1985-02-05

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 62(4), I must make a decision as there are two motions on the Order Paper. I choose the motion standing in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


ALLOTTED DAY, S O. 62-SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its inadequate response to the growing financial crisis in the agriculture sector and for its failure to provide sufficient support and services to farmers who face severe economic difficulties in all regions of the country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion which you have just read to the House underlines a very acute problem for our farmers right across Canada. Of the 300,000 farms in Canada, thousands are in deep trouble. This is an industry which should claim the attention of the House. There is over $187 billion in growth production in agriculture and those industries related to agriculture in Canada. One in six jobs in this country is related to agriculture. It is the most important sector in the country.
We not only have the duty to boost our economy by farm production, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will not reject the proposition that we have the potential in Canada to feed a hungry world. We have the duty to ensure that our agricultural production is mustered and marshalled so that we feed our neighbours throughout the globe who are starving.
This is the most productive industry in the country. Eugene Whelan, who was a great Minister of Agriculture for 12 years, never failed to remind Canadians, when addressing either an urban or rural audience, that when it came to productivity and efficiency the farmers in Canada were the most efficient in the world and the farming industry in Canada was the most efficient in the country.
I bring the motion to the attention of the House and Canadians because, despite that potential, farmers today face all kinds of uncertainties. Not only do they face the traditional unpredictable weather but in parts of western Canada they
face floods, drought and an economic climate which is uncertain. Farmers have struggled through three or four years of inflation and recession, price fluctuation and uncertainty of markets.
The farming community in this country includes the best of our entrepreneurs, the best of the free market spirit. They are the real risk takers in Canada. They need our support and encouragement. Most of all, the farmers of Canada want their Governments, federal and provincial, to treat them fairly. They do not want handouts or something for nothing. They want fairness.
The purpose of this debate is to draw to the attention of the House and the country the fact that the Government is not keeping its solemn commitment to treat the farmers in this country with fairness or understanding. Instead, since coming into office the Government has undertaken almost a systematic campaign to renege on those promises it made during the election campaign.
Farming is important in every province of the country but I would say particularly in western Canada. As I travelled in western Canada since the election, the question I heard throughout the West was why the Government, with its overwhelming majority of Members from western Canada, has been treating farmers in such a callous and off-handed matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has come into the House. He has the honour to represent a great Ontario riding. I suggest that he do a little travelling and go to western Canada. I think he will learn what the situation is out there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We have finally woken them up! They do not do anything for most of their time here but sit quietly, flapping their fins when the seal master brings them forward. I consider one of my duties in this House is to wake them up and get a response from them.
[DOT] (mo)


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: For a Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, those Conservatives are not bad.


Mr. Mayer:: It is Tuesday morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 5, 1985
Supply


John Napier Turner: It is Tuesday. As a matter of fact, this House is so empty, I thought it was a Friday morning, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier:: Where are all your 211 Members? There are less than 10 per cent here.


John Napier Turner: I invite the Minister to re-read that Prince Albert Charter. He has it right there. I am glad that it is loose-leaf because it can be torn off page by
page.
In Prince Albert, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the campaign laid forth his undertaking and commitment to the farmers of the country. The Minister of Agriculture has the list of commitments in his hand. The list was long and impressive, but the list of commitments kept is short and disgraceful.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have this great document as well, Mr. Speaker. As I say, it is in loose-leaf form and it is replaceable, expendable and disposable. The Tories promised to abolish capital gains on farm land. Here is the commitment and it is in a letter dated July 17, 1984 to the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Item No. 8 of those promises, signed in the Prime Minister's own hand, reads:
We will abolish the imposition of capital gains tax on the sale of farm property for continued agricultural purposes.
In the same letter, part of the Charter, under item No. 2 we read:
A Progressive Conservative Government will establish an Agribond Program to provide loans at reduced interest rates to agricultural producers. A tax exemption for earned income on these bonds would be provided to attract investment capital to this program.
Take a look at item No. 7, Mr. Speaker, from the same letter. It reads:
We will change Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, as it applies to farmers, to reflect the principles of equity, neutrality, simplicity and certainty. In addition, the strong-arm and confrontationist tactics presently practised by the Department of Revenue will be immediately abolished and a practice whereby the taxpayers treated openly and honestly will be instituted.


Mr. Frith:: Does it sound like a sacred trust?


John Napier Turner: I hear the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I know he is useful here, particularly on a dull day when that fog horn voice of his can pierce through this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: He is close enough to you and to the chair, Mr. Speaker, to put him on a leash. It might be a long leash, but just keep him on a leash.


An Hon. Member:: Go back to sleep, Don.


Charles James Mayer: It's a dull day so far.


John Napier Turner: Those three clear commitments were made the subject last week of a discussion paper. And here we go again. The Minister of Agriculture is not fulfilling those commitments but he brought out another discussion paper for as yet an unnamed committee to study, for as yet an unspecified period and for as yet an unspecified location. If you read that paper, Mr. Speaker, it argues against those commitments. It argues against changes for farm taxes.
I want to read what that paper contains. First, the discussion paper of the Minister of Agriculture makes no reference to the promises made in the Prince Albert Charter or to the promises made to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The Minister's paper states that one should reduce the over-all tax rate on farmers to some 4 per cent of total farm income. The proposed changes in the taxation of capital gains and the agri-bond concept raised questions about unfair competition, the potential for upward pressure on farm land prices and fairness, vis-a-vis other taxpayers. Also the discussion paper indicated that by changing the $5,000 limit on farm losses, a part-time farmer now could jeopardize the position of full-time farmers. In other words, the problems faced by farmers because of inflation and the fact that land values have risen sharply, particularly since 1971, have put farm land out of tune or out of step with the actual productive capacity of the land. That paper rejects, in the way it was framed, all three of those commitments. It opens discussion but rejects all three of those commitments.
Speaking on behalf of farmers, I can say that it mainly repeats past arguments of officials of the Department of Finance against any changes to farm taxes. Once again the discussion paper puts off to never-never-land or puts on the back burner those commitments. It is a prolonged process. I am referring to the commitments which were made, almost in a sacred fashion, in Prince Albert and were reduced to writing to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They have been put away, neglected and forgotten. I will tell the House that farmers will not forget. I say that to the Minister.
We want to tell the Government that it did not promise discussion documents; it promised legislation, it promised action. I challenge the Government to bring forward these measures in legislative form for debate. They should not be sloughed off in some discussion paper. It has been a long winter for farmers. They may have time to read the discussion paper, but they feel sick inside because they need and want some action.
Then there were flowery, grand promises about freight rates for grain. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) is not present. The Tories said: "Elect us and we will freeze increases". The only freeze on that front is the Government which is frozen in inaction. They promised to amend the Grain Stabilization Act for earlier pay-outs so that farmers would have cash for seeding this spring. We have not seen that legislation. If farmers in the country have any problem, particularly those in western Canada, it is the cash flow problem.
February 5, 1985

We made that undertaking but we were rejected. The Government was elected with a massive majority in western Canada, but it is reneging on that commitment. It has been a long winter, and farmers can reflect upon the actions of last summer.
Also the Tories promised to expand research and development for agriculture. What have they done? They have cut funding to build a pharmaceutical testing laboratory in Trois-Rivieres. They cut back on the forestry research being conducted by the Department of Agriculture. They cut back on environmental studies of pesticides. Now farmers will not know what chemicals do to the environment. In terms of farm financing-and this goes to the gist of the motion before the Flouse-today there are more than 45,000 farms facing financial ruin and difficulty. The Minister has instituted a review committee at Farm Credit Corporation to which individuals can appeal FCC decisions on repayment, but the review committee has no real authority or statutory power.
It is incumbent upon me to congratulate the Minister for lowering that interest rates on some 5,600 loans to 12.75 per cent. However, there are still some 6,800 loans at rates above 13 per cent which were not reduced. What does he plan to do with those?
Farmers everywhere in the country are caught in a cost squeeze between the price of the commodities they grow and market and the cost of the ingredients which go into production of produce, whether it be fertilizer, fuel or machinery. Farmers are also caught in a liquidity vice. They are caught in a cash flow bind, and commodity prices are not helping.
Another incredible move announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his November statement was to increase by $32.3 million farm services charges for such things as feed inspection, quality control, record of livestock performance and so on. What is most amazing is that when tens of thousands of farmers face economic difficulty, the Minister is not only planning on raising the current fees, but he intends to look for other services because his paper says there are certain services which are now not charged for on which he can slap a fee. The farmers are in difficulty: he raises service fees for the farmers across Canada and is looking for other areas in which he can charge them fees.
[ Translation]
I am sorry to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) is not here this morning.


An Hon. Member:: He is hiding!


John Napier Turner: I suppose the Hon. Member is afraid to go back to Joliette, nowadays.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we should mention the fact that a cheque for $13 million, thirteen million dollars, was signed at a public meeting by the Minister of Public Works, for the benefit of Quebec's hog producers. This was indeed a tangible
Supply
commitment. The cheque was significant in more ways than one, but unfortunately, it is worthless, because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) refuses to cash it, claiming that he did not discuss the matter with his colleague from Joliette who signed the cheque in the first place. A fine state of affairs.
I would ask the Minister . . . with his translation system, he is going to see his colleague from Joliette... the cheque may still be somewhere in Quebec ... so sign, endorse and cash the cheque, and meet the solemn commitment made by the Member for Joliette!
Mr. Speaker, when asked about this matter by the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and other Members of the House, the Minister of Agriculture claimed we should not broach the subject because it is an area of delicate-I am quoting the Minister-negotiations with the United States. We get the same story about "star wars". When questions are put to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), they say: No questions, please, not even in the House, not even in the nation's forum, because we are involved in delicate negotiations with the United States.
Perhaps we should talk about the Pacific salmon treaty. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). Our representative on the committee, your committee, Mr. Speaker, did not even see the text of the treaty before it was signed here in Ottawa, and when I asked the Minister about this, his reply was: Be careful, this is a delicate matter. We do not want to disrupt the negotiations. We do not want the U.S. Senate to refuse to ratify the treaty. So, please do not ask any questions about the treaty.


An Hon. Member:: They are selling out Canada!


John Napier Turner: It was the same story yesterday and the day before, about NORAD, our North American Defence Agreement. When questioned, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed me and the Members of Winnipeg-Fort Garry and Saint-Maurice (Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Chretien): Do not ask that kind of question, it is a delicate matter. We are negotiating. No text for us Members, the matter is far too delicate. And now the Minister of Agriculture tells us not to ask any questions about the matter involving the Member for Joliette, the Minister of Public Works, because this again is a delicate matter since we are negotiating with our neighbour, the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for your advice: What can we talk about in the House, if every subject is taboo until this Government gets Washington's permission to talk about it?

February 5, 1985
Supply
We have not had much action from the Government, or news as a matter of a fact, as to what the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) or the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) are doing about a strike of 1,200 grain handlers. There are 1.6 million tonnes of grain languishing in Thunder Bay right now and the Wheat Board is doing nothing. That is an insult to farmers and an insult to the grain handlers.
I will not be long, Mr. Speaker. If time is troubling me, perhaps the Minister would give me unanimous consent to finish a few remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The 20 minutes allotted to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has expired. However, he could continue with unanimous consent. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKenzie:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Given the Member's position in the House, I will seek the House's consent one more time. Is there unanimous consent that the Right Hon. Member may continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: No, never.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the Right Hon. Member's time has expired. However, I find that there is a minute in which the Right Hon. Member may conclude.


John Napier Turner: I regret very much that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) is in such a rough humour this morning. Where are the members of his caucus who have railed and raved for years about Liberal policies, claiming that they hurt farmers? What are they doing for farmers now that they have finally gotten into government? They are suddenly silent. Not a word in debate is coming from the back-bench. Members of this Party intend to speak out on behalf of the farmers of the country. We are led very well by our critic, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: On behalf of the farmers of the country, I urge the Government to recall its consultation papers, bring forth the legislation it promised, cancel the cuts in agricultural programs, stop the increase in fees which will be an additional burden on our farmers, bring forward for debate in the House the legislation which farmers need to avoid economic disaster, and remove the threat of financial ruin which too many of them are facing today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting and indeed gratifying to some degree to have known the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the former Prime Minister, for quite a number of years. It is true that he had a bit of a sabbatical from being a Member of the House some time ago, but I first arrived here in 1972 and the Right Hon. Member was a Member of the House at that time. This is the first time that I can recall the Right Hon. Member utilizing an opportunity to speak about the agricultural industry. I suppose one could take some satisfaction from the fact that finally, after years and years of neglect of the agricultural industry by the Liberal Party, Canadian farmers turned their backs on that Party and on the former Prime Minister on September 4. I suppose we can take some satisfaction from that.
I have a number of very simple and straightforward questions to ask the Right Hon. Member. When the right hon. gentleman was so quick to praise the former Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan, why did he, as Prime Minister, remove Eugene Whelan from the agriculture portfolio? Perhaps he might shed some light on that. Why was it that during his tenure as Prime Minister of Canada he did not make one move to extend the special farm assistance program? Not one dollar was spent. That program exhausted all of its funds on January 1, 1984-


Ms. Copps:: You are going to lecture us on Eugene Whelan?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against my predecessor. In fact, I have supported Eugene Whelan on numerous occasions. However, I wondered what the former Prime Minister had against him and why he removed Mr. Whelan from the Cabinet.
Why are the Liberals so indignant today when they thought that interest rates that were at 16.75 per cent, which locked farmers in for long periods of time, were fine when they were in government? That was not fine for us, and that is why we moved very quickly to bring interest rates down from 16.75 per cent to 12.75 per cent. That provided a benefit of $16 million to 5,600 farmers.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat confused in citing the Prince Albert paper with the letter that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wrote to the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Harry Pelissero, on July 17. That letter contained 11 commitments. Why did the Hon. Leader of the Opposition ignore commitment No. 1, which referred to the funds for municipal drains in eastern Ontario? Indeed, everyone knows that situation. Commitment No. 2 dealt with agri-bonds. That has been referred to a parliamentary committee. Why did the right hon. gentleman not mention item No. 3 which dealt with tripartite stabilization? That Bill has been tabled in the House of Commons. Those are the commitments which were made and that is
February 5, 1985

where we are. Why did the Right Hon. Member not touch on commitment No. 4, which was part of the Prince Albert statement and dealt with the rebate on the 9 per cent sales tax on farm fuels? We delivered on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the Hon. Minister that he has taken up to five minutes of the ten-minute period which is allowed for questions and answers. I will now recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that we did not interrupt him.


Mr. Masse:: What about the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)?


John Napier Turner: In response to the Hon. Minister's first question, he will know that when I had the opportunity to serve in the House of Commons in a number of portfolios, I paid special attention to agriculture. I travelled the country, and I was responsible for lifting the capital gains tax on the transfer of family farms from one generation to another.
I could list a number of opportunities which I created for the farming community in Canada when I was responsible for the finance portfolio.
Eugene Whelan was appointed by the previous Government to the position of ambassador to FAO. That Government believed that his talents and his knowledge of the world food situation would be of great benefit to this country and to the people who are starving throughout the world. When the current Government ripped up that appointment, it deprived the agricultural community world-wide of one of the most knowledgeable Canadians on the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: It cancelled the post despite the advice which the Minister recently received as to the necessity of that post.
The former Minister of Agriculture brought in Canagrex. The Conservative Government did not promise to axe Canagrex, but the Minister says it is now history and that it has a dismal record. I am responding to the issue of Canagrex because of his comments about Mr. Whelan. Canagrex received its terms of reference from Treasury Board in May,
1984.	It is responsible for $18 million in export sales and negotiations are under way for an additional $100 million in export sales to Pacific rim countries. Canagrex exports canola, white beans, potatoes, honey and animal feed. Canagrex has also performed market surveys in 16 countries and has had over 300 requests for assistance. Yet the Minister says that Canagrex has a dismal record and that he has received letters which support his decision.
Once again referring to the brief of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I wonder whether he has read the brief of January 31, in which Ontario farmers said that they were
Supply
"angered and surprised" by the decision to eliminate Canagrex, which was the creation of Eugene Whelan.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: No explanation has been given for its elimination. No reasons have been provided. It is just another example of how this Government got carried away with its own rhetoric.
This Government did not promise to cut flood relief in northeastern Saskatchewan. The previous Government set aside $16 million for flood relief. This Government is providing less than half of that amount-$7.4 million-and the farmers of northeastern Saskatchewan are surprised when they get their cheques. Instead of getting a two-to-one ratio on the federal contribution, it is down to $1 for $1 of provincial aid. We have not heard a word from the Tory Premier of Saskatchewan, who during the summer said that the problem was acute and approaching disaster. The only one who gains under the scheme of the new Minister of Agriculture is the orange blossom wheat midge which, as the Minister will know, thrives in wet conditions.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) would explain to the House where the policy of his Party on the red meat stabilization program differs from that of the Bill which was just presented to the House. Specifically, why has his Party not been putting forward the kind of stabilization program which would be cost-based rather than market-based?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. gentleman knows that it was a question of getting an agreement with the provinces, and we were moving in that direction.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that most of the provinces have programs which are cost-based. I believe it must have been a major problem for the federal Government to bring into the negotiations when it switched those provinces from the cost-based programs, which the farmers liked, to the old market-based system which goes back as far as 1958. Since it was obviously a problem of philosophy with his Party, I wonder if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition could tell the House what is the problem?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, only the Province of Manitoba wanted a cost-based system. The other provinces were of a different view. That was the problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired. We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I had expected the Government to respond to the motion, but apparently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) does not wish to do so.


John Wise: We want to hear your advice.

February 5, 1985
Supply


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The motion which is before the House today was introduced by the Official Opposition. It condemns the Government for its inadequate response to the growing financial crisis in agriculture, and also points to the failure of the Government in not providing sufficient support and services to farmers who are facing severe economic crises.
The economic statement of November 8 indicated the direction which this Government was taking. I believe farmers received the very clear message from that statement that agriculture would not be as high a priority after the election as it was before the election. We only have to look at the various cut-backs which were proposed in that statement to realize that. Cut-backs in the Department of Agriculture amounted to $62.9 million.
Some of those cut-backs were very hard to rationalize, if we view them in straight business terms. For instance, the cutbacks in Canagrex which the Government says will mean a savings next year of $6.6 million, my information is that so far this year about $3 million has been spent. With two months yet to go, spending will not be anything approaching the $6.6 million. Information the Government has provided indicates that there was between $16 million and $17 million worth of sales completed in the first five months of operation, with something over $100 million in progress. That seems to me to be a cost-benefit ratio of about 2 per cent to 3 per cent of sales.
It may not be widely known, but farmers see overseas sales as new business, which I think is the case with anyone who has ever been in business, and they see this agency as providing them with something in the neighbourhood of $100 million worth of business which would not otherwise have occurred, all at a cost to the treasury of $2 million to $3 million thus far. I think most business people would think that was a pretty good return on investment.
However, the Government, for its own reasons, chose to abandon that particular agency. I think this had nothing to do with dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker, or providing a needed service to farmers. However, it had everything to do with the Government's own philosophy regarding Crown corporations and the Tories' long and arduous struggle to oppose Canagrex when they were in opposition. I think the Government would be well advised to admit that it is for philosophical rather than business reasons that Canagrex is being shut down.
Additional attempts to reduce Department of Agriculture expenditures are also aimed at exports to some degree. The Government is proposing to reduce assistance to the Canadian Dairy Commission in its efforts to increase exports of cheese and dairy products. The reduction is some $4 million in the coming year and will increase to a full $6.6 million in the year following.
I think the more noticeable form of cuts lies in the fees the Government is now proposing to charge for inspections done on behalf of Canadians and therefore normally paid on their behalf by the Government. It is now proposing to collect these fees from the agricultural producers and processors. Some $32
million is projected to be collected. The Government is attempting to collect a fee for meat inspection, as well as replacing some federal inspection with in-plant inspection. All of this has raised a great deal of concern among consumers as well as people in the industry.
The question arises as to whom the inspectors will be acting for. If the plant pays for the inspection service and hires the inspector, will the consumer be adequately protected? Further questions have arisen regarding the inspection of imported meat. I am sure the House will recall the recent report from Halifax where the federal inspector decided there was too much hair and manure in a shipment of imported meat. On appeal to the Department of Agriculture veterinarian, the meat was permitted to enter. This sort of thing has happened on several different occasions. The argument is not over whether the veterinarian or the meat inspector has jurisdiction; it is over the attempt to switch responsibility from a federal agency to an importer or processor.
Another concern arises from the very rapid increase in fees which producers have been paying. I will cite only one example in the time I have. Seedgrowers in this country have just found out that an Order in Council has been prepared which indicates they will pay fees from 400 per cent to 500 per cent higher than they were last year. The Government is pretending to have consultation with the people concerned but the negotiating room the seedgrowers have is very limited when the Order in Council is ready to go.
Another area of cut-backs which does not seem to make any sense on the surface, and I hope eventually the Government will provide a better explanation than it has to this point, deals with the decision to cease the inquiry into potato marketing in the five eastern provinces. As the House may be aware, that particular industry has been studied for the last 13 or 14 years. All these studies have resulted in some dissatisfaction among all parties concerned because it was always felt the real truth had not been sorted out. A decision was taken some time ago to set up the judicial inquiry with a judge at the helm who would have the power to subpoena witnesses and their records so that the real truth could be found. However, apparently someone on the Government's side felt this might be threatening to some of their particular friends and that investigation ceased forthwith.
Farmers are still asking questions about the marketing of potatoes and are quite unhappy the real truth was not dug into. I think the new Government had a very clear and fresh mandate and certainly looking into the true facts of potato marketing would have been a suitable beginning for a new Government. I am sorry the Tories saw fit to stop this one chance to shed a little light on some of the inner workings of the Canadian potato marketing system.
The Government announced during its economic statement in November that it would be discussing three taxation issues affecting farmers. There were very clear promises in the election campaign to do away with capital gains taxes. In some of the back roads of the country it was simply referred to as doing away with capital gains. Perhaps those people were more
February 5, 1985

right than they know when you look at the price of farm land, which is going down in virtually all parts of the country. Perhaps it is part of the Government's economic policy to run agriculture into the ground so that the capital gains in farm land which accrued with inflation will now reverse itself and we will go back to 1971 prices. Of course, the Government will then indeed have done away with capital gains. However, I think it was the taxes that they were promising to do away with.
As well the Tories promised to make some drastic changes to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act and implement something called an agri-bond, although their particular description was never made very clear. In the few places where it was described it sounded somewhat like the agri-bond which is in place in the United States that provides a tax break for investors. It has proven to be a rather inefficient way of providing assistance to farmers since the forgone income revenue from the Government amounts to several times what the direct cost would have been had they simply subsidized the farmer who is eligible to receive the borrowed back money which has been invested in agri-bonds.
On November 7 we were promised that there would be an interparliamentary committee set up to study these issues. To my knowledge, the committee has not yet been named. However, we do have a discussion paper which came out last Thursday or Friday. Some of the issues that the Government is proposing to put forward for discussion are focused on the wrong areas. For instance, it is fairly clear from the discussion paper that with regard to in-family roll-overs, relatively wealthy farms have no problem with capital gains tax. They generate enough funds to enable the existing generation of farmers to provide themselves with savings and retirement funds, meanwhile rolling the farm over to their sons, daughters or grandchildren. However, the middle and lower income farmers do not usually have that kind of income. Therefore, the roll-over provision is not so helpful to them. They are forced to sell all or part of the farm and to pay some capital gains tax. The current system is working quite well for the relatively wealthy but not so well for the middle and lower income people.
The treatment of farm losses by Revenue Canada was a real eye opener. I could conceptually understand that high income people would get the biggest benefit. However, the discussion paper includes some studies which show just how much benefit high income people receive by writing losses off against a farm. Table 13 of that discussion paper indicates that the average off-farm income of 105 returns was $406,000. Their farms were relatively large, having an average gross farm sales of $120,000. The surprising thing is that our tax system permits a relatively large farm with gross sales of $120,000 to have an average farm loss of $187,000. A person with off-farm income of $406,000 pays tax on $219,000.
There are about 1,700 taxpayers who have off-farm earnings in excess of $100,000. Virtually all of those in that category
Supply
write off about 50 per cent more than the farm actually generates in total sales. I am referring to total sales rather than profits, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who knows farming knows that the money left over for wages and reinvestment tends to be in the range of 14 per cent to 20 per cent. Yet the focus of Section 31 seems to be on people whose off-farm incomes run from $10,000 to $25,000. Ironically, these people run farms with gross sales which far exceed the amount of losses that are written off against them. These are almost economical units in terms of cash flow in and losses out. Yet those are the people whom we have been concentrating on. There do not seem to be any proposals in the discussion paper to change the focus or to concentrate on the real tax outflows.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the first four or five months that the Government has been in power it has given some very clear indications of what it thinks of agriculture. It has made some promises which it has yet to keep concerning the establishment of an inter-parliamentary committee to study the three issues I have just been talking about; capital gains tax, Section 31, and agri-bonds. The Government is acting on its serious intention to cut some $63 million from the agriculture budget. We have only begun to see how this will cost in terms of extra fees for service. We have only begun to see, as the seed growers have found out, that it can be very expensive to become self-sufficient in the area of supply and services for farmers.
The current Government seems to have no real understanding of the need for expansion of trade in agriculture. By cutting back on the dairy program and doing away with Canagrex it has thrown out the baby with the bath water. The Government has washed its hands of in excess of $100 million of new business. We will remember that two years from now when we assess the Government's commitment to agriculture. It will be measured by how it replaced those programs and how much money was spent on their replacement. We will be watching these things because the moves the Government has made so far do not make very much economic sense.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, would the agricultural critic for the New Democratic Party encourage the referral of the paper on tax issues concerning agriculture to a standing committee where witnesses could be called to determine what approach should be taken with respect to these tax issues?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I understood from the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that he was going to establish an inter-parliamentary committee to which these discussion papers would be turned over. He indicated that three months ago and still has not taken any action. We are waiting for that committee to be struck. It is an obvious place for these papers to go.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Hon. Member's Party would be in favour of the referral of these papers to a committee, and that he and his House Leader would expedite that referral.

February 5, 1985
Supply


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is no place for them to go. However, if the Minister follows through with his proposal to set up that committee, by all means these papers should be referred to that special committee.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party. There is a small number of farmers in my riding. One of the complaints I have been receiving from them over the last number of years concerns the effect of interest rates especially on young farmers and those farming in frontier regions such as exist in my riding. Equipment is expensive and farmers are trying to develop agricultural lands, which means that returns are limited at the beginning.
Today's paper indicated that the Canadian dollar is again threatened. In the last five years, every time the Canadian dollar was threatened with devaluation, the Liberal Government and the preceding Conservative Government jacked up interest rates. In the Member's opinion, what would be the effect of another period of high interest rates in Canada?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the answer is quite clear to everyone in the House. Farmers are losing their farms as a result of a number of years in which interest rates were extremely high compared to the money being earned. That combined with permission to grant loans that float instead of being set for fixed terms at fixed rates created havoc for farmers and small businessmen as well as home owners.
A resumption of an increase in interest rates will only make banks and credit organizations much more nervous and will probably result in more foreclosures of farms, particularly before the spring seeding season begins.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no more questions or comments, we will resume debate with the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the subject of the Opposition motion that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I must repeat what I said in the period following the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's remarks. It is the fact that he did not provide us with an answer to why he decided to replace Eugene Whelan as Minister of Agriculture. He did not use the opportunity to explain to the House and the agricultural community in particular why, during his term of office, he did not move at all to provide interest rate subsidies to FCC clients who were locked into high interest rates. Indeed, it appeared that during his term of office interest rates for FCC clients were quite satisfactory at a rate of 16.75 per cent.
I would also like to clarify for the record that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition confused the Prince Albert statement with a letter which was written to the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on July 17 of last year and signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The
Leader of the Opposition was extremely selective in assessing what action had been taken on those 11 points which we put to the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on July 17. In order to set the record straight, it would be interesting to see exactly what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has indicated with respect to those commitments made by the Prime Minister on July 17.
A brief was submitted to all Members of Parliament on January 31 of this year. It contains a report, or assessment perhaps, which was made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, a very respectable farm organization in Ontario. In the opinion of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, action has been taken with regard to our commitment on agri-bonds. That has been referred to a parliamentary committee.
The OFA has indicated that action has been taken with respect to the second commitment about Section 31. That has been referred to a parliamentary committee.
Our third commitment refers to capital gains. It should be noted that farm organizations have been making representations to the federal Government on these three items for many years. In fact, the Liberal Government has been in office for most of that period in the last 10 to 15 years. That Government chose to ignore these three items.
The fourth commitment was to take action on the advance payments legislation. Indeed, legislation is presently being drafted and will be introduced in the House very soon.
With respect to the fifth commitment on stabilization, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should know that that Bill has been introduced in the House of Commons. I expect that it will be debated very soon and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Item No. 7 dealt with the commitment to the Farm Credit Corporation. Indeed, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture assessed this item as action being taken. All members have copies of this brief that was presented on January 31 of this year. I would draw the attention of Members to the letter to all Members of Parliament that was signed by the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The second to last paragraph states:
The OFA was heartened by the announcements of Agriculture Minister John Wise regarding assistance to farm operations in financial difficulty.
I believe the statements made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture certainly justify its position with reference to action we have taken.
There is more. In the opinion of the OFA action has been taken on the commitment to set up farm finance review boards. Indeed, the right Hon. gentleman recognized that we have established Farm Credit Appeal Boards in this country to deal with cases of severe financial distress. In addition, there is the pilot project taking place in the counties of Bruce and Grey in Ontario.
Commitment No. 9 was to take action on beef imports into this country. The Canadian beef industry made constant representations to the Liberals when they were in office. Yet when the Liberals were in office and the leader of the Opposi-
February 5, 1985

tion was Prime Minister, he chose once again to turn his back on the agriculture community. He took no action whatsoever and, as a result, the Canadian beef industry suffered losses of between $25 million and $50 million.
We did not ignore the Canadian agriculture industry or the Canadian beef industry. Indeed, in co-operation with my caucus colleagues and Cabinet colleagues, we invoked the beef import law.
With respect to Item No. 11, it was another commitment given at Prince Albert in which we indicated that the food producers of this country would receive a tax rebate to offset the additional energy costs. Although it is a budgetary item and it would have been appropriate to provide that rebate, we did not wait for a budget to implement that. Parliament opened on a Monday and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave a statement on the Thursday and provided that benefit to Canadian food producers. That will provide a benefit to Canadian food producers to the extent of $100 million. That is the further commitment we gave for the promise that we made and the further actions that we have taken and fulfilled.
It goes on, Mr. Speaker. We are up to item No. 12. These items raised back in July totalled 11, but we are now up to 12 items. This was a commitment we gave during the campaign to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act to allow tobacco growers, if they so choose, to establish a national marketing agency. We did not turn our backs on the tobacco producers of this country at all. We gave them a commitment in June. The election was held. Canadian agriculture turned its back on the Liberal Party. It supported us and we accepted our obligations and responsibilities. We provided the required amendment in the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Hearings are now going forward and it is up to the tobacco growers to determine whether they will establish a national marketing agency.
In addition to that, an issue that has always been an issue on which I have been fighting for a good long time is the decision of the Liberal Government to cancel the offshore labour program. The Liberals did not recognize the need for that program, particularly in southwestern Ontario and in other parts of the country where we have large orchard operations in fruit and vegetables, tobacco, et cetera.
It is absolutely essential that we have that offshore labour program. I can remember when I first arrived here in 1972. The Government at that time was, of course, a Liberal Government. It made up its mind, as it did it almost each and every year without exception, and was determined to wind that program down. If that were ever allowed to happen it would create very serious economic consequences to agriculture in many parts of the country. If it had not been for the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley), the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the Hon. Member for Kent, at the time and myself, I am certain that the Liberal Government would have succeeded.
Supply
We did not hold the industry out this year at all. We met with the commodity organizations and the groups that were extremely interested in having the offshore labour program announced and announced early. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), a few weeks ago took an early opportunity to signal to that particular segment in the agri-food industry that the offshore labour program would continue for this crop year.
We also made it clear that the European student program would be in place. As well, the clarification with reference to the metric policy was made in a statement the other day to the House by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote). That measure caused chaos and confusion, has resulted in a number of court cases and unfortunately a number of crop losses due to the problem of trying to convert from one system to another or to one system only. Perhaps an imperial sprayer or something of that nature was involved. The Liberals always ignored that problem. They did not understand some of the difficulties that program caused in the field and at the farm level. That move on behalf of this Government will bring an end to chaos and confusion and add some common sense and clarity to the situation.
In conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), we have responded to representations by caucus colleagues, particularly the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), with reference to some changes in the national revenue policy of this Government. This will allow farmers who have received cash payments of one kind or the other the opportunity to work out an agreement with National Revenue to roll those receipts into next year. That is helpful.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Some of the things that I have mentioned at the end are not of large national significance, but I mention them because I think it is movements and measures of these kinds which signal to the farm community that we understand some of their individual and smaller problems. It is a message that we want to send to them. We do not have much money. We are committed to lowering the deficit and we should never lose sight of that. If we do, then we will fall into that route to disaster, the road to bankruptcy, followed by the previous Government. That means total and complete disaster for the agricultural industry.
The state of the agricultural industry is determined to a large extent by the state of the general economy. Perhaps this industry more than any other industry in Canada is affected in that way. An industry that might compare would be the small business community. But other than that one exception, the economic well-being and health of the agriculture industry is determined by the state of the general economy. There is no question about that. We can provide bits of stabilization here and there. We have and we will continue to do so. But let us not be distracted by thinking that by moving a little here and moving a little there it will resolve this economic problem we have, because obviously it will not.

February 5, 1985
Supply
I talk to people in the industry. The Right Eton. Leader of the Opposition indicated that I should travel across Canada more. I should love to do that. I think I have made three or four trips to western Canada. I have made two or three trips to eastern Canada and I have been in the Province of Quebec on three or four occasions. If it were not for the motion put down by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would not be here today; I would be in the Province of Quebec, I would be involved in a sod-turning ceremony at a research facility in St. Hyacinthe, a $17 million project. I was to meet with a number of people from farm organizations in the Province of Quebec. Hopefully, I would then have had an opportunity to work out the details of the Quebec compensation payment to the extent of $30 million. We are co-operating with the Government of Quebec with reference to the manner in which that payment should be made. However, that will have to be delayed for another two or three days or perhaps even longer because I will not have an opportunity to be there and to meet with some of these people. I was also going to speak to another group of people in Montreal today.
We in this party have our priorities set properly. I am interested and all of our caucus and Cabinet colleagues in this Government are interested in dealing with the farm finance problem. It is our number one problem and we are making it our number one concern. It was not a hard decision for me to make to cancel these plans that have been in place for quite some time. I made a decision that indeed this was the place to be. It is not often that we have the agricultural issue raised by the Official Opposition.
I think the spokesmen for the New Democratic Party recognized the importance of this issue. I believe one of the first Opposition Days held in this House was not utilized by the Official Opposition but by the New Democratic Party. Spokesmen for the NDP put a similar motion on the Order Paper, so we did have an opportunity to talk about the problems in the agriculture industry at an earlier date.
I am not sure how much time I have remaining. I have not as yet referred to any of my notes because I felt that we had a tendency to be somewhat misled by some of the comments made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, there is no question: the record is clear and speaks for itself. The Liberals completely ignored the agricultural community for years and years and years; there is no question about that. The same farm organizations have been making representations to government year after year. We know them by their first names from coast to coast. We almost recognize their voices when we talk to them on the telephone. However, the fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party was in government for years and years and it ignored these problems. It paid lip service to the agri-food industry. We are not doing that. We have not been in office that long, but I challenge any statements by the Official Opposition. It has challenged our actions in a hundred days in terms of what we have provided to the agricultural industry. We are not satisfied. We have only just
begun. I would compare any of our hundred days with any of their hundred days.


An Hon. Member:: Or 10 years.


Mr. Taylor:: Or 16 years.


John Wise: I hear my hon. colleagues, but I am not so sure about that. I know that during the course of this debate my colleagues will utilize the opportunity-and I have not done so-to place on the record some of the actions we have taken in that hundred days. We can total up the actions taken to this point in time by the Government and by the Prime Minister. We have transferred to the agri-food industry of the country in one form or another nearly $1 billion. Actions speak louder than words. Hon. Members can check the record. They can check not only our record but the record of the OFA.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Minister a question. The Minister quoted from the OFA document with which we were all presented some days ago. It was a report card, so to speak, of the points made to the OFA prior to the election. One of the points in the report card dealt with agri-bonds, Revenue Canada's Section 31 and capital gains as actions which have been taken and referred to committee. Since OFA seems to know far more than we know, could the Minister tell us to what committee those activities were transferred and when the committee will become active?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that a great deal of discussion has taken place between myself and the Minister of Finance. I am quite certain that the Minister of Finance will make that clear very shortly.
Common sense would indicate that all these items deal with tax matters, so I would expect the appropriate parliamentary committee would be the Finance Committee or a subcommittee of the Finance Committee. I understand the Hon. Member has given us a commitment to support that reference. If the critic of the Official Opposition would give us the same degree of commitment, it would assist us greatly in rapid referral of the discussion paper.
There seems to be some misunderstanding with reference to the paper which was tabled last week by the Minister of Finance. It was a discussion paper, a paper which will be referred to a parliamentary committee or a subcommittee of a parliamentary committee. It is to act as a discussion paper only. I am sure it will encourage discussion and debate, so let us not misrepresent the paper tabled by the Minister as a statement from the Government. Rather, as I said, it is a discussion paper.
We have the commitment from the New Democratic Party. I am sure that we will get one from the Official Opposition. If that second approval is forthcoming, I would expect that the Minister of Finance within a matter of days would make an announcement on the action.
February 5, 1985


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything preventing the Government from putting a motion on the Order Paper respecting a reference of these three items. It seems very clear to me that in the election campaign there were pretty solid commitments to bring in legislation on capital gains, agri-bonds and Section 31. We would prefer to see the Government bring in legislation, but if it decides to refer them to the committee to be studied, naturally we will co-operate because they are important issues.
There is nothing holding up the Government. There has been nothing since November 5 to prevent the Government from putting a motion on the Order Paper referring these three items to the standing committee or to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture felt that they had already been referred, but a reference has to be put on the Order Paper, moved by the Minister and debated in the House. That has not happened.
The Minister was self-congratulatory this morning in his address, saying how many billions of dollars have been paid. I should like to ask him about the $500 million plus in crop insurance, the $223 million in western grain stabilization, the flood relief and so on. All those payments were put in place by legislation of the former Liberal Government. They would have been paid regardless of who was in power. I was surprised that the Minister did not spend more time talking about the farm financial crisis. He answered a question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) by saying that the former Government had not reinstated the special farm assistance program. In fact, we were committed to doing that in the election campaign. We would have applied it to all those higher rates of interest, whereas the Minister's legislation, which took him four or five months to bring in, only applied to 5,600 outstanding farm loans with the FCC. In fact, there are another 6,800 mortgages over 15 per cent to which it did not apply. He brought down interest rates to 12.75 per cent at a time when the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is saying that farmers can only afford some 8 per cent interest.
On looking down the list of Tory promises, I do not see many which have been acted upon. For example, what about advance payments for crops, the amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act so that payments are made when they are needed, the re-establishment of a long-term dairy policy or the expansion of agricultural research and development? All we have to do is look at the number of laboratories and the toxicology centre which have been cancelled.
The Minister was very congratulatory that he got through the House with our co-operation-and why would we not co-operate?-the tobacco legislation to establish a tobacco marketing board. His own Members filibustered the Bill last June. If they had not done that, we would not have had to deal with it. After being filibustered last June, the Bill passed the House in one day. That could have been done just as easily last June.
Supply
There is one question I would like to put to the Minister. His Party promised to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing interest rates. Was that in fact a commitment of the Party? Did it apply to FCC loans? Did it apply to all outstanding farm loans, both short term and long term? When they talk about current interest rates, are they talking about demand note interest rates? Is that promise still valid? Does it apply to all outstanding loans of the 39,000 farmers, now increased to 45,000, who face very serious financial difficulties? Can the Minister clarify that point?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, let me correct another inaccuracy which has been placed on the record with reference to the cancellation of research facilities within Agriculture Canada. Not one research facility has been cancelled within Agriculture Canada. Two projects came on stream from found money. They involved two laboratories, one at Three Rivers and one at Victoriaville. I said before that we have not cancelled either of those facilities; they have been delayed. There is a difference between delaying the construction of a facility and cancelling it.
The Hon. Member asked whether our commitment applies to farm loans across the board. Obviously it could not. Our commitment was to deal with FCC clients. That is the only legislative authority that we have.
I draw a comparison between the special farm assistance program of the previous Government, which ran out of funds in December, 1983, was ignored by that Government, and which assisted about 2,000 FCC clients. To be eligible for that program, you had to plead your case of dire straits and that was difficult. Our program will apply across the board to FCC clients. It will involve not 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000, but 5,600.
The Hon. Member made a comparison with the great program that exists in the U.S. He did that the other day. We have been watching that program very closely. Our research tells us that that program is less than successful. That is exactly how I responded the other day. That great program in the U.S. assisted only about 8,000 farmers.


Charles James Mayer: In our context, that is like 800.


John Wise: That is right. Our program was designed and suggested to me by FCC officials. I congratulate those officials for being extremely helpful in working with farm groups, with the officials in my Department, myself and the Ministry of Finance. Our program assisted 5,600 farmers. If you compared our Canadian program with the U.S. program, using a scale of one to ten our program would have benefited about
56,000	American farmers. That is an excellent comparison. There is no question about the effectiveness of our interest rate conversion program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall now resume debate.

February 5, 1985
Supply


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is here today. I am sorry he had to miss the official ceremony to open the laboratory in St. Hyacinthe in la belle province. I know he enjoys openings and sod-turnings for facilities which the Liberal Government put in place. The previous time when he appeared before the Agriculture Committee, he had just performed a ceremony in Nepean at a new Government laboratory. The way funds are being handled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), the only federal Government buildings and sod-turnings in which he will take part are those inaugurated by the previous Liberal Government.


Charles James Mayer: Do you want us to cancel them?


Maurice Brydon Foster: I am just saying how sorry we are that the Minister cannot be in St. Hyacinthe today for that official opening. Being such a great House of Commons man, I know in his heart he would really rather be here today.
This Government seems to be caught up in the process and the optics of government-not really taking action but seeming to perform. We saw the symbolic signing of a cheque by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle). With great flourish he signed a $13 million cheque for the pork producers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this Government love that kind of symbolism. They love to be seen to be doing something. Studying agri-bonds, Section 31 and the problems of agriculture is just as good to them as taking action. From a superficial point of view, they may appear to be actually doing something. However, when you get down to the individual pork producers in the Province of Quebec, they will call the Minister of Public Works to account for that cheque. They are going to go to the bank and try to cash that cheque. Regardless of how much the Minister of Agriculture pooh-poohs the action, the pork producers in the Province of Quebec will not be put off.
In this whole process, the Government is abandoning many of our agricultural producers. The Farm Credit Corporation report showed that 39,000 farmers are in serious financial difficulties. This morning the Minister spoke and responded for 10 minutes. He did not say how he was going to help the
39,000	farmers in very serious difficulty. These are real people. It is not the agricultural producers who are the best off. If they spend more than 40 per cent of their cash flow to pay debts, if their quota is less than 15 per cent of their operation or if they are borrowing more than what they are spending on capital expenditures, their finances are in a very serious position. The tragedy is that they are the young farmers, those who have been in agriculture for 11 years on average.
Beyond that, those farmers are really our hope for the future because they are the most productive and technically advanced farmers and produce half of all the food produced in this country. It is just not factual for the Government to say that
by reducing interest rates from 14 per cent to 12.75 per cent, we will solve all the problems. I do not know how to describe that other than by saying it is just not factual.
Last week I saw a farmer in my office who was with the OFA group. He described how he bought his hog-producing farm for $320,000 ten years ago. He took out a $240,000 mortgage with the FCC. He had the farm appraised last summer because he had heard some stories about farm properties dropping in value. In fact, his appraisal came out to $165,000. He has lost half his equity in the last two or three years. I would like to know how the Minister's little reduction in interest rates from 14 per cent to 12.75 per cent will help that producer.
The 70,000 or 75,000 agricultural producers in the country carry $17 billion worth of the $21 billion over-all debt in this country today. When the Farm Credit Corporation appeared before the Agriculture Committee, it indicated that in the next year or two there will be defaults of about $2 billion on these farm loans. That is a colossal amount of money. I do not know how many thousands of farmers it represents. It would seem to be very, very many of them. In fact, Ralph Ashmead, a research analyst for the Farm Credit Corporation, said in an interview recorded in The Manitoba Co-operator back in October that he estimated that there were between 2,000 and
3,000	farmers who were headed for immediate financial collapse.
I was surprised that the Minister spoke of the lack of success of the American farm set-aside program. That program is designed to help the farmers whose equity has dropped dramatically like the farmer from Nipissing to whom I referred. Obviously it is a program which will not help all farmers. If a farmer has lost his equity, no program can help him. However, when setting aside a portion of the debt for a number of years will put the farmer in a positive cash flow position and give him a margin of approximately 10 per cent, then the American Farmers Home Administration which is similar to our Farm Credit Corporation will set aside that debt and pay the interest on one-quarter of the debt for up to five years.
The Minister of Agriculture has no program of a similar calibre. One could say: "That is really only bailing someone out. Should we actually do that?" I say that we should consider very seriously doing that in this country. Every time the Farm Credit Corporation has a default, a bankruptcy or a foreclosure, it loses between $80,000 and $90,000. We know that when there is a bankruptcy, half of the stock is replaced and half of the chattels walk away overnight. Rather than losing $80,000 or $90,000 in a foreclosure, why not assist a farmer by setting aside a portion of his debt, thereby putting him in a positive cash flow position for several years and ultimately allowing him to be responsible for his debt at a later time?
In September when the farm debt crisis began in the United States and farm property values dropped by 25 per cent to 50 per cent there and in Canada, the Americans announced this set-aside program and the Farmers Home Administration sent

out notices of it to about 150,000 of its clients. As well, it has received over 100,000 inquiries from people asking about the program and whether or not they can take advantage of it. In fact, for over 8,000 farmers interest rates have been reduced from 11 per cent or 12 per cent, depending on whether it is a production loan or land loan, to around 7 per cent or 5 per cent. As well, the Farmer's Home Administration has handled
3,000	farm set-asides.
To compare the Minister's reducing interest rates from 14 per cent to 12.5 per cent with the Farmers Home Administration Program in the United States, which has reduced interest rates from 11 per cent or 12 per cent to 7 per cent or 5 per cent and created a set-aside program-


Mr. Malone:: What were the interest rates when the Liberals were in power? They were 22 per cent.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -is simply not viable. I notice that Hon. Members opposite are really getting agitated. We want to know when they will begin to take action on all of these problems.
In the statement made by the Minister of Finance on "bloody Thursday", November 7, in which he effectively said: "We are not only going to kick the farmers when they are down, but we are going to really go at them," the Minister almost declared war on the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and the grain farmers of the west. Through service fees, the Government will collect $32.3 million in the coming year. For instance, germination fees will go from $12.50 to $50.
The potato farmers in Prince Edward Island are having a very difficult time this year. Their cost of production runs about 5 cents a pound and their selling price is around 6 cents a pound. They are facing a very difficult situation. For fresh fruits, vegetables and potatoes being sold to other provinces, a 33-cent per hundred pounds inspection fee will be imposed. I am told that in an average production situation, that will run to about $66 per acre for inspecting potatoes produced. From an average size potato farm of 200 acres, the cost will be very significant. My preliminary estimate is that the cost will be something around $12,000 or $13,000 for inspections.
As well, there will be increased inspection charges for inspecting potatoes which are produced for seed amounting to something like $11 per acre. That could run something like $2,200 per farm. There will be a charge for secondary tuber inspections of 7 cents per hundred pounds. It goes on and on.
In the Agriculture Committee meeting yesterday, we tried to get information about this from the Minister but he said: "Oh, well, we are discussing it with producer groups across the country, but we cannot give this information to the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons. The Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons is a very important agricultural group. It seems to me that if the Government will impose dramatic increases in farm service fees, it should be prepared to provide pertinent information to the members of the committee.
Supply
There are an endless number of items on which I would like to speak today but obviously time is moving on. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Government-at a very difficult time for many agricultural producers across the country-is imposing a new disaster insurance scheme on them. Because of the drought which was experienced in western Canada this past summer, the federal Government and the provincial Governments jointly shared a program which provided $60 million in Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. The previous Liberal Government agreed to provide $16 million. That amount has been cut to less than $8 million by this Government, and the provincial Government of Saskatchewan has matched that figure and provided $8 million.
Under the program which the Government is proposing, farmers will pay half the cost, the federal Government will pay half the cost and the provincial Governments will be required to pay nothing under the program, except perhaps administration costs. Just think what the situation would have been in northeastern Saskatchewan, in the five rural municipalities which suffered tremendous flood damage, two years in a row, late in the spring season, if those 1,700 farmers had been required to provide the $8 million which was provided by the provincial Government. The farmers of the country are being abandoned by the Government at a time when finances and farm debts are the most severe they have been in 30 or 40 years. In addition, the Government is imposing fees to cover inspections and disaster insurance.
We are disappointed that the Government has decided to cancel Canagrex. When the Tories were campaigning in the last election they talked about Canada becoming a superpower in agricultural exports. In fact, Canada has a very high standard in that regard. For example, in 1983 Canada exported $9.5 billion worth of exports, which amounted to 10 per cent of Canadian exports for agricultural commodities. As well there was a surplus of $4.3 billion over imports. I recognize that much of that was due to the Canadian Wheat Board and to the exports which were made by the Canadian Dairy Commission. The previous Government wanted to establish the Canagrex program to market many commodities, such as beans, canola, honey and all of the relatively smaller-volume and dollar-wise commodities which are often fragmented by provincial Governments. We have seen the situation in Canada in which provincial Governments compete with each other in pork sales. Therefore, Canagrex was established to co-ordinate, identify and test markets, and to provide one-stop financing assistance. The first five months in which Canagrex operated, it had sales of some $17 million and it was in the process of arranging an additional $160 million. Canagrex has performed market surveys on 16 countries and has handled 300 requests for assistance. Those requests have not just come from small commodity groups, but from big corporations such as Canada Packers and the Cargills of the world, who recognize the advantage of an agricultural export corporation.
The Government is abolishing Canagrex at a time when the United States has brought in an excellent program for their

February 5, 1985
Supply
agriculture exports. The Secretary of State for Agriculture has indicated that the United States is going to be more aggressive in marketing its commodities abroad. This Government is abandoning farmers at a time when they need more help. They require help in research, marketing and financial assistance. The Government should be looking toward the continuation of farmers, as is the United States. The Government is simply abandoning Canadian farmers.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, talks like the one we have just heard from the Liberal Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) run off the backs of the prairie farmers like water off the back of a duck. When I hear the Hon. Member with his crocodile tears talk about this Government, which has only been in power for five or six months, not keeping its promises, I cannot understand how he can have so much gall.
In 1980 Prime Minister Trudeau promised that if the Liberal Government was re-elected it would change the Valuation Day from December 31, 1971. That brought hope to hundreds of farmers whose "nest-egg" was tied up in that Valuation Day. The Minister of Agriculture at that time, Mr. Whelan, promised prairie farmers that he would change that date and there was no doubt about it. Was that date ever changed? Every time Mr. Whelan was asked in the House when the date was going to be changed, he would say "Soon". "Soon" never came. As a result, hundreds of farmers in the west, and indeed across Canada, had their pension plans ruined. Yet, the Hon. Member for Algoma has the gall to talk about this Government breaking promises. When I listen to him, I suspect that a leopard can change his spots. Why did the Liberals not change the date after their Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture had made definite promises? When the Hon. Member starts practising what he preaches, maybe we will listen to him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who is a very good friend of mine and a person whom I have known for a great many years, makes a lot more sound than light. If we look at the Tory promises, three-quarters of them have not been adopted and nothing is happening.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Not in five months!


Maurice Brydon Foster: He should take a look at the list.


Gordon Edward Taylor: How about the Valuation Day?


Maurice Brydon Foster: The number one promise on the Tory list of action is to abolish the capital gains tax on the sale of farm property for continuing agriculture purposes. Parliament has been here since November 5. Why has it not brought in the legislation? Why is it not sending it to committee?


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are doing it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Well, why don't they do it? The Order Paper of the House of Commons is empty. Why does the Government not bring in a Bill to abolish capital gains tax? It wants to send the whole matter off to committee to study it. As a matter of fact, I predict that the Tories will welsh on that promise.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Oh yeah?


Maurice Brydon Foster: If the Hon. Member for Bow River took the time to read the document entitled Tax Issues in Agriculture, he would find that the Minister of Finance is not with it. The Minister of Finance is back-pedalling on the whole question. If the Government is going to abolish the capital gains tax on farm property, why did it pass the capital gains provision in Mr. Lalonde's Budget of last spring?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, it has now been two months since the report by Judge Rosalie Abella was tabled, and the Progressive Conservative Party has yet to respond to the 117 recommendations for dealing with problems related to job discrimination.
This is a matter that requires special attention and immediate action, especially /Where visible minorities are concerned, as demonstrated in a joint study prepared by the Toronto Metro Social Planning Council and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. The study condemns the racist attitudes to which ethnic groups in Toronto are exposed. Racism is not peculiar to the Toronto area, however. It is something we find in Canada as a whole.
It is therefore a matter of great urgency that equal opportunity programs be established for women, native people, the disabled and visible minorities, in addition to providing immigrants with adequate language and job training, because they are faced with both open and indirect discrimination, as reported by the Special Committee on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian society.
As a society, we have a responsibility to eliminate at source any discrimination against minority groups, but the Progressive Conservative Government has a duty to take appropriate measures.
February 5, 1985



AGRICULTURE


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, last week the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board and the P.E.I. Potato Producers' Association received letters from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture outlining increases in potato inspection and certification fees, considered as cost recovery measures by the Department of Agriculture.
Inspection fees for table stock potatoes are to be 33 cents per hundredweight, effective April 1 this year. When we look at the average yield based on Prince Edward Island production of 200 hundredweight per acre, that means the cost per acre will jump to $66. For the average farmer who produces 200 acres of potatoes, that means over $13,000 in inspection fees.
A fee has also been introduced for seed potato producers which, on average, would amount to about $5,000 in most cases. This will be prohibitive to many farmers who are already finding it difficult to get their products to market at a price above the cost of production.
The potato producers of Prince Edward Island are opposed to this new fee structure. They are particularly concerned that the changes will come into effect without consultation, and apparently without compromise. I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is fully aware of the implications of this for the farmers of Canada, and I recommend a full consultation process take place, allowing producers to air their concerns on cost recovery measures.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, refugees and other persons who arrive by aeroplane at Pearson International Airport and are for any reason detained at the minimum security facility in the Avion Motor Hotel, ought to be treated no worse than criminals condemned to imprisonment in Canada. However, I am advised that indeed they are. I have been told that they never receive as much as one full hour per day outside in the fresh air. In fact, more often than not they receive none.
Detainees are strictly forbidden to talk with each other, even in the line-up for meals. There is no library. Security staff arbitrarily search the detainees' rooms and stored belongings, without permission, and some detainees allege their belongings have been stolen. The security staff frequently use abusive language and, ironically, threaten detainees with jail.
1 call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to inquire into the operation of this detention facility and report to this House on whether Canada
meets the expectations of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and in particular, as to who determines the rules governing detainees, who is responsible for administering them, and what recourse is open to a detainee who feels unjustly treated.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have heard the Opposition in this House continuously attack our U.S. neighbours on matters of foreign investment, defence sharing, and trade. While our new Government begins initiatives to get our country back to work through co-operation inside and outside Canada, all Canadians see is the Opposition "American bashing", rather than joining with us and working toward jobs and prosperity in this country. Many Canadians, including myself, are sick and tired of this action.
I suggest that most Canadians want co-operation with our good friend and major trading partner to the south. Due to the poor investment climate in the past, too many Canadians took their investments to the U.S. I challenge Canadians to invest in Canada. As well, rather than criticize foreign investment, why not get involved in joint ventures with investors from the U.S., Europe, and the Pacific rim countries who want to invest in this great country of ours?
Canada has prospered because of joint research with the U.S. in many areas such as health care, communications, and transportation, to name a few. U.S. advances in technology have helped in Canada's over-all prosperity, a prosperity which our new Government is attempting to restore, not with pessimism and contempt but with fairness, openness, and a willingness to work with our friends. This positive approach will not sell newspapers, but it will get Canadians back to work and at the same time keep Canada a strong and sovereign nation.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage the Government to work toward an agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. The need to arrive at an agreement at meetings between representatives of the Government and the association appears to have been recognized by the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Murta), and I commend him for that. He does well to pursue the urgent task of arriving at an honourable agreement with the Japanese Canadian community, which has this past weekend reaffirmed its support for the position taken by its national leadership. I urge him to press ahead fearlessly.

February 5, 1985
Canadians do not approve of discrimination against visible minorities. Even those who question the need for compensation, recognize that the King Government acted against a group of Canadians who stood out only by reason of their race and origin.
World War II proved to be a massive struggle against genocidal racism. The Government now faces the challenge of redressing a great wrong done to a Canadian visible minority in those days. I challenge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to ensure that the Government resumes the negotiations it promised in December and considers all the grievances suffered by Japanese Canadians.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the textile industry in Canada is a vital part of our nation's economy. It is a complex, highly capital intensive, and highly concentrated sector, affecting all Canadians. Combined with the clothing industry, there are
183,000	Canadians employed throughout Canada in this business. Some 45 per cent of these people reside in Ontario. Textiles are very important in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Many of my constituents are employed, either directly or indirectly, in this industry. All Canadians use textiles. The future of the industry in Canada is an important concern for all of us.
I congratulate the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) for continuing his consultations with various textile representatives. It is my understanding that the Minister will be meeting with the chairman of the Canadian Textile Institute, Mr. Ray Chevrier, and Mr. Des McLaughlin, director of government and textile trade relations, of Celanese Canada Incorporated, later this month. I am confident this type of consultation is a good omen for the textile and clothing industries in Canada. There is much work to be done, and we will be doing it together. The concern, opinions, and advice of this important industry are invaluable. The Minister deserves our encouragement throughout this process.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, the weakness of the Quebec Conservative caucus in Ottawa is becoming most alarming. The caucus has so little clout that every day it is being outsmarted by the Ontario caucus. Ministers from Quebec are nothing more than francophone spokesmen for the important Ministers outside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Wabasso is closing its factory in Trois-Rivieres, Melchers is closing down in Berthier, Le Carbure is closing in Shawinigan, and now that Montreal's biggest construction project, the VIA Rail maintenance centre, has been cancelled, the Aviation Safety Board has been transferred from Montreal to Ottawa, the Vieux Port de Montreal projects have been suspended, and Summer Canada projects have been scrapped, we see the Hyundai corporation, a Korean automobile manufacturer, getting ready to set up a factory not in Quebec but in Ontario, and not just anywhere in Ontario but in the riding of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).
People always said the Conservatives were ignoring Quebec. Mr. Speaker, as long as Conservative Members elected in Quebec remain silent and as long as the Parti Quebecois is in bed with the Progressive Conservative Party, all Quebec will get from this Government is a lot of promises, some nice medals and a lot of unemployment.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that CBC Radio has cancelled two more of the longest running programs on its AM network, namely, Identities and Anthology. Having already cancelled Our Native Land, this means that the CBC has killed three programs that have been on the air for more than 50 years and which were especially informative to minority groups in Canada.
One of the major objectives of the CBC should be to help minority groups attain their full standing in Canadian society. Instead, the CBC is now pushing shows based on its view of consumerism because it believes it can appeal to some market researchers' version of what today's "yuppies" want to hear.
Before these changes are approved by the CBC senior management I ask the President of the CBC to review them fully, in view of the Corporation's mandate to serve all Canadians. I also appeal to the Minister of Communications to give the CBC the opportunity to appear before the House Committee on Communications and Culture to explain the changes which it is making as a result of the cut in its budget.



AGRICULTURE


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Ethiopian crisis that wrenched the emotions of Canadians during the past year is one tragic example of the world's growing need for human food. Yesterday around the world 40,000 children
February 5, 1985

under the age of Five died of starvation. Today another 40,000 will die, and there will be yet another wave of tragic deaths from starvation tomorrow. Additionally, 70 million persons per year, roughly three times Canada's present population, suffer permanent and irreversible brain damage from a shortfall of protein.
In the face of that overwhelming and clearly demonstrated need for human food, Canada still does not have a widespread understanding or appreciation of the need to preserve our agricultural land. We are complacent in the false comfort that the world's hungry people are elsewhere, and that the problem is not ours. We accept the myth that Canada has an abundance of agricultural land. The truth is that Canada is diminishing its food producing capacity at such a rapid rate that a tragedy in both economy and nutrition is inevitable if we do not reverse the rate at which we destroy our food producing soil.
One-half of the original farmland in Ontario is now permanently removed from agricultural production. From 1971 to 1976, 200,000 acres of farmland in Canada's largest province were removed from agricultural production.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: As
you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government-through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), or of social injustice in Canada-has introduced Bill C-26 whose unfortunate result is to discriminate against 80,000 Canadians. I should like to quote a telegram:
The Quebec Association for the Defence of the Rights of Retirees and Early Retirees denounces the discriminatory character of the social measure under which only widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 will receive the federal allowance.
Further on, it states:
Single or divorced men and women aged 60 to 64, destitute and oftentimes savagely thrown out of the labour market, should be entitled as well to the minimum protection of a guaranteed income, as the one given widows and widowers in the same age bracket.
Mr. Speaker, a copy of this telegram has been forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) urging him to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to set aside the funds required so that the House will not discriminate against those Canadians.
Oral Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Government must pay particular attention to those in the age group of 50 to 65 years who, through no fault of their own, are in a position where they are unable to find any meaningful employment. They are at a stage in their lives when the contributions they would normally be making to pension plans would afford them with an income upon reaching a reasonable and acceptable retirement age. I have discovered, as I am sure many Members have, that there are untold numbers of individuals and families suffering tremendous hardship.
Would the Prime Minister consider the possibility of extending such things as UIC benefits in order to ensure that those in that age group, who cannot find employment and are about to lose everything they have worked for, for their families, will be given a reasonable source of income to tide them over until a change in the economy takes place to allow them to re-enter the workforce?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Prime Minister which relate to our ongoing relationship with the United States. Recently the Prime Minister, and several of his Ministers, made factual errors-perhaps misstatements-on a number of ongoing issues.
I will deal first with the issue of acid rain. I believe that the Prime Minister threw away a very important bargaining chip in our negotiations with the United States when he proclaimed, last Friday, that Canada ought to clean up its own act before pressing the Americans. He has already been contradicted by the Premier-designate of Ontario. He was contradicted today in Montreal by the Ontario Minister of the Environment, Andrew Brandt.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that by these statements he has put us in a bad bargaining position on a very important issue? Will he recognize that he needs to reach an agreement with the President of the United States at the summit meeting in Quebec City on March 17? If he fails to get a full agreement on the control of acid rain, he will have failed Canadians.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if there has been failure in dealing with this very important issue over many years, and failure there has been, there can be

February 5, 1985
Oral Questions
no doubt that the responsibility for it rests in large part with the Liberal Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact, if my right hon. friend wants to quote provincial Ministers, he will find that at the same conference that was convened by the Minister of the Environment this morning, the Minister of the Environment for the Province of Quebec-

-the Hon. Adrien Ouellette said, practically word for word, that Mr. Mulroney was quite right when he said Friday, and that the Quebec Government is in complete agreement with his initiatives and his remarks.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the United States and Canada share responsibilities in this highly important and sensitive sector. In my opinion, acknowledging as we do our share of responsibilities as Canadians-we ought to clean our own backyard before blaming others-is clear evidence of our good faith and our desire to co-operate openly with a view to settling the problem of acid rains once and for all.
That will not be achieved overnight, Mr. Speaker, but in all good faith we will initiate the process over a period of time so as to conclude agreements which indeed will enable us to clean our environment.


NORTH WARNING SYSTEM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would call to the attention of the Prime Minister that on March 6, 1984, the federal Minister of the Environment signed an agreement with all of the provinces to limit sulphur dioxide emissions by 5 per cent by 1994. Today the Ontario Environment Minister, Mr. Brandt, said that he does not believe that Canada, especially Ontario, has lagged behind the United States. He said: "I think we've done more in terms of reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada than in any other jurisdiction".
I will turn now to the subject of the DEW Line.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am dealing with misstatements made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers. They have blamed the deterioration of the DEW Line on previous Canadian Governments. The Prime Minister knows that is not true. He and Cabinet Ministers were factually wrong about which Party made the original commitment to bring nuclear arms on to Canadian soil. He knows it was Mr. Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


John Napier Turner: I happened to be in the House of Commons-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: So was I, and you're wrong.


John Napier Turner: -when that deal was welshed upon by Mr. Diefenbaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You're wrong.


John Napier Turner: It provoked the resignation of Douglas Harkness and brought about the defeat of that Government. I was right here in the House of Commons when that happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition have a question?


John Napier Turner: There seems to be confusion or a distortion of facts on the other side. Will the Prime Minister agree that no northern warning agreement should be signed with the United States until Members of the House have had an opportunity, on the floor and before the standing committee, to review the negotiations on the northern warning system, so that Members of Parliament who do know the facts will be given an opportunity to review that agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend says that he was in the House of Commons in 1962. He was doing better then than he is now-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -because I know that my right hon. friend can do a lot better than defame the memory of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who served this House and country long, honourably, and well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That denunciation of the Liberals did not come from me. It came from a very distinguished Canadian, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, who wrote that the Liberal Party became the defrocked princes of peace when it did its volte-face and accepted nuclear arms on Canadian soil for the first time. That is what happened with the Liberal Party in 1962 when it sold its soul for temporary power. That is what is wrong with the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Waddell:: Now you won't take them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now we are hearing from the NDP. This is going to get priceless. The latest members of NATO.
February 5, 1985


Mr. Skelly:: Don't count on it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can give my right hon. friend, who is a man of distinction and accomplishment, the assurance, which I know he will accept from me, that this Government will defend at all times the interest of Canadian sovereignty and will sign no document that does anything other than enhance the sovereignty, integrity, and independence of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about before the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, we will be honoured to share with all Members of the House, via a House committee, all information relating thereto, and we will be delighted to bring it forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Of course we must welcome that assurance, but we don't have to accept any attempt by the Prime Minister to rewrite history in this House. He need only consult his Minister of Veterans Affairs who resigned on the issue I have described, because the Diefen-baker Government-I knew the right hon. gentleman as well as the Prime Minister did, and in ways I knew him better-


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Let him finish.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How come you let him go on at length? Be fair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have kept a stopwatch so far on the questions and the answers. They have both been extraordinarily long.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You cut him off.


Mr. Speaker:: If members wish to hear a supplementary question from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I will grant one.


WEST COAST SALMON TREATY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that these issues are serious enough, particularly when history is being toyed with, to deal with fully on the floor of the House of Commons. My question now relates to another matter, but relates again to the failure to bring Canadians into the picture.
1 put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before the Prime Minister wanted the treaty on salmon fishing on the West Coast accelerated and initialled last week in Ottawa before any Member of the House saw the text of that treaty. As a matter of fact, when the Minister of Justice was a substitute for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he said
Oral Questions
that we were dumping salt cod into the United States, which was again wrong.
Will the Prime Minister undertake, before that treaty is signed by him and the President on March 17, if it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, that he will give the Members of the House an opportunity to see the text and give their views as to the benefits of that treaty to Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend does the House and me a disservice by suggesting that I would have brought pressure to bear on our negotiators to conclude an agreement simply so that there would be a document of convenience to sign in Quebec City. I think that is to underestimate considerably the wisdom of Members of the House, and my sense of duty and patriotism.
I can tell my right hon. friend that the negotiator for Canada throughout was a very distinguished Canadian, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. He will tell my right hon. friend that at no time did I do anything other than encourage him to proceed in the national Canadian interest. He has done that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Prime Minister another chance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: That "tell us what to do Government" of nightwatchmen, Ministers who fight amongst themselves, and a Minister of Finance who admittedly enjoys the support of the Prime Minister occasionally, has succeeded in creating so much uncertainty and confusion that the Canadian dollar has been driven below 75 cents.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: We know what the Prime Minister used to say about the Canadian dollar.
With this obvious loss of confidence, will the Prime Minister undertake to get behind the Minister of Finance in order to remove those divisions in Cabinet so that some over-all, coherent direction can be given to economic policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I notice that my hon. friend from downtown Westmount takes the liberty of making such pretentious suggestions only when the Member from Shawinigan is not sitting next to the Opposition Leader.
I can tell my hon. friend what he already knows, and which he has had the kindness to acknowledge many times in private observations and in comments about the House. He and I view the Hon. Minister of Finance as an outstanding, able, and

February 5, 1985
Oral Questions
brilliant Minister who is serving Canada and the Government extremely well.


PRESENTATION OF BUDGET-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, the cliches and platitudes of the Prime Minister are already legend in this country, and I would like to direct my next question to the Minister of Finance.
Could the Minister give the House the assurance that this Government, so full of ambiguity, contradiction and dissension, will be bringing down a budget as soon as possible, before the end of April, in order to restore confidence in this country's economy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have spent considerable time talking to a number of people throughout the country in the three months since the economic statement. I am continually impressed by the increasing confidence in their minds about the direction that our Government is taking, including the policy direction and the long term approach that we are taking to solve the country's economic problems.
The Hon. Member has asked me on two or three occasions when I will bring down the Budget. I think we have made it quite clear that we want to go through the process of consultation with the First Ministers' meeting, and then the economic conference. I will be tabling a Budget in the House as soon after that as I can.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. John Pike, the Director of Space Policy for the American Federation of Scientists, suggests that weapons designed to intercept ICBMs in mid course would have to be based in Canada. Another report from George Lindsey, the Chief of Operational Research in the Department of National Defence here in Canada, suggests that nuclear weapons might have to be placed in Canada to intercept incoming ICBMs. Has the Minister investigated these possibilities with his American counterparts? Has he informed them that Canada would not accept, under any circumstances, such weapon systems on our soil?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the Hon. Member giving me the opportunity to clarify continuing statements that are in the
newspapers that do not relate to government policy. The Prime Minister had a press conference on Friday. He stated very clearly what the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have stated on a number of occasions in this House. That position is the policy of the Government, and it will continue to be the policy of the Government.


UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I got an answer. I will try again. The same Mr. Lindsey, and this is not a quotation from a newspaper, it is from a Senate hearing just down the hall, stated that it would be "operationally desirable" to place a ballistic missile defence system under the operational control of NORAD. Therefore, will the Government withdraw its endorsement of star wars until it learns the full implications of this whole program as it affects Canada?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, what really infuriates me is that the Opposition attempts to take two or three different programs, and mixes them up, and suggests to Canadians that things are not very clear. The Prime Minister on Friday made it very clear where this Government stands. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have made it clear earlier. There is no reason for me to be repeating every day what our position is. The Canadian people know what our position is, and it is what the Prime Minister said on Friday. We are in a position where we have no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, and we have no present intention of receiving any nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I notice the Minister said that the Government has no present intention of accepting nuclear weapons on our soil.


NORTH WARNING SYSTEM
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have a final question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister admit that you cannot have a ground radar tracking system for star wars in Canada that is distinct from the- updated north warning system? Will he also admit that that is an integral part of the airborne SDI, you cannot divide the one from the other and therefore, logically speaking, Canada is now committed to star wars in this country?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept any of the philosophy of the hon. gentleman. What I will say again is that we are negotiating a warning system with the United States, and simply a warning system. Nothing more than that.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: It has nothing to do with star wars.

February 5, 1985


COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are on the ground of trying to clarify what these statements are, let me ask a question of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Crosbie:: Get back to your own area.


Lloyd Axworthy: In an answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister indicated, I believe he gave the word assurance, that there would be an opportunity for this House to examine the agreement before it is signed with the President of the United States, concerning the defence warning system.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is more than you ever did. Where were you two years ago?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to have confirmation from the Prime Minister that that document, prior to any initialling or agreement with the United States, will be submitted to a parliamentary standing committee of this House, and that we will have the opportunity to hear witnesses and representatives relating to the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs before anything is signed. Will the Prime Minister give us that very clear assurance?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and suggested to him that the Government would be most anxious to provide Members of Parliament with a full, detailed briefing of the radar warning system in the context of North American defence.
I am prepared to have that start happening this afternoon. If members of the other Parties want to wait, we can wait. But we are prepared to start that briefing just as soon as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Minister that members of this Party have been asking for that for the last three weeks, not beginning this afternoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why didn't you ask that when you were in Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: We can only say that we are now pleased to receive a positive reply.


STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE-CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the issue of seeking assurances, going back to the Prime Minister's press conference on Friday, he was not as clear as he might have been in indicating that this Government and this country would not accept any involvement in the star wars initiative through its implication to the radar system or through its implication to NORAD. Can we have the
Oral Questions
assurance of the Government that it has no intention of accepting any involvement in star wars, whether procurement, involvement, or command sectors, or we would never accept any placement or deployment of nuclear weapons on our soil by the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, made clear earlier today, the answers to that question have already been put on the record. The policy of this Government is, as it will be, that there will be no nuclear weapons stationed on Canadian soil. That can be taken as categoric. It is intended that way. That is the position of the Government of Canada.
With regard to the question of any association with any aspect of the Strategic Defence Initiative, I can give the Member assurance now, as I have before, that there is no plan, current, pending, or anticipated, that would have the Government of Canada involved in any way with the Strategic Defence Initiative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has repeatedly told the House that she would not introduce her student summer employment program until she has had an opportunity to consult widely, and presumably with students, including the Canadian Federation of Students. Would she explain why she never did meet with the Canadian Federation of Students and in fact has postponed any meeting with that body until next Monday, which will be five days after her planned announcement of her student program tomorrow?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I can explain very easily, Mr. Speaker. The persons whom the Hon. Member mentioned were out of the country at the time I was available to meet with them.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I can say categorically that that is not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to explain why this kind of excuse is being employed, instead of actually meeting with them as they have been asking her to do for weeks? How is it possible for her to introduce a program which is supposed to serve students who have not

February 5, 1985
Oral Questions
been consulted at all, I have not been consulted through the Canadian Federation of Students, or through any other organization representing students?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I have been meeting with students, with individual young people, and with groups of young people, in every part of the country, and I intend to continue to do so. I wish the Hon. Member could have been with me last Friday in Montreal when I met with 150 young people, students, who have been taken off the unemployed list and put back into training programs that will lead them to permanent jobs.


Lloyd Axworthy: Good Liberal training programs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is the kind of information I need to be given to me about how they can succeed in moving from school to unemployment, to work that is of a productive nature. I have been doing that right across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SIGNING OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last week, his Minister of External Trade made public a document on Canada-U.S. trade relations. During his press conference the Minister said he intended to reach a final decision within three or four months. Yesterday, however, the Premier designate of Ontario warned the Right Hon. Prime Minister that he was opposed to hasty decisions by the Government before all elements of the question were known. How does the Prime Minister intend to reconcile yesterday's legitimate request by the Premier designate of Ontario, Mr. Miller, and his own Government's desire to sign a free trade agreement with the United States as soon as possible?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is misrepresenting the facts. We are certainly not seeking an agreement with the United States on free trade, and we never have. We are consulting.


Mr. Chretien:: Ah!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Shawinigan via Bay Street says: Ah! But it is true. This is part of the consultation process.
The Premier designate of Ontario gave me his point of view which I understand and respect, and we shall be listening very carefully to the Premier designate and to all the other Premiers on the fourteenth of this month and also to all other socio-economic partners in Canada, and we shall see... A definitive policy will be determined and announced in due time.


CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS-INQUIRY WHETHER DOCUMENT TABLED BY MINISTER WILL BE STUDIED BY COMMITTEE
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister is actually denying what his own Minister of External Trade said at his press conference. The Prime Minister says that he wants to consult and hear what everyone has to say. In fact, the document tabled by his Minister . . . this would be an opportunity for a committee of the House to examine the very fundamental issue of Canada-U.S. relations.
Can the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the document will be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, so that Hon. Members will also hear what the provincial Premiers have to say, and the House can then make recommendations to the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is common knowledge that the Government is now preparing a White Paper on foreign policy which will also concern matters such as trade relations and our international economic relations. The document will be made available to a committee of the House, and I repeat what I said yesterday in a different context: If Hon. Members think the document is not sufficient for their purposes, the Government is prepared to submit as well the document tabled last week by my colleague, the Minister of External Trade.
I fail to see why Liberal Members look down on a Canadawide consultation process, because I think one of the basic changes Canadians were seeking on September 4 of last year was to have a government that would at last be prepared to listen to the views and requests of Canadians. That is what this Government's objective is today.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. PAUL SCHOENALS, SASKATCHEWAN MINISTER OF ENERGY AND MINES
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to interrupt proceedings to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Paul Schoenals, Minister of Energy and Mines of the Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 5, 1985


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that at this moment on foreign exchange markets the Canadian dollar is trading at 74.89 cents U.S. He will also know that in the past when the Canadian dollar softened, the Liberal Government made ordinary Canadians carry the brunt of that softening by increasing interest rates, including mortgage rates.
Knowing that an increase in interest rates at this crucial time would have a devastating effect in terms of investor and consumer confidence, will the Minister follow the traditional Liberal pattern, stand passively by, and allow the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates on Thursday?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member has drawn attention to the fact that for some 21 out of the past 22 weeks interest rates in Canada have gone down successively, to the point that they are now down to a level which we have not seen for a number of years. That has done a tremendous amount to increase the confidence of Canadians and the expectations of increased improving economic performance.
We have watched while some changes in the U.S. dollar have put some pressure on the Canadian dollar in recent days, but I think the Hon. Member should not be too impatient. These are things that normally happen in a market.


CONFIDENCE INQUIRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House recall that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and the Minister of Finance on many occasions indicated that after September 4 billions of dollars would move into Canada from outside, strengthening the value of the Canadian dollar as it built confidence. Could the Minister explain why that hasn't happened, why in fact the Canadian dollar is falling, and why there is little indication, as a result of that, that confidence is growing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been every indication that confidence in the country has grown significantly since September 4. We have seen close to 100,000 jobs created. We have seen retail sales increasing successfully in the months since then. There is no question in people's minds that this increased confidence is expected to continue and result in a very enhanced economic performance certainly over the months ahead and years ahead. The Hon. Member likes to walk around with a little cloud above his head. I think he should look around and see what is happening about him, before he asks these pessimistic questions.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Could he explain why 1,200 grain handlers have been laid off in Thunder Bay? At the same time, could he explain this terrible mismanagement by the Wheat Board? This type of lay-off is unprecedented. It is even more than those experienced under John Diefenbaker. I would like the Minister to explain this to the House.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is truly an important question. I wish they would get their act together. This morning the Leader of the Opposition referred to it as a strike, and this Hon. Member refers to it as a lay-off. I will explain why, very simply. It is a very serious situation for all of western Canada. We had a very bad crop last year. Our production is down 25 per cent. If he is accusing the Wheat Board of mismanagement, there are about 150,000 farmers out there who received final payments and were very satisfied. There are 150,000 farmers out there who believe that the Canadian Wheat Board has done a very good job of managing and selling farmers' grain, as we do on this side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAIL MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister, in his reply, has missed a very important point. He should know that grain handling which should have been done on the Great Lakes has been shifted to the West Coast. That has caused the type of lay-offs which took place. I want to know why there has been no use of winter rail movement. During the course of the last four years about 100 trains moved roughly one million tonnes of grain. Why has there not been a single train used for a single tonne of grain this year?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat it very simply for the Hon. Member. He makes a very good point. Farmers this year on the Prairies produced about 25 per cent less grain than they did the previous year. The reason for there being no eastern movement by rail is a decision of the Wheat Board. If he is telling me that he thinks the Wheat Board is doing a poor job, and if that is the position of his Party, then I think western farmers would be interested in knowing that. However, very simply, there is not enough grain to move. We would very much like to have surpluses of grain which we could sell. There would be winter movement of grain to eastern ports, and it would make jobs in eastern Canada. However, we simply do not have the grain to move.
2018

February 5, 1985
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
My question relates to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance before the Canadian Club. The Minister has suggested that maternity benefits be eliminated in order to reduce the high cost of unemployment insurance for small businesses.
Can the Minister assure the House that maternity benefits will not be eliminated from the unemployment insurance program, since those benefits accounted for only 4 per cent of the overall cost of the program in 1984?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question which was raised by the Minister of Finance was raised, first of all, at the time of the economic statement on November 8. That question as to whether or not social benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be paid out of the unemployment insurance fund or out of general revenues of the Government has been raised by people in business, labour, employers, and employees, on a continuing basis. This is a question which can be raised under the unemployment insurance review.


COST OF PREMIUMS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the increasing costs to the employer and employee with respect to premiums. All of this was caused by the previous Government placing the costs of unemployment insurance on employers and employees. Is the Minister prepared to consider a premium arrangement whereby the Government would accept part of the premium cost, thus reducing the cost of the premium to the employer and employee?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is always forthcoming with good ideas. I suggest that he put that forward at the time of the unemployment insurance review.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. During the fiscal year 1983-1984 under the Liberal Government, the Department of Supply and Services spent approximately $127 million for printing services, of which $2 million, or less than 2 per cent, went to the three most westerly provinces, and even less to the Maritimes, I might add. Will the Minister consider
initiating a more equitable distribution of printing contracts to all regions of Canada, possibly directing tenders on a regional basis where feasible?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I was aware and concerned about the maldistribution of government purchasing opportunities in terms of printing. We put in place a policy whereby printing costs are assessed on an FOB plant basis, to remove any penalties of geography. I am asking for regular reports from my officials to see that the program works and, hopefully, we will see some progress.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is supplementary to the one asked by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville. On January 17 the Minister promised me in this House that she would announce a summer employment program within two weeks of that date. That deadline has passed and we still have had no announcement. This morning in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs said that he did not know what summer employment program there would be for young native Canadians, or when it would be announced. He said he had no idea, that the decision rested with her Department. What kind of management and leadership is that? Does she not realize that that kind of procrastination is affecting the lives of thousands of young Canadians? Will she tell the House exactly when she is going to announce that program?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SCOPE OF PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, praise the Lord. Last year's Summer Canada program not only helped thousands of students, but thousands of community groups and many client groups such as daycare Centres, senior citizens, and the handicapped. Will she give an assurance that her program will help all those client groups?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will realize that I will release the details of the program at the time of the announcement. I would only undertake to tell him at this point that it will be substantially larger than the $85 million which the Liberal Government had set aside for that program this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 5, 1985


BRITISH COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT ACTION CENTRES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In its hearings last week the NDP action group on jobs heard testimony on the key role of unemployment action centres in providing counselling and advocacy services for the unemployed, and in helping the unemployed to help themselves. In British Columbia full-time co-ordinators for 28 centres had been funded by the federal Government, but this has been discontinued. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be at least interim funding for four months while the British Columbia Federation of Labour attempts to secure a more permanent source of funding for these action centres?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the travels of the NDP committee which is travelling across the country looking at employment. Some of the statements that have been forthcoming from the various members are very good. They say that discussions on employment and job creation should centre on the need for more self reliance, more decentralization of federal programs, and development of small, appropriately scaled local businesses. In the programs that we are developing, those are the very characteristics that we are putting into the program design. I also assure him that in that consideration we are looking at the needs of the unemployment help centres.


REQUEST FOR FUNDING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister recognizes the very important role that these centres play. I would like a commitment from her that she is prepared to guarantee funding so that the B.C. Federation of Labour down the road can secure continued funding. Will she provide that kind of bridge funding so that they can continue?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed understand the role that the unemployment help centres are playing in British Columbia. It was for that reason that I extended their payments last autumn.


TAKE OVER OFFER FOR UNION GAS
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the Minister assure the House that if there is a take-over of Union Gas by Unicorp, this will not negatively affect the credit status of Union Gas, or negatively affect the crucial role of Union Gas in ensuring security of gas supplies to all of eastern Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member that my Department is aware of the take-over offer from Union Gas. I have asked the Department, and also the National Energy Board, to look into the matter. He will be aware that we do not have control over share transactions, but we certainly do have an interest in the transmission lines and the storage facilities which, as the Hon. Member has indicated, serve far more than Union Gas itself.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. During the election campaign the Prime Minister said on the CTV program Question Period that the key position affecting economic or foreign policy should be screened by a House of Commons committee. Does the Prime Minister not believe that the job of High Commissioner to London is "a key position affecting foreign policy"? If so, which committee of the House will review that appointment and, if not, why will a committee not review that appointment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the same committee that reviewed the appointment of the Hon. Don Jamieson to London.


Mr. Allmand:: You are holier than thou in that appointment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend should not get so exasperated, because the Hon. Member for Shawinigan said that the appointment of Mr. McMurtry was a billiant one, and a good one for Canada. I thought he spoke for the Liberal Party on external affairs. Obviously the leader of the waffle speaks for the Liberal Party on external affairs, so he was wrong. In point of fact, I communicated-


Mr. Blaikie:: Don't insult the waffle.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I apologize. I withdraw that on behalf of all wafflers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Prime Minister like to complete his answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have communicated with the Hon. Member for St. John's East, who is chairing the task force on parliamentary reform, ably assisted by the agriculture critic of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I defended him. One of our people said that he did not have a grain in his head, and I defended him, Mr. Speaker.

February 5, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
I have communicated with the Hon. Member for St. John's East and asked him and his distinguished colleagues if they could provide a formula whereby such appointments will be vetted by committees of the House of Commons, as we all wish.


IMPORTANT APPOINTMENTS-ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Prime Minister now assure the House that he will follow up on his election promise and set up a committee to review all major appointments before further appointments are made, particularly before the appointment of Mr. Davis to Washington?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, our ambassador to Washington, Mr. Gotlieb, is a distinguished member of the public service, and I had the honour to confirm his appointment. Apparently, the Hon. Member did not listen to the answer to the first question. As a matter of fact, we have already asked the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to seek with his colleagues of the other parties a formula which in future would enable the House of Commons to review similar appointments.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice from the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) of his intention to raise a question of privilege at this time.


PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege and I have given you notice of it under the appropriate Standing Order. My question of privilege is based on the comments made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) that were reported in yesterday's Montreal, Gazette. The Hon. Member abused the privileges of his fellow parliamentarians by revealing information given to him in confidence concerning the Premier of New Brunswick.
We in this country still believe in the fundamental principle that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: By revealing hearsay and innuendo, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston has tarnished the reputation of the Premier of New Brunswick, a Privy Councillor.
The Hon. Member has also tarnished the reputations of several young people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question of privilege has the same difficulties as a previous question of privilege. Before the Hon. Member embarks upon what he thinks is also true, I must ask him, if he sees that, to tell me very clearly and quickly what his question of privilege of the House is as opposed to what he thinks about what another Member did.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, in revealing the information given to him in confidence by the Justice Department official, has tarnished the reputation of all Members of the House. Now members of the public will be afraid to give information in confidence to Members of Parliament for fear that such information will be revealed publicly. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that a prima facie case of privilege has arisen and refer this matter to the House Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member did provide me with a document and with the press clipping to which he refers. I did read it and 1 have looked over the precedents on this matter. The Hon. Member appears to be making a claim that, because of something another Member did, the privileges of the House have been breached. On the basis of what he has said, I find that there is no privilege of the House that has been breached. I can find nothing else.
As I think the Hon. Member knows, my dilemma is that if he wishes to make a specific accusation or charge against or about the conduct of another Member, he is free to do so. That is his right. However, on the basis of what has been put before the House today, I must find that there is no prima facie case of the privileges of the House being breached.
It has been the custom for me to reserve my rulings on these matters but because this is a similar kind of situation to the one that was dealt with earlier, I thought it would be wiser if I simply indicated that what I had to say in the last case applies in this case. What we have here is a dispute about whether or not what one Member has done is appropriate. Any Member may feel as any Member wishes to feel about any other Member, but I hope that all Members know that an accusation or comments made about another Member of the House should only be made by way of substantive charge and that there are certain consequences that go with that. It would be entirely outside the bounds of the Speaker to find that a question of privilege had been breached as it was in the previous allegation. I must find, therefore, that there is no question of privilege.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Speaker could assist us by indicating the previous case to which he is referring. Was he referring to the case of the remarks made by the Hon. Member whose conduct is presently questioned against the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), or was he referring to another case?
February 5, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I am speaking of cases on which I have already been asked to rule with regard to the conduct of Members.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I may, I think that there is a certain relationship which exists between Members of Parliament, their constituents and the public at large, so that-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on the point with which we have already dealt or is he rising on a separate point of order? He knows that if he is rising on the same point of order, he may not do so.


John R. Rodriguez: On the same question, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps to clarify it and put it in proper perspective.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not mean to create a dilemma for the Hon. Member. I waited to see if others would rise on the question of privilege. No one else rose. My options were to reserve my judgment or to make it now. Since I knew what it ought to be, I chose to make it now.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, February 4, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as
to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 40(2), I would like to table in both official languages an agreement on social security between the Government of Canada and the Government of Belgium. As provided by Standing Order 46(4), I would ask you to refer this report to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by some 100 residents of the Sault-au-Recollet project in my constituency
Motions
of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic who are asking that door-to-door mail delivery be provided to the project as soon as possible.
It is unacceptable that this public service for which these people pay taxes is still not being provided. The surveys are completed, the request for letter carriers has been submitted to Mr. Warren and these people are still waiting for the decision of the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Post Corporation.
This situation causes hardship to my constituents. It results in inconvenience, time losses, costly trips and other charges because of lack of parking near the post office.
I therefore present this petition and strongly recommend that the Government act upon it.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, once again it is my duty to present a petition signed by Sack-ville residents who denounce the cut-backs in the Canadian Wildlife Service and ask the Minister to restore the programs which were abolished without any consultation.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House Leaders, and I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to call Government Bill No. 9 on Motions rather than as an Order of the Day. I think you will find that it will be adopted without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That the quorum of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages Policy and Programs be six members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses, the government and the opposition are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when four members are present so long as both Houses, the government and the opposition are represented; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 5, 1985
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 67 and 138.


Mr. Nunziata: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, how many times has the Solicitor General used government aircraft and, in each case (a) what was the point of origin and destination (b) who accompanied him?
2.	Was it impossible to use regular scheduled commercial flights and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1.
The Solicitor General has used government aircraft on two occasions since September 4, 1984.
(i)	(a) Ottawa to Toronto and return, (b) Mr. Von Veh.
(ii)	(a) Ottawa to Halifax, (b) Dr. Doucet, Office of the Prime Minister, Mrs. Laura MacKay, Miss Wendy MacKay, Miss Rebecca MacKay.
2. (i) Yes, due to the narrow time frame and urgency of attending a meeting.
(ii) Yes, due to urgency of a meeting and the fact that no commercial flights were available.


Mrs. Pepin: 1.	Did the Minister of National Revenue state in the House on December 4, 1984, that he had asked departmental lawyers for legal opinions concerning the January, 1985 issue of Penthouse magazine and, if so (a) how many opinions were requested (b) from whom (c) what is their professional background (d) how often are they called to give their opinion concerning such material (e) what was the content of the opinions submitted to the Minister?
2.	Does the Minister call upon third parties for opinions on such material imported and, if so, how often?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. (a)
Yes, the Minister of National Revenue initially requested an opinion from the Department of Justice. A second opinion at a more senior level was then requested from the Department of Justice to confirm the initial opinion.
(b), (c), (d) and (e) It is not the practice of this House that legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the Government be produced, nor is it the practice to identify the individuals providing such advice.
2. The only third party that is asked for opinions on these matters is the Department of Justice. The number of cases submitted to Justice varies between 30 and 40 each year.


Paul Wyatt Dick: 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 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemns the Government for its inadequate response to the growing financial crisis in the agriculture sector and for its failure to provide sufficient support and services to farmers who face severe economic difficulties in all regions of the country.
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest this morning when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) spoke on this very important topic. It occurred to me that for a Party that has been in power for 20 years to come into the House with a motion which castigates the Government for not acting on behalf of the farmers in the first five months of its mandate takes a lot of gall, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said. It is also interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition moved the motion, spoke to it and then disappeared from the House. If he was really interested in the well-being of Canadian farmers, one would have thought that he would have had enough interest to stay and listen to the debate.
I must give a good deal of credit to the NDP critic who had the common decency to say that this Government will be judged on its actions four or five years hence. That is a reasonable position to take. But for a Party which was in power for 20 years to do what it has done takes a tremendous amount of gall, and I find it offensive.
I suppose we can understand why the Liberals want to attack us and say that this Government has not been doing anything, since they did nothing for 20 years. I cannot think of one thing that could be considered an agricultural hallmark which was left by the previous Government. The previous Government and the previous Minister of Agriculture were very good at talking about the problems and the nasty situations in agriculture, but I defy anyone to name one thing which that administration was able to accomplish.
Someone might say Canagrex. Well, the Conservative Party understands the importance of the agriculture industry and knows the value of exports to Canadian farmers. Out of every dollar which a Canadian farmer earns, 50 cents comes from exports. In western Canada it is higher; it is probably closer to 75 cents out of every dollar. We know the value of exports.
February 5, 1985

The previous Minister, in talking about Canagrex, said that on a conservative estimate-he liked to use the word "conservative"; unfortunately, he never understood what it was to be a Conservative-we could look for $500 million worth of sales in the first year. What happened? There was about $17 million worth of sales, which is less than 5 per cent. A passing mark in most cases is 50 per cent, and Canagrex attained less than 5 per cent of what was anticipated. In many ways, that is lamentable. If it had performed there would have been no question that it would have had the full support of this Government and would still exist. However, there was no indication that it would perform and that was the problem.
It is obvious why the Official Opposition-and I wish it luck in its new role-does not want to talk about its record. The former Prime Minister asked why he should sell wheat in western Canada. Why would the Liberals want to talk about that? Who wants to talk about the fact that the Canadian farmer now pays more for energy supplies than the American farmer? Why do they pay more? Because the Liberals heaped tax upon tax. It is more expensive for Canadian farmers to go to the field than ever before, largely because of the tax which was imposed by the previous Government. It was that Government, through its irresponsible and totally reckless spending, that drove interest rates through the roof. That is the legacy of the previous Government. It is no wonder the Liberals do not want to talk about that record. It is obvious that is the reason they complain.
The Liberal Party says that it wants the Standing Committee on Agriculture to function. We do as well. Unfortunately, a year ago we could not get that committee to meet. We asked the chairman of that committee, in the House, when the committee would meet. We could not even get him to call a meeting. We had a meeting one night to discuss the Western Grain Stabilization Act, but had to adjourn because there was not a quorum. There was not a quorum because only one government Member, the chairman, came to the meeting. With that kind of dismal record, it is no wonder the Liberals do not want to flaunt it in public.
I do not think the time will be long enough to allow me to go through the items which this Government has managed to accomplish in less than five months. This morning the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) indicated that a lot of the things which had been done were not earth-shattering. We know that, but putting all of our initiatives together one can see the attitude which this Government has toward the resource industries in Canada. Canada has the potential to become a more powerful and influential country in agriculture if we pay some attention to the resource industries. Those industries include agriculture, forestry, fishing, energy and other resources.
One of the first things which happened when we formed the Government was that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided that the campaign commitment to reduce the amount of tax on farm fuels would be kept. That was done. A system was arrived at, with the help of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), whereby there would not be a rebate. That tax will not be collected and then refunded. We
Supply
hope that very shortly there will be a tax number available to farmers so that the reduction in the cost of farm fuels will be available when the fuel is purchased. That is a benefit to Canadian farmers.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) froze Seaway tolls. I admit that that is not a large saving-$1.5 million to $2 million-but it will help Canadian farmers. It is a step in the right direction.
We have addressed the policy on metric, on which the Minister spoke very well this morning. That policy will help Canadian farmers. It was an election promise and it was carried out. In addition, initial barley payments were increased in an attempt to put more cash into producers' hands.
I was disappointed during Question Period when one of the opposition Members spoke in very unkind terms about the job which the Canadian Wheat Board is doing. I find it unfortunate. The Wheat Board has just announced final payments which were very good and it should be given credit for that. The Wheat Board has been doing a good job.
It was also interesting to note this morning that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-who I understand is the Opposition critic for the Canadian Wheat Board-has not had enough interest in his position to ask a question about western grain since November 14. When he was Minister he did not know enough about the system to sign the forms which would allow cash advances to be made available to farmers. As a result, for the first time since I can remember, and I have had a permit book for almost 30 years, cash advances were late. Why? Because the previous Minister did not have enough organization about him to even get the forms signed.
That is the record of that Government in agriculture. It is no wonder that the Liberals do not want to talk about their own record. You would have thought that after 20 years there would have been a lot of things that they had done for agriculture. Why is agriculture in such bad shape? To the extent that government can have influence in this sector, theirs was a negative influence. We have to put up with what that crew left us.
On advance payments we moved as quickly as we could. Again this was not a large item but it provided relief for people with unharvested grain in the Peace River country. It helps those who have had an early snowfall and not had a chance to harvest their crops. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), along with the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelle-her), invoked the Meat Import Act. This was a major problem. Had we had some understanding of the cattle industry by the previous Ministers, we could have used this in the previous calendar year. Unfortunately there was no interest shown, it was left hanging too long, and it is this Government which will look after what we believe is some unfair competition from Irish beef imported into this country. Who is doing it? This Government and this Minister of Agriculture.

February 5, 1985
Supply
The Liberals talk about research. Sod is being turned today for the construction of a research plant. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They cannot castigate us for cutting out research and say that it is a good deal to go ahead with these projects. We agree that research is important in agriculture, but at least give us credit for the fact that research is going ahead and has not been cut back by the Department of Agriculture.
There has been talk about Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. I believe the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) has gone a long way in interpreting that section to give farmers the benefit of the doubt.
There was some concern expressed this morning over the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The Act has been in force for 10 years and we intend to amend it very quickly so there is an interim payment to producers for spring seeding. But do you know when the payment came out under the previous Government? In August. Big deal! There is no reason why the previous Minister could not have had the legislation amended in time for an interim payment to help the producers in their spring seeding. Why was that not the case? Because there was no interest in agriculture on the part of the previous Government.
Then we have the situation in southwestern Ontario with the tobacco industry. It is a very serious situation. Some of the Members opposite were here at the end of the last Parliament. They will understand the political shenanigans that went on at the close of the session. I happened to be here, and a totally political Bill came in. We had the tobacco growers up in the gallery and it would have been very easy to pass the same kind of amendment this Government passed before Christmas which would have given the tobacco industry some hope for the then current growing season. This Government moved, and we give the Opposition credit for supporting it and getting it through in a hurry. But it would have been just as easy for the previous Government to do the same thing.
The National Farm Products Marketing Council is in the process of holding hearings to see what they can do about a marketing board for tobacco growers if that is what they want. But it was this Government and this Minister of Agriculture who understood the situation and got things done.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You guys filibustered last year.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) should be ashamed of himself. He is a learned gentleman. He knows very well the kind of politicking that was going on in his own Party. I had a chance to talk to some of the Members of the Government at that time and there was no unanimity among them on that issue. So this shows what can be done if there is some will and determination and a proper attitude on behalf of the farmers in this country.
Another thing we have done is reach an agreement with the protein oils and starch research plant in Saskatoon. The Hon. Member should realize that is a research project. The agreement is to provide ongoing funding for another five years. That was on the table with the previous Government but it never got
done. We took it over and in a few months we have been able to work out an arrangement so that they will have ongoing funding for five years. That is very much an agriculture matter and of benefit to Canadian farmers.
The Liberals talk about the Americans. Whether we like it or not, they are very, very important agricultural tranding partners of ours. One of the first acts of this Government was to sit down with the American Secretary of Agriculture and work out a process whereby we can meet with him once every six months to talk about agricultural trade matters. This is in sharp contrast to the previous Government. Whenever they went down to the U.S. they would insult them. That is no way to get along with your neighbours. All we are doing is going to the table in good faith and if we have problems we will sort them out. That is certainly a step in the right direction.
The Minister has established some farm finance review boards on an experimental basis to see what can be done for people in financial difficulty. He has also moved to reduce interest rates for some 5,600 farmers who are paying as high as 16.75 per cent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the other thousands, Charlie?


Charles James Mayer: Admittedly there are lots more. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) makes a very good point. There are lots of problems out there and it is virtually impossible for the Government to address them all. But if we have the proper attitude and do what we can in the areas where we have some responsibility, eventually it will have some effect.
The Leader of the Opposition says he has travelled, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell him that I would like to travel with him to some of the farming communities and see what kind of reception he gets as opposed to the reception Members of this Government would get, based on the treatment they have had in the first five months of this Parliament. The Hon. Member shakes his head. I will go with him. I will challenge any one of them. I will go to any farming community they want in this country and we will talk about what we have done in five months as opposed to what they did in 20 years. We will see who gets the best reception. I will take up that challenge with any one of them.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Any time in Quebec.


Charles James Mayer: Any time. You set the date and I will be there. That is a challenge I would very much like to take you up on. Any time in Quebec. I would be happy to go to Quebec. I have been in Quebec many times and if you are a farmer, as I am, you talk the language no matter where you are in this country.
One of the first things the very distinguished Minister of Transport did was freeze branch line abandonment, Mr. Speaker. There will be no more abandonment until we have had a full hearing to make sure there can be no other use for these lines before they are torn up. No one here talks about that. They talked about a rate freeze this morning. Freight rates are going to go down next year largely as a result,
February 5, 1985

unfortunately, of a poor crop. We do not have the volume to ship and volume is a factor in determining the full rate. But that is even better than a freeze. The Minister did not stand up and take a lot of credit for the fact that rates are going to go down. He quietly said that if we put the freeze in it will cost money so we will let the rates go down normally and worry about it another year. That is certainly a benefit to the Canadian farmer.
Another thing which we take for granted, because it has happened so gradually, is that interest rates have come down about 2.75 per cent since this Government assumed office. Rates have come down every week, with the exception of last week when they went up a very small amount.


Jean-C. Lapierre: And next week.


Charles James Mayer: If you are wishing some bad luck on us, you must realize you are wishing bad luck on the whole Canadian economy. I think you should be happy that they have come down.
There are many other things we have done. Something which affects western Canada and was very well received was the licensing by the Department of Agriculture of something called HY320. This is a new high-yield variety of grain. It was grown experimentally for the last couple of years and licensed last week. Again this is not earth-shattering and it will not receive a lot of national press attention, but things have been done on behalf of Canadian agriculture. So for the Official Opposition to come into this House with that kind of motion I find absolutely appalling. I suspect that people tuning in will also find it so.
Surely to goodness it would add to the debate and the demeanour of the House if we could have a balanced approach in this House. There are some things the previous Government did that I could give it credit for; but when hon. gentlemen get up in the House all you hear is gloom and doom and how terrible things are. The Leader of the Opposition says there is a strike at Thunder Bay. Another Liberal Member said that people have been laid off. Why are we not shipping grain from Thunder Bay? I can tell him that there are eight feet of ice there and how are we going to ship grain from Thunder Bay? That is obvious. You look like absolute fools.
I congratulate the official spokesman for the NDP on agriculture. He had a balanced statement. He criticized some of the things he thought we should be doing or where he thought we were going in the wrong direction. But he ended up by saying that the real judgment of what this Government is doing will come in four years' time. I am suggesting that if you look at the real consequences of the previous Government being in power for 20 years, they are obvious because we have some serious problems in Canadian agriculture.
I will conclude by saying that I will defend the Government's record with regard to Canadian farmers at any place in the country, on any platform, with any Member of either opposition Party, and 1 will be happy to do it. I think farmers
Supply
would like to know the record. I would very much look forward to doing that if anyone wants to take me up on it.
Our mandate is for at least four years. In that period of time we intend to carry out as many of our campaign commitments as possible. We certainly look forward to that opportunity. On behalf of Canadian farmers I look forward to doing what I can, as part of the Government, to ensure that that very important sector of the country is treated fairly. Those are the exact words that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) used. If we can treat it fairly it will certainly be a new and novel way of treating a very basic and important industry in the country as compared to the treatment it received from the previous Government.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Minister's speech with a great deal of interest. However, he neglected to deal with some very specific promises made by some of his colleagues, including the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I have three points I would like to see clarified by the Minister.
First, the question of stabilization payments owing to Quebec hog producers. The $13 million, the cheque that was symbolically signed by the Minister of Public Works. Is the Minister prepared to inform the House today that he was indeed going to cash the rather bouncy cheque written by his colleague from Joliette?
Second, the $60 million promised Quebec producers to compensate them for damages suffered as a result of drought. Is the Minister prepared to undertake today that $60 million in compensation will be paid to Quebec producers?
Finally, I would like the Minister to explain the advantages of his dairy policy and justify the cutbacks he made in the Government's dairy policy, that his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture made in the Canadian Dairy Commission's policy, without prior consultation with Quebec and Canadian producers.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with the situation of pork producers in Quebec. To use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is a very fair-minded individual. I am sure that with the good representation which we have from the Member's province and the attitude and reputation of the Minister of Agriculture, the pork producers in Quebec will be treated as fairly as is any other group of producers in the country. That undertaking was made prior to the election in September. That will be the hallmark of the Government. It will treat people in all parts of the country equally.
I cannot give the Hon. Member an answer about the drought because I am not totally familiar with the circumstances. I know that there was a drought agreement signed with the prairie provinces to maintain livestock numbers. That was one of the first things that the Minister of Agriculture did

February 5, 1985
Supply
after September 17 when we assumed office. I am sure that the people in Quebec will be treated as fairly as are any producers in any other part of the country.
With regard to dairy policy, the previous Government talked about a dairy policy but it was postponed and reviewed every year. I believe that the Minister has given the assurance that he is working to establish a new dairy policy by August 1. When we say that we will work with people, we will do exactly that. We sit down and talk to people. With that attitude and process I believe that an agreement can be worked out. The Minister of Agriculture has given the deadline of August 1 and we will do our best to ensure that that deadline is met.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board is with regard to Prince Rupert Grain Elevator No. 1. I know that he and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) have been working very hard to find ways to keep PRG No. 1 operating. The Price-Water-house study which was provided to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Government of Alberta, Prince Rupert Grain and a few others on February 1 is going to be considered on February 14 to see whether commodities other than wheat can be moved through PRG No. 1. Could the Minister give us an idea of how things look with regard to PRG No. 1 ? PRG No. 2 is about to open. The net loss of jobs in the Prince Rupert area will be very substantial if PRG No. 1 is closed down.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) raises a very important issue. We have had some conversations about this on a one to one basis and have sent some correspondence back and forth. He makes a very good case. If my memory serves me correctly, we stand to lose about 75 jobs in that area. We need about 100 people to operate PRG No. 1 and something like 25 are needed to operate the new terminal. There is grain in the new terminal on an experimental run-in basis.
The problem is compounded this year by the fact that there was not a good crop on the Prairies this year. At the very time when we have increased capacity on the West Coast, our exports will be down because we had a poor crop. I have had some conversations with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be happy to work with him and do everything we can to ensure that PRG No. 1 remains open. He makes a good case that the matter should be looked at with regard to some special crops such as alfalfa pellets.
The Government is committed to doing what it can to ensure that PRG No. 1 remains open. However, we must bear in mind that exports will be down because the volume produced on the Prairies is down. I appreciate the concern expressed by the Hon. Member on behalf of his constituents.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree with the policy announced on December 21? At that time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced that the disaster relief agreements which have been in effect for a number of years will be done away with. Through those agreements the federal
Government and the provinces shared on a two to one basis compensation for disasters such as drought and flood. The former federal Government had agreed to pay $16 million in addition to the $8 million paid by the provincial Government as compensation for flooding in northeastern Saskatchewan. The new Government only provided $8 million on a dollar for dollar basis. I believe that a federal-provincial agreement provided for $60 million of relief in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan.
My understanding is that the Minister of Agriculture plans to do away with that arrangement and make the federal Government and the actual producers responsible for disaster situations. The Minister knows how important the participation of the provincial Governments was in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec this past summer. Does the Minister agree with the new approach of the Minister of Agriculture? Will he be supporting him in Cabinet on this matter? This will mean that the producers will have to put up dollar for dollar equally with the federal Government and that the provincial Governments will not make any provision for assistance in disaster situations.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I can say two things to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). When farmers or any other groups have problems due to weather, a good case can be made that there should be some assistance forthcoming from various levels of Government. The agreement which was worked out with the provinces was agreed to by the provinces. It was not a two to one agreement, as the Hon. Member suggests it should have been; it was an equal sharing of one to one. It is my understanding that the provinces accepted that. I have not received any correspondence from any of the provinces saying that they should have had more. I take it from that that the provinces are in agreement with the provisions that were worked out.
Second, we are all looking for ways to make crop insurance work better. Crop insurance is available to provide some assistance in those situations. If people choose not to buy crop insurance, both levels of Government have reason to take a hard look at providing assistance on an emergency basis. Providing crop insurance can be made responsible enough; it should be able to provide farmers with support and assistance in those situations.
The agreement was worked out with the provinces and they agreed to it. We are looking at ways to ensure that we can handle those situations in the future with crop insurance. Hopefully, we will not get into a situation where we must provide emergency aid, whether for drought or for excess water.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I will start out in this debate today from the same position I took last night in the short intervention I made on the subject of credit during the debate in Private Member's hour. During the election campaign the Conservative Party made it very clear that it had a program that it intended to bring forward and pass this year. The measures behind that agricultural program

should be put before the House so that we can either commend or criticize the Government on the fulfilment of its commitments.
Let me read from a letter that was written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) before taking office, which states what the Progressive Conservative Party would do about agriculture when it came to power. I will then comment on its fulfilment of those commitments. First:
A Progressive Conservative government will commit its share of the necessary funds in order to ensure completion of the municipal drains in Eastern Ontario under the E.O.S.A. Agreement.
I cannot comment on that commitment but I gather that the Government has taken action.
Second:
A Progressive Conservative government will establish an Agribond Program to provide loans at reduced interest rates to agricultural producers. A tax exemption for earned income on these bonds would be provided to attract investment capital to this program.
We have heard much about this approach but there has been very little action. If one is to believe the document entitled Tax Issues in Agriculture, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will not be particularly happy with the agri-bond approach. Although it is a promise, there is no commitment to fulfil it.
The third point is:
We will work with producers and provincial governments to establish a Voluntary National Income Stabilization Program for the red meat sector and any other non-supply management sector which wishes to take part. Where tripartite agreement cannot be reached, we will amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act so that payments will come when they are most needed and greater emphasis is placed on costs of production.
The Government has introduced some amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I suggest that even Liberals who are trying to defend their past programs will have to admit that the Government's approach to the Act follows its commitment. If we accept the legislation, the amendments will at least plug a few holes that are currently affecting farm groups.
The fourth point reads:
We will reduce the price of farm fuels by 20 cents per gallon by removing the 9 per cent federal tax and by not collecting the current excise tax.
While this measure has been implemented, the method is not quite the same as indicated in the letter. It is a rebate system instead of the reduction of the price of fuels. The actual amount of reduction has been put into place and the Government has fulfilled that promise.
Point five is:
In order to provide aid to the tobacco industry, we will immediately introduce a unique Bill which will specifically designate tobacco under the Farm Products Marketing Act.
That legislation has been passed.
Point six reads:
A Progressive Conservative government would look to expand the role of the Farm Credit Corporation to take into account the high cost of entry into
Supply
farming, high interest rates, high land values and low commodity prices. We would ensure that the allocation of interest subsidies reflects the need to assist those who have entered farming in recent years.
I do not think we could expect the Government to fulfil that promise completely in the few months that it has been in power. However, it is important to consider whether the Government really has a commitment to address that problem because it is a key factor in the situation in which the agriculture industry finds itself. It will be interesting to see how the Government approaches this very difficult problem.
Point No. 7 reads:
We will change Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, as it applies to farmers, to reflect the principles of equity, neutrality, simplicity, and certainty. In addition, the strong-arm and confrontationist tactics presently practised by the Department of Revenue will be immediately abolished and a practice whereby the taxpayer is treated openly and honestly will be instituted.
That is a very laudable position. Section 31 deals with part-time farmers. Again, the document of the Minister of Finance entitled Tax Issues in Agriculture deals with Section 31. If we are to believe what the officials in the Department of Finance are saying, I would suggest that it is unlikely that there will be any change to Section 31. While we have heard discussion about that promise, there has been no action and may not be in the future. We will have to review that commitment in six months' time.
Point eight states:
We will abolish the imposition of capital gains tax on the sale of farm property for continued agricultural purposes.
There is much rhetoric on this but no action. There have been ongoing suggestions for the establishment of a task force or subcommittee to study this issue, but that has not been set up as yet. Again, I would refer to the Minister's Tax Issues in Agriculture. There is not much hope that the Government will move to remove capital gains, if one believes the approach in that particular document. However, the Government has the opportunity to fulfil that promise in the next few months if it wishes to do so, and we will wait before judging the Government on that commitment.
Point No. 9 reads:
A Progressive Conservative government will commit its share of the necessary funds to ensure that the Ontario Veterinary College proceeds with the renovations required to regain full accreditation.
I am not aware of the progress made in fulfilling that commitment.
Point 10 reads:
A Progressive Conservative government would be very aggressive in dealing with subsidized agricultural imports. We would move to control these imports in order to offset their negative effects.
I believe that the previous Government has much to answer for with respect to this issue. In the last GATT negotiations, our negotiators from the previous Government managed to increase the amount of tariffs against our exports and decrease the amount of tariffs against our imports. The actual effect of the last GATT negotiations by the previous Government was to increase the competition for our products in Canada and decrease the competitiveness of those same products when they

February 5, 1985
Supply
were exported. We can support the present Government if it takes the appropriate action in this area in the future.
Point 11 reads:
We will amend the Advance Payments on Crops Act to double its cash advance levels. The present legislation only doubles these levels for Western grains. We believe all crops, in all areas of Canada, should be equitably treated in a government's agricultural policy.
Again, such a policy will be adequate and worth-while if it is fulfilled. The Government has indicated that it will do so.
Let us judge this Government in a couple of months. There are other promises too that this Government has made or did make before it took power and on which it has not acted. We have had considerable information and suggestions that the Government would deal with the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The Tories said that when going into the election and they said it when they first appeared in the House. Somewhere about the middle of November the Tories indicated it would only be a matter of a few days before amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act would be made. We are still waiting for those amendments, and both opposition Parties have indicated they would support such amendments. The Tories have failed to bring them forward.
The present Government also indicated it would do away with the abandonment of rail lines. I must say that, to their credit, the Tories have made that move. But they have indicated very little if any commitment to the action which they themselves have taken. It seems to me window-dressing rather than an actual commitment to replacing into service those lines needed to give the agricultural part of western Canada the kind of transportation service which it needs and which was removed by the previous Government over a matter of about 15 years.
This Government and the previous Government should beware of throwing stones. The Conservatives still have a lot of promises which they have not fulfilled.


Maurice Brydon Foster: They never will.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The commitments they are making now are ones on which they will be judged in the next few months and years.
As I mentioned before, the three promises made concerning Section 31 on agri-bonds and capital gains do not look too good, according to the report of the Minister of Finance.


Maurice Brydon Foster: They are dead ducks.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Some of the moves this Government has made have been against the interests of farmers. I can mention one specifically, one that was brought out before the agricultural committee yesterday. The services provided to seed growers have been increased by 400 per cent and 500 per cent by this Government in a recovery program. The inspection of meat and the inspection of plots for registered or certified seed doubled, tripled or quadrupled in cost in comparison with what
it was before. This is at a time when farmers can ill afford to have increased costs. But this Government has been one of the institutions that has increased the costs of farm production and made it a little more difficult for farmers to make ends meet at a time when the farmer needs every opportunity and every method possible to allow production and good, profitable returns.
I think that the Liberals particularly should not throw stones. They had 20 years of opportunity to solve the problems of agriculture. They had 20 years in which their Government ignored the problems. The Liberals did a lot of things about agriculture here, there and all over, some of which benefited the farmers marginally and a lot of which disturbed the farmers and caused some harm. The most glaring example was the elimination of the Crow rate, a guaranteed subsidy to farmers which they needed. This too was done at a time when they could ill afford any extra costs.
We should not be wasting our time on debating which Government is the worst, the past Government or the present Government. It is the sort of situation where we are fiddling while Rome burns. That is exactly the situation in which agriculture is finding itself today. There are thousands of farmers in disastrous situations who are on the verge of leaving the industry. It is time that we in this House, as a Government, as three Parties that have been elected to be responsible for what happens in this country, get together and put in place a global approach, an income security structure which would allow the farmers to produce. If they produce well, they will know that they will be able to meet the high freight rates which the previous Government instituted, inspection costs which this Government has established, and high fuel, chemical and fertilizer costs. If the farmers have the kind of income security structure that would allow them to pay for these things, we would no longer have to worry about band-aids such as stabilization and insurance programs, because the income security program would cover those kinds of possibilities.
One could start out by saying that the Government would be giving a fair price, a price that would include the cost of production for each and every one of the commodities the farmers produce. That obviously would be the most direct and the easiest way to solve the farmers' problems. If that is too difficult, then let us take these two programs, the Western Grain Stabilization Program, the agriculture stabilization program and a variety of other programs which are part of the prop-up system that we are attempting to make available to farmers, and put them all together. Let us approach this on a global basis and say that what is available to the farmer is a certainty and that if he works well, produces well, is efficient and uses the market in the proper way, he will survive and be able to provide a living for himself and his family. He will not go under because of the interest rates, because of the lack of credit or the high cost of machinery; he will produce as he should expect to produce and get enough for it so he can survive. That is the basis on which this House should approach agriculture, not on the basis of small band-aids which may help now but at some time will have to be reviewed and
February 5, 1985

replaced by a global structure which allows the farmer to farm well and make a living.


Mr. Greenaway:: I have a question for the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. On several occasions we have raised the subject of Section 31.1 think all Members in the House agree that it is a problem as it is presently enacted in the present legislation. Could the Hon. Member give us his ideas as to a possible solution to that problem or his Party's solution to the problem?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, our Party has discussed this as I suppose has every other group of people interested in agriculture. I cannot say we have a particular position. We have, however, put forward a number of suggestions. We hope to have the opportunity to put these possibilities before the Government and talk about them.
The idea that Section 31 might harm bona fide farmers is most often raised as an argument against changing it. I suppose we should be looking at an increase in the minimum if we think it must remain in place. That is a decision which all of us in the House may have to make. If we think the limitation should remain in place, we will have to decide on its size. Many of my constituents have indicated that they would be happy with it remaining in place if it were raised at somewhat the same level as inflation over the years. As we all know, the $5,000 of a few years ago is a pretty small sum today. That is one of the suggestions which has been put forward and which we would like to discuss with the Government.
Also we should define in Section 31 a little better than have the income tax people what is a commercial farm and what is a viable farm. We have to recognize the needs not necessarily of young farmers but of beginning farmers. I have discovered in my constituency that many farmers 40 to 45 years of age are just now trying to get into farming. They thought they could get into it in three years but they have found that it takes from five to seven years. They are getting caught in that section. That matter needs to be discussed. I am not saying that we have a particular position on it, but we have a number of ideas we would like to put before the Government and to discuss.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was with myself and others on a trip to Washington in connection with the United States program of what amounts to agri-bonds. I would like to hear his comments on whether he felt that that was a proper way to assist farmers in terms of their long-term capital requirements. Keeping in mind the experience in the United States, does he think we should do something different from agri-bonds, or does he think it would be important for a Commons committee to study the report on tax issues in agriculture which was tabled the other day so that we could obtain evidence in Canada with respect to agri-bonds? Also, in terms of Section 31, does he think that we should take this matter before a Commons committee?
Supply


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I would think that a Commons committee with very specific terms of reference to deal with agri-bonds and Section 31, if possible, would be a good idea. What we need in this particular area is input from many people other than ourselves, because we become isolated if we stay in the House too much.
As far as agri-bonds are concerned, I recognize, as did all of us who visited Washington, that the biggest factor against the agri-bond program or the exempt bond program in the United States is the loss of money or funds to the Government over a long period of time. As Members of Parliament who were elected to govern Canada, not just one section of it, we have to look at that as a detriment to putting into effect the agri-bond structure as it was described to us in the United States. However, that program in the United States got money to the farmers when it was needed. I guess it was at a larger cost than we would like to expend. However, I am quite certain that we in Canada have the ingenuity to take that program and develop it in such a way that we do not have that loss. For instance, our Party's position on that is that it should be done at least in those cases where elderly farmers want to sell their land. Then the agri-bond becomes part of their retirement benefits. There are a number of such approaches. That particular suggestion was not made in the report on tax issues in agriculture. It is the kind of suggestion which needs to be made. This is the reason I think a committee or task force to study the matter and bring some suggestions to Parliament should be set up as quickly as possible.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member concerning Section 31. When one reads the discussion paper, I think one begins to worry that Section 31 will be buried in a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and that nothing will happen. That is my worry.
Would the Hon. Member and his Party be willing to suggest that at least when an audit is being conducted by income tax auditors, they should be forced to call upon an expert in agriculture to accompany them when they inspect the farm? Then they could come up with some concrete ideas and thoughts on whether or not a farm is capable of producing a profit, whether it is a viable farm or, in other words, in what category the farm should be placed. I have found in my riding that auditors would just arbitrarily place a farm in the hobby class, although they did not have the expertise to do that. Would the Hon. Member agree that that is the very least for which we should settle?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I know the exact problem to which the Hon. Member referred. I have many of those people in my constituency as well. I think it is important that a definition be established, but I worry about establishing such a definition. I recognize that the Department of National Revenue has been inadequate in that particular relationship, in the use of that section in the past. It has been used mainly retroactively. I think that is the biggest problem. However, I am not at all sure that establishing a definition for farmers, for farming or for valid farms is what we want to do. Does it mean

February 5, 1985
Supply
that we do not think part-time farmers are making a contribution to the agricultural industry in particular areas? For instance, around Prince Albert there are many farmers who also work part-time at the pulp mill or in the bush. They are really productive people. To some extent they are attempting to build up their farms, but they are making a very good combined living. If they were unable to farm or not allowed to make that kind of living, they would probably move away, particularly people who work in the bush in the winter. They would not be able to make a living on the farm and the bush work would not be enough. We need to look at the whole structure and allow enough flexibility in it so that if decisions are made, they are not made to the detriment of taxpayers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan)-Energy (a) Venture Oilfield Project (b) Negotiation of offshore development agreement with Province of Newfoundland; the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle)-Social Security-La Regie des rentes du Quebec-Canada Pension Plan-Injustice to public servants in National Capital region; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Multiculturalism (a) Implementation of committee recommendations (b) Abella Commission report- Date of presentation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemns the Government for its inadequate response to the growing financial crisis in the agriculture sector and for its failure to provide sufficient support and services to farmers who face severe economic difficulties in all regions of the country.
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately the period provided for questions and comments is now over. We shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell).


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The importance of maintaining a strong and dynamic agricultural industry has always been understood by the Progressive Conservative Party. We have only been in office a short time, and already we can point to a proud record of achievement in support of farmers across the country.
If we look at the history of support programs in this country, we find that the majority of federal agricultural legislation and agricultural institutions were established by Conservative Governments. The Canadian Wheat Board, the Farm Credit Corporation, crop insurance, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, ARDA, and the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act are all good examples of our concern for Canadian agriculture and the welfare of Canadian farmers. At the provincial level, the same holds true. Conservative Governments brought in most of the marketing boards which have done so much toward stabilizing farm income and bringing order to the agricultural market-place.
I want to make it clear, however, that these institutions and the legislation are only support mechanisms. They were never intended to interfere with farmers' personal freedom or their responsibility for their own success.
In my close association with farmers and in business life I am well aware of the harsh realities of agricultural life. Farmers know, when they enter the business, that there is no guarantee of security. They have to be careful. They have to be frugal. They have to work hard and live within their means because of the narrow margins, the traditionally poor returns on capital, and the risks of both natural hazards and the uncertain market-place. The market-place is no less threatening to farmers than flood, drought or frost. Each farm family must take primary responsibility for coping as best it can with these hazards. Farmers understand there is no escape from the harsh realities, no excuse for bad management. In short, farmers know that they must carry their weight, take their own risks and live with the consequences.
Every independent businessman must maintain that sort of attitude towards his or her enterprise. The federal Government recognizes, however, that there are some aspects of the agriculture industry that are unique. There is the vulnerability to the weather and to international political and economic forces, for example, all of which require Governments to adopt special support programs for farmers.
These support programs are not designed to guarantee every farmer a living, but rather to ensure there is an economic environment in which farmers may prosper. They also ensure that Canadian consumers have a continuing supply of high-quality food at reasonable prices. In addition, government support programs enhance the agriculture industry's contribu-
February 5, 1985

tion to the national economy, a contribution that is substantial, I might add. In terms of trade, for example, the agriculture industry contributes some $4 to $5 billion annually in surplus foreign exchange.
Federal and provincial Governments have adopted a wide range of programs to help the agri-food industry. In total, at the federal level, nearly $2.5 billion annually is spent on agriculture. In ballpark figures, this includes $60 million in stabilization payments, $300 million in dairy subsidies, $160 million for crop insurance, and that will be closer to $186 million this year, $250 million on research, $220 million on inspection and regulation, $650 million through the Crow benefit, and $110 million through the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Then there are the many market development programs, including advance payments for crops, which provide around $450 million a year in interest-free cash advances to farmers. There is also feed freight assistance to feed-deficient areas.
There are also the federal-provincial agricultural subsidiary agreements under which we encourage market development, technology transfer, and improvements to the natural and human resources of agriculture. Designed in co-operation with the provinces, these programs are tailor-made to deal with problems that are specific to each region of the country.
Let me return for a moment to crop insurance. It is one of the best examples of federal and provincial Governments and the producers co-operating to provide support where it is most needed. While most areas of the country enjoyed reasonable growing conditions last season, the Prairies were hit by a combination of serious drought in most areas and floods in some areas.
Last year more than 118,000 farmers insured 37 million acres of crops, for a total of $3.4 billion. Premiums, with the producers paying half, came to $331.2 million. Payments to farmers for 1984 crop losses exceeded $521 million. In other words, for an investment of about $165 million, farmers ensured a cash flow of more than $521 million. Needless to say, most of that went to prairie farmers hit by the drought, $257 million to Saskatchewan, $205 million to Alberta, and $29 million to Manitoba.
At the same time, a Government must remain flexible to deal with special situations. The severity of the conditions on the Prairies last summer warranted extra action, and we entered into agreements with the provinces for a Prairie Livestock Drought Assistance Program to help some 30,000 livestock producers affected by the drought. This program pays $48 per head for cattle and $10 per head for sheep in zones designated as being severely affected by the drought, and $30 and $6 per head in moderately affected zones. Producers will share some $63.5 million in benefits, with the federal Government paying half of the costs.
Similarly, we are sharing with the provinces the cost of flood support programs that will provide about $15 million for farmers in northeastern Saskatchewan, and we are working out details for a similar program in Manitoba. A program for
Supply
1983 forage crop losses in Quebec has already been announced.
Crop insurance has been successful because it is the kind of program that farmers share in and understand. It is voluntary and it is contributory and leaves the farmer free to make his decision based on his own management style and resources.
Producers have indicated they would prefer that same system for stabilization programs. Amendments have recently been introduced to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to reflect that view. Even a cursory examination of the present stabilization program shows its flaws. Farmers do not know how much support they will get under the program until long after they have made their production and marketing decisions. It is a case of justice delayed is justice denied. Furthermore, under the present program, farmers often receive their stabilization payments just at the time when market prices are recovering. That is not only bad timing, but it can also distort production decisions.
The new program, which Members will be able to discuss in detail before the Agriculture Committee very soon, will be prompt, it will be voluntary, and it will provide an improved level of support without costing the federal Government much more than the current program. In short, the new approach to stabilization will be in keeping with the whole thrust of this Government's fiscal strategy to spend smarter, not more. That same approach will be reflected in amendments we propose for the Western Grain Stabilization Act. An interim payment in the spring will help farmers with cash flow at the critical time when they are making their planting decisions.
To summarize, it is clear that farmers understand their fundamental responsibility for the success of their operations. Secondly, an extensive system of supports is already in place. Finally, new, innovative programs and policies are being developed by this Government to provide more effective protection and encouragement for farmers, but in a more economical fashion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions and comments? If not, we will resume debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, very simply, let us go to what this debate is all about. It is designed to spur this Government into some form of action. The time has come for all the paperwork, all the rhetoric, all the grand promises and exaggerated commitments to come to an end and for the Government to do what it was elected to do, which is to take some action on behalf of farmers who are facing some very immediate, very critical short-term problems.
It is all right for the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) to talk about the need for some far off global strategy to solve ultimately and finally the problems of the farmers. However, at this very moment, farmers in various regions of Canada are facing very specific and immediate problems and they are looking to this Government to provide some leadership which, until this point, has been totally lacking. It has not been lacking because of any great sins of commission; the Government just has not done anything. It

February 5, 1985
Supply
has not begun to address the issues about which it spoke with great flourishes during the summer. Government Members said that they were going to be the great helmsmen of the agricultural community. We need only look at some examples to see what has really happened.
We should look at the paper put forward on tax issues in agriculture by the Department of Finance. What does it say about all the commitments the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made last summer? It says that they will not really work. We have heard all this gobbledegook from the Department of Finance before. We know that it can find all of those answers to questions over which members of the Conservative Party rose in wild indignation during our tenure in government. Here they are coming up with exactly the same thing. There has been no change. The same paper has been put forward by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He is a Tory, I believe. The paper is in his name and it contains such things as why agri-bonds will not work and why capital gains cannot be established. The most effective critique of Mr. Mulroney's promises come from his own Minister of Finance.
We cannot expect the farmers, who have been waiting in grand expectation since the summer for Mulroney and company to get their act together, suddenly to pick up this paper that was produced by the Minister of Finance and say-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) rises on a point of order, which I believe will be that the Hon. Member should not name the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by name.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that when he is addressing or speaking of other Members of the House, he must address them by their constituency or by their office.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member knows that.


Lloyd Axworthy: I beg the pardon of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I would not in any way want to denigrate the Prime Minister by calling him by his last name.
I would say that the Hon. Prime Minister has one more time been befuddled and betrayed by his own Minister of Finance who contradicted everything he has said in this white paper. Either that is so or it is the Minister of Finance who is really telling it as it is and it was the Right Hon. distinguished, esteemed gentleman who occupies the seat of the Prime Minister who does not know what the hell he is talking about. It is probably closer to the point that the Prime Minister simply made a commitment that he had no intention of fulfilling. He was up on that platform about which most farmers know a great deal because they know exactly what cows produce. That
is the platform on which Tories stand when they make agricultural promises.
Let us look at another very critical issue, Mr. Speaker. The Government was going to deal with the immediate cash crisis of the western farmer. When our Leader spoke in Prince Albert, he said that the very first piece of legislation that would be brought into the House would be an amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act so that western farmers would have cash in their hands on discretion either before the new year or after the new year, depending on their tax positions.
This House opened the first week of November. The "associate-we're-not-sure" Minister responsible for the Wheat Board-and I will return to that in a moment-has said consistently, "any day now, mafiana". I think he took his parliamentary lessons from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) who keeps making promises-


Mr. Redway:: That's right.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, there is one of our distinguished agricultural representatives from the City of Toronto sitting in the corner.
The fact of the matter is that the Government had every opportunity to bring in that change to the Western Grain Stabilization Fund at the very beginning of this Parliament. It is now the first week of February. Where is that change? As a result, many farmers do not know what choices to make in terms of purchases of fertilizer and in terms of making their commitments to the future, because they do not know what kind of refund they will receive from that fund.
For Government Members, it is simply called action, Mr. Speaker. It is simply called deciding that they are now a Government and are not here to act Henny Youngman or Lenny Bruce and do a stand-up comedy routine in the House of Commons every day. Government Members should be trying to provide some leadership on major agricultural problems. We know that nothing is more important than getting cash in the hands of the farmers at a time when they need it. That time, Mr. Speaker, is now. Farmers need that money now, not after some consultation and not after another white paper.
I can only suspect that the real strategy of the Conservative Government is to help the pulp and paper industry. All of this is designed to bring employment back to the pulp and paper industry. No Government in the history of this country had produced so much paper read by so few people containing so little that no one knows about what they are consulting.
A constituent of mine went to the Queen's Printer and asked for one of the Government's consulting papers. The Queen's Printer said that that would cost $18. We know with whom Government Members are consulting. They are consulting with their own bagmen and friends who can afford to pay that kind of price. They have no interest in consulting with the general public. They are not prepared to hold public hearings.
February 5, 1985

They are not prepared to use House of Commons committees. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) will consult by taking a piece of paper to his friend in Toronto in the dark of the night and slipping it under a door, thereby saving his friend $18. That is the kind of consulting that is going on. Government Members are not prepared to get into a public debate.
We on this side of the House are using our time in opposition to bring those issues forward so that the Canadian public will know exactly what it is that they can expect. It is interesting to note that the Ministers are so seriously committed to this issue that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) have not quite found it possible to spend this day in the House listening to agricultural issues.


Mr. Thacker:: That's because they are meeting with farm groups. You never, ever met with them.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is about time that Ministers of this House learn that their first responsibility is to this House.
I would like to correct the Hon. Member. I was in his riding this weekend and met with farm groups there. The Hon. Member had better go back and check on those groups because they are not too happy with what he and the Government have been doing.
We are beginning to sense some of the reasons why the Government is behaving in this manner. I would like to raise a particular point which came to light yesterday in very interesting testimony before the Agriculture Committee. We have always paid proper respect to the necessity of having a Wheat Board with its own Minister with his own independence and his ability to provide for the direction of an agency which is very clearly responsible for much of the important work done in western Canada. I would have to say, as would some of the western Conservative Members if they were allowed to speak, that we have always been concerned that the Department of Agriculture has had designs on the Wheat Board. It did not like the fact that the Wheat Board was deciding about and representing the marketing and export interests. We discovered yesterday that the new Government, which says it is so reflective and representative of western interests, has now substantially altered the relationship between the Wheat Board and the Department of Agriculture. According to the organizational chart, the Wheat Board now reports directly to the Deputy Minister and Minister of Agriculture. The poor Minister of State for the Wheat Board is stuck way off in the far left-hand corner behind a dotted line, the meaning of which we are not sure. It probably means that he gets to see the Minister of Agriculture at least once a month. I think that that is the definition of a dotted line.
This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious matter for western Canada. It means that the Department of Agriculture has taken responsibility for the Wheat Board and has basically made the Minister of State for the Wheat Board into a kind of a glorified Parliamentary Secretary. The Wheat Board is under the thumb of the Department
Supply
of Agriculture, a Department which has its own very different interests. I can testify to the fact that those interests are not necessarily ones which will promote the activities of the Wheat Board.
This is a very serious change and one that totally dilutes and diminishes the powers and responsibilities of the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. There is no longer any point in asking him any questions because he is reporting back to the Minister of Agriculture. We confirmed that by questioning the Minister of Agriculture, who we know is an honest and upstanding gentleman and one of the few such gentlemen on the front benches. Yesterday he said, "Yes, indeed that is the case". He said that he is basically running the show.
I think that that kind of merger carries with it very serious implications for the Wheat Board's ability to make judgments required in order to carry out its responsibilities. To compound the problem, we also found that the grains group is reporting to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. God forbid! There is a serious problem in that organization. It means that the Wheat Board has seriously compromised its ability to represent western grain interests with regard to marketing exports. It would be far more beneficial to western Canada if the Wheat Board were more closely tied to the area of export marketing, because that is where the action is. That is where the responsibility resides. I hope that the Right Hon. distinguished, esteemed, plenipotentiary Prime Minister-and I hope that satisfies the Hon. Member for Mississauga South-will take a look at the organizational chart, which probably escaped him because he is so busy rehearsing his comical lines, and recognize that he has not lived up to the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, which is to run the Government and to ensure that all regions are effectively represented and that the agencies serve their purposes.
A major and fundamental change is taking place in the United States with respect to agricultural policy. The policies of Secretary of Agriculture Block and the new budget which was put forward by President Reagan basically wipe out all farm subsidies and supports. That is the proposal which Congress is considering. It has an important implication for Canadian wheat growers, and especially grain growers, because Secretary Block has said that he will get the money from the farmer by marketing in the most ruthless manner possible. We have seen the results of that. We have seen how the Americans have used their tremendous capacity in the grain export market to keep prices low or to drive the prices down.
Canada is in a situation which is compounded because of the problems of the existing drought and the loss of export markets. We are now in the position where we should be playing hardball with the United States. However, from what we have experienced so far, this Government does not want to play hardball with the Americans. In fact, it likes to play cream puff with them. The Government is not prepared to knuckle down and deal with the United States. We have seen time and

February 5, 1985
Supply
again that when the United States President says, "Jump", our Prime Minister says, "How high?"
Western farmers will be faced with intense competition from the U.S. agricultural department, which will use the wonderful techniques, subsidies and marketing devices to keep the international grain market at a low level and to flood and dominate that market. Ultimately, Canada will be forced to make a tough response.
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is in the House because, at least in a titular way, the responsibility is on his shoulders. He will have to ensure that Secretary of Agriculture Block's pronouncements do not come true. We would much prefer to have the Canadian Wheat Board more closely aligned with External Affairs' activities in the trade area, to ensure that our western commodity interests are properly protected.
If we looked carefully at the trade paper-that grand design which amounted to 32 pages of regurgitated old material-we could ask ourselves what it said about the grain trade and the commodity markets. In Winnipeg we use a wonderful Ukrainian expression which means "there is nothing there". There is nothing which would enable western farmers to recognize that this Government is taking seriously the necessity to address the very major turbulences in international grain developments.
The Wheat Board does its job-it markets. But the number of countries in which Canada has been marketing has been shrinking substantially over the years. That is partly because we are being driven out of foreign markets. I would also suggest that it is partly because we are not taking full advantage of the opportunities which many of the new specialty crops provide in the export area. It is very important that another trade paper be developed which will deal specifically with the strategy, intentions and programs which will support extended export markets for commodities, specialty grain crops and staple grain crops.
When in government we did our part. We changed the grain transportation legislation to ensure that there would be an efficient and effective transportation system. A lot of decisions are still outstanding because of those changes, and we will be watching with interest to see what the Government intends to do when the report is received on the method of payment question. I hope it will learn how to take a stand, because that Party did not take a stand during the several months of debate on that legislation. The Government will be required to make a decision, and it is very important for that decision to be aimed at expanding our export market.
In addition, this Government has not taken a stand on the question of minimum compensatory rates for canola crushers who have severe problems in western Canada. The problem is one of uncertainty. If a decision is not made, then the ability of the canola crushing industry to provide for new capital investment, to develop markets, and to look at new opportunities as an industry will be left in limbo. Once again, it is simply a plea for action.
Decisions have not been taken because the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board has been cut adrift and no longer has agency responsibilities. Agriculture has been pushed aside because of consultation papers, grand dreams and promises. In the meantime, there is a lot of hurt and a lot of uncertainty, which will ultimately work to the detriment of the entire Canadian economy.
I would like to mention another issue, which is vital to western Canadian agriculture, upon which we expect action. It is the major problem of soil erosion and water. The Liberals established a major water commission which is due to report. The previous administration also held a number of negotiations and consultations in which the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was very effective. We have seen year in and year out the inconsistency of the grain growing belt which is affected by major changes in climate, particularly the availability of water. There are approximately 200,000 hectares a year which are taken out of major grain production because of soil erosion in the southern parts of Alberta, the central and southern regions of Saskatchewan and parts of the Province of Manitoba. In order to respond to the predicament of our major grain growing area we will need capital. It is the responsibility of the federal Government, in co-operation with the provinces and industry, to provide the dollars which are needed for major water projects. The Government cannot avoid that responsibility. Yet the Minister of Finance and his cohorts are preaching the theology of deficit reduction. They do not recognize that governments from time to time must invest. Government has a direct public responsibility to invest in better production, improved facilities and infrastructure. In western Canada there is no more important a priority than investment in the area of soil and water development. But we cannot do this with nothing. It is very important that the point be made now before the budget comes down in several weeks. We must ensure that the Minister of Finance and his Cabinet colleagues include a provision for investment in major water projects in western Canada so that we can begin to stimulate the provinces in order that they will be able to respond. That is the kind of public expenditure which I think all Members of the House can endorse. It is an effective investment, designed to increase production and ensure protection for western farmers and the agriculture industry. I hope that those who are so quick to latch on to the new theology, the neo-conservatism in the prescriptions of the Minister of Finance, will, at least in this area, recognize that this kind of pound foolish philosophy has no place when it comes to dealing with these problems in western Canada.
In this opposition motion we are simply saying that this is the Government now. Members opposite cannot keep blaming the past and rewriting history. They are the ones with the responsibility, they must make the decisions. The western Canadian farmer is waiting for those decisions, and so are we.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?
February 5, 1985


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my friend gives a fine speech in opposition and he will be there for many years. Would he agree that, in the international sphere, the EEC is really the bad boy when it comes to agricultural subsidies and international marketing? The United States will retaliate nose to nose, and Canada will be in a very difficult position because we lack the financial clout to compete with those big boys. That is primarily because of the huge national debt and the amount of revenue necessary to service that debt. Why did the Liberals run up the deficit so high? It is now affecting our ability to make the investments he talks about. Why did they so consistently kick the United States in the shins and insult them in every possible way? As a result, we are now having difficulty reaching agreement with them. Why did they not sign an international agreement giving a base price for wheat? Why did they increase the input costs of agriculture so high? I am referring to fuel costs and transportation. Why did they not enact plant breeders' rights so that when the new varieties come out it would have a multiplier effect on our economy? Why was there no action for over 20 years on soil erosion and loss of agricultural land in western Canada? Why, for 20 years when they were the Government, was nothing done?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree at the outset, and that is where the agreement will stop, that there is a very major problem with the EEC in international marketing. This is particularly true in coming to grips with the subsidies and supports they provide. We would be far more effective if we had some joint strategy. But what I have been trying to say through the course of my speech is that there was nothing in anything the Government has done, particularly in its trade paper, to indicate it was addressing the issue. It did not demonstrate what the Government was doing, what kind of intervention it was prepared to make, or whether it was endorsing or adopting the same kind of response the Americans were going to make. We are simply saying that the opportunity was there and if the Government did not want to use it, then it had better come out with another paper right away so that we know where it is going.
The Hon. Member has engaged in a form of mental gymnastics which I find is peculiar to the acrobatic school, causa Conservatus, which relates everything back to the deficit. The fact is that government expenditures provided job training, major innovations in transportation, and export development. They were used for major investment in regional development. I remind the Hon. Member that one of our initiatives which this Government, to its credit, has continued to support, was the establishment of the economic regional development agreements. They incorporated a number of agricultural agreements with the provinces. In my own Province of Manitoba we signed a $23 million agricultural agreement to provide for new research and development. There were new initiatives in water research and development and irrigation projects. We also signed a $200 million program, part of which went for a major restoration of the Port of Churchill, so that there was an alternative deep sea prairie port. We will have the opportunity tomorrow in committee to determine if this Government is going to fulfil the requirements of that agreement. For the first
Supply
time in the history of western Canada we took the decision, under that agreement, that grain cars would be manufactured in western Canada.
We used the power of expenditure, which he was so concerned about, to do exactly what I was talking about. We were investing in the future. We were putting in place the kind of research and development infrastructure which would allow the agricultural community, through those projects, to improve itself. That is why we are now in real danger of committing some serious mistakes given the approach the Minister of Finance takes when he says you cannot afford to spend on anything. In fact, in the economic statement of November, the Government added substantial new charges for farmers. Some $32 million was added to the cost burden of farmers. In some cases, in provinces like Prince Edward Island, charges have increased from $15 to $50 for the inspection of potatoes. This comes at the very time we are saying it is important to try to reduce costs. The Minister of Finance is adding to those costs, adding to the burdens of the farmer, not trying to relieve them.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's speech, as I did to the speech of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) this morning. He mentioned Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, and unfortunately I was not able to ask him a question about that. I think the Hon. Member will agree that for a number of years now Member after Member in this House raised the issue of Section 31. Finally, last spring, the previous Minister of Finance agreed that he would set up a consulting group to go out and bring us back some answers. I cannot find any history of that group. There are no recommendations. We do not even know who made up the group. I would like to know from the Hon. Member what the present position of his Party is on Section 31. What does he propose we should do with that section?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat intrigued by the Hon. Member's question. He should really he asking that question of his own Minister of Finance. The position of our Party is that we are going to be very interested to see what the answer is. It is quite true that a number of Members spoke to this issue. Our Government indicated we would set up a consultative group to look at it, and now what has happened is that we have had these grand promises for legislation. This goes back to our basic thesis that you cannot make promises and then, all of a sudden, do a double flip-flop and say, "We are now going to study it". It is now back in committee for examination and we think it is very important that the Government take a stand. Let us see the colour of the eyes of the Minister of Finance. Then, my hon. friend, our critic on agriculture, will be more than happy to respond.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Hon. Member suggested that the previous Minister of Finance planned a consultative committee to look into the whole matter of problems associated with Section 31. Did he ever get around to doing that?

February 5, 1985
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: I think that is a very appropriate question to ask of the Minister of Finance whose Department is responsible. We discovered several cases where we had initiated reviews, as in the case of the Manitoba equalization, that the Department of Finance was not quite so anxious to follow up until it saw what happened on September 4. It is now quite satisfied because nothing is happening, so its own basic biases are being supported.


Charles Joseph Clark: Still blaming public servants.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I come from the same kind of rural riding as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I was wondering if he could comment on the question of financial help for farmers. I was wondering why he did not compliment the Government on the change in the tax on petroleum products. After all, that was a massive reduction of taxes on the farming community. It certainly complied with the promise to give financial support to farmers. Why did he not comment on the reduction by our Government of interest rates through the FCC from 16.75 per cent, which he and his colleagues demanded farmers pay, to 12.75 per cent?
What new program should he be advocating the Government undertake in view of this motion? After all, surely it is the obligation of the Official Opposition to present alternative programs to the Government which need to be discussed and examined. There is nothing in this motion except the condemnation of the Government with no alternative being suggested.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to answer the question. I find that the Member for Mississauga South has not outgrown old habits. Like an old dog he still plays old tricks. He has not quite got used to the idea that he is now a Member on the government side of the House. In this Parliament the Government is responsible for coming forward with the proposals. We in opposition are always pleased to provide along the way whatever helpful advice we can. If the Hon. Member was listening, which I know he does raptly to everything I say, he will have heard that we did suggest that it is time that the Government got on with business and brought the stabilization fund forward, which could have provided close to $800 million of new cash flow for western grain producers. We have been waiting around since November for the Bill to be presented in the House. We made a very clear commitment to provide for an immediate cash flow to enable farmers to start their plans under the stabilization fund.
All we get from the Government is promises, promises, promises. That makes a good title for a Broadway play but it makes a lousy agriculture policy. The whole thrust of our motion is to say that there is a new Government now and it is about time it recognized its responsibility. It is about time it made decisions on these commitments. It does not do much if, at the same time as it is reducing taxes on excise fuel, it is adding service charges that end up costing the farmers more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret but the time for questions and comments is now over.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, my riding includes many constituents who are farm producers. In the riding next door ... Iam surprised at the comments of our Liberal friends. They are starting before I have even started my speech. Some Liberal Members are starting to interrupt instead of listening to what we have to say. They have not yet realized the shoe is now on the other foot, although they should, the figures are clear enough. If we look at the number of Liberal Members in provincial legislatures across Canada and in this Parliament, they represent a grand total of 16 per cent. A little more realism and everything should be fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Shefford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize my colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) has just been elected and may not be aware of the rule that provides that his speech must be relevant to the motion before the House. I do not think we have a motion on the number of Members elected in provincial legislatures. In fact I think the problem of farm financing is much more important. I therefore suggest that, at the invitation of the Chair, the Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead should speak to the motion before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Shefford also knows perfectly well, since he has been in the House for a number of years, that when a Member begins his speech he is allowed an introduction, especially since the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead was indeed interrupted by one of your colleagues. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, it is their ignorance of agricultural problems that brought about the national landslide that reduced their numbers from 980 to 162, while we have 579 Members across Canada, including this Parliament. Ask anyone, that is what producers are going to tell you, including hog producers.
We have been listening to practically everything that is being said about our hog producers. The subject came up in connection with the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who was absolutely right in doing what he did, and he still is today. Hog producers across the country, and I know what our own producers are saying, will tell you they are well aware there is a major problem with the United States, and if it is dealt with too hastily, we might be hit with export restrictions, and that is something our hog producers want to avoid. I think we will be able to find a political solution to the $13 million question. Not a solution of confrontation, as you have always
February 5, 1985

advocated for much too long-which explains why we have reached the point where we talk about two Opposition parties here. A policy of consultation, that is what it says in the document of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and that is a document for consultation. Pay close attention to the last paragraph on page 67: "The Government expects to hear from all interested individuals so as to know their views on these issues concerning the tax treatment of the agricultural community, in light of this document and of the principles contained in the Agenda for Economic Renewal". That's it!
Mr. Speaker, my riding is predominantly agricultural. There are dairy producers, hog producers and sheep producers. They know the agricultural community is experiencing difficulties. They want to hear what Hon. Members have to say about the real problems in agriculture. We all know what those problems are: a problem of overproduction, a problem of increasingly difficult exports caused by worldwide surplus production, a problem of surplus equipment, and a problem of indebtedness compounded by steep financing charges.
Today we are debating the issue of financing. Mr. Speaker, I wish all Hon. Members could have been in Washington where, in a non-partisan approach, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), for instance, and my colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) played an active role in the discussions in an attempt to find sound solutions to various agricultural financing problems. And after three days in Washington, there seemed to be unanimity, a consensus to the effect that we should not earmark less money for agriculture. All parliamentarians agreed that funds have to be set aside to help some categories of Canadian farmers. The idea was to find the most effective formula, the most profitable, rather than pick one at random only to admit later on that we made a mistake. We were there to draw inspiration from the American experiment. It is a new program.
When the Ministers of Agriculture attended the federal-provincial conference, there was no way to benefit from that American experiment. Now we can, and that is why the agribond program might be altered, solely with a view to finding the best way to finance farmers, particularly those who are just starting out in the business and others who are facing difficulties.
It is because there are so many of those farm producers in my constituency that I spend the greater part of my time here trying to identify the problems, trying to find with them what those problems are exactly, trying to identify them and find the most adequate solutions.
Farmers also are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to go beyond the mere question of farm financing. They know it very well because they have experienced and are still experiencing problems left over by the previous administration, the problem of too large a deficit, of too much government, a government that too often meddles with their lives as with the lives of all Canadians. They too are prepared to make sacrifices. They
Supply
did not resolve to complain just for the sake of complaining. They want us to help them find a long-term solution, with government action aimed not only at solving one immediate problem but at solving a long term problem. And the long term problem, Mr. Speaker,... I hear again the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who is trying to interrupt me rather than making a positive contribution in this House! They know the problem is related to their production costs. If he calls on the milk producers in his constituency, they will all tell him the problem is related to production costs. They would like to get a price close to their production costs, the everlasting problem. They will not have anything else to tell him.
Mr. Speaker, the only way is to proceed through consultation, ongoing consultation as this Progressive Conservative Government has been doing for a number of weeks, trying to get the best answers by way of consultation. This Progressive Conservative Government has been using a new approach to the question of farm financing. A co-operative approach, with an attitude conducive to closer work between the various parties involved, including the Provinces which must be taken into account, as I say to my Liberal friends.
[DOT] (WOO)
At this moment, the Farm Credit Corporation is involved in financing programs in several Provinces. It is interesting to note that such programs are generally directed at helping young farmers go into business or expand their operation. We are directly co-operating with provincial financing programs in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario.
The officials of the Farm Credit Corporation are constantly looking out for new methods to increase the level of co-operation. They are experts, and I often urge my constituents to call on those experts and seek their advice. The 20 per cent of farm producers who are in difficulty can often find the solution to their financing problems simply through an orderly and intelligent discussion with the Farm Credit Corporation experts.
The Farm Credit Corporation has persistently set as a major goal for the coming year the putting into place of new programs that will help farmers in real need in a more aggressive and better adapted way.
There are indeed a great many farmers in my riding. They call me on the phone, they write to me and they are prepared to sacrifice almost anything to survive these difficult times. If there is anything I want to say about the part the Government should play in farm financing, it is that we have worked very hard since the election to help farmers. Those who were stuck with interest rates on their loans of more than 16 per cent- more specifically 16.75 per cent-saw them reduced to 12.75 per cent per year a few days ago, which was certainly a step in the right direction; these farmers know now that this Government has made agriculture one of its top priorities.

February 5, 1985
Supply
This Government has been elected and given the mandate to consider problems with a fresh look and from a new point of view. I can assure the House that our Government has the firm intention not to shirk its responsibilities. We have helped farmers finance their operations and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to repeat what I feel is the major message the Government is trying to convey to the Canadian people: with your help, we can improve the well-being of the Canadian people.
The Government expects all interested parties to express their views on tax issues related to agriculture in light of this document and of the principles put forward in the economic statement. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for 1500 copies of this document that I intend to send to all farm producers within my riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on his speech and to tell him that, basically, the only words we heard from him were consultation, new approach, and so on. This is all very nice. He can send 1,600, 2,000 or 5,000 copies of his speech to the farmers of his constituency. This will help the printers, but it will not be of much help to the farmers.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead something. I know that he has a lot of imagination and that he did not come to Ottawa only to listen to others. When he entered politics, he had answers. Well! Not a single one was mentioned in his last speech. He spoke of the problem when going to Washington, and we all know why the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent him to Washington. There have been many newspapers articles about the trips of Conservative Members of Parliament abroad. I am not certain that the purpose of this particular trip was to solve the problem of farmers; he might have been more interested in solving his own problems.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I want to know. The Hon. Member talks about consultations. The UPA does not accept the figure of 12.75 per cent. They think it is too high and affects only a minority of producers. They think that the Hon. Member should rise in this House and ask for a much lower interest rate. What does he think?
I would like his comment because he spoke of his trip to the United States earlier and nearly fell into the trap set by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) by saying that the $13 million put aside for Quebec pork producers should not be released immediately because this might upset the Americans. Does the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead agree or not that the Government should meet the commitment made by his colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and immediately send to the provincial stabilization fund the cheque for $13 million which he promised to the federation of pork producers? There are sheep farmers in his constituency. Does he want the $400,000 due to these producers in his constituency to be paid directly or is he afraid of upsetting the Americans? This is what I want to know. I also want to know whether the Government will soon introduce the tax reform which his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has just postponed indefinitely. Will his Government exempt farm transfers from one generation to the next from capital gains tax? Does his Government intend to act in this matter instead of being satisfied with consultations?
Mr. Speaker, if you bow down too much, you run the risk of getting stuck in that position, but I am certain that a man like the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) will not bow down before all the useless papers produced by his Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


François Gérin: First of all, Mr. Speaker, concerning the study session in Washington which began at noon on Tuesday and ended at four o'clock on Thursday, where we heard a dozen odd speakers, I would point out that it was not intended as a make-work exercise for backbenchers: we went there with open minds to listen and to learn. That was our motivation and perhaps it explains why the Liberal Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Liberal Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) joined our delegation. It was a non-partisan effort. Time is running short, unfortunately, but I think I might give the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) an idea of what we learned down there; I am sure he would be interested. Indeed, I would even suggest that he might express different views after a briefing, for he too is an intelligent man, Mr. Speaker. If he were to read the document made public by our Minister of Finance-your Minister of Finance, in fact, the Minister of Finance of all Canadians-he would see on page 64 a full report on agribonds which practically sums up everything we learned down there. That is the problem. It would be an easy thing to do.
I can tell you that if the Liberal Members are not prepared to consult or would rather skip that essential consultation process, there is no way, of course, I can settle the problem all by myself. Perhaps the Conservative Members might share this task. As for me, I will order an additional 1,200 copies of that document and send them to my constituents of Shefford. I would like to know what they think, and the reason I do not know is that Members to my immediate left never did bother to consult those producers. I think that is what I will do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).
February 5, 1985


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of my colleague, since he probably has farms in his riding, part of which are also in mine.
Here is my first comment to him. Last September 4, the people of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead did not elect a Member to make studies; they elected a Member expecting him to act and find solutions to their problems. Now, I would have a number of very specific questions that can be answered by either yes or no. The learned Member said earlier that pork, mutton and hay producers were willing to make sacrifices. Must 1 understand, in the first instance, that they are willing to give up those $13 million for their pork, those $450,000 for their mutton and those $40 million for their hay? Secondly, 1 would appreciate having his comments on the response obtained from Mr. Proulx, who is not just anybody, when he said that the decrease in interest rates on the one hand was unacceptable, and on the other hand, would benefit a mere 700 farmers in Quebec. He went even further. He suggested it was discriminatory, because the interest rate reduction applied to a short period only. I would therefore appreciate having the Hon. Member's comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


François Gérin: It is still better to go and learn, Mr. Speaker, than to talk nonsense. I think that my colleague from Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) should know that. 1 wonder what he was doing, while I was studying during the recess. But as soon as I went back, I told producers in my constituency, at three different meetings with something like 400 persons, about the results of that trip, and that gave results. His constituency borders on mine, Mr. Speaker, and indeed I have called one such meeting to be held in Bury next Sunday, and I invite him to attend. This will be an opportunity for him and his colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) to profit from our experience.
Concerning those $13 million, I will ask him the question again, because there is something else that concerns me. He was a member of the previous Liberal Government. They are responsible for the awful situation in which the pork producers find themselves. But now that we face the problem, a year later more or less, I am going to ask him: "If the Government were to pay out $13 million, how much of that amount would go directly into the pockets of the Quebec pork producers?" He should tell that to the pork producers, and discuss the issue with them. But he should first study the question. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the question is obvious.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I see that time is running out, but I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He does not need to give a long answer. My question concerns the cost recovery program on food products and products produced on the farm. As the Hon. Member knows, subsequent to the Wilson document in December, $32.3 million was identified in
Supply
the Department of Agriculture for a cost recovery from that Department basically on inspection fees. First, does the Hon. Member agree that potato producers or producers of agricultural products should be paying inspection fees rather than inspection fees coming out of general revenue, because inspection basically serves the consumer? Does the Hon. Member agree that farmers should be paying their share of inspection fees?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin). He should be reminded that there is but one minute left.


François Gérin: Do I have only one minute left? It would take me more than a minute to answer my colleague's question. I will repeat what I said earlier. Farm producers are aware that the Liberal Government has created for us some terrible conditions. Farmers are ready as all Canadians to take part in the collective efforts necessary to correct such conditions. Such efforts will have to be made not only by the industry or wage-earners but also by farm producers and they know it. Cuts will not be made at the CBC only. Too many millions of dollars have been wasted. We have to pare spendings almost everywhere. We have to do it. We have to re-examine just about every thing from the very beginning. As you know, the accumulated deficit has reached $200 billion. It is shocking. Farm producers are quite aware of it. They are aware of the disastrous economic conditions. All kinds of reports constantly refer to the disastrous economic conditions to be corrected. This will require some sacrifices. However, I think that farm producers are quite conscious of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments has expired.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this opposition motion indicating the inadequate response to the growing financial crisis in the agricultural sector and identifying the Government for its failure to provide sufficient support and services to farmers who face severe economic difficulties in all regions of the country.
I am fortunate to represent a constituency in Canada that has a substantial number of farms, to be precise, 1,200 farms, of which 50 per cent are cattle ranches, 30 per cent are in various field crop opeations, 10 per cent are in fruit and vegetable growing, and 10 per cent are in specialized and mixed farming.
I am not going to make a speech today, but instead I shall reflect on three or four issues facing the agricultural sector that I feel are of particular importance today.
When you look around the world today, Mr. Speaker, and you recognize the trends internationally, you see that farming

February 5, 1985
Supply
communities in Europe, often heavily subsidized, are competing now directly with Canadian exports. In many cases those crops and products are so heavily subsidized that fair competition does not exist any longer. We see the situation in other countries, such as Argentina. Argentina in a sense is dumping its wheat on world markets, prepared to sell it at any price, not so much that Argentina is in the wheat sale business but it is in the business of obtaining foreign currency. The much needed American dollar in that part of South America motivates its pricing system for grains.
When you consider that in the United States today the Government is determined to protect a number of its sectors to subsidize heavily its agriculture sector, we face a very difficult international trading community when it comes to agricultural products.
Here at home with a new Government there is one concern that overrides all others, namely, that of the deficit. I am not confident at this point that the necessary support and assistance will be given to ensure that not only viable agriculture continues in Canada but, more important, that family farm or family ranch in western Canada continues as a viable producting unit. I see us as being at a crucial point today as a result of the financial crisis where we will be making decisions in the next number of weeks that will determine whether agriculture in Canada goes the way of the family farm or the family ranch or whether it goes in the direction of large-scale corporate agricultural business.
In terms of the future of Canada, it seems to me that it would be appropriate for the Government to take steps that would ensure that the family operator remains a viable food producer and not take steps that would inevitably see the rapid drift into the hands of corporate agriculture where we would have large commercial farms perhaps run by breweries, oil companies or petrochemical companies with very little interest and commitment, if at all, to the real agricultural community.
I have been fortunate enough to be part of a New Democratic Party action group on jobs. We have been touring the country over the last number of weeks. We have been to all parts of Canada, from Atlantic Canada to western Canada, to central Canada, through Ontario and Quebec, and if there is one thing that has been made perfectly clear at every single session, whether held in rural areas, in small communities or in large metropolitan areas, it is that there is a profound interest and a deep concern for what is happening to agriculture today.
What about farm bankruptcies? They continue to increase year after year. In 1980 we had about 200 farm bankruptcies. In 1984 we had about 600 farm bankruptcies. In 1985 it is predicted that in excess of 1,000 farms will experience bankruptcy. Those numbers, when you consider the number of farms in existence, may not be particularly problematic, but we should recognize as legislators that this is only the tip of the iceberg. For every farm that actually experiences the bankruptcy proceedings and the personal horror attached to that, there are hundreds and hundreds and thousands more farmers who are simply giving up. People simply give up and
walk away because they can no longer make a living from the operation.
The Farm Credit Corporation informs us that 39,000 farms at the moment are facing serious financial difficulty. Nearly
2,000	farms are on the brink of financial collapse. That is why we are here today. That is why the Opposition has decided that it is appropriate to discuss the seriousness of the situation in an effort to encourage government Members to use whatever powers they have with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to ensure that the necessary steps are taken. We can no longer afford to do nothing. We can no longer afford only to consult and discuss the situation. For years and years, as I recall, farm groups representing every possible area of the country and every possible sector of the agricultural community have been making their concerns known to Members of Parliament and to the Government, past and present. The problems being faced by food producers today are not a mystery to anyone. The problems are clear and, perhaps more appropriately, the solutions are relatively clear.
I became a little disconcerted when I received a discussion paper on tax issues in agriculture from the Minister of Finance. I, like all of us, am very interested in the taxation system as it touches the agricultural community. Yet, when I read this recently released report, page after page, I did not see any particular conclusions. I did not even see any real options provided. I saw three or four options provided, but they say that two will not work or will cause all kinds of problems and that they are not sure about the other one. I am not particularly encouraged by Section 31, which has profound influence in my constituency. Half the ranchers and farmers in my constituency are required to seek income off their operation. They have been harassed unbelievably by the Department of National Revenue. These people are now considered to be part-time farmers when some of the ranches have been in the family for three generations.
One of my most saddening experiences as a Member of Parliament, in my brief career here, happened the other day when I visited a small cattle ranch. I suspect that traditionally it would be running 250 to 300 head of cattle. It was run by a young family with three children in their early teens. Both the husband and wife had grown up on ranches, one on that ranch and another on the neighbouring one, as had their parents and their grandparents. They had just lost the family ranch, despite relatively sophisticated management practices and good equipment. They had worked for 12 months of the year, probably 18 hours a day. The entire family had worked-the mother, father and three children. They lost the ranch. The bank decided that it was appropriate to take over that operation. The tragedy was that if that family had mismanaged its operation, if it had not put up adequate hay, or if it had not looked after its cattle properly and some disease or whatever had infested the herd, that would be one thing. However, the family lost that ranch because of interest rates, an item over
February 5, 1985

which it had absolutely no control but over which the Government has control.
I noticed an article in The Globe and Mail the other day which was headlined: "Farmers are experiencing the worst time since the 1930s". On the opposite page it read: "Bank profits in Canada the world's best". On one hand our financial institutions now rank among the most profitable in the entire world, and on the other our farmers are experiencing financial difficulties like they did in the 1930s. What is the Government doing about that? In my estimation-and I know certain Hon. Members opposite would disagree with me-the Government is not taking any steps to reduce the deficit.
Just today we have seen the Canadian dollar dip below that important psychological level of 75 cents. I am afraid that the natural response of the Liberal Government will now be taken by the Conservative Government and interest rates will be increased to bring up the value of the dollar. I want to indicate that if that is the response of the Government to a decreasing dollar, which has other problems attached to it, it will be one of the most devastating moves the Government could take because of the fragile recovery that is out there. Farmers across the country welcomed a change of government. That Government promised to do a number of things. Farmers had said, "I suppose nothing could be as bad as it is now with the Liberal Government; we have nothing to lose". When Hon. Members opposite and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the new Government would do certain things, there was a sense of hope. I suspect that, to a certain extent, that hope still exists. However, if interest rates go up next Thursday and on successive Thursdays, we will see not 1,000 bankruptcies in 1985 in the farming community but substantially more. I suspect hundreds of thousands will just walk away from operations to which they had dedicated their entire lives, as had their parents and grandparents before them. That is a very critical point. I must say that the discussion paper of the Minister of Finance is a disappointment. I personally-and I know it was the case with my Party-was certainly hoping for much more action than that publication suggests.
We must take action to reduce interest rates. I know the Government has an aversion to taking action to reduce interest rates. 1 guess it is quite content to spend hundreds of millions of dollars week after week to buy up our own currency to buoy up interest rates. That is an expenditure which I guess people do not mind.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: They do not see it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I ask the Government to take the matter of high interest rates seriously and to recognize that real interest rates in Canada rank among the highest in the world. I do not think we need that status much longer. Quite frankly, the status 1 would like to see would be that of a viable food producing community of family farms and family ranches, people producing from the soil.


James Ross Fulton: Where they own their farms.
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: As the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) just indicated, where they own their farms. That is the kind of Canada we would like to see. Barring a lack of interest or a lack of commitment to reduce interest rates across the board, there are other alternatives. The agri-bond alternative is one to which all Parties agreed at one time. It is something worth looking at. That is why I was disappointed when I read this. I do not think the Government will now move on agri-bonds, unfortunately. Originally we suggested that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act could be reintroduced as another method. While that worked back in the 1930s and the 1940s, I realize that it would have to be modified to work today. However, it is an option open to us now. As I said, not many months ago all Parties agreed to at least look at it seriously. I would like to see that initiative taken by the Government again.
I should like to refer to the whole matter of the set aside program. I want to remind all of us-and particularly Hon. Members opposite-that in the United States the Farmers' Home Administration has been authorized to set aside without interest for five years as much as 25 per cent of the debt owed by farmers in distress, up to a maximum of $100,000. Private lenders willing to write down a portion of loans to reschedule repayment obligations can apply to the Farmers' Home Administration for a guarantee on the remaining outstanding debt of up to $400,000 for operating credit and $300,000 for real estate. That Government recognized that it had to do something to help farmers who lost equity in their operations and that one way to do it was to set aside a certain amount of the debt, to be dealt with at a time when the farm was more of a producing unit. That is another alternative.
We have to look at something else, which is very serious for those of us who are interested in cowcalf operations or feeder operations. We have to look at introducing some type of beef stabilization program based upon the cost of production. A stabilization program based upon the averaging of prices does not help many people. Today, when the prices for beef are in fact lower than the cost of production, making that into a major guiding factor will not be of much help. A beef stabilization program to help provide that kind of support would enable the family farm or ranch to be successful.
I do not suppose there is much hope that the new Government will reconsider its position on Canagrex. Time and again the Minister of Agriculture has said that Canagrex is history in this country, something of the past, nothing to do with the present, and certainly nothing to do with the future.
Let us look at what Canagrex did over a very short period of time. Up to October 31, 1984, the total expenditures to set up Canagrex were $2,659,000. Canagrex arranged $16 million in sales and had an additional $100 million in sales that it was planning to wrap up by March 31, 1985. It had found and developed $160 million in sales in that short period of time. By the way, those figures are taken from Hansard where the Minister was answering a specific question.

February 5, 1985
Supply
If there is one thing that Canada must do, not only in agriculture but in other areas, it is to seek out and develop new markets much more aggressively. Never before has international competition been so difficult and yet important for Canada.
People in the farm community thought that Canagrex could play a very important role in certain areas. Some sectors were doing an excellent job. They were marketing our agricultural products extremely well. By and large, as in other areas of our economy, that was and continues to be a weak point. Canagrex was one of those operations that could have supported a lot of agriculture in Canada, particularly the newly developing agriculture where we are developing new crops and export potential.
I am a little hesitant to hark back to the old Government, but when you look at some of the deals we got under the last GATT agreement you, have to laugh. Our negotiators are out there to negotiate a great deal for Canada. I hope my Liberal colleagues will find some humour in this. Our negotiators managed to raise the tariffs on a whole set of our exports. That was supposed to help us, but I could never figure out how that would work. They reciprocated and said that we would lower the tariffs on all imports. That is not the kind of negotiation we were hoping for when they were negotiating on agricultural commodities, but so be it.
I want to close today, after having had an opportunity to say a few words about the problem facing agriculture, particularly in western Canada, by saying that the critical aspect is our shipping rates. Canada is the second largest country in the world. We have to ship many of our products a long way. That is why we fought so hard to keep the Crow rate to assist western grain producers.
The other day I happened to come across some information regarding the transportation costs on a case of corn being shipped out of Ontario. It cost $1.36 to send that case of corn to Japan. When the corn leaves here, it goes through the port of Vancouver and on to Japan. To send that same case of corn to Vancouver costs $1.63. In other words, it costs more to send it to Vancouver than to send it to Japan. It will cost 76 cents to send that same case to Germany. However, it will cost $1.22 to send it to Newfoundland. One of the critical areas in which we must work, if we are going to support a viable agriculture sector, is in the re-examination of transportation charges on agricultural goods.
I hope the Government realizes the seriousness of the situation. Opposition Members made the case today that we have a financial crisis in our agricultural community. Unless something is done very quickly, we will see the beginning of a massive demise of agriculture, more particularly of the family farm and family ranch.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I certain enjoyed the speech of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He made a lot of points and stressed the serious nature of the agricultural community today. Is he aware of the cost recovery programs that were announced in the Wilson economic statement of November 8? Also, is he aware of a letter that was sent to different organizations involved in the marketing of food products, especially the potato industry in my Province of Prince Edward Island and in the Province of New Brunswick? The proposal, to be made effective on April 1, 1985, less than two months from now, is for an inspection fee of 33 cents per hundredweight to be set on all table stock potatoes for human consumption shipped out of Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick.
In Prince Edward Island the average crop yield is about 200 hundredweight per acre. This means that the inspection cost would be $66 per acre. The average potato farmer on Prince Edward Island grows 200 acres of potatoes. Therefore, he is looking at something around $13,000.
A seed inspection is also proposed of $25 a hectare for field inspection. That works out to $11 an acre. In my province, the Province of Prince Edward Island, 86 per cent of potatoes are grown as seed potatoes. However, less than 50 percent, probably 42 per cent, are sold as seed and the rest go into table stock. There could conceivably be a double inspection fee. Approximately 40 per cent of the production on P.E.I. would be subject to these proposed fees. That will involve $77 or $78 an acre.
That letter was read to me last night by the chairman of the P.E.I. Marketing Board. I read it back word for word to see that I had my facts straight. It was signed by the Deputy Minister, Mr. Quesnel.
I wonder how the agricultural community in my province could survive that sort of a huge price increase. The present cost of producing potatoes in P.E.I is six cents a pound. We get
4.5	cents a pound FOB P.E.I. so we are already selling them
1.5	cents below the cost of production. No farmer can operate very long that way. This is very discriminatory. If you look at the production of potatoes in the Province of Ontario, you see that most, potatoes grown are sold within the Province of Ontario. Therefore, they would not be subject to the inspection fee. Areas like Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are totally reliant on shipping out of province or to the export market. I see the Minister is now here. I hope that he will make some comments regarding this very serious situation about which I am speaking.
If the Government goes through with this measure, this to me would spell the end of agriculture as we know it in the Province of Prince Edward Island. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's comments on that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the elaborate question put by the Hon. Member, as well as his deep concern. Those same letters went out to people not only in Atlantic Canada but to people across Canada generally. I believe that the Hon. Member's calculations were $77 or $78 per acre. Our calculations, as best we could make them out, were in that same area. As the Hon. Member has indicated, I think that what this does
February 5, 1985

is to spell out the end of agriculture as a viable sector in Prince Edward Island.
A similar argument can be made as well for a whole number of areas. I tend to concentrate on the beef industry in which the situation is the same. The costs are greater than the prices people are receiving. That is why I say that we have come to a critical point at which we as legislators must make a decision regarding whether or not we want agriculture in P.E.I. and other areas as well to continue as a viable way of life. By imposing those kinds of fees on producers, the industry will obviously not continue. By failing to take action on a whole variety of fronts, including the financial front, agriculture will begin to fail across the country.
Countries like Japan, for example, have taken it upon themselves to say that they believe that agriculture is critical for their countries. Self-sufficiency in agriculture is their goal. We have no goal like that. As a matter of fact, if we are to identify a goal based upon the point made by the Hon. Member, the goal would be to phase viable agriculture in Canada out of operation. That is why we must decide whether or not potato growing in P.E.I. will continue as a viable economic activity. From our point of view, we must take steps to ensure that it will continue.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Hon. Member. I agree that we must have a goal, but I am wondering about the Hon. Member's views on the inspection fees themselves. I believe that inspection is a protection for the consumer and that the cost of inspection fees should be borne solely by general revenue. It should not be levied against the producers who are already very hard pressed. It is a protection for the consumer. I wonder how the Hon. Member feels about that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can only say that I support the view held by the Hon. Member that inspection fees exist to protect the consumer. We are here representing the consumer. Obviously those costs ought to be paid from general revenue. Logically, it seems to me that that would be the only legitimate source of those funds. To go to the producer for that type of support seems to be an illogical approach.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this motion. I heard the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) speaking of the dilemma regarding inspection fees facing our potato farmers. 1 know that the Minister has also heard of that and I believe that he has sent some 60 letters out to groups affected by inspection fees and that 40 of these groups have replied. No Minister, and particularly this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), would allow a viable agriculture industry in any region of the country to be hurt in any way by inspection fees. I am sure he is prepared to negotiate those fees if they do pose a problem in his region or in any other region of the country. That is an important discussion and I can understand the Hon. Member's concern.
Supply
I have a great deal of difficulty with the speech made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), however, and I feel an obligation to respond to some of the things he said. I will begin by dealing with his suggestion that the consultation paper costs $18. That is a good place to begin because that is completely false. Any person wishing to receive this paper can phone the distribution office and receive a copy. If that person would like more copies, he can then phone the Department of Agriculture and receive more copies, free of charge, of course.
I know that members of the Liberal Party, and particularly the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, have a lot of trouble with consultation. When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was Minister, he knew all the answers. He did not have to consult with anyone because he knew all the answers. When we who were in opposition at that time were consulting with our constituent farmers across the country, we asked the then Minister legitimate questions about things that were hurting farmers' viability. His response was that the Government knew what it was doing and that it had the answers. That is why, as we put forward papers with suggestions-not policies but suggestions-the Hon. Member has a great deal of difficulty with that and calls it something that assists the printing industry.
We have no difficulty with that. These are policy positions that we discussed during the election campaign. We want to make sure that the farm community of the country has the opportunity to respond to those suggestions. We put forward some alternatives. We have not put forward all of the alternatives. We hope that some other suggestions will come forward to allow the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to put in place the kinds of policies that are up to date and will suit the continuing viability of agriculture in the country. That is why we are committed to discussion papers. As a Member who participated often on the Standing Committee on Agriculture as it crossed the country discussing various issues, I know that those parliamentary committee reports always contained good advice to the Government, advice which was often taken.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry had the audacity to speak of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund and to chastise the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board for not yet bringing in an amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. If the former Minister who was responsible for this Bill had accepted our amendment at that time, an amendment which was requested unanimously by opposition Parties, we would not have to amend the Bill. Our amendment requested that an interim payment be allowed at the discretion of the Minister. That would then allow the Minister, when he felt a need for a payment on the Prairies, to make that payment in advance of the date specified by the Bill. No, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, the Minister at the time, would not heed that suggestion. The present Minister is now forced to deal with the situation, and he will deal with it. He will meet that promise and it will be put in place before the farmers plant their crops this year. You can be assured of that,

February 5, 1985
Supply
Mr. Speaker. The situation on the Prairies is desperate and many farmers are depending on payments from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund for cash to put their crops in the ground this year.
I agree with the statement made by the Hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that we in government must look seriously at alternatives that will assist us in keeping family farms all across the country viable. I know that when this Party sat down before the election and deliberated on policy, it had that in mind. If we look at the record of this Government, in the short time that it has been in office, we will find that the Government has adhered to more promises in that short time than did the last Government with two Ministers in five years. I could go through the policies which have been implemented, but other Members have already done that. Those policies have assisted in lowering the cost of production to many farmers. It has given farmers an opportunity to be optimistic about being able to meet their payments and to put in their crops in 1985.
There is much financial distress as a result of what happened from 1970 to 1981. During that time land prices increased dramatically and the cost of production increased together with inflation. The cost of production perhaps increased even more rapidly than inflation. At the same time, the price of agricultural production was also increasing. When the 1980s arrived, Governments were not prepared for the results. Interest rates skyrocketed as agricultural prices leveled off, and in many cases became depressed. At the same time, the cost of production also increased rapidly. Lending institutions, including the Farm Credit Corporation, were lending money to farmers based on increased equity. The lending institutions were looking through rose-coloured glasses in anticipation of higher prices for farm products. Those higher prices never resulted.
We cannot blame the farm managers for getting wrapped up in the escalating war for land, or for trying to plant crops and getting a reasonable return. The best advice in the country was telling them to do that. If we look at the statistics, the farmers who produce most of the food in the country are also the farmers who are most capital-intensive. In most cases they are farmers who have the potential for getting into financial stress if everything does not work properly.
We know the difficulties in agriculture. Even those who live in the cities probably had fathers or grandfathers who were in agriculture. We know that weather can be a determining factor. It is a factor which will not be found in other businesses. Nothing is more distressful than to see a farmer being removed from his property. He is also removed from his home. There is something good about being close to the soil. When farmers are forced off their land, it is a very serious matter. In a lot of instances the land has been in the family for a number of generations. Factors which are different from those in the business sector come into play. Even the best managers can experience bad weather and be forced from their land because
they are unable to make payments. Governments have a responsibility to bring forward the kind of policy which will keep farmers viable across the country.
Many Members have spoken about the difficulties in getting our produce into world markets because the United States and the EEC are presently battling over markets. But Canada has a good record in that regard. The Progressive Conservative Government of the 1960s was able to get into the markets in Russia and China and lead the way in getting Canadian agriculture products into those markets. We now have preferential treatment when our grain is moved into those markets. Even in these competitive times, the Canadian Wheat Board was able to sell, in the last four or five years, all the grain which our transportation system has been able to get to port. It is an excellent record upon which the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) will build.
I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has dealt with the Farm Credit Act and has allowed the farmers who were locked into high interest rate loans to bring them down by 4 per cent or 5 per cent. That practice is assisting more farmers in Canada than the set aside policy of the United States. I believe there are 8,000 farmers in the United States who are being assisted, but there are 6,000 or
7,000	farmers in Canada who are being assisted by that policy. If the Minister's policy can be adopted, it is worth looking at. I believe a number of banks are responding to it.
There was a situation in my constituency in which a cattle feedlot company was in financial difficulty. It went to the bank to seek a solution to its difficulties. The company had $1 million in debt which it had accumulated over the past three or four years because of stabilized cattle prices and increasing costs. After much deliberation, the bank was able to work out an agreement. The bank bought half the shares of the cattle company and set aside half the loan for five years. The company will pay the loan on the other half. That will allow the company to get back on its feet and, hopefully, to repurchase the shares which are now owned by the bank.
Financial institutions are now prepared to write down some farm loans. Perhaps the farm financial review boards which are now operating on an experimental basis in two counties in Ontario will find the same kind of success as they bring farmers in distress together with financial institutions in an attempt to work out solutions which will allow those farmers to stay on the land. As the Government brings forward policies to assist in the lowering of the cost of production and in getting more agricultural produce into world markets, farmers will have a much brighter outlook and they will be able to deal with the loans which they have accumulated.
Earlier today the Minister of Agriculture mentioned the 12 significant policy changes which have been made during the past four months. In my constituency, the average farmer will now save approximately $1,000 on fuel costs when he puts in his crop this year. It is a significant cut in the cost of production for farmers. That was one of the policies which was brought forward in the economic statement. The Minister of
February 5, 1985

Finance in the economic statement made important cuts in order to deal with the deficit in a number of departments. Flowever, in the Department of Agriculture the cuts were less than in other departments. As well, the economic statement included a fuel reduction of $100 million. That shows the kind of emphasis which the Government immediately placed upon the agriculture industry.
In conclusion I would like to note that while we had a motion which was put forward by the Liberal Party, very few suggestions were made by that Party as to how the Government should proceed. Therefore, I assume that the provinces-


Maurice Brydon Foster: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to ask the indulgence of the House because of the circumstances today where we heard the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) rather than the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif). Since it is our Opposition Day and we have only had three speakers while the Government has had four or Five, I wonder if we might not see the clock for 15 or 20 minutes so the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe might have an opportunity to make his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Hon. Member is saying. The combined Opposition has 70 Members and they had six speakers. The Government has 211 Members, close to three to one, and we had five speakers. I think that is a very fair distribution. If you wanted to go proportionately, we could have gone very much the other way and had more speakers on this side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There is not unanimous consent.
Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired in accordance with Standing Order 62(11).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a question that I asked on November 26 and the answer I received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It concerned two very important matters, that of the Venture project off Nova Scotia and the Hibernia project off the coast of Newfoundland. I was really not satisfied with the answer the Prime Minister gave, and since then the situation grows increasingly more confused with respect to the Government's policy on these two very important projects. These projects have the potential to create and maintain many jobs in the hard-hit Atlantic region of this country where unemployment is a tremendous problem and getting worse all the time.
The main reason this lack of direction exists, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no intention on the part of the Government to put forward a fiscal regime for these two very important projects. I asked the Prime Minister, concerning the Hibernia problem, when the agreement would be signed. What was the situation? He referred in his answer to an accord being worked out. An accord, Mr. Speaker, had been worked out. It had been agreed to in June, 1984, between the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Newfoundland. This was an accord between two buddies who supposedly are so enamoured of each other that they feel there is no problem in reaching an agreement. We had that accord in June and a second one in December, but we have yet to get the agreement. Where is this agreement? Supposedly the federal Government offered the Province of Newfoundland everything it wanted, yet there is still no agreement. This is taking far too long. The Government is not coming forward with answers to the question regarding Hibernia. It sloughs it off completely.
On a subsequent occasion we asked for the environmental impact study, and the Prime Minister said he would provide it. In response to subsequent questions from my colleague from Corner Brook someone in the Government said that there was not an environmental impact study and that all COG LA had was a draft of the environmental impact study. We are not getting answers to these very important questions. If these two accords between the two Parties are so unanimous, why do we not have an agreement at this stage?
This situation has now extended to western Canada. The federal Government said that there is now an era of compatibility and there will not be any problem reaching new agreements with the three western provinces. Yet on two occasions the deadline set by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has been extended. The Minister has undertaken to use the energy sector as an engine for growth. I agree that this is an extremely important aspect. If the Government looks upon this as an important aspect, why has there not been more of a concerted effort to reach agreements with the Province of Newfoundland and the three western prov-

February 5, 1985
Adjournment Debate
inces? There have not been negotiations with the Province of Nova Scotia since the agreement with the Province of Newfoundland was signed. There has yet to be a meaningful dialogue with the industry.
With these things in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government to make more of a concerted effort to bring these very important questions to a meaningful consensus.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it bothers me greatly to see the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) so perplexed. I am going to set his mind at ease right now so that he will have a wonderful evening and can relax.
On the matter of the Venture gas field, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) explained when the Hon. Member raised the question of the fiscal regime last November, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has advised the companies associated with that important development that the Government will ensure a favourable fiscal regime that will not place companies at a disadvantage in any way vis-a-vis anything that might have been available in the past.
It is incorrect to infer, as the Hon. Member did, that there is no fiscal regime in place to govern the Nova Scotia offshore. The Canada Oil and Gas Act, which was passed by the Thirty-second Parliament in December, 1982, clearly establishes an offshore fiscal authority which is applicable to Nova Scotia. That Act provides for a 10 per cent basic royalty on the value of production, as well as a progressive incremental royalty on 40 per cent of new profits over a certain level.
In addition to this framework, last June the previous federal Parliament passed the legislation formalizing the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement for offshore oil and gas resource management and revenue sharing. I am sure the Hon. Member remembers that, and he is probably briefing the Member for Hamilton East (Miss Copps) on that very agreement. That agreement provides for a mechanism to ensure that Nova Scotia receives, with the exception of federal corporate income tax, all revenue from adjacent offshore activity until the province's per capita fiscal capacity reaches 110 per cent of the national average.
That answers that part of the question. There is a fiscal regime in place for Nova Scotia. In addition, and of most importance, there are provisions for Nova Scotia to substitute for the present agreement any agreement made by the federal Government with another province which would be more favourable to Nova Scotia. The agreement, to be reached shortly with Newfoundland, and relevant provisions from forthcoming agreements with the western provinces, could be considered under this most favoured province clause of the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement.
With reference to Newfoundland, may I say at the outset that the Government remains firmly committed to the formalization of the Atlantic accord with Newfoundland. There is no problem with it and things are going swimmingly, as they might say in Newfoundland. We are very pleased with what is happening with the agreement.
Since our Government assumed power, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has met twice with her counterpart in very fine meetings. There is not the acrimony that we saw with the previous Government. As a matter of fact, both sides have shown a determination to work co-operatively and expeditiously to Finalize these very complex and vital arrangements. I do not believe the Hon. Member would want them to rush and make a poor agreement that would be detrimental to Newfoundland or to the people of Canada.
I can tell him that a third meeting between the Newfoundland Minister of Energy and the federal Energy Minister will take place this Thursday. We are most hopeful that great progress will be made. The negotiations that are taking place now are being held in the best of atmospheres. Progress is being made, and I know Canadians will be very pleased at the results which I am sure we will hear in the not too distant future. In the meantime, the people in Newfoundland, the oil and gas industry and Canadians as a whole will benefit from all the agreements that the Government is carrying out in a very conciliatory atmosphere.
I must say that my constituents and people to whom I have talked throughout the country are happy to see that. They do not want to see the provinces fighting with the federal Government as we have seen over the last number of years.


SOCIAL SECURITY-LA REGIE DES RENTES DU QUEBEC- CANADA PENSION PLAN-INJUSTICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1984, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) a question to which I did not receive a reply, a question that is of considerable importance to the region as it concerns the Regie des rentes du Quebec and the Canada Pension Plan. My question was that the Government of what used to be "la belle province" has changed the regulations for the Regie des rentes du Quebec and lowered the pensionable age to sixty, provided the individual is no longer in the labour market and agrees to a certain penalty, a decision that affects, and I think Hon. Members will agree, thousands of public servants in the Ottawa-Hull region.
I read, because this is quite subtle, that "if an Ontario resident works all his life on the Quebec side, he is eligible for benefits under the Regie des rentes du Quebec, while a Quebec resident who has worked all his life in Ottawa or Ontario is eligible only for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan which does not operate in the same manner as the Regie des rentes du Quebec in this respect."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this means that there has been injustice. I do not know whether this flaw could have been
February 5, 1985

detected or even existed when the plan was established. It seems that when the Province of Quebec decided to set up its own plan, it was to be identical to the Canada Pension Plan. That was one of the basic criteria established at the time.
Previously, 1 put this question to the former Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in March 1984. I could not do so before that time because what used to be "la belle province" changed the legislation on the Regie des rentes du Quebec as of January 1, 1984. The injustice apparent here is something we do not find anywhere else, where people in border areas are concerned. That is why 1 would like to know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), in the course of conversations with their provincial counterparts, intend to find a way to remove this injustice, these inequities for contributors to the Canada Pension Plan and the Regie des rentes du Quebec.
Of course, a person who lives in Quebec all his life and observes the rules and regulations laid down by the Province of Quebec and who wants to stay in Quebec, but is in a position where he has to work in Ontario all his life, cannot take advantage of such benefits as the province provides for its fellow Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I asked the Minister whether he was willing to deal with this flaw in the Canada Pension Plan and the Regie des rentes du Quebec. We must remember that this was done unilaterally, and that there were no consultations, as far as I know, between the authorities of what used to be "la belle province" and the federal authorities with a view to amending this legislation. So this was done unilaterally, and the question I want to put to the Minister is whether he is willing to meet with his provincial counterparts to talk about this very considerable flaw that has developed over the years, especially during the past year, with a view to eliminating this injustice, these inequities that are affecting hundreds of thousand of federal public servants, Ontarians working in Hull and residents of Hull working in Ontario, and get rid of this very discriminatory situation. That is why 1 wanted to get an answer from the Minister. It is not because there is any loss of money involved, because I hope the Canada Pension Plan reaches the same conclusion as the Quebec Pension Plan, because we put more people in the market and it does not cost the Treasury a cent more, for the simple reason that a condition, a penalty is added, I think it is 5 or 6 per cent between sixty and sixty-five and at sixty-five there is no increase in the normal rate. The cut remains until you are no longer drawing a pension. And the other condition too, the criterion as I said, is that the individual must no longer be in the labour market.
So I hope ... I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand), the Member for Brome-Missisquoi. I hope she will be able to
Adjournment Debate
provide an answer that will satisfy the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are caught in a situation that could easily be remedied.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) to note that in his comments he used the word "injustice" many times as well as the expression what used to be "la belle province", and I want to point out to him that the province of Quebec is still a "belle province". In reply to his question, I can say that we are indeed aware of the amendments made by the Quebec Government to the Quebec Pension Plan, making the payment of pension benefits available at age of 60, with an actuarial adjustment. You explained it quite well. This change, which has been in effect since January 1, 1984, allows contributors to the plan to receive early retirement benefits provided they leave their job. The pension of those requesting their benefits before age 65 are reduced by 0.5 per cent for each month remaining until they reach that age. It is very important to note that, because of the actuarial reduction factor, the amount of the benefits paid out over the lifetime of those who opt for early retirement is equivalent to the amount of unreduced benefits which would have been paid to them had they waited until the age of 65 to retire.
Since the establishment of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans in 1966, there have always been differences between the two plans. Early retirement is only one example of this. However, in spite of these differences, the two plans have always been considered basically similar.
As for determining under which plan the benefits should be paid, the rules are quite simple. Someone who has contributed only to the Quebec Pension Plan is protected by this plan wherever he or she resides. By the same token, someone who has contributed only to the Canada Pension Plan is protected by this plan, wherever he or she resides. For people who have contributed to both plans, there is an agreement between the Canada and Quebec Governments dealing with the payment of benefits. Under this agreement, a contributor to both plans who resides in Quebec at the time of his application for benefits is subject to the provisions of the Quebec Pension Plan. On the other hand, if he resides in a Canadian province other than Quebec at the time of his request for benefits, he is subject to the Canada Pension Plan.
I find it quite fair that all those who have contributed to a plan can equally benefit from it. This is why I do not see any need to amend the rules for the payment of benefits.
As for the question asked by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, I believe that his suggestion would be quite welcome in the context of the reform of the Canada Pension Plan which we supported during the election campaign and which would recognize provincial jurisdictions.

February 5, 1985
Adjournment Debate


MULT1CULTURALISM-IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. (B) ABELLA COMMISSION REPORT-DATE OF PRESENTATION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, on November 14 I asked the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism (Mr. Murta) a couple of questions dealing with the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Visible Minorities, and I followed with a query about the awaited report from Judge Abella. Admittedly and understandably the answers I received were quite tentative. I requested then the opportunity to speak further on the matter. Now, about two and a half months later and more than twice as far into the life of the present Government as we were at that time, it is appropriate to consider the record of the Government to this point. Also it is appropriate to inquire about the possibilities of early action and to press for that early action which various members of the Canadian community, visible minorities of all sorts, have been hoping for so long.
The report Equality Now focused on the need for action in a great variety of areas, but I want to focus particularly on the employment recommendations. Of course, the Abella report contained concerns about equity in employment. That was its main focus.
The record of the Government to this point has not been very reassuring. The recommendation to establish a Department of Multiculturalism never had the support of the Conservative Party. Presumably it will not be a policy of the Government now. That is to be greatly regretted because it is important to have someone responsible, a minister with a department and substantial resources, in order to achieve the ends for which so many Canadians hoped. Whether we will have a standing committee perhaps is not entirely in the hands of the Government. It is likely that recommendations 25 and 26 of the report will not be acted upon. One is tempted to conclude that we are likely to see the same contrast between rhetoric and reality which characterized preceding Liberal Governments ever since the policy of multiculturalism was enunciated in 1971.
Another area of concern is that of appointments to various boards, commissions and other offices which the federal government control. An assessment of the actions of the new Government, whatever the protestations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have been, again have been disappointing. There were precious few appointments of people from the visible minorities, from the ethno-cultural diversity of the country. However, I am pleased to see that Francophones and women fared rather better in appointments.
Recommendation 21 of the Commission still awaits action. The activities of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism vis-a-vis the National Association of Japanese Canadians in the last few weeks, focusing on recommendation 33 of the report, again arouse concern. There is no readiness to negotiate a very narrow concern about redress for that aggrieved
community. I only hope that my expression of concern proves to be unjustified.
These particular decisions by the Government in past weeks leave one concerned about the extent to which there will be action in areas of employment. Surely employment is ultimately the area in which there has to be action if the report Equality Now and the Abella report are to mean anything at all to Canadian society in general.
The various recommendations in Equality Now call for the early establishment of a five-year program by the federal Government with regard to the various corporations and institutions that it was involved with, a well formulated five-year program designed to achieve a measure of voluntary compliance and tests of it. As far as corporations doing business with the Government were concerned, the report called for contract compliance provisions to be established.
These recommendations in the Equality Now report were reflected in the Abella report in various ways, focusing on means by which equity in employment might be achieved. The judge has done a magnificent job in clarifying means in law and in institutions, in new provisions designed to smooth the way for a broader participation in employment among Canadians. These recommendations have had the support of various important bodies. The Canadian Ethno-Cultural Council and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have both recommended actions along these lines. I await the response of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) for his observations and to assure him that this Government is committed to ensuring that there is equality of economic opportunity for all racial and cultural minority groups in our society.
I want to inform the Member that the Minister has submitted a number of recommendations to be included in the forthcoming government response to the Abella report Equality in Employment. As he may be aware, a number of those recommendations dealing with the employment sector have also been identified in Equality Now, the report of the special parliamentary committee on the participation of visible minorities in Canadian society. These dealt primarily with barriers which impede the full participation of visible minorities in the employment sector.
The results of a recent study in Toronto entitled Who gets the Work?, which was funded by the Multiculturalism Directorate, demonstrates that job barriers faced by visible minorities as a result of racial discrimination are major factors in the job search for individuals from these communities.
I want to say at this time that this Minister and this Government are strongly opposed to any form of racism and will direct the necessary energies to combat it with all the means at our disposal. Indeed, I can say that with the conviction of one who represents a riding in Hamilton with a
February 5, 1985

multiplicity of ethno-cultural groups unmatched anywhere in Canada.
Specifically, this Government will work co-operatively with the private sector to encourage the elimination of discriminatory practices in training and promotion. With respect to programs offered by Employment and Immigration Canada to the private sector, consideration will be given to the designation of visible minorities as a target group. In the public sector, the implementation of special measures for visible minorities will be introduced where necessary, following a survey of public service employees in the spring of 1985.
Of course, since any policy dealing with the elimination of discriminatory barriers involves more than just the federal Government, a strategy which includes provincial, municipal and other non-government agencies is being developed.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) has already started consultations with his provincial counterparts
Adjournment Debate
in order to have included in the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on multiculturalism a broad discussion dealing with the area of attitudinal and institutional change aimed at addressing a number of issues of major concern to Canada's cultural and racial minorities.
In conclusion, the Minister's multiculturalism officials have already developed a number of initiatives with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Labour Congress to develop specific programs to overcome attitudes and practices that create limiting and unjust situations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned.

Wednesday, February 6, 1985