become more efficient, that level will increase.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this Government is not ignoring the plight of Canadian farmers. We are vitally concerned about their economic health and future. Our plans and actions to date this year speak loud and clear. This Government is working on behalf of Canadian farmers, and I hope we can count on the support of all Members in this House in our efforts to improve the lot of this country's food producers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, obviously has some influence in Cabinet. I asked the Minister about the seven cent a gallon excise tax, which is collected by the Government and then refunded. If it was not collected, it

April 13, 1984
Supply
would not add to the deficit, and it would also help farmers and fishermen this spring and on an ongoing basis because they would not have to lay out that money. I wonder if the Hon. Member is prepared to support that kind of a proposal in Cabinet?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of how the system works. You make application for a tax refund. It is the same with the Ontario provincial Government on its sales tax; you have to apply to get it back. The Minister indicated they are studying this and I would want to wait for a Cabinet decision on this issue before making further comment.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting comment. He gets up and speaks on behalf of farmers, yet he is not willing to do something which makes eminently good sense to almost anyone in this country, including his constituents. Given something which is not going to add to the deficit but will benefit his constituents and assist the Government in the sense that there will be less bureaucracy and therefore less Government expenditure, surely he does not have to wait for a Cabinet decision? Surely he would be willing to push that himself in order that the Cabinet makes that kind of a decision. Is he prepared to support that kind of a proposal which would do all the things I have said on behalf of his constituents.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the Minister replied to this. But I can tell the Hon. Member that I have been talking about this for some years and we have also been after the Ontario Tory Government to take a like position.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has quite a lot of experience on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Will he bring us up to date on the agri-bond situation? Some days ago this House sent a motion to committee to investigate the whole question of agri-bonds. I understand the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has more or less decided to accept the responsibility but has not yet struck a committee or laid out a format. Can he bring us up to date and tell us how soon we will have an active committee on agri-bonds?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, this issue was referred to the committee on February 7, I believe. The Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), moved it be sent to the committee at that time. It was discussed in committee I believe a week ago yesterday. At that time there was no background documentation available. It appears that there are several different concepts, so the committee researcher has been asked to prepare a background paper to be available to the committee when we come back immediately after the Easter break.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member tell us if he is prepared to push for the acceptance of the concept of an agri-bond which would see the agricultural sector used as a means of recycling money from the land seller to the land
buyer? Does he accept that in principle as a useful method of refinancing agriculture from one generation to the next?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be completely presumptuous of me to speculate on what the committee may recommend.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go ahead. What do you think?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on what I think was an extremely good question from the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and a farmer. The agri-bond concept has been referred to the committee, so surely it is not asking too much of him to say whether he supports the concept of long-range stable interest rates for farmers. That is essentially what the agri-bond does. Is he in fact in favour of trying to work out something which will assist farmers by having long-term interest rates stabilized and at a preferential rate so that more farmers can own their own land?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of looking at some improved methods of farm financing. Whether or not the agri-bond concept is the one we should be using, I am not prepared to say until the committee is finished its work. However, I firmly believe, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette understands, that you cannot borrow yourself out of trouble. The farm financing package is only one in a series of requirements urgently needed in the farm sector to bring back an adequate cash flow to the farmers of this nation so they can repay their debts, keep their commitments and earn a living commensurate with that of the rest of society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments we will continue with debate. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker , before I begin my remarks on the motion of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), I would like to say that it is my own view, whether or not it is shared by colleagues in my own caucus or those of other Parties, that we should revert back to at least one part of the old rules. The House should sit on Tuesday and Thursday nights, work until one o'clock Friday, and adjourn for the weekend. Members from all Parties are notoriously absent from the House on a Friday afternoon.


Charles James Mayer: We are here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was just going to say that at best my colleagues in the Official Opposition have less than 10 per cent of their Members present. We have something like 7 per cent of ours and the Government has .1 per cent of theirs. There really is not anything for any of us to brag about. I would rather see this House sitting Thursday night and until one
April 13, 1984

o'clock on Friday. We would have a much better attendance and get a lot more done.
Mr. Speaker, I read the Hon. Member's motion with care. I noted the number of items on which he calls for action in his resolution. He calls for a reduction of the farm fuel tax. People in my Party, and I believe people in his Party, in fact have even called for the elimination of the whole 9 per cent excise tax on diesel fuels for farmers and fishermen. That has been asked for by members of both opposition Parties for a number of weeks. For the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and maybe even the Member for Portage-Mar-quette, to pretend for one moment that that will not increase the deficit, is to be dreaming in technicolour. Of course it will. My response is, so what? I submit that the welfare and good order of farmers and fishermen is a hell of a lot more important than the size of the deficit.


Charles James Mayer: We did not pretend it was not going to increase the deficit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Portage-Marquette should read the remarks of his own Leader last Wednesday in which he cited the Province of Saskatchewan as knocking off the gasoline tax without increasing the deficit. With three budgets in two years the Government of Saskatchewan has managed us into a $830 million deficit. I am not objecting for one moment to any increase in the deficit of the provincial Government of Saskatchewan because they have reduced the gasoline tax. Let us not kid around. If you knock off the federal sales excise tax it is going to increase the federal deficit. I say, so what?


Charles James Mayer: We said that in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now, the red meat stabilization plan-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not a point of order, before he says it.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is now pretending he is clairvoyant, Mr. Speaker. To straighten the issue out, we did not pretend that it was not going to increase the deficit. In fact when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked our Leader what the cost would be to the federal treasury, the cost was given at $250 million. So I think if the Hon. Member would read Hansard he would understand that we did realize it was going to increase the deficit and we in fact put a figure on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is not a point of order. That is debate. The Hon. Member for Regina West.
Supply


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It shows you, Mr. Speaker, how clairvoyant I am. I will now move to the second point the Hon. Member makes, the red meat stabilization plan.
In the years that I have been here who was it that opposed any kind of national orderly marketing system for red meat? It was invariably Tories, Liberals and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Once the Canadian Cattlemen's Association accepts a plan for a red meat stabilization program you can bet that it will be hardly better than nothing. It will be meaningless. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Saskatchewan livestock producers said to leave them alone because they wanted the free and open market system. They did not want any government interference or subsidies. As long as the market was average or better than average they were happy. As soon as their free and open market system went down the drain they were the first ones coming to Ottawa with their hands out. They are the ones who have traditionally fought against orderly marketing and fought against the Canadian Wheat Board and criticized it. I do not give a darn whether it is the cattlemen or the Palliser wheat growers or who it is. We support a red meat stabilization program that means something, Mr. Speaker. I am sick and tired of watching the majority of livestock producers, who produce the most livestock in the country, who are not ranchers and who do not belong to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, having their prices set every bloody morning in Montreal and Chicago. Those prices bear no relationship whatsoever to their cost of production. They bear no relationship whatsoever to whether they are going to survive as livestock producers.
This nation does need a red meat stablilization plan that will in effect prevent the so-called free and open market-Safeway, Dominion and the rest of them-from setting the price of the labour and the investment of the livestock producer in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta or anywhere else in the country. The price should be set by national legislation and consultation with those actual producers, and should bear some relationship to their cost of production. If that means that in the end retail prices are too high, then how about a consumer subsidy for low and middle income families and the poor? Why saddle it on the primary producer? Let us turn it in reverse, Mr. Speaker. We too want a proper national red meat stabilization program. The kind that is being proposed at best might be slightly better than nothing. Everyone supports passing legislation on increased advance payments and motherhood. The way things are now, the maximum advance payments should be even higher than what is in the proposed legislation. Resist erosion of initial payments.
Last year and the year before we in the NDP, many economists and many people in farm organizations warned about what is going on in the international grain market. A month ago I read another article about what is happening with our major competitors and the amount of grain they have in storage, their excess production and the amount of subsidy they pay to their grain producers. It was the same government, aided and abetted by the Official Opposition who said that that did not matter and that they would still raise the freight

April 13, 1984
Supply
rate. The Conservatives said they would not do it tomorrow, they would do away with the statutory grain rates two years from now. Of course, they voted against Bill C-155. It is the typical Tory strategy to work both sides of the street. However, they were in favour of ending the statutory grain rates.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Why did you accuse me of giving your speech if that is the case?


Charles James Mayer: You never even had enough people to force a vote on some of your own amendments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Party hired the guy who wrote the Bill. He was kept on to finish the work by the Liberal Government. They are not going to get away with that out West.


Charles James Mayer: We will see after the next election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course we have to stop the erosion of initial payments. What they mean is that when the Canadian Wheat Board must cut prices in order to maintain or get new contracts, the difference between the maximum it receives from an exporter and what the grain producers should receive would be made up from the National Treasury. It is a subsidy that not only benefits the grain producer but the entire nation.
It is time to reinstate what was called the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I remember the episode when a former Minister of Transport succeeded in eliminating that. Where were the Tories at that time? Our Party was able to have farmers take the Government to court and they had $100 million returned to them. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act simply meant that the nation as a whole paid the storage charges for any grain in excess of a certain amount in storage. It saved our grain producers $75 million to $100 million a year. However, the Government did away with it, and it was aided and abetted by the Official Opposition. That Act should be reinstated.
The Hon. Member's motion also raises the issue of the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Our Party succeeded in stopping the Government in its first attempt to introduce it. On the second occasion the Official Opposition sat in both the Transport Committee and Agriculture Committee and meekly accepted it even though-


Leonard J. Gustafson: Where were you yesterday?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was there.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Where were you last week? Did you hear our leader?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Leader of the Opposition discovered the Western Grain Stabilization Act just about a week ago.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Why did you defeat it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Western Grain Stabilization Act was designed to take grain producers' money. There is more than
$1 billion in the fund and the Government still has not put up its share. No interest has been collected on this money. When this Act does come into effect, the highest payment is made to the producer who delivers the most grain. The smaller payment will go to the producer who must travel up to 40 miles to the elevator, who is only on his second quota, whose road is closed because of snow or spring thaw, and who is unable to deliver as much grain.
If the unemployment insurance plan was run on the same basis, when unemployment reached a certain level and triggered a payment from the fund, the person who was working full time would get the biggest payment. Surely that is backwards. If the national medicare program was run on the same basis, it would mean that when the number of patients that went to doctors and hospitals exceeded a certain amount and triggered a payment, the person who was never sick a day would get the biggest payment.
That is why the Western Grain Stabilization Act needs to be amended to trigger a payment, and the highest payments should go to those who need it the most. That is what we argued for in the first and second Grain Stabilization Bills that were brought in the House, beginning in 1970.
The motion also calls for a reduction in high interest rates. The former Minister of Finance of the Official Opposition supported two Liberal Ministers of Finance in two ways. First, he supported them in not firing Gerald Bouey and, second, he said he would do the same thing if he were still the Minister of Finance. He would also artificially prop up the Canadian dollar and raise interest rates to keep the Canadian dollar as high as possible. This costs grain produceres, fishermen, the forest industry and all our exporters more at home and raises the costs of our exports. We lose both ways. I am not concerned about what the Canadian dollar is worth compared to the American dollar, the Fiji dollar or the "Pango-Pango" dollar. I am more concerned about what it is worth to Canadians and what it is doing for us here in Canada.
I believe we should take some of the steps that Louis St. Laurent and John Diefenbaker took in pegging the Canadian dollar, pegging interest rates and implementing foreign exchange control, as was done shortly after the Korean War and again in 1958 or 1959, because it assisted all of our primary producers in forestry, the fishery, the grain industry and in livestock. It helped all of our exports. It made imports more expensive so that Canadians bought more goods made in Canada. Why do we not try that again? This program worked when it was applied in wartime.
Grain producers cannot be expected to survive when they are faced with higher freight rates, higher interest rates and higher costs on all their farm inputs while their prices are reduced even further. The nation as a whole must share in the cost of maintaining a viable agricultural industry, whether it is grain on the Prairie or livestock in Ontario, on the Prairies, in Quebec or other parts of Canada.


Mr. King:: What about apples?

April 13, 1984


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Apples, fruits and vegetables; the Government should be investing in the using of excessive heat capacity in a massive greenhouse operation so that we can grow fruits and vegetables during the winter instead of paying $2 or $3 for cauliflower grown in California or Florida. It can be done. Unless primary producers can be assured a decent price and a decent living from their products, they will not survive. How many more years must we go through patchwork and ad hoc measures? When will the Government learn?
The European Economic Community, Argentina and Australia make sure that their producers get a fair price. The Americans will not sit idly by with their surpluses. They will cut their prices. The Government is asking Canadian primary producers to compete against the Treasury of the United States. Surely that is not fair, because the wealth of the entire nation is needed to accomplish that.
I mentioned the matter of grain in storage. We should return to the system where the nation as a whole shares the storage costs of grain. Even during tough times, having grain in store for export sales is like having money in the bank. But that money is for the entire country because the grain producer who has had to pay the cost of growing it cannot afford to keep it. However, this grain in storage is an asset for the entire country and we should share in the cost of its storage, whether it is on the farm, at an inland elevator terminal or export terminal. Surely that is a fair proposition and one that makes good sense. It is done by other countries.
Our agricultural community continues to diminish. What will those thousands of farmers who lose their farms every year do? Money that is spent in the agricultural industry is not an expense but an investment in this country which benefits the entire nation. While the entire country shares in the costs, it also shares in the return on that investment. These costs which may consist of guaranteed initial prices with any difference made up by the national Government, a real grain stabilization income plan or these other programs included in the Hon. Member's motion, should be shared by the entire nation.
I hope that the Government, in its last, gasping days, will implement programs such as those. It will see how well they will be received by the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten minute period for comments or questions.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, First I have a short comment. I just want the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to get the record straight about federal tax and provincial tax on farm fuel in Saskatchewan. He indicated that the position of the NDP government has always been the position of the Conservative government. There is a long-running example in the Province of Saskatchewan of the exact positions of both Parties. It was the Devine Government which removed provincial tax on farm fuels, some of which amounted to over 32 cents per gallon. A great part of the election in Saskatchewan was fought on that issue. The Hon. Member for Regina West stands in the House and tries to make the position which the
Supply
Conservative Party has held for some time that of the New Democratic Party.
The interesting part of that exercise is that the day after the Devine Government swept the Province of Saskatchewan with 57 seats, Grant Devine went to the legislature and announced from its steps the removal of tax on farm fuels. For the benefit of the Hon. Member for Regina West, that is the record, and all Saskatchewan people know it well. It is one of the reasons that the NDP ended up with seven seats and seven provincial members in Saskatchewan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You do not even have that right.


Leonard J. Gustafson: When it comes to the position which was taken by our Leader in the House, last week he asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would remove the 9 per cent federal tax, which amounts to some 18 cents or 19 cents per gallon, depending on the region of the country. We know perfectly well what was the answer of the Prime Minister, as does the Hon. Member for Regina West, but it is interesting to note that it was that Member's Party which voted along with the Liberals to defeat a Conservative government that would have provided that kind of policy for Canada.
How can the Hon. Member justify the kinds of remarks he has made in the House? The Conservative Party has stood firm on the removal of sales tax on farm fuels, on the basis that it is counterproductive. He makes the argument of a dollar here or a dollar there. When we compare that with the expenditures of the Government amounting to $2 billion or $3 billion in bail-outs, we realize that the federal tax on farm fuels is counterproductive. As an active farmer, I know that farmers are not working the land as much as they would because of the high cost of fuels. Also, we must take into consideration the comparison between the cost of fuel in the United States and the cost of fuel in Saskatchewan. Then we have a clear picture of what has happened.
I would like the Hon. Member to answer how he can justify turning around the situation as he did in his speech today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what was the question. It was really a four-minute speech, to which I do not object. I will do the same to the Hon. Member some day.
However, I want to remind the Hon. Member that he may be somewhat confused. The tax on farm fuels was not there in the first place. The Devine Government of Saskatchewan took the gasoline tax off for everyone else. I am not complaining about that, I am not objecting. I think it was a good idea. The tax was taken off on farm fuels years before that.


Leonard J. Gustafson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The federal tax is still there and that should be removed.

April 13, 1984
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not a point of order.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Again the Hon. Member is confused. The tax was there on diesel fuel and it was 42 cents per gallon.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, it was not there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia does not have a point of order. I understood that to be debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That farmer can say this and this farmer in my Party assures me that it was not there. Perhaps they had different fuel dealers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The federal tax is refundable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The federal tax is refundable on purple gas. They have to apply for it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: But not diesel fuel.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is correct, not diesel fuel. We all want the 9 per cent removed on diesel fuel. There is no argument about that.
Obviously the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) was not listening. His Leader said on Wednesday, April 11, as reported on page 2940 of Hansard:
-the cost is in the neighbourhood of $250 million a year ... as the Government of Saskatchewan proved by removing that tax provincially, it need not add to the deficit because it is a tremendous impetus for growth.
The fact of the matter is-and that is what I indicated at the beginning of my remarks today-that taking the tax off did increase the deficit of the Government of Saskatchewan. That is why I said in my speech a few moments ago, "so what?" The interests of our farmers come ahead of whatever is the damned deficit.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is counterproductive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He also complained in his speech that all I did was point out what should be done about the various points raised in the motion of the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette. If he does not agree with that, it is fine with me. I was just indicating what should happen and restating that there should be a sharing of grain storage costs by the national government. If he wants to object to that, that is fine too; I do not mind. I do not know what he is complaining about.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated the deficit of the Devine Government-and it is less than divine, one might be tempted to say-when it took over. I was under the impression from some of my colleagues that during the brief regime of the Conservatives, their idea was to increase that tax from 7 cents to 10 cents and that it would not be refundable.


Thomas Scott Fennell: No.


Leonard J. Gustafson: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I believe it is correct to say that they proposed to increase the tax, but I do not know whether or not they were to make it non-refundable. I think they might have made it refundable, but I believe there was a provision in the budget to increase the tax.
One of the few times I got anything out of a Minister of Finance around here since 1968 was when he provided for a refund of the 10 per cent federal excise tax on gasoline for the disabled. The Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) took that away. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia wonders why we moved a subamendment, a vote of confidence in that Budget. The Liberals would have voted for our subamendment even if we had included the Regina Manifesto. They would have voted for it no matter how we had worded it. I am fed up with Tories crying and moaning about something which happened five years ago. Their problem is that they have no class. They do not know how to win well or how to lose well. They were the architects and manufacturers of their own defeat. They have been running around sour-grap-ing and crying about it ever since. Most Canadians do not give a damn what happened in 1979. They want to know what will happen in 1984, 1985 and 1986.


Charles James Mayer: Most people would agree with that, and that is why you will not be here after the next election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I say to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton (Mr. Cullen) that the present Government of Saskatchewan inherited several hundreds of millions of dollars of surpluses, all of which are now gone, and with three budgets in two years it has $830 million in deficits. We do not complain about some of that deficit because if the gasoline tax is done away with, of course the deficit will increase. However, if it makes it easier for our primary producers, that is more important than the size of the deficit.
The Tories ought to quit crying about the federal deficit because what they are requesting in their motion will increase the federal deficit. I say, so be it, increase the federal deficit if it will prevent thousands of farmers, fishermen and little storekeepers from going bankrupt. Damn it, increase the federal deficit. But the Tories cannot have it both ways and we will call them on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the
ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, let's continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: On continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to speak on this agricultural motion this afternoon. This is an important subject, particularly in my riding of Ontario. Many people think that I come from an urban riding; many of my voters as well as some of the gentlemen at the table. I want to explain that my riding on a geographical basis
April 13, 1984

is 90 per cent agricultural and less than 10 per cent urban. I do have a constituency that is most concerned.
I want to mention another point. 1 have sat in this House for almost five years. My duty day has been Friday. Today is a low point in attendance. There are more people in the gallery than on the floor of the House of Commons. Something should be stated to shame the Liberals who are responsible for having 20 Members here at all times. It is a disgrace.
One of the basic problems facing our entire economy, not only agriculture, is that we have been totally misled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). On April 11 in New York City he stated we do not consume 90 per cent of private savings for fiscal expenditures. My researcher worked out the figures. He stated we only spend 25 per cent. The figure for 1982 was 83.7 per cent. Today it is over 90 per cent. It is the fiscal approach and fiscal misleading which has caused the trouble.
There are a number of small farmers in my riding. Most legislation has been of little or no benefit to them. For example, there was the creation of Canagrex. I would like someone opposite to tell me what Canagrex has accomplished. It has a staff and a budget and it spends money. It was intended to create revenue for Canada, but it has done nothing. It has tried to interfere with the private sector and has failed.
Members opposite are always knocking the private sector. The private sector is the only thing that will save this country, but the Government does nothing to assist it. I will give an example. I have spoken many times in this House and have asked many questions, but to date I have not received an answer about Canadair and de Havilland which have collectively cost this economy $6 billion. If a little piece of that $6 billion had been directed with equity and fairness to the farmers of Ontario, there would not be the problems we have read about in the papers in the last few years.
Part of the farmers' problems has come about because of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. Section 31 was designed for hobby farmers. The Department of National Revenue has applied that to legitimate farmers with small farms, those trying to hold the farm together. The Department applied that Section to those who had to leave the land during the off season, or winter season. Together with help from their spouses and children, they did the chores in the morning and at night. This Section was imposed on these farmers who could not afford the expensive equipment when the price of their produce remained at a fixed level. Inflation affected the price of equipment. Applying Section 31 has, therefore, been damaging, yet the Government has collected very little compared to the tremendous waste in the aerospace industry. That industry could have been a success with proper management, but it failed. There is proper management in the agriculture industry. I do not know of any group of people with a better basic understanding of economics than farmers. I probably learned more from my neighbours than anybody I have heard in this
Supply
House or from any papers I have read. They have a basic belief that unless you have, you do not spend. They believe you must save. If you cannot afford something, you find a way to pay for it.
I wish to give an example of the inequity of Section 31. If these people had incorporated in such a way that they could be paid by a corporation, that Section would have been applied to the farm corporation and they would not have been hurt. However, the Department of Revenue would have caught up with that. Many people use methods under the tax system to avoid tax which are not permitted to the farmers. I object to that.
I dwell on this point because the family unit in Canada is important. We have become dependent on the state. It is time that we became dependent on ourselves and on our own efforts. Farm people are dependent on their own efforts. They have been the creation of our society and the success of our export program. We have let them down. The way the Government invoked the Crowsnest Pass rate, if it had not been for this Party and our amendments, it could have been total destruction of western farmers. Also, it directly affects farmers in eastern Canada.
We have heard vague talk about the red beef stabilization program. Ontario could not wait for the federal Government so it brought in its own program. It could wait no longer. There was such ill treatment that they had to move on their own. If the provinces can bring in such a program, why not the federal Government? It is because the federal Government has not co-operated with the provinces. It will not sit down and work out joint programs. No wonder this country is so split apart. It is because there have been no federal-provincial negotiations. That is one of the first things our government will do after an election is held. We have friends from coast to coast. We are friendly with governments from coast to coast. We have a common purpose, to help Canada. All the Liberals plan for is retaining power, and the Canadian citizens be dammed. I hope the election comes soon.
There are two remarkable items in Ontario that have been accomplished by the Ontario Department of Agriculture, namely, egg advertising and pork advertising. It has assisted to a great extent. Pork producers in my riding could not have survived if they had not been brought together by the provincial minister to work out a program to assist in selling their product across the border. Pork has been somewhat unstable in price in the past. Because of the programs of the Ontario Government, it has stabilized very definitely.
There is another point which, as a previous speaker mentioned, affects Ontario and British Columbia. A ban was placed on fruit on which certain chemicals had been applied. That ban was domestic. It did not apply to vegetables brought into this country from other lands. I do not understand how we can treat our fruit farmers in a negative way, compared to those in other lands. This is an inequity in the system which has been created by the federal Government. It shows that the Government has no heart, it has no feeling for the people. To put something like that in place is wrong. What is good for the

April 13, 1984
Supply
goose is good for the gander. If it is good for people in the southern United States, then it must be good for Canadians. I agree that there must be some restriction on certain chemicals which appear to have toxic residue, but we should not impose that restriction only on ourselves.
An issue which has been close to my heart for many years is the possibility of irrigation in Ontario. The Province of Ontario has been blessed by having available to it approximately 50 per cent of the world's supply of water. We must address the issue of producing more food here in Canada and this can be tied into the remarks made earlier about the programs for greenhouses. A great deal of the food produced in Canada is not of as high a quality as the food brought from the United States because the food has not had the chance to grow. There are more facilities in the United States for irrigation than in Canada.
We must try to improve quality and I know that Canadian farmers are capable of doing so. However, they need assistance in order to implement irrigation. Irrigation is very expensive but it could guarantee supply and quality. This is a subject which must be dealt with through federal-provincial discussions. In the future, there may be another dust bowl like the one of the 1930s. It will be then that Ontario could become so important to the production of grain. I feel that this is another very important issue which should be approached.
I recently read an article about interest rates and farmers. As I understand it, the Farm Credit Corporation was created to help farmers get reasonable loans. Under the present program, any farmer who would borrow money on a 20-year term with a 15 per cent interest rate would not make a red cent. He | should put his money in the bank so he could get a 15 per cent return on his money. These extended loans are ridiculous because they are being given to farmers at a cost which they cannot afford. If we are going to do something, we should do it in a reasonable way.
The Province of Ontario has a much smaller revenue base than the federal Government, but the provincial Government of Ontario has a program that assists beginning farmers. This program gives a rebate on Farm Credit loans with interest rates that exceed 8 per cent. At least the provincial Government is being realistic. It knows that a farmer cannot afford to pay an interest rate of more than 8 per cent. There has been much instability of interest rates, and that is why a return to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act is inequitable. I know that the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) is fully aware that people are having to borrow money to make the interest payments on money borrowed for equipment purchases.
Many people have said that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is marvellous, and how great it is that he has entered the leadership campaign. They hope he wins the leadership campaign, and then perhaps agriculture will benefit because he will be running the Liberal Party and will not have as much time to do anymore damage to the agricultural
community in Canada. If he was serious, Mr. Speaker, he would have fought for reasonable interest rates. He would have fought in Cabinet to make sure that the Minister of Finance was aware of the situation of farmers. However, I do not believe he did so; if he did, he was not heard. I realize that dealing with the Minister of Finance is like beating one's head against a brick wall but I am sure that after four years, the Minister of Agriculture could have gotten the message across.
Such an important segment of our society has been severely hurt. Why has the Minister not brought in agri-bonds? He has known about that scheme for five years. We developed it in 1979 and he did nothing about it. It is very much like the SBDBs which the Government now uses for bankrupt organizations and for farmers who are on the verge of bankruptcy. That is having a negative impact, Mr. Speaker, and we want something with a positive impact. We want positive approaches; we need positive approaches to get the country moving and help the agriculture community. The people in my riding are sick and tired of this Government that really does not understand agriculture and really does not have any representation from the agricultural community West of the Manitoba border. I understand the feelings of those people.
Last week, I read the Budget of the Saskatchewan provincial Government. I will not dwell on it because I believe the Hon. Member who follows me will touch on it. However, I would like to say that every member on the government side should read that Budget which was brought down in March of this year.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What is the deficit?


Thomas Scott Fennell: The financial position is in excellent shape, and the deficit is a lot lower than the National deficit. That Budget has provided the fuel to ignite the engine of the economy. The Budget will help small business people, and it includes a program for the agricultural community which is probably one of the finest I have seen come from a provincial Government.
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture could have implemented such a program. He has failed his country. He has failed the farming community. He has not had a strong enough voice. He has not let the consumers know about the importance of the providers of food.
I have heard many people speak about inequities for farmers, but unless one has been there one does not know what it is like. I have heard it mentioned as compensation that farming is a wonderful way of life. It is a wonderful way of life. I myself live on a farm. I like the outdoors and I like to see the country side from my windows. However, it has become almost impossible for small family units to exist on a farm. If these family units cannot exist, that increases the number of unemployed people who must be provided for either through unemployment insurance or the welfare system. I do not know many farmers who would accept help from the welfare system because they are proud Canadians. They are a credit to the country and they should not have to be put in this position.
I saw your signal, Mr. Speaker, indicating that my time is up. I appreciate having been afforded the opportunity to
April 13, 1984

express the view of the agriculture community in the riding of Ontario and I hope that someone listens to some of the points we have made today.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to be a little more accurate about some of the points he made. He suggested that farmers should put their money into the bank at an interest rate of 15 per cent. I would like to know if that is the interest rate offered by the banks in the riding of Ontario.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, no, but my point is that if the Government can charge 15 per cent, it can surely pay 15 per cent. I know that the spread is a little less than that, but if the Government is not paying 15 per cent, what right does it have to charge 15 per cent?
The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that he can make 15 per cent on his money through investments. This can be done, not necessarily through fixed income securities but with a combination of capital gains and fixed income securities. As an example, a farmer would be much better off to borrow money from his father than he would be to depend on the Farm Credit Corporation. However, that can not always be done. At interest rates of 15 per cent, farmers or small businessmen cannot survive. The burden of the carrying cost is too great and erodes the potential value of a business.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in a crowded Chamber on a Friday afternoon. I would like to say to the Hon. Member that I am rather surprised about it. This is an Opposition Day and the Hon. Member was bemoaning the fact that Liberals were not carrying their share of the quorum. But the fact is that this is their day. This is the day the Opposition has points to make.


Frederick John King: We want to make them to you.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Unfortunately we would like to know that there is more than a handful of people who want to make a particular point. I heard the Member from Regina suggesting the approach of his Party, which is one we have come to know all along. New Democrats really do not care about the costs. Once upon a time people in this House are alleged to have said, although it never was said, "what's a million?" The New Democratic Party does not have the responsibility to govern, it does not have the responsibility to raise taxes and it does not have the responsibility to go to the marketplace and say, "another quarter of a billion dollars". New Democrats really do not care about that.
I think what we really have to look at, and that is what a Government does in this particular case, is the over-all picture. A quarter of a billion here and there; do that twice and you have another billion to add to a deficit which I think is barely manageable now. To suggest that he really does not care is rather a callous approach to the problems being faced by the farmer. I was not really surprised because we have had that approach from the NDP in the past.
Supply
When the NDP is not required to govern, it is easy to say "Do as I say but not as I do." That is why I asked the Hon. Member about the size of the deficit in Saskatchewan. When it had an NDP Government it did not have a deficit. It had a surplus. It was managing the economy very well. It is rather ironic that a Conservative Government within two years moved from a position of surplus to a position, I think he indicated, of an $800 or a $900 million deficit-after three budgets. He did not seem to mind that as long as that lost government revenue was the result of reducing taxes on gasoline and things of that nature. My riding is not Sarnia, it is Sarnia-Lambton. I think on two different occasions here I have had to change the name of my riding when those powers that be constantly want to do this regrouping and describe my riding as Sarnia, but like the Hon. Member for Ontairo (Mr. Fennell) I do have a very large farm population in Sarnia-Lambton. At one time I had three townships. As a result of redistribution, I lost one of them, but I still have many friends in the area, many of whom were writing to me. Now, fortunately, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), who knows more about farmers' problems and how to resolve them than probably most people in this House, represents the township I lost. It has been a privilege for me to represent not only urban, but as my friend from Ontario says, a good number of people in the rural community as well.
In addition to that I had the rare privilege of being the solicitor for the Corporation of the County of Lambton for some eleven years. During that time I also represented townships and villages in the rural area. It is not a new subject to me. Of great assistance, and I think an individual who has provided great leadership in the House as far as farmers' problems are concerned, is the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. He is a gentleman who served on various tribunals and boards before being elected to the House of Commons. He was a significant leader in the 4H movement. He attended university and I know that over many years he has operated successfully an excellent farm which he has expanded from year to year. It is like the Hutton Agency "when Ralph Ferguson speaks, Bud Cullen listens." He is a man who does have ideas. I was very happy to hear him speak this afternoon and put forth some ideas he has about things the Government has been doing on behalf of the farmer.
It is all right from time to time to look in isolation and say "what are you doing about this? What about this particular tax? What about relief for that?", without looking at the over-all picture and the number of things that have been done on behalf of the Canadian farmer. One has only to look at the last Budget to see some of the significant moves that were made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who was approached not only by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)-and I give him full marks for that-but by many Members of the back bench.
A leading role was taken by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. We know the Member for Lambton-Middlesex has a Bill on how to deal with farmers who are in difficulty, and the waiting period and the timeframe which they should have.

April 13, 1984
Supply
That is an excellent Bill. It falls short in a couple of areas perhaps, but I think if it were implemented right away it would operate to the benefit of many farmers who find themselves in significant financial difficulty.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is not here. Knowing how far he has to travel, he probably had to catch a plane in order to get home and meet with his constituents. But one always listens with some interest to the Hon. Member. He parrots so often the NDP philosophy, namely, that the NDP does not worry about the cost. But seemingly when New Democrats get into power they do a lot more worrying about it.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today quoted former Premier Barrett with some approbation about being concerned about the cost of things. The former government in Saskatchewan was concerned about the cost of things. When it comes time to govern the New Democrats seem to take on a much more responsible position than they do here in the House of Commons when they simply suggest ways of making more money available for particular projects without having to account for it.
One of the things that interested me this week, Mr. Speaker, was the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture that he had received Cabinet approval of a tripartite stabilization program for the red meat industry. That represents an historic step forward in the Canadian livestock sector. Red meat producers have been plagued with marketing problems for years, and agreement in principle on a stabilization plan by producers, some provinces and the federal Government climaxes more than ten years of discussion, debate and negotiations. I think it was the Hon. Member who asked, "why did it take so long? Why do provinces have to move on their own?" If we are going to get into a Canadian stabilization program we have to deal with different provinces with different priorities and different ideas about how a stabilization plan can be made to work on behalf of the producers.
Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction by federal and provincial governments in Canada, and the achievement of a general agreement to proceed with a red meat stabilization plan demonstrates the ability of the federal Government and the provinces to co-operate for the benefit of farmers in this country. There has been co-operation through a whole series of fields between the federal Government and either individual provinces on a bilateral basis where that might be necessary, or on a multilateral basis where we have to bring all of the provinces in to a particular area because of the particular problems being faced by Canadians-in this case by the Canadian farmer, the red meat people.
Livestock producers have been particularly hard hit by the world wide recession and inflation. Unlike their colleagues in the poultry and dairy sectors, they have not had the protection of supply management to keep prices in line with their production costs. The new stabilization program will go a long way toward evening out the ups and downs in the red meat industry and allowing producers to plan their production with greater security.
That word "security" has a tendency from time to time to be over-used, and yet it is so important. I find that responsible union leaders from time to time are as much concerned these days about job security as they are with increases or pension plans being put in place.
When operating in the marketplace, where there are so many variables that are beyond the ken and the control of the red meat producer, I think it is appropriate that a stabilization plan be put into place. Whether this is the best one for Canada or Canadian red meat producers I do not know. I am not an expert or a professional in the field, but it seems to me that common sense would dictate that something along this line has to be done. We have seen it done, as I have said, on a province-wide basis, and now it is time to move, hopefully, to the Canada-wide situation.
I think it is important to point out that this plan was worked out in full consultation with the producer organizations. The Minister mentioned on Monday that an agreement on a red meat stabilization plan represents a minor miracle of co-operation among producers, federal and provincial governments. As I indicated earlier, we have a tripartite kind of agreement which is even more difficult than dealing solely with the producer or the provincial governments.
I think a few more minor miracles may be needed before the plan is fully effective for all livestock producers in Canada. I am advised that Members opposite can help in achieving those miracles by co-operating in speedy passage of the enabling legislation necessary for the plan to go into effect. This legislation I am given to understand is expected to be introduced in the very near future, most assuredly in my view before June.
As all Hon. Members know, we have an Agricultural Stabilization Act in effect, and have had for many years. Since 1978 the federal Government has put more than $200 million into the red meat industry in stabilization payments to beef, pork, and lamb. This is just one more indication of the kinds of money we are talking about in terms of helping Canadian farmers.
The new tripartite proposal represents a major step forward in several ways. First, it involves producer participation. Farmers will have a direct stake in this plan. Second, it commits all provinces which join the plan to the same level of support. Top loading by provinces and the balkanization of the industry which it has caused has been a serious problem. That has been one of the defects, the kind of thing the Hon. Member for Ontario raised, that a particular province or provinces had to go it alone, because it did lead to balkanization, which I believe in Canada is inappropriate, certainly not in the best interests of the producer.
How do we work out a plan which is Canada-wide and which wins the acceptance of the federal and provincial Governments and the producers themselves? That is no mean feat. While I sympathize with provinces wishing to help their producers, I am sure they must all realize that a uniform set of
April 13, 1984

policies for farmers across Canada is in the long-term interest of the industry.
I feel the most important benefit of the new program will be the speed with which it will respond to price fluctuations. Under the present Act, once a stabilization payment has been announced, producers have to submit their claims and those claims must be verified before the cheques can go out. Under the new plan, producers will be preregistered and their eligibility will already be established. In all the new plans, except the one for the cow-calf operators, support prices will be calculated quarterly. This means that when payments are warranted, they can be made quickly. I believe that has been the failing, Mr. Speaker, all too often of government programs, be it federal or provincial. When a program promises you something but you have to wait for it, there is a detrimental effect or a worrying effect on the people who are entitled to that particular payment and should not have to wait for it.
I ran into that, Mr. Speaker, all too often with unemployment insurance payments where people anticipated receiving a certain amount of money within a certain period of time. I must say, to the credit of the people who work for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, they have made many splendid moves which have brought about, in the vast majority of cases, prompt payment to people who have paid a premium for insurance.
If this program had been in effect last year, my information is that cow-calf producers would have received $29.7 million; producers of backgrounder cattle, $8.3 million; feed lot operators, $12.4 million; hog producers, $92.4 million and lamb producers $3.9 million. The key features of the new program are; first, that provinces and producers may join on a voluntary basis; second, that the federal Government, participating provinces and producers will contribute equal amounts of money to a stabilization fund; third, separate plans will be offered for cow-calf producers, beef backgrounders, slaughter cattle finishers, hog producers and sheep producers; fourth, payments from the fund will be made when market prices fall below the national support level; and five, the level of support will not be high enough to become an incentive to over-production.
Support prices for beef backgrounders, slaughter cattle and hogs will be based on a guaranteed margin approach, while support prices for calves and sheep will be based on an average weighted price reflecting the impact of inflation.
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that in this kind of legislation, in this particular instance, the agriculture stabilization board will administer the new plan with guidance from a nine-member red meat stabilization committee. Like the plan itself, that committee will represent the three parties involved, the federal Government, the provinces and the producers. There will also be a consultative committee for each commodity, thus ensuring that those involved in production of red meat products have a continued input into the operation of the plan.
We must be careful, Mr. Speaker, in putting something in place to recognize that there could be defects and there should be some plan or means whereby that particular program can be improved upon and improved upon immediately. Sunset
Supply
clauses all too often come in and wipe out the whole operation.
I believe that is inappropriate, certainly for an operation like this. We must constantly look and check, and constantly pay attention to where the problems are, whether this is done by the consultative committee or by members of the stabilization board or the advisory committee. This is a situation where people will have an opportunity to determine where the program has flaws and to bring about improvements.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this is a voluntary program and full consultation with the producers and the provinces will be maintained throughout the next stages as the program develops. The enabling legislation, as I indicated earlier, will be introduced soon. I see this as a major step forward in support of a very important sector of the agriculture industry, and one which will be watched carefully by producers of other commodities and by other countries. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is but one more example of the innovative, creative, consultative approach which this Government has taken to encourage the agriculture industry.
I learned a fair amount about farming, Mr. Speaker, when I served as the county solicitor, but I feel I learned a great deal more about politics. On one occasion I was with the Reeve of Alvinston, the late Clayton Cox. We had to go about some important county business in Alvinston. I drove from Sarnia to Alvinston, which is a fair distance, and met him at his home. From there we were going to the place where we were holding the meeting. He kept talking to people and shaking hands and I said, "Come on, Clayton, we have to get moving". He said, "Bud, this is a small town. If I lose that side of the street, I lose the election". They know what democracy is all about in the rural part of our country, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. If there are no questions or comments, we will proceed to debate.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I have told many people lately that the only reason I do not get recognized in the House more often is because the Speakers cannot pronounce Okanagan-Similkameen and do not want to be embarrassed to show it. However, it is a famous area for apples, tree fruits, grapes, wine and cattle. It is just a famous area.
There were some rather interesting comments made today. One comment made me prick up my ears. I heard a Government Member talking about getting payments out on time when people need them. That is a very pertinent comment to the people of Okanagan and to the industry I represent, and, I am proud to say, myself. I still have my orchard. I received a letter from the Minister on March 5. He was very pleased to tell me about a stabilization payment for the 1982 apple crop. I am not sure that all the growers in the Okanagan have received their payments yet. The 1982 crop was fully harvested and in storage by November 1 and probably most of it was stored by October 15 of that year. The stabilization payments were triggered by very depressed prices in that year, and finally in 1984 the growers are receiving a cheque representing

April 13, 1984
Supply
the commitment of the federal Government to stabilize the price in 1982.
I was also interested in the dialogue between the Government Member and the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party concerning deficits, whether they are good or bad, and whether they should be increased or decreased. The argument, from our standpoint, is not that we need to increase deficits in order to do some of the things which should be done in the country, but that we need a Government which is prepared to stop doing things which should not be done in the country and change its priorities for spending. I do not think we are participating in increasing the deficit, we are just going to displace about $5 billion now being misappropriated and put it to more useful purposes.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Tell us what you would do.


Frederick John King: We will demonstrate in less than a year's time if you guys ever get the courage-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We have to get a leader first.


Frederick John King: Well, you have quite a selection now.
The Royal Bank in advertising its Royfarm banking service for farmers in the magazine Farm and Country used a picture of a needlepoint wall hanging which very prominently states:
If you don't know where you have been and where you are, it's hard to plan where you're going.
I would like to hang one of those in the office of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Perhaps we could have one hand made by some hard pressed farmer's wife as a constant reminder to the Minister: "If you do not know where you have been and where you are, it is hard to plan where you are going". Farmers across Canada generally have reason to doubt that the Minister knows where the farmer has been, what they have been through, and certainly we doubt that he understands where the farmer is presently at. As the motto says, it is hard, Mr. Minister, to plan where you are going under these circumstances. We would like to help him, but more particularly help the Canadian farmers.
In forming the next Government of Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party will do just that. It is appropriate indeed that we consider the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament, the farmers' friend, I might add. The motion says:
That whereas the economic problems facing Canadian farmers today are largely the result of Government in-action and neglect, this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance of the agricultural sector and its contribution to economic growth in Canada-
The present Minister of Agriculture will be rather too preoccupied with his own leadership ambitions to put his energies and efforts to helping fulfil the ambitions of Canadian farmers. These days that ambition is simply to survive to meet their obligations, pay their bills and avoid losing their farms, homes, assets and their usefulness to society.
I was interested to see the interview by Pamela Wallin of the Minister of Agriculture on this morning's TV show. Her intuitive questioning of the Minister contained in it much of the reason behind the farmers' grave difficulties today. Her question was something like this: Why are you, the Minister of Agriculture, trying to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a Party that really has little interest in rural Canada and relates almost exclusively to urban Canada? Those are not the exact words but that is the gist of her question. I believe that demonstrates the root cause of the malaise in agriculture in Canada; a Government which really does not have that much interest in the subject. This is convincingly demonstrated by the statistics available to all which tell a very sad story of neglect by this Government.
We need look no further than the record of farm bankruptcies, Mr. Speaker, which provides an index of escalating difficulties experienced by Canadian farmers. In 1980 bankruptcies were up 77 per cent over 1979. In 1981 they were up a further 17.6 per cent. In 1982 they were up 57 per cent again. In 1983, up 19.6 per cent. In January and February, 1984, bankruptcies are up 58.3 per cent over the same period in
1983.	If we assume the number of bankruptcies in 1975 as the base, or 100, the bankruptcy index in 1984 has now reached 620. That measures the degree of anxiety, anger and terror which exists out in the real world of agriculture; out there, Mr. Speaker, where the wheat is growing, the cattle are raised, the eggs produced and, of course, the apples, peaches and cherries are cultivated, nurtured and harvested. It is in that real world that the massive instability is ending in tragedy for a great number of farmers, and there is no prospect in sight of major relief from these difficulties. There is no prospect except the anticipated federal election which will change governments, change Ministers and change an entire philosophy toward government responsibility to agriculture in Canada.
In a statement of Members of Parliament dated April 11,
1984,	the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that surely a modest degree of assistance and assurance of reasonable stability in interest rates, plus reasonable measures of price stability, are a small price to pay to help ensure the preservation of the family farm structure of Canadian agriculture. If the family farm is to be preserved, Mr. Speaker, special farm credit measures must be taken. Today's interest rates are simply not affordable. The question might be asked: Does the Government recognize this fact?
I called the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture to ask them what their chief concerns in British Columbia were today. They gave me three subjects: Stabilization is first and foremost on the mind of B.C. farmers; Section 31 harassment by Revenue Canada is No. 2; third, the Farm Credit Corporation. They said there is a disenchantment that it has come to be the lender of last resort without adequate funding.
The B.C. Federation of Agriculture said recently that to achieve economic recovery and long term prosperity in British Columbia we must recognize and build upon our economic strengths. Agriculture is one of these strengths. The industry contributes $2.5 billion in wholesale sales to the 1982 gross
April 13, 1984

provincial product, a 4 per cent increase over 1981 and a 14 per cent increase over 1980. At a time when other resource industries were hard hit with declines in production and numbers employed, agriculture continued at pre-recession levels. Agriculture is the mainstay of rural communities, stabilizing regional economies. Approximately 65,000 people are kept working in the British Columbia agriculture and food industry. Fifty-five per cent of the food consumed in B.C. is produced in the province by less than 1 per cent of the population. That is the good news in B.C.
The bad news is that net farm income in B.C. is plummeting. The share of the consumer dollar which comes to the farmer is shrinking. The input costs of production to the farmer are skyrocketing. These are facts faced by farmers right across Canada. The dilemma is particularly acute in British Columbia where costs have outstripped ability to pay. These costs are outside the farmers' ability to control.
Take for instance the Okanagan tree fruit farmers growing cherries, apricots, peaches, apples, prunes and pears. Fruits so attractive and so mouthwateringly good must be retailing at a price which puts money in the farmers' pockets, right? Wrong. The 1983 peach crop returned 2.942 cents a pound from the market to the fruit farmers in the Okanagan. That is $58.84 a tonne for the best peaches produced anywhere in Canada, or anywhere in the world.
I first got into fruit farming on my own in 1955 in Kaleden where my father planted the first orchards in 1912. Back in the 1950s and 1960s we used to pick the peach crop and wonder whether we would get three cents a pound. Sometimes we got four cents, sometimes we got less. That was 25 years ago when orchard labour was 75 cents an hour or less as compared to $6 to $10 an hour now. The three cents a pound for peaches in 1961 meant that eight or nine pounds of peaches would buy a gallon of farm fuel. Today with the market returning three cents the orchardist must pick nearly 70 pounds to buy that same gallon of fuel. It is a tough world out there and someone must recognize that fact.
The Minister's response is to tell B.C. farmers that if their province helps them financially the federal Government will penalize them. What a farce. The federal Government is telling B.C. farmers that they are expendable and their situation is not recognized, so tough luck boys and girls.
There are so many little things the Government could be doing to encourage farmers. How about the elimination of the 9 per cent sales tax on fuels used in food production? That would not cure everything, but it would indicate a substantial interest in agriculture. How about taking note of the resolutions which came out of the sixty-second annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council held here in Ottawa in March? A number of them dealt with the complexity and confusion which pertains to deductions; unemployment insurance, Canada pension, workmen's compensation, income tax and other mandatory deductions.
Supply
In a resolution the council asked for some uniformity in the formula of the hours worked and the amount earned that would trigger the deduction processes. I wish the Government would recognize the burden that this adds to the farming community. If very often increases the amount of work the farmer has to do in the evening after his daily chores on the farm have been completed.
The fact is that fruit farmers in the Okanagan have their backs to the wall. The industry that produces economic stability in that beautiful area of British Columbia may very well not survive in its present state through this decade. The large part of the competition for markets comes from Washington State where all cost inputs, fuel costs, costs of irrigation, insecticides, fertilizers and, most notably, the cost of labour, are dramatically lower. I would like to quote from the March, 1984 issue of B.C. Country Life, an article by Ted Noonan, entitled "Fruit Trends", which deals with the impossible cost situation faced by Okanagan farmers. He said:
-packing-house workers and employees working for Tree Fruits in B.C. received $12.50 an hour, while across the line in Washington State, the same workers receive $4.70 to $5.25 an hour.
Across the line in Washington State means just that. Farmers in B.C. are competing with farmers in the U.S. with whom they are immediate neighbours. In some cases they can actually talk over the back fence to each other. So we are not talking about some remote foreign country with an impoverished labour force. We are talking about a British Columbia economy that imposes circumstances upon the farming community not duplicated in other areas of this continent.
When I phoned-are we nearly through? We cannot be. I have not had 20 minutes.
If I might just have a minute, I will emphasize the concern which B.C. producers are faced with. They have costs which are totally unrepresentative of the balance of the nation. Yet they are being told that if the province recognizes these cost differentials they will be penalized by the federal Government in the matter of stabilization payments. I am sorry I have so much to say and so little time to say it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the Hon. Member one question. He indicated they were paying $12.50 for certain workers in his area and $4.70 in the United States. Those figures are not the Government's fault. Were they negotiated or imposed? How did it come about that you were unsuccessful and the others so successful?


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I think it must be recognized that B.C. is a well organized labour area in Canada. That situation pertains not just to orchard or agriculture labour. I will go on to read form this article because the writer points out-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am only interested in the labour part.

April 13, 1984
Supply


Frederick John King: This is labour. It says:
According to a recent article in The Vancouver Sun, these food workers-
This is referring to people in Super Valus in retailing.
-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 rise 76 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.
This is 29 per cent more than those in Ontario and 38 per cent more than in Manitoba.
And it is 51 per cent more than comparable jobs pay in Washington State-
If we are going to get labour into our orchards and fruit packing plants, we must become competitive with what is going on in the rest of the province.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, this week in the House has been very interesting to farmers. It has been interesting in the sense that, as the Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) mentioned in his remarks, there have been three occasions when the Opposition has asked the Government to consider issues that need such consideration.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears to me that the ten-minute question period is permitted in order to make comments on the preceding speaker's comments or to ask that Member questions. It is not for the kind of comments the Hon. Member is making now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is quite correct but I do not think the Member had a chance to develop the points. Of course, he should direct himself to the speech of the previous Member.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I was about to do that. I was commenting about the speech the Hon. Member made in regard to the context of the motion. The motion simply states that it is most important to realize that the Government has failed to recognize that agriculture would stimulate the economy and other sectors in the country. This has been brought out in all of the speeches from this side of the House today. Agriculture is not only important to farmers, it is important in respect of the jobs that are being lost because the Government fails to recognize the importance of agriculture to the economy.
The Leader of our Party raised three issues with respect to agriculture this week. He rose in the House to ask a question about the federal sales tax of 9 per cent being removed. That was rejected by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He raised the question of the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the fact that there was approximately $ 1 billion of farmers' money there which could stimulate the economy. Again, the Prime Minister rejected that, not only in the House but also in reference to a letter from our House Leader to the Government House Leader which requested bringing on this legislation quickly. Again today, when we asked a question about the initial price of grain and for the Prime Minister to clarify with
the farmers exactly what the findings were, it was in fact rejected. I think it is most important that this not happen.
What does the Hon. Member believe the stimulation of the economy would be if the Government was to give priority to agriculture?


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member what it would be in the Okanagan. Agriculture is a very integral part of the Okanagan economy. There were situations in 1949, 1955 and 1963 when we had severe winters that significantly reduced the agricultural capacity of orchards. In some cases it entirely eliminated peaches, apricots and severely reduced cherries. It is the experience in my area that the whole economy of the valley suffers. As well, tourism is cut dramatically as a result of these crop failures.
I said recently in an article I wrote for the local papers that as agriculture goes, so goes the mainstream economy. I believe we can say in western Canada that as western agriculture goes, so goes the Ontario economy. I think we can say that with some justification.
I believe the answer to the question is simply that the impact of a depressed or viable agricultural economy and its effect on the mainstream economy of Canada has been totally underestimated by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) for a short question.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well known for his expertise in the horticulture industry. I would be interested in knowing his concerns about the differences in the cost of production between Canada and the United States. As I understand it, there are some real differences in costs between the U.S. and Canada in his area of the country. Would he outline some of his concerns in this respect?


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated some of those disparities during the course of my speech. The fact is that the fruit producers in the Okanagan have great concern about the competition from directly south of the border. It is not only because of the difference in cost production. Another difference is the size of operations that are in place in the Washing-ton-Columbia Valley which cannot be duplicated in Canada.
One of our main concerns is not with the cost of actual production, but the fact that Washington State and California products come to the counter at the market before our production is mature. As a result, the tail end of the market from California and Washington State very often sets the price for the peak of our production. The tail end of the market is when those who are merchandising their produce are getting rid of what they have left, very often at any price. We find it unfortunate that we cannot be protected from this type of dumping of tail-end products from the United States, particularly when it sets the price that our Canadian farmers receive for their product.
April 13, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This is the end of the
ten-minute period for questions or comments. Continuing debate.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to receive that welcome from the multitude in the House. I want to welcome back the Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). I know he had a brief bout in the hospital. It is nice to hear his voice in the Chamber again.
I had to laugh somewhat when the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) was trying to shame the Liberals because of poor attendance. He said that he has been here for five years. In those five years he should have learned that when dealing with government business it is up to our side to provide the quorum, and if it is an Official Opposition day it is up to them to provide a quorum. When they started their debate this morning, they had three people here.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) just brought to our attention something which is entirely new to me. It is the fact that on Opposition days it is supposed to be the Opposition which has 20 people here to form a quorum, and on government days the Government is supposed to make a quorum. Quite frankly, I have never heard of that order. Perhaps he would be kind enough to give us the reference from whence he gets this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: First, I do not consider that a point of order. It is a point of discussion. We will return to debate.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would make common sense that if they bring in a motion they should have the troops here to debate it-not three people. At 2.30 o'clock, one Tory Member was here. I have been watching their ranks all afternoon. That is the Party which was expressing its great concern about the agricultural sector.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I prepared a speech and obviously I will not be able to deliver it. I just do not understand the remarks of the Hon. Member. I think my point of order is well taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order.


Dave Nickerson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on a point of order, but I would appreciate it if he would come directly to his reason for rising.


Dave Nickerson: Is it not a fact, Sir, that there are three times as many members of the Opposition presently in the Chamber as there are members of the Government?


Charles James Mayer: Four times as many.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is not a point of order.


Leonard J. Gustafson: But it is a fact.


Jesse Philip Flis: The motion of the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer) attempts to condemn the Government for failing to recognize the importance of the agricultural sector. Among other subjects, the motion makes specific reference to several initiatives affecting the western grain industry. I would like to draw to his attention the investment of the federal Government since 1973 in the purchase and leasing of hopper cars. This represents money saved for western farmers.
I have one eye on the clock, and I will save the time of the House by not giving the details of that, other than to say that total federal spending under the Crow which will go into branch line rehabilitation and hopper car purchases will amount to $8.9 billion in the decade between 1983 and 1992. The mover of the motion laughs when I bring this to his attention. He was the one who boycotted Bill C-155 all summer and all fall. He was the one who stalled. Now he and his colleagues want passage of a Bill in an hour, after they wasted months and months of the valuable time of this House.


Charles James Mayer: What a bunch of garbage.


Jesse Philip Flis: This is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was talking about when he said to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), "get your act together, show a little co-operation and we can pass a lot of Bills through the House".


Leonard J. Gustafson: Let the people decide.


Frederick John King: Yes, let the people decide.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Government hopes that this Bill can be passed before the start of the new crop year on August 1. Under the proposed amendments, the maximum advance for individuals will double from $15,000 to $30,000. Other changes include increasing the limit for emergency advances for drying tough and damp grain from $1,000 to $3,000, and for unthreshed grain from $7,500 to $15,000.
The Opposition motion urges the Government to resist the erosion of initial payments. Just this morning the Hon. Senator Hazen Argue, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced in Regina initial payments for the 1984-85 crop year. Senator Argue said that on August 1 the initial payments for spring wheat will decrease $10 per tonne, for feed oats they will increase $20 per tonne, for feed barley and designated oats they will increase $10 per tonne, and that for durum and designated barley they will drop only $5 per tonne from levels set a year ago.


Mr. Patterson:: Only!


Jesse Philip Flis: The reductions in wheat payments reflect abundant supplies in relation to world markets and continuing pressure on prices, while the increases reflect more buoyant markets for feed grains.

April 13, 1984
Supply
Despite the difficult outlook for the 1984-85 crop year with respect to wheat, the Government has maintained initial payments as close to last year's levels as possible. That was the intent of part of the Hon. Member's motion. The Government's objective is to assist in maintaining farm cash flow at as high a level as possible, even if it poses a slightly higher risk of deficits in the pool accounts of the Wheat Board, which would have to be underwritten by the federal Treasury.
Even though some initial payments are slightly reduced, Senator Argue has indicated that he would be prepared, if market conditions significantly improve, to recommend that an adjustment be made in the initial payment levels either before August 1, if possible, or after the start of the new crop year.
In today's announcement, Senator Argue noted that once again this year grain exports are moving well-about 5 per cent ahead of shipments in the 1982-83 crop year. Car unloads are up about 2 per cent overall, including a 14.8 per cent increase at Thunder Bay.


Charles James Mayer: That is because the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) was Minister of Transport five years ago.


Jesse Philip Flis: However, there is no doubt the situation in world grain markets is difficult and competition is tough. In these very competitive circumstances, the Canadian Wheat Board is doing an excellent job of marketing prairie grain. The longterm agreements negotiated by the Wheat Board with its customers guarantee minimum sales of 14 million tonnes. Also it should be noted that any substantial reduction in crops in main producing areas in the current crop year could bring about a strengthening of world grain prices.
The Opposition motion also urges the Government to pass urgently-needed amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to introduce amendments to this legislation to make it more responsive to the needs of western farmers.


Charles James Mayer: When?


Jesse Philip Flis: That need was recognized by this side of the House long before the Leader of the Opposition discovered the other week that western farmers have a problem. I am sure Hon. Members of all Parties will support these amendments when they are brought before the House in the near future.


Frederick John King: When?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Western Grain Stabilization Act was designed to stabilize net cash flow from seven major grains and oilseeds produced in the West. It has served that purpose quite well. However, in recent times increased grain marketings have tended to mask the fact that grain prices have fallen and production costs have risen. The program must be made more responsive to the actual financial situation of western grain farmers, and that is what the Government is proposing to do.


Charles James Mayer: When, when?


Jesse Philip Flis: Another recent federal initiative to assist western farmers was the contribution of $10 million to the Protein Oil Starch Pilot Plant Corporation in Saskatoon. The POS Pilot Plant Corporation conducts research and development work with a view to developing new products and processes with respect to grains and oilseeds. POS is a joint federal Government-industry initiative. This recent contribution is intended to assist it over the next five-year period and to enable it, in conjunction with its industry clientele, to continue to develop a commercial base of operations.
There are many other positive initiatives and contributions which the federal Government has made to the grain and oilseed industry over the years. These are too numerous to mention here since I have only a few minutes remaining. The performance of the Canadian grain industry in exporting grain is one that is unmatched by any other industry and commodity in Canada.
Seven years ago the Canadian Wheat Board proposed an export target of 30 million tonnes of grain by 1985. Exports of grain and products in the 1982-83 crop year reached 29.5 million tonnes, just shy of the 30 million tonne target with two years still to go. I am confident we will achieve and surpass that target with a level of market returns to the producer which would not be possible with any other type of marketing system.
The Government has a good record with respect to recognizing the importance of the Canadian agricultural industry in general, and the western grain industry in particular. I believe the motion of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is not well founded. He talks about government inaction. I have demonstrated, as have the Minister and other speakers before me, that we are a government with positive action for the agricultural sector of the economy.
He talked also about government neglect in his motion. If he researches carefully, he will see that we are a government which is sincere about the agricultural industry. We have great respect for the producers of this land. The philosophy of the Liberal Party is to care for all Canadians, to look after all sectors of the economy. It is not to pit one sector against another, one region against another, one Canadian against another, as the Tories like to do.


Charles James Mayer: What a bunch of garbage. We will send you home in a hopper car.


Jesse Philip Flis: That is what the Tories like to do. They like to disunite the country, yet talk about Canadian unity. They talk bull on their Opposition day. It is the Party of against, of contras, of pitting one region of Canada against another and one sector of the economy against another. They talked about the aerospace industry. What does that industry have to do with the motion before the House? They pitted farmers against the aerospace industry. They should be ashamed of themselves.
April 13, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.
Supply
This House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 16, 1984