1985-12-13

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, this past week we have seen over a thousand farmers on Parliament Hill protesting the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) have not kept their promises to establish a national tobacco marketing agency. On Tuesday of this week the comments of the Minister of Agriculture contradicted those of the Prime Minister on Wednesday that the delay in establishing the national marketing agency was due to a court injunction relating to the cost of production formula, and said that the delay was due to a lack of support by the producer groups from the five provinces concerned.
Berry Murray, the Chairman of the Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, said on Thursday that he now has letters and commitments from all five provincial producer groups to support a marketing agency. The Government has the support of these producers so why does it not move to establish this marketing agency? It is because it does not want a national marketing agency. That is why it has appealed the judge's decision on the injunction relating to the report on the cost of production formula.
Marketing boards do not fit into the Prime Minister's agenda on free trade with the United States. This is the first casualty on the altar of free trade.
How many more national marketing boards will be bargained away in the free trade negotiations? No one knows. However, we do know that the Government and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture do not keep their promises.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on September 9 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tabled before the House of Commons several documents explaining initiatives the federal Government intends to take in the area of public sector ethics.
Basically, we support those initiatives but let us not, in the process, go overboard and use public disclosure as a weapon to intimidate the public service.
I refer specifically to the requirement that all public servants declare their outside activities to a designated officer who has the right to make the decison on whether those activities are in conflict with the employee's duties and responsibilities. Does coaching a hockey team seem like an unacceptable activity? The guidelines do not say one way or the other, but a designated officer may.
The protection of democracy is the responsibility of this Chamber. 1 call upon the Government to review the procedures by which it will implement its public service conflict of interest guidelines. Unacceptable activities must be defined to give civil servants some feeling that they are not subject to the whims of their superiors.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, our Government had told Canadians it would create a new national consensus, spur the economic recovery and, finally, make it easier for all Canadians to become fully aware of the state of the nation.
Over the past ten days, ten editorialists from each of the ten Canadian provinces have attested to the fact that our national economy is back on the right track, and that Canadians throughout the country now readily close ranks and feel more prosperous.
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the editorials of the following newspapers-from the Pacific to the Atlantic: the British Columbia December 6 Times-Colonist, a positive report on de Havilland; the Alberta December 5 Calgary Herald, a positive report on the economy; the Saskatchewan December 3 Reader

December 13, 1985
Post, a positive report on our communications policy; the Manitoba December 5 Winnipeg Free Press, a positive report on privatization; the Ontario December 6 Toronto Sun, a positive report on the minimum tax; the Quebec December 12 Gazette and La Presse, a positive report on the Francophonie Summit; the New Brunswick December 3 Telegraph Journal, a positive report on the new alcohol legislation; the Prince Edward Island November 29 Guardian, a positive report on financial co-operation with the provinces; the Nova Scotia November 25 Chronical Herald, a positive report on deregulation; the Newfoundland December 3 Evening Telegram-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at the statement made in the House yesterday by the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) when he distorted the facts to the point where Members of the House and, indeed, the Canadian public were left with the impression that the Government had kept humanitarian supplies off a Department of National Defence aircraft bound for Columbia on a training flight.
I want to set the record straight by telling the House and every Canadian that all humanitarian supplies collected by the Saskatchewan Food Bank that met Columbian needs were put on board that Armed Forces aircraft. In fact one of the organizers of the Saskatchewan Food Bank, Mrs. Burke, has expressed her gratitude for the prompt and helpful response by the Canadian Forces in this matter.
In my opinion this is a fine example of what can be accomplished when Government and private organizations such as the Saskatchewan Food Bank collaborate together for the benefit of those less fortunate than ourselves. It is about time that facts were verified before such frivolous allegations are made.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, Quebec's petrochemical industry workers, mostly Gulf employees, had an opportunity to meet with the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
During the meeting the Prime Minister told them that Gaz metropolitan's bid was not serious.
Today, Mr. Armand Galipeau of Gaz metropolitan has contradicted the Prime Minister by stating that his company did submit a truly reasonable and serious bid as early as December 1.
Mr. Speaker, along with all Hon. Members, I am sure, I deplore the fact that the Prime Minister would choose to play games with the workers and be less than honest with them.
Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that Government Members will use today's questions period to shed light on the matter, and that the Prime Minister will apologize to Gaz metropolitan and the workers, if indeed he made a mistake.


DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE BY NATIVE PEOPLE LIVING IN URBAN CENTRES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the National Association of Friendship Centres officially released its final report on the Urban Research Project into Drug, Alcohol and Solvent Abuse.
This study found, among other things, that the problem of drug and alcohol abuse by native people who migrate to urban centres remain, tragically high and that no programs exist in those centres to offer specific assistance in either preventative programs or direct counselling.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has had a copy of this report for two months and has declined on three separate occasions to meet with representatives of the NAFC to discuss the findings and the necessary response to them. For a Minister who campaigned on a platform of more consultation with the Canadian public, this is a poor track record indeed. The following quotation from this report will, I hope, remind the Minister that his personal attention to this national problem is required immediately:
O)
The Urban Research Report tells of Indian men, ordered by the courts to refrain from alcohol consumption, who have sought death rather than face going "cold turkey", of women who have chosen to terminate seven-month pregnancies than discontinue their addictions, and of five year old children sniffing the contents of a can of PAM and suffocating.
Drug, alcohol, and solvent abuse constitutes a national tragedy. No group in society is more vulnerable or more affected than native people who have moved to urban centres. This Party calls upon the Minister for action.
December 13, 1985


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today the Polish community of Toronto and throughout the world commemorates the fourth anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland on December 13, 1981.
Recently General Wojciech Jaruzelski tried to gain some semblance of respectability by travelling to France, yet Poland remains a repressed state. There has been no attempt at reform to cure the economic malaise or the cultural and political repression. The Education Act of July, 1985, requires that all academics travelling to the West on exchange programs be approved by the Communist Party; 360 political dissidents are under detention; more and more citizens are being brutally killed for their opposition to the regime; and last month 40 outspoken opposition intellectuals were purged from senior administrative posts in universities.
General Jaruzelski is under the mistaken impression that by visiting western leaders he will be absolved of all wrongdoing and that memory is generally short in the West. The image of a uniformed lawman in dark glasses will not fade, certainly not in the minds of Poland's people.
Let us not be fooled by the extrovert image Jaruzelski tries to portray. There is no normalcy in Poland at this time. The grim truth is that repression in Poland is more intense. Today all Canadians must lend their support in spirit to the people of Poland. We join-


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


INCREASE IN PETROLEUM REVENUES AND EXPLORATION
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Ontario consumed 26 billion litres of oil and 660 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 1984. In my riding in London, Ontario, we look to our domestic producers for competitive prices and reliable supply, but under the NEP of the past, local supply in a depressed market could no longer be guaranteed.
Earlier this week a constituent came into my office with some startling energy statistics from the semi-annual report of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency for the first half of 1985. It revealed that petroleum revenues were up by 7 per cent; that cash flow had increased by 19 per cent; that this increase in cash flow was being pumped right back into upstream expenditures; and that reinvestment, capital expenditures, and exploration were all on the rise.
The Canadian oil and gas industry has entered into a growth cycle, unmatched even by our American neighbours, as a reesult of the new policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). Canadian supplies of oil and
natural gas are recognized as the most reliable supplies of any country.
I want to quote from a recent editorial in the Oil and Gas Journal, dated November 25. It reads:
The administration of Brian Mulroney is living up to its promise. Canada is better for it... A much more confident industry is responding by spending more in Canada.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EXPRESSION OF GOOD WISHES TO HON. ROBERT BOURASSA AND NEW QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to join many Canadians, especially those living in Quebec, in extending our best wishes to the new Government of that province and its leader, the Hon. Robert Bourassa, to whom we wish every success in achieving his objectives which have the approval of the people of Quebec.
The election of a new Government in Quebec marks the end of a period when all the energies of the Quebec Government were concentrated on separating the province, sooner or later, from the rest of Canada.
This philosophy of the Parti Quebecois Government was at the root of the many confrontations seen between Ottawa and Quebec during the past nine years. The constant conflict was due to the fact that even the slightest skirmish was used as a pretext to challenge Canadian unity.
All Quebecers listened confidently when their new Premier expressed the hope that before the end of his term, he would be able to sign the Canadian Constitution Act as patriated by the previous Liberal Government of Canada.
Quebec and its new Government want to make the Canadian federation work, and if symbols mean anything at all, Canadians will be happy to hear that their flag has now been restored to its place of honour next to the blue and white flag of Quebec.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, the latest economic indicators show that the economy of Quebec continues to progress steadily in 1985.
Since the election fourteen months ago, we have created 130,000 jobs, an average of 9,286 new jobs per month. The unemployment rate dropped from 12.8 per cent in 1984 to 11.8 per cent in November 1985. Between January and September 1985, the total value of building permits rose from $2.4 billion

December 13, 1985
Oral Questions
to $3 billion. The increase in capital spending will be around 8.7 per cent, of which 12.8 per cent in the private sector, in 1985. This last indicator shows that the private sector is responding favourably to the first steps taken by our Government.
According to a survey, 37 per cent of small-and mediumsized businesses intend to increase their capital spending by the end of the year. Furthermore, 26 per cent of these businesses intend to hire staff and 41 per cent to increase their operating capital.
The estimated value of delivered goods throughout the entire manufacturing industry increased $611 million between September 1984 and September 1985, an increase of 12.7 per cent.
Retail sales increased by 8 per cent between September 1984 and September 1985.
During the first ten months of this year, the bankruptcy rate dropped 13.1 per cent, compared with the same period in 1984.
These figures show once again that the economy's performance has improved considerably since the election-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that her time has now expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his prompt report to Parliament yesterday on the tragedy in Gander, Newfoundland, and to indicate to him that I am sure all Members of the House support the intensive and wide-ranging nature of the investigation that he has launched into yesterday's tragedy.
Canada enjoys one of the safest and best regulated air transport industries in the world. I am sure the Minister shares my conviction that we want to keep it that way. 1 would ask the Minister whether the investigation into the causes of the accident which will deal with Egypt, West Germany, and Gander, will also examine what effects deregulation of the airline industry in the United States has had on safety and maintenance.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the members of his Party in this very tragic
incident. As the Right Hon. Member knows, the investigation is being conducted under the authority of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, which is indeed an independent investigatory body. It would seem to me that, given the magnitude of the tragedy, it will be looking at all aspects of this very disastrous accident, and I think it is worthy to note as well that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has indicated that it will engage in a public inquiry to ensure that all aspects of this terrible tragedy are examined with thoroughness and the utmost intensity.


INTRODUCTION OF DEREGULATION LEGISLATION-REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a good answer and I commend the Minister for it. The Minister does, however, propose to deregulate totally the airline industry in Canada beginning in 1986. 1 understand that he is preparing a Bill modelled after the total deregulation of the airline industry in the United States, which began in 1978.
The Minister was informed by my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Papineau and the hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, last Monday night that the Liberal Party would be producing a dissenting opinion on the report of the Standing Committee on Transport regarding the issue of deregulation. Would the Minister agree to delay introduction of this legislation deregulating the airline industry in Canada until such time as there has been a thorough investigation of the effects of deregulation on air safety and maintenance in the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is really unfortunate that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is attempting to cloud this issue. We are not talking about deregulating safety standards in any way, shape, or form in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are talking about economic regulatory reform. I have stated time and time again that, if anything, we will be enhancing safety, as has been indicated in the past by the passage of the aeronautics legislation, which is the most progressive aeronautics legislation in the world. We have introduced amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, which, again, has the paramountcy of safety in mind. There will be further legislative measures to stengthen our ability to ensure that safety standards are maintained and understood.
As well, the right hon. gentleman might very well want to look at the record of statistics in the United States, which does not bear out the suggestion he implies that deregulation in the United States has caused more accidents and more casualties.
I would challenge him to check the record before he makes such an assertion.
December 13, 1985


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE STUDY EFFECTS OF DEREGULATION IN UNITED STATES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He is aware that members of the Transport Committee from all three Parties have indicated to him the timeframe given the committee to study the effects of deregulation of the transportation industry in Canada was indeed short and restrained. The Minister is also aware that for this reason, among others, both Opposition Parties are producing minority reports on the committee's work. Would the Minister agree to give the Transport Committee the time necessary to travel to the United States in order to study the effects of deregulation on safety in that country and report back to Parliament, before he introduces legislation deregulating the airline industry in this country?
I say to the Minister that the committee draws no conclusions in advance. The committee merely submits to the Minister that we have an obligation to learn from the American experience-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the Hon. Member's question is becoming a little long.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member's question. He is obviously confused about the process. The process that we are undertaking in terms of rewriting national transportation legislation is really unprecedented in this country. This Government has put forth a position paper for public debate. The legislation is not even drafted as yet. We are awaiting the comments of the standing committee and the reaction of the public. We will certainly welcome the minority reports, if that is what the opposition Parties choose to do. However, there is no legislation before the House. The legislation is not yet drafted. There will be ample time to deal with these issues.
I repeat, and I think the Hon. Member shares this view, that the urgency of moving to update the transportation legislation in this country to the effect that it will reflect the realities of the 1980s and 1990s is long overdue.


LENGTH OF COMMITTEE STUDY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member shares the view that we have to move with progress; but the Hon. Member believes we should do it with our eyes fully open. I wish to say to the Minister that he knows that this committee and members of it have requested an opportunity to study the effects of deregulation on safety in the United States. I would like to quote-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I quote from a witness-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is embarking on a long preamble. Will he put his supplementary question, please?
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister again if he does not agree that a one-month timeframe for a standing committee to study a document which took the Minister 15 months to prepare and release to the public is not unduly short. Would it not be worth our while to study the experience south of the border before we introduce deregulation in the airline industry in this country? That is all we ask, with no conclusions drawn before we have had a chance to look at the record south of the border.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to stonewall progress on the initiative that we have undertaken, so be it. That is fine. We indicated last February that we would move to reform the legislative and regulatory mechanisms which govern transportation in this country. We invited public response at that time. We produced a position paper. It has been widely debated. We've gotten the views of the Standing Committee. We've gotten the views of industry.
I understand some 177 briefs were submitted to the Standing Committee on Transport. I have had something like 150 briefs submitted to me personally. Surely that should form the nucleus of drafting the legislation.
All Hon. Members will then have an opportunity to debate the issue and to engage in further hearings, if that is the desire of the committee.


COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Minister that I said "members of all three Parties" and I indicated the time was too short. I ask the Minister if he believes that a Standing Committee on Transport which is studying the most important reregulation or deregulation of the transportation industry, visiting only three centres in this country and now being refused permission to go to the United States to study an environment where the experience has been in place since 1978, is an acceptable way to proceed? In a desire to help the process to produce better legislation, I ask the Minister to allow this committee to go south of the border to have a look at the experience in the United States before we proceed with legislation in this country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a member of the Standing Committee, and he may very well be on the Steering Committee. With his Johnny-come-lately attitude, perhaps he may want to go back to the Steering Committee and make that a formal request. That is the process which should be followed.
I don't dictate what the Standing fcommittee does. It should be done through the aegis of the Chairman of the Steering Committee. The Hon. Member should know that.

December 1 3, 1985
Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS


SALE OF DE HAVILLAND-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. There are a large number of unanswered questions with respect to the Government's sale of de Havilland aircraft to Boeing, and those questions must be answered before that deal goes through.


Mr. Deans:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rodriguez:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Will Parliament be able to review the memorandum of understanding with Boeing in the de Havilland sale before the deal is closed? And if so, when?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about a lot of unanswered questions.


Mr. Fulton:: That's right.


Robert René de Cotret: In this House-


Mr. Gauthier:: That's par for the course.


Robert René de Cotret: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier says this is par for the course. It certainly is for this Government.


James Ross Fulton: That's right. Two strikes now.


Robert René de Cotret: In this House we have talked about price, valuation, book value-


Ian Deans: No, we've talked about it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We've talked about it.


Robert René de Cotret: -tax implications, credit notes, world product mandate, technology guarantees, Government equity, future Government infusion, royalties, product liability insurance, corporate liabilities, Government programs, Canadian content-


James Ross Fulton: What are you, a lexicon?


Robert René de Cotret: -supplier commitment, R and D, technology guarantees, insurance-


Ian Deans: You haven't talked about it; that's the problem.


Robert René de Cotret: -new investment, upgrading of the plant-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Robert René de Cotret: If the Hon. Member has further questions to ask, please ask the questions and I will answer them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the questions about all these matters, but the Government has refused to answer them or to refer everything to a parliamentary committee. These questions also concern the sale of Canadair.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TAX CONCESSIONS FOR BOEING AND DE HAVILLAND
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my second question is as follows: Are the figures for the tax concessions and financial benefits-estimated at $600 million-Boeing stands to receive as part of this transaction correct? If not, what is, according to the Government's estimate, the figure for the concessions and financial benefits we are giving Boeing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preamble to the question put by my hon. friend from Ottawa-Centre, I must say that it is entirely false. We have answered all these questions I just enumerated.
As for the Hon. Member's supplementary, it is entirely unfounded as well. There is absolutely no basis for the figure of $600 million. The agreements we made with Boeing and de Havilland do not in any way involve $600 million. I never saw this figure and never heard about it, and I would ask the Hon. Member to tell us on what he based his estimate. I know nothing about this figure.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to send the statement of the $580 million which we have calculated the Government will be contributing.


BOEING COMPANY'S REPORTED HIRING OF PROPELLOR ENGINEERS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question. Eight months ago the Boeing Corporation won a $2 billion contract from the U.S. Navy to build propellor planes. Does the Minister know that Boeing came to Toronto, set up shop at the Triumph Hotel, which is three blocks away from de Havilland, raided that company for propellor engineers, and hired away ten of them who have now moved to Philadelphia? They were propellor research experts at de Havilland. They are now working in Philadelphia in the company's research centre there. Is the Minister aware of that? Does he not realize that any multinational corporation can raid the technological resources of a branch plant or division in Canada? Does the Minister approve of that? What assurances are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that was two questions which were long enough.

December 13, 1985


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. However, what better way to prevent that than by having that deal, that natural fit between de Havilland and Boeing go forth? They will then have the expertise in-house and they will be able to use the technology, expertise, and engineering capacity of de Havilland to help their own exports in their own markets. That is the proof.


RESEARCH CAPACITY OF DE HAVILLAND
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister tells us that he has put enough facts on the table. However, as a result of this deal is there now an assurance that Boeing will not move the research capacity and talented bank of expertise established here out of our country? Has that been guaranteed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question yesterday. Not only will the R and D done at the moment by de Havilland in Downsview, Ontario, Canada, be maintained, but it will be enhanced. That is in the understandings that we have with the Boeing Corporation. Can I be any clearer than that?


John Napier Turner: Let's see the understanding. Let's see the document.


JOB SECURITY FOR EMPLOYEES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. He says that he welcomes questions on the de Havilland giveaway to Boeing. Well, he is going to get them.
Our third question is as follows. What assurances, if any, did Boeing offer the Government in relation to job guarantees and security for de Havilland's 4,500 workers?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, I think I have answered this about 10 times over the last few days in this House. The only guarantee for job security that one could reasonably expect is that which comes from a world product mandate; the ability to sell our planes throughout the world through a well-known and most successful aircraft manufacturer.
Let me emphasize for the Hon. Member's information that under Crown ownership there were no employment guarantees. The Member ought to talk to the more than 2,000 employees of de Havilland who were laid off when it was Crown owned. They will tell him that there was no guarantee at that point. Now, with the financial and marketing expertise behind Boeing, they will have more job security than they have ever had before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


UNION REPRESENTATIVES' REQUEST FOR MEETING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, our fourth question, is directed to the same Minister. Why did the Government refuse to meet with representatives of the United Auto Workers who requested a meeting weeks in advance of the sale?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago we announced our intention to privatize a number of Crown corporations. We reiterated that intention in the Budget of last year. We welcome any representation by any group anywhere in the country that may have any interest whatsoever in what we are doing on privatization. Those concerns will be considered fully in any negotiations that take place.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. We now know that in November, the President asked all Government departments to cut what was left of their budgets by another 1 to 3 per cent. Incidentally, a 3 per cent cutback amounts to one billion dollars, exactly what this Government will have to pay for the problems they had with the banks. I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he thinks it is fair that workers in Montreal East, women, the elderly, farmers and farm workers should have to pay for the bank fiasco that was created by this Government owing to its lack of surveillance in this area?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is exactly news that for more than a year, the Conservative Government has been trying to control federal spending and to reduce the enormous deficit we inherited from the previous Liberal Government. It is in the course of this exercise, an exercise that has been going on all year, that we asked the departments to reduce their daily operational spending by an additional amount, to ensure that funds not spent at the end of the year are saved to keep the deficit at I would not say an acceptable but at least a tolerable level, considering the legacy we received from the previous Government.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just confirmed that there will be at least a $200 million cut in job programs under unemployment insurance. I ask him again whether he thinks it fair that the women, the senior citizens, the farmers, the workers, and the unemployed of the

December 13, 1985
Oral Questions
country have their programs cut so that the Government can come up with SI billion to bail out the banks.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is totally false. I have never admitted, confirmed, nor said any word about the things contained in the premise of the question. I am saying that the Government is committed to good management, to maintaining expenditures within reasonable levels, and to reducing the deficit to make the country economically prosperous once again, something which was not done by the Party opposite when it was in Government for years and years before us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the President of the Treasury Board on the de Havilland-Boeing deal. This is our fifth question. How much has Boeing committed to the up-grading of the de Havilland plant? Why did the Government inflate its percentage of defence industry productivity program support to 50 per cent to help finance it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member well knows, as I have stated in the House time and time again, that the de Havilland Corporation, under Boeing ownership, will be allowed access to every existing Government program. It has committed to improving the Downsview plant in terms of its existing capacity. It has committed to making significant new investment in the productive capacity of de Havilland Canada. As such, it will be eligible for the Defence Industry Productivity Program which, as the Hon. Member surely knows, makes advances which are repayable to the Crown over a period of time.


INFORMATION PROVIDED TO PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, our sixth question is as follows. Why did the Government give Boeing access to financial information that it denied to Rim-gate Holdings of British Columbia?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to clarify a point. We have talked time and time again in the House about Rimgate from British Columbia or where have you. The major shareholder of Rimgate is a company from Europe called Fokker, which is a direct competitor of de Havilland because it produces a product similar to the Dash-8, a 50-seater STOL aircraft. Certain information on the competitive elements was withheld, but no financial information was withheld. I would just say that if Rimgate wants its offer to be discussed publicly, since I cannot
do it, let it make it public and then let the people of Canada compare it to the Boeing offer and see which is the best.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HATE LITERATURE
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Canadians of Ukrainian descent are being bombarded with unsolicited hate literature which is postmarked Moscow. Is the Minister aware that this literature is circulating in Canada and, if so, is he prepared to take action to stop this propaganda from filling Canadian homes?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I share his concern that this type of material appears to be circulating. I can give him my undertaking that I will immediately direct our officials to check the situation and see whether there are prohibitory tariff items which will allow us to check this material, and report back to him.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but, in his absence, I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government has imposed closure on several Bills, the most unfair being Bill C-70 to de-index family allowances.
The Opposition has been urging the Government to withdraw the Bill. Women, mothers, unions, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops just wrote to the Minister and asked him to drop the Bill. When will the Government do the honourable thing and withdraw this Bill?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is away on Government business this morning, may I say that we have had a very substantial opportunity to debate this legislation. Indeed, the study time in committee was extended by its membership in order to accommodate the representations that were made. So I say to the Hon. Member that we have listened to the representations and made a decision to proceed with this legislation in order that
December 13, 1985

we may put into effect the budgetary provisions contained therein.


BISHOPS' REPRESENTATIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated November 15 the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said:
-society must not succumb to an ideology of restraint that subordinates human dignity and human needs to abstract economic theory.
They are still awaiting a reply to this letter, by the way. Will the Minister do the honourable thing and, if he is not going to listen to us, at least listen to the special needs of this country at Christmas time?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, naturally these representations, made by a variety of groups, are important. However, we also have an obligation to redirect our resources to those most in need, the low-income earners with children. That is what this legislation is doing and we intend to proceed with it.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Canadians want information on the de Havilland-Boeing deal made public. They want it tabled in the House of Commons. Our seventh question is this. Why will the Government not table studies done by experts related to de Havilland's assets, studies such as those done by Reed Stenhouse, Burns Fry, and Arthur Andersen?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, for the seventh time to the seventh question, we will make all information available following the due process and procedures of this House. Apart from the full day which the Opposition took up on this topic in the House, there will be further and ample opportunity, certainly during the committee study of the estimates, to go through all the details of the deal. When the deal is concluded all the details will be available in committee.


PRIVATIZATION SECRETARIAT STUDY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the eighth question, and probably for the eighth time, is this. Why will the Government not table the study done by the privatization secretariat which reviewed the options surrounding the de Havilland deal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we as a Government are trying to give you all the information possibly available at this time.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Table those two agreements, that is all you have to do.


Robert René de Cotret: We will certainly not table cabinet documents in this House.


John Napier Turner: They are not cabinet documents.


Robert René de Cotret: We will offer you all the information to specific questions. Please ask them. You keep hiding under procedural issues. You have not asked a simple question in the last ten days. I will give you numbers.


INDUSTRY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I should think I do not have to explain to anyone in the House to what extent the Gulf refinery is, or rather was vital to the economy of Montreal East.
1 would like to know from the Minister whether Gaz metropolitan-many such rumours are circulating-did make an offer to purchase the assets of Montreal's Gulf refinery in November, and whether it is true that a more generous offer was made on December 1 to purchase these assets so as to keep the refinery operating and protect the jobs of the 450 workers?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not seem to be aware of the fact that the Government of Canada does not own the refinery in question and is therefore not in a position to accept offers for the refinery. If a potential buyer of the refinery had an offer to make he would, of course, have made the offer to the owner of the refinery, Gulf. Since, apparently, there was no transaction between any company other than Gulf and Ultramar, we can assume that the offer to purchase accepted by Gulf was the one made by Ultramar.
REPORTED OFFERS BY GAZ MfeTROPOLITAIN


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question I asked the Minister. 1 have asked a very simple question. Is it true that Gaz metropolitain made an offer in November and another offer in early December to buy the assets of the Gulf refinery in the east end of Montreal? That is the only question. Is it true an offer has been made?

December 13, 1985
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I just explained that if he wants to know if an offer was made for the refinery he should direct his question to Gulf. I was not made aware of all the offers made or rejected. This was a deal between one company and another company. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would not be involved in a transaction between two private companies.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, an unanswered question which has been put before.


Some Hon. Members:: Nine!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Okay, number nine. Why did the Government abandon its election campaign promise to create an aerospace strategy which would combine de Havilland and Canadair into one Crown corporation?


Robert René de Cotret: 1
have answered that, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: We did not get an answer.


Robert René de Cotret: The Minister of Finance talked about that. I talked about that. Obviously we looked at that alternative. It was judged not to be in the best interests of Canadians. It was judged not to be in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers. It was judged not to be in the best interests of the industry. It was judged not to be in the best interests of the employees. We found that the best deal we could possibly make was the deal we are making now with the Boeing Corporation.


SALE OF DE HAVILLAND-EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP OPTION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Number ten, Mr. Speaker. Why was the employee ownership option suggested by Frank Stronack of the CDIC rejected in the de Havilland deal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of selling de Havilland to its employees was looked at very carefully. It did not meet the basic criteria we were trying to fulfil, namely, to give de Havilland access to-


Ian Deans: To give it to a U.S. company.


Robert René de Cotret: Would you let me finish the answer, please?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: Do you want an answer? You have been asking me for answers all week. Do you want answers?
There were two important elements which had to be fulfilled: giving de Havilland access to a world-wide marketing organization of a first class nature-


Ian Deans: They already have that.


Robert René de Cotret: -and financial strength to go ahead with its R and D and technology development program.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if this is such a great deal for Canada, as the Minister has tried to outline this morning, why will he not publish the deal? Why will he not give Parliament a copy of the acquisition agreement and a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Boeing? If it is such a great deal, let us know what it is. Will he also let us know what conditions still have to be fulfilled between now and when the deal finally closes in about 80 days?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, all of the specific items that pertain to the deal were answered in the House earlier. They include the price, the book value, the tax issues, the credit notes, the world product mandate, Government equity, the royalties, the product liability insurance, the corporate liabilities, the Government programs, Defence Industry Productivity Program, EDP, Government content, supplier commitments, R and D, insurance, new investment. If the Hon. Member needs any more I will refer him to public information that was made available to all Members of the House.
It was reported again in the Financial Times this week. All the details are available. When the final deal is concluded, hopefully at the end of the year, the details of that deal which can be made public from a commercial point of view will be made public.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO SHAREHOLDERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the shareholders in this deal are the people of Canada through Crown corporations. The shareholders have a right to know the conditions against which their company is being sold. The simple and direct way to do this is to table the documents. What is he hiding?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the shareholders in this country are fully aware of what we are doing.


John Napier Turner: They sure are.
December 13, 1985


Robert René de Cotret: We are putting a cap on a bottomless hole that sank more than $830 million of their money into a corporation that has, to the end of December, a book value of $140 million and only because there was a capital injection of $200 million during the year. We are telling the taxpayers of this country that we are putting an end to an endless flow of taxpayers' dollars-an estimated $200 million into that company next year-and making it profitable and good for the employees and Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the Canadian Centre for Toxicology at Guelph. It is my understanding that the board of that Centre now intends to raise all of the capital privately in order to build the Centre. Therefore, will the Minister give some assurance that requests for research funding as such would be looked on favourably by his Ministry?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the matter very carefully and with a sympathetic eye. As the Hon. Member will know, the Government has put a high priority on toxicology research and in fact established a $1 million fund last February for that purpose, especially in the wildlife area.
However, we are conscious of the need to consider individual proposals in the context of an over-all program rather than making separate ad hoc decisions. The Hon. Member can be sure that the individual proposal to which he has referred will be considered in that light.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we have asked 10 questions intended to elicit information with regard to the de Havilland sale to Boeing. All that we have found out is that the Minister does not intend to tell Parliament the nature of the deal until it is completed. Why does the Minister not feel it appropriate that the Parliament of Canada should be given access to the documents that will result in the sale of the Havilland to Boeing prior to the sale being completed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We are selling a commercial enterprise under the terms and conditions that we have outlined to every Member of the House. When the final details are completed we will be more than happy to advise everyone
Oral Questions
in the House of the Commons, the dotted "i"s, the "t"s and so on. You know all of the information that can possibly be germane to the public debate at this time.


REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF INFORMATION BEFORE COMPLETION OF SALE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government not providing the information in advance of the deal being closed? Do you not believe that Parliament has a right to know what the Government of Canada is doing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, for once I find myself in total agreement with my hon. colleague. The Government has a right to know.


Ian Deans: Parliament.


Robert René de Cotret: I want to assure him that the Government does know.
The supplementary question will be obvious, Mr. Speaker. Very soon they will ask the Minister of Finance to refer his budgetary proposals to a cabinet committee before he presents them to the House. We are managing the Government in a management-like fashion. We are concluding a deal that is good for Canadians, and we will proceed with it.


RIGHT OF PARLIAMENT TO INFORMATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize that this is not a private deal among friends in the Cabinet? This is a sale of a public company to a private operation from the United States. Why does Parliament not have the right to know?


John Napier Turner: It is a very good question.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that it is a very proper question. When the Liberals purchased de Havilland why did they do so through a devious fashion and not introduce it in the House at all? The purchase was not introduced or discussed in the House. If it is such a good question, why did the Liberal Party, the Government at that time, not follow the advice it is preaching right now? Where are we?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy,

December 13, 1985
Oral Questions
Mines and Resources. Wednesday, the Prime Minister announced to workers that Gaz Metropolitain had not made a serious offer. Today, the people at Gaz Metropolitain are contradicting the Prime Minister's statement and saying that they did make a serious offer and they even mentioned that they were in touch with your office. Could the Minister inform the House who is telling the truth in this matter, the Prime Minister or the people at Gaz Metropolitain?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the Hon. Member that the Government of Canada does not own this refinery. Therefore, offers to purchase this refinery would not be made to the Government of Canada. Offers to purchase the refinery would, of course, have been made to the owner of the refinery, which was Gulf. At no time did I or any other member of the Government receive an offer to purchase a refinery that we do not own.


REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING OFFER-MINISTER'S ROLE
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister deny that her colleagues, the Conservative Members for Assomp-tion, Duvernay and Mercier, discussed the Gulf refinery question and the 35,000 barrels with Gaz Metropolitain in her office? Does the Minister want us to believe she was not aware of the matter?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is obviously forgetting that it was at my request that Gulf delayed the shut-down of the refinery for two months so that new buyers could come forward. This is certainly more than the Liberal Government had done for the three refineries that had closed down when the Liberal Government was in office. They refused to intervene in this way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Science and Technology, it is my understanding that the Government of Canada is to decide whether it will participate in the United States space station. I believe that not participating would be missing the boat. Will the Minister indicate when that decision will be taken?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a memorandum of understanding with the United States in terms of active participation by Canada in the space station effort. The Cabinet is presently seized with the proposal that 1 have laid before it, and a decision will be made some time next month.


DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Environment Canada's senior scientific adviser in Ontario, Doug Hallett, has resigned today after high level ministry criticism of him for sharing information with the public, especially via The Journal last week. Will the Minister request that Dr. Hallett stay on, and will he give Dr. Hallett the public vote of confidence that his dedicated work so clearly deserves?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am at a distinct disadvantage in doing justice to the Hon. Member's question, because I do not have a letter of resignation from Dr. Hallett. It may well be that in the last few hours he has indicated his intentions to resign. I have no information that such a resignation is related at all to criticism of his actions, much less from me.


INVESTIGATION OF ST. CLAIR RIVER CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret to have to inform the Minister that in fact the resignation has taken place, confirmed by his office this morning, and is tied to that criticism. Is it fair that Doug Hallett should lose his job while Dow Chemical prospers? Is it fair that communities down river from the blob should have to lose their faith in that investigation going forward with full support from the Ministry? Or will the Minister make an effort to get this key man back into the team?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I can give a categorical commitment to the Hon. Member that nobody within Environment to my knowledge- certainly not I-asked for Dr. Hallett's resignation, much less encouraged it. In my case, I have not even received it.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, December 12, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
December 13, 1985

The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) and the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), by filing with the Clerk of the House, also meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that you have responsibility for all the accoutrements in the House of Commons. For the last 12 days the halls were decorated very beautifully. It certainly added to the Christmas spirit around here and, by the way, it cost taxpayers $18,000 to decorate the halls. However, this morning I came along and everything has been removed- the red carpet, the Christmas trees and the lights. Does this have anything to do with the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) entertained last night, or is it that the Grits stole Christmas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The statement period was from 11 to 11.15 o'clock.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-80, I have the honour to report the Bill with amendments, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions from residents in the riding of Saint-Maurice who strenuously object to de-indexing of family allowances. As you know, pressure is increasing in this area. For instance, this morning we read in the papers that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has once again asked the Government to withdraw this Bill.
Petitions
I would like to table a third petition, this one from the people of Shawinigan South, and another one from the people of Shawinigan and Grand'Mere, asking the Government to stop this legislation which will have a very negative effect, especially on single-parent families, and emphasizing that Canadians want to keep the present system which is fair to all families in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table these two petitions on behalf of the people of Saint-Maurice.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The first group of petitions is signed by Canadians who are expressing their concern about the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits reaching $600 million annually by 1990. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases. The petitioners are principally from Ontario, communities such as Lakefield.
I assume that my second petition will meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. Some people did not include their addresses, but it is a petition called "Operation Justice". The petitioners ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) particularly to reinstate full indexation to the family allowance and the child tax credit, because they feel that the tens of millions of dollars which will be taken away will harm families.
I have another petition which is principally from residents of British Columbia.


Mr. Boudria:: Name them.


James Ross Fulton: Well, they are principally from North Vancouver, Burnaby and other areas of the province. They are concerned, as well, that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits will take $600 million away from children by 1990. The petitioners also call for the reinstatement of full indexation of the universal family allowance and for the Government to rescind its unfair tax increases.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions to present. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate fully the family allowance and child tax credit. The petitions have been signed by people in the communities of Downsview and Scarborough, Ontario, as well as people in the communities of Parson's Pond and Portland Creek, Newfoundland. They pray that the House of Commons will reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and will rescind the unfair tax measures which the Government is contemplating.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, workers at the CN Moncton shops are continuing their efforts to make the Government understand their concern about the

December 13, 1985
Petitions
jobs in these shops. That is why today, I am tabling a petition on behalf of more than 800 people in the Moncton area.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of Canadians. It is probably the first of many petitions to come. They protest the sale of the de Havilland Corporation to a company with headquarters outside Canada. In addition, the petition urges that the Minister and the Government make public the deal which apparently has been signed with Boeing, so that all Canadians can see what in fact the deal is all about.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have two groups of petitions to present. The first group deals with the unemployment insurance program. The petitions are signed by residents of Orillia, Ontario; by individuals in Stratford, Ontario; by members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Ontario; by residents of Dryden, Ontario, in northwestern Ontario; and by residents of Toronto. All the signatories to these petitions call upon the Government to withdraw its proposal that pension income should be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, because that provision is scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 1986.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my second group of petitions comes from residents of New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and British Columbia. All the signatories to these petitions decry the fact that the Government is deindexing family allowances. They call upon the Government to restore full indexation to the family allowances.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions on two different subjects. The first group of petitions comes from Regina, Saskatchewan, North York and Downs-view, Ontario and Victoria, British Columbia. Some 175 to 200 petitioners humbly pray that the House and the Government maintain full indexation of the family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have received as well a number of petitions containing several hundreds of names on an entirely different subject. These residents of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia humbly to change the schedule of the ferry service between Borden, Prince Edward Island and Cape Tormentime,
New Brunswick, back to its original schedule and to maintain services and maintenance as they were a year ago.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to avail myself of my right to present to Parliament a number of petitions. The first is entitled "Operation Justice, Families with Children". It is signed by numerous residents of North York. They ask that full indexation of family allowances be restored.
I have another petition from residents of Vancouver. They ask that full indexation of family allowances be restored.
I have as well a petition from numerous petitioners from Coquitlam and Burnaby who are asking that the indexation of family allowances be reinstated. People from St. Gregor are also petitioning Parliament to reinstate full indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it all these petitions deal with the same subject. The Hon. Member knows that he should simply indicate where they are from.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The last one deals with the same subject matter and is signed by residents essentially from Lake Lenore, Saskatchewan.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions concerning deindexation of family allowances. The first one comes from Brampton, Mississauga, Don Mills and Bramalea, Ontario. It calls for full indexation of universal family allowances and asks the Government to rescind unfair tax increases.
The second petition comes from Wai Kay Lai, Sin Fa Lai, K.K. Lai and Wai-Keung Lai. This is a Chinese-Canadian family in my riding who ask that family allowances not be deindexed because it will have a particularly bad effect on the poorest families. Of course, many immigrant families with several children will suffer particularly.
The next petition is from the Grandview community of Vancouver East. It states that family allowance deindexation will not be offset by the child tax credit and that this will have a particularly bad effect on women and children, especially single-parent mothers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it all these petitions have to do with the same subject. The Hon. Member should know that once she has indicated the subject once, the proper course of procedure is simply to indicate where the rest of the petitions are from.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the next petition is a different one. The undersigned ask the House of Commons to restore full indexation of family allowances and child tax credits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have just indicated to the Hon. Member that she should simply indicate in this situation where the petitions are from. Otherwise she is indulging in a
December 13, 1985

filibuster. Therefore I suggest that she indicate in about 10 seconds where they are from.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I was trying to point out that this is a different petition. It concerns the child tax credit. It also states that the budget measure will take away $55 million in family benefits by 1987. It calls for removal of these measures.
Finally, I have a petition from Strathcona by many new Canadian families asking that the Government reconsider and reindex-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Strathcona, thank you.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition this morning. It is a double privilege when one is able to present a petition in the presence of one of the signatories. This petition is from residents of Madsen, Red Lake, and other towns in Ontario who call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions in the same form concerning the matter of family allowances. These petitions are from New Westminster and Vancouver, British Columbia, as well as Brampton, Acton, and Willowdale, Ontario, and Riverview, New Brunswick.


Rodney Edward Murphy: How about one from your grandchildren?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Not at those addresses.
The petitioners ask Parliament to rescind unfair tax increases and reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances.
I have one other petition in different form from residents of Ward 5 in North York, specifically Downsview, Ontario, which asks the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation to family allowances and the child tax credit.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a number of petitions. The first is from Peterborough and Fraserville, Ontario. The second one is from Parson's Pond, Newfoundland. These two petitions request the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
The other petition I have is from "Operation Justice, Families with Children" and is signed by a group of citizens of Downsview, Ontario. It requests the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to reinstate full indexation of family allowances.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on the subjects of family allowance, child tax credit and unfair tax increases. The first petition comes from the Social Action Ministries of the Anglican Church of Canada. It points out that the cut-backs in family allowances and the tax increases are inequitable and unbearable in the face of budget hand-outs such as tax-free capital gains and greater RRSP deductions for high-income recipients. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to
Petitions
reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.
I have a similar petition from residents of Broadview-Greenwood, my own riding. I have a petition of similar wording focusing on family allowances and tax increases, from residents of Chatham, Ontario. Next I have a petition which focuses on family allowances, tax increases and the child tax credit. These petitioners are from Halifax and Dartmouth. [Translation]
Next, I have a petition from Ottawa residents who are asking to have full indexation of family allowances reinstated. [English]
I have further petitions focusing on family allowances from residents of Kingston, Enterprise and Amherstburg, Ontario. I have a similar petition from a number of residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario. I have another petition from residents in Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the Hon. Member to conclude briefly.


Lynn McDonald: I have another from Mississauga; another from Ottawa and Chatham; another from Dartmouth and Halifax. I have another petition from residents of Regina with a large number of signatures. Finally, I have some from a variety of places in Ontario including Chatham, Toronto, Salem and Newmarket.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions which also relate to a concern that Canadians from coast to coast have been showing about deindexation of family allowances. The first one calls on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases. That petition comes from Bramalea, Brampton, Mississauga and Weston.
The second petition comes from a number of residents in the City of Toronto and Woodstock. I have a third petition which also addresses the question of family allowances and calls on Parliament to rescind deindexation of universal family allowances. It is signed by a number of residents from the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, the next petition has been signed by many residents of Longueuil, Saint-Hubert and Montreal who insist, in French this time, that the full indexation of family allowances must be restored and that the unfair tax increases must be repealed.
The next petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with the same matter, namely the deindexation of family allowances, and it bears the signatures of people from the Montreal region-Laval, Montreal North, Saint-Louis-de-Terrebonne and Ville d'An-jou-who are all strongly opposed to the deindexation of family allowances.

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports
I have another petition also on the same subject signed by a number of Canadians from Kitchener, Woodstock-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the Hon. Member will be able to conclude. He has indicated that they are all on the same subject. Perhaps he might just state where they are from.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had done that. This is on the same subject and it is from Woodstock.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a couple more petitions signed by residents of the City of Montreal and related to the question of de-indexation of family allowances.

Finally, I have petitions from the West Island of Montreal, from Beaconsfield, Kirkland, Dorion, Chateauguay, St. Jean and Dorval, all of which oppose the deindexing of the family allowances.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill S-6 (from the Senate), an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a Convention between Canada and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I also want to say a few words on this motion to concur today.
One of the most serious problems facing Canadian agriculture today is the farm debt crisis. This report was presented to the House of Commons on April 1, 1985, and had a great deal to say about the farm debt crisis. The report was supported by the majority of Government Members and proposes among other things a massive program of farm agri-bonds to assist those farmers facing serious financial difficulty.
Today's farm debt crisis is the most serious situation which has faced Canadian agriculture since the 1930s. A recent report prepared by the Farm Credit Corporation identified
170.000	farmers, those with gross sales of over $15,000 and less than $30,000 from farm income, and gives a very scary picture of the farm debt crisis. The report indicates that
39.000	farmers face serious financial difficulty. These are not part-time farmers, these are the youngest and most technologically advanced farmers in Canada. On average, they have 10 or 11 years of experience in farming and are the most productive farmers in the country. Interestingly enough, they produce half of all the food produced in Canada.
The debt crisis facing Canadian agriculture is very serious. The FCC report came out a year ago in November and was recently updated, so this is not something that has been suddenly sprung on the Government. It indicates that of the
39.000	farmers facing serious financial difficulty, 5,500 have less than 15 per cent equity in their farming operations. The Farm Credit Corporation suggests that these 5,500 farmers, our youngest and most productive farmers, are technically bankrupt and that there is no way they can hang on to their farms.
There is a second group of farmers identified, those with a farm equity of between 15 and 40 per cent. The FCC study indicates that there are 10,000 farmers in that group and that they are experiencing serious cash flow problems in the order of shortfalls of $14,000 to $21,000 per year. We can see what a very, very difficult situation that group of 10,000 farmers faces. The third group mentioned by the FCC has a farm equity of between 40 per cent and 55 per cent and there are some 23,500 of those farmers. They have an annual cash flow shortfall of between $5,000 and $11,000 per year.
I suppose that if this were a short-term, one-shot occurrence, something might happen in the long haul. However, the report put out by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) at the Farm Outlook Conference this year indicates that realized net farm income is forecast to drop to $3.7 billion in 1985, down 14 per cent from 1984. Realized net farm income really has not risen very much over the past several years. That is why the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Commons prepared this report last April.
The report to which I just referred recommends, as the Government promised in its election campaign, a program of agri-bonds. This would be a program financed and operated by the Farm Credit Corporation. It would be used to assist those eligible borrowers, farmers in serious financial difficulty, and would provide funding at an 8 per cent interest rate for up to five years in an amount of up to $300,000 per farmer. The treatment of the interest expense would be non-deductible and the tax treatment of interest income would be non-taxable. The program would operate for one year. It would be a one-shot program but the benefits from the rescheduling of debt would be felt for five years.
The committee held hearings over several weeks. I believe that every major agriculture group in the country came before the committee to make presentations. We heard from the provincial Governments, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Ontario and Canadian Federations of Agriculture, the prairie grain pools, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Institute
December 13, 1985

of Agronomists and many other responsible groups. They all made their representations to the committee.
I think the views of Canadian agriculture groups and other non-agriculture groups were quite well canvassed. I hope that we will receive support from the House of Commons for concurrence in this report. This would be a signal to the Government that we want action in respect of the farm credit crisis. As the report of the Farm Credit Corporation indicates, without action there will be many young farmers-the real cream of our agriculture group-who will face the loss of their farms.
There is not one member of the committee who believes that farmers who have lost all equity can be saved by the program recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. There are some farmers with off-farm income who will probably not require any assistance. From its studies the committee believes that there is a group of farmers, possibly 12,000 to 14,000, whose situation is such that they could be assisted. I hope that the Government will take action. We fully expect that it will.
I believe that every member of the committee and every Member of the House thought that there would be action in the Budget on May 23. We were disappointed, as was every farm organization in the country, in that Budget. It took no action whatsoever with respect to the farm debt crisis. In fact, it worsened the situation because of the downward trend in international commodity prices. We had thought that there might be assistance in terms of the farm debt crisis. We thought there might be some assistance in terms of the input cost side of agriculture. In fact, there was little funding for the Farm Credit Corporation. Its budget was slashed from $494 million for the year 1984-85 to some $90 million for this year. The input costs were increased by nine cents a gallon effective September 1, which will cost some farmers $1,200 to $1,500. The sales tax will also be increased on January 1, which will not only affect farm fuels but all farm input costs from the cost of new tractors and new combines to all input costs which farmers have to face. In fact, the situation has been exacerbated.
The committee report also dealt with the question of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. A large percentage of farmers work off the farm. They are moving into farming or have to work off the farm. Many of them become caught in the maze of regulations with regard to section 31. In this respect the committee recommended an increase from $5,000 to $10,000 of expenses which could be written off against off-farm income. There has been no action taken by the Government in this respect.
One section of the report which the Government adopted is the section dealing with the capital gains exemption for farmers. Of course, this is not a measure which will affect farmers exclusively. It is something given to everyone. However, it was given to farmers initially and it is to be phased in for other sectors.
Committee Reports
We held our breath somewhat last week when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought in the minimum alternative tax. We thought that if the Government were to keep faith with its election promise this minimum alternative tax would somehow not break the promise in relation to the capital gains exemption for farmers. In fact, the minimum alternative tax nullifies a good portion of the capital gains exemption which was provided for farmers. Thus, we face the prospect of the minimum alternative tax being applied to all farmers. This is important because farmers depend on whatever equity they have on their farms when they sell it for retirement income and for pensions. Often they do not have enough actual cash-flow or free funds to contribute to a registered retirement savings plan. However, they plough back their profits into the equity in the farm. We now face the prospect of the minimum alternative tax applying to farmers and those who depended on the exemption will now have to pay the minimum tax unless they sell their farms within the 18-day period between today and the end of the year. That is the only way of which I am aware whereby they can avoid paying this tax.
I hope Hon. Members will support concurrence in the report. We we are aghast at the cavalier, callous and irresponsible way in which the document referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and prepared under the name of the Minister of Finance deals with taxation issues and agriculture. If there was ever a document that was stacked against farmers it is this document. It is entitled Taxation Issues in Agriculture. It portrays farmers in a most unfair way in terms of their financial situations. It compares, for instance, the net worth of the average farmer with an employed person. It compares the value of an economic farming unit with the value of a house owned by a homeowner. In this respect it takes the average value of a farm in the year 1981 and compares it to the average value of a Canadian home in 1977. Because of this, the popular press reports that the average farmer is eight times better off than the average homeowner. That is a most unfair approach. If a comparison is to be made, one should compare a farmer with someone who has a capital intensive business. This is what farmers face. Then, we have the media saying that farmers are eight times better off than the average Canadian.
A second aspect of the report which was carried fully in the popular press was with respect to the average farmer earning twice as much as the average Canadian. If the comparison were done with an average Canadian with a capital investment of $400,000 or $500,000, depending on the region of the country, I am sure no disparity would be found. In fact, I believe it would be found that the small-businessman with a similar capital investment is doing much better than the farmer. This is certainly true for the year 1985 in which the average realized farm income has dropped by 14 per cent.
The third unfair presentation which was made portrays the average farmer paying only half as much tax as the average Canadian. Of course, the whole document prepared by the Minister of Finance is negative toward any of these issues.

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports
I think the committee worked very hard, hearing from many responsible witnesses, and putting together a report which would be beneficial to Canadian farmers. Yet, the Government acted on the report in only one case, the capital gains exemption, and that was not exclusive for farmers and it was immediate rather than being phased in over a five-year period. However, much of the benefit will be nullified by the minimum tax which the Minister introduced on December 4 and which will come into effect on January 1. So there is not much time for the individual farmer to take advantage of the benefit.
There are many aspects of agriculture which make it urgent that the Government move on these several issues. The Minister has promised some action since last January on the farm debt crisis. We thought there would be action taken in the budget to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
On July 10, the Minister announced that he would bring in farmer creditor loan legislation which would allow for an independent review of farmers facing foreclosure. Unfortunately, there has been no action taken on the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. The Minister keeps promising action but there has been no legislation brought forward. I really gave up on the Minister about three weeks ago because he seemed to be waffling when the question was put to him in the House by another Hon. Member as to whether or not he would actually bring in that farmer credit arrangements legislation.
I brought in my own Private Members' Bill, Bill C-253, which would provide for farmers to apply to a court for adjudication. I would hope that if the Minister cannot get around to bringing in his own legislation, the Government would agree that my Bill be considered by the House of Commons and acted upon. The situation is urgent. I indicated that something like 23 per cent of our farmers face serious financial difficulty. That is an increase of some 4 per cent over last year at this time. The situation is not getting any better and I believe the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has made some good recommendations to the Government which would ease some of the pressure on farmers. The Minister should move on the farmer creditor arrangements legislation as well. The Minister has promised all these things and we really want to see some action by December 1 because farm credit loan payments come due now.
Back in September when the Minister put the moratorium on the farm credit foreclosures, they were running at 14 per week. There were 670 foreclosures awaiting action by the Government at that time. It seems to me that just putting a moratorium on foreclosures does not solve the problem. We must bring in a program of assistance such as was recommended by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I would hope that we would get concurrence in the House so we can bring pressure on the Government to act on these recommendations.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) what he thinks the effects of
a real debt set aside program would be, if it were brought in? I know it is not one of the recommendations, but it was discussed fairly extensively in the committee and there is a mention of it in the report.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when representatives of the Farm Credit Corporation were before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, they pointed out to us that in the current situation it is very difficult to write down a debt. If the corporation writes down a debt for one person, because it is a government agency, it has to write it down for all individuals who have debts and who would demand it. It seems to me there would be an advantage in a pre-bankruptcy or pre-foreclosure arbitration procedure under the guise of a court of law. In that kind of setting the FCC would be in a position, under the arbitration of a judge, to do that.
My Private Members' Bill, Bill C-253, foresees the possibility of a farmer, who is facing foreclosure, serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy, being able to apply to a court of law, and rather than the bankruptcy court, it could be done by the district court in each area. For instance for a farmer in Kenora-Rainy River who is facing serious financial difficulty of that magnitude, to have to come all the way to Toronto, if that is where the bankruptcy court is, would be a most unfair arrangement. So I would recommend that it be made possible for the farmer to make application in the county or district court in his area for an arrangement and that this very action, provided it was accepted by the court, would stop all foreclosures for a period of time during which the trustee would be able to arrange a meeting between the creditors and the farmer who is facing foreclosure. If they came to an agreement of a breakdown, a debt set-aside or a debt set-aside in principal for a period of time, that agreement then would be simply filed with the clerk of the court. The judge would not be involved at all. It would just be a binding civil agreement. Of course, it would have to be a viable situation where the farmer was left with enough working capital to continue his operation.
It seems to me that there should be provision for that kind of arrangement, because when a foreclosure or bankruptcy takes place, often the farm is tied up for several months, or even years. A lot of the assets are frittered away or stolen, or just walk away overnight. The FCC claims that in every foreclosure or bankruptcy its average loss is $90,000 to $100,000. Obviously, foreclosures and bankruptcies are not very profitable for the FCC and probably not very profitable or successful for the banks as well. I do not suppose the recommendation would be successful in every case, but it seems to me that in a lot of cases if the clock were stopped pending negotiation with the creditors, it would work. And I think there would be a 90 per cent or 95 per cent success in the Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act, but if it did not work, then it could go to a judge who could either arbitrate the situation or appoint a professional or expert panel of farmers, people from the FCC, people who are knowledgeable about the local situation and the viability of local farms. The judge would have to treat the creditors, the farmers, fairly, but an expert panel could make sure that the farm was viable in the long term.
December 13, 1985

I believe there is a place for this kind of legislation. It was before the House in June of 1984, and the Minister promised it in July of 1985.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I do not want to be argumentative, but I guess this is the place to be argumentative. In committee the need for financial institutions to take some risk in the operation was brought to our attention very forcibly on several occasions. The bankruptcy procedures and the attempts to solve the problem do not stop the clock. Does the Member not think that a debt set aside program which does not necessarily reduce the principle but deals effectively with the accumulating interest should not at least be the very minimum risk that a financial institution should take when making loans?


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think the Hon. Member makes a very good argument. In the pre-foreclosure arbitration procedure which I have been recommending, about 90 per cent of the arrangement would be a voluntary agreement between the farmer or fisherman and the creditor. It would simply be filed with the clerk of the court. If I understand the Hon. Member's question, if such a thing actually went to arbitration by a judge, it might well be proven that it would be unwise to ever write off any principal. The principal would be maintained but the interest would stop accumulating for a certain period of time. The value of such a procedure would be to have a voluntary agreement between the creditor and the individual facing foreclosure. Obviously, if you go through the foreclosure or bankruptcy procedure there will be massive losses.
Farm property values have dropped dramatically by 25, 30, or even 50 per cent. Obviously, if the property is sold through a bankruptcy procedure there will be big losses. The Royal Bank claims that its losses are in the order of $45 million this year. Should those losses be to the benefit of the farmer taking over, or should they accrue to the benefit of the person who has been farming the land for the last eight, 10, or 12 years and working his heart out to make it succeed?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are delighted that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) brought this motion forward because it will permit us, throughout the course of the day, to show the House and Canadians who might be watching how farmers and businessmen in the country are in very deep trouble indeed. They are in deep trouble because of what the Liberal-NDP coalition did to them from 1972 until the present. I will set that forth when we resume at two o'clock.
Other speakers from our Party will rise and show how concrete and positive action by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Government is getting farmers turned around. Prospects are more optimistic today than they were a year ago and they will be a lot more optimistic in another six months.
Members in the House appreciate fully why the Hon. Member is rising on a concurrence motion today. However, members of the public may not. I want to point out to them
Committee Reports
that this motion was filed on April 1, 1985. Therefore, the Member's sudden-found interest on December 13, 1985, is not due to any genuine, real concern for the farmers of the nation, because this motion has been sitting on the Order Paper for eight and a half months.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We were waiting for you to act on it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Government has moved on all sorts of issues. The only reason this motion is raised today is to allow the Opposition to waste another day. It is ironic that opposition Members would want to waste time on a piece of legislation that will give every individual in the land, whether or not they are farmers, a $500,000 capital gains tax relief. By virtue of their birth in this nation, everyone now has the right to build up a $500,000 pool of capital that the nation cannot touch. They can then be truly free from the ravages of Government. They can tell the Government to get out of their lives, that they have made their own pension plans and that they do not need the Government.
The Opposition does not like that, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt in my mind that the Liberal and NDP philosophy is to make everyone come to the Government for grants. They want everyone to be beholden to the Government, because that is control. The Conservative philosophy is to make everyone independent so that they can tell the Government to get out of their lives.
We know that the Opposition is not happy with the fact that the unemployment rate has dropped dramatically in the country and that interest rates have dropped. That has done more for farmers than any other action a Government could ever take. Interest rates would not be down if the Liberal Party were still in power. The National Energy Program would still be in place in this nation if the Liberal Party were still in government. Over the course of the afternoon we will be able to show how things are improving.
It is not only farmers who are in trouble, Mr. Speaker, but our senior citizens and our young people who want to build a future. How can you build a future when 30 cents of every tax dollar received by the Government goes to people who have enough money so that they can lend it to the Government in an absolutely guaranteed investment? If you had a million dollars, Mr. Speaker, why would you put it in a business when you could lend it to the Government and get an absolute guarantee of return with no risk or exposure at all? That is the problem.
We will show that for 15 years the Liberal Government turned on the printing press to make all sorts of lovely programs. With the low tax rate, people had a cash flow. They took that cash and paid too much for land and too much for businesses. Just as has always been the case throughout history, when a Government turns on the printing press it leads to inflation, which leads to high interest rates, which leads to an adjustment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports


Mr. Prud'homme:: Do you have something to say?


Mr. Kilgour:: I don't think you have either, Marcel.


George Albert Proud: No, do you? If you have nothing to say, I may have.


David Kilgour: Give us your point of order.


George Albert Proud: I just wanted to make sure that I heard correctly, because I was distracted by the Hon. Member from Edmonton.

Did the Hon. Member say that no Government ought to stay in office for more than 15 years? Because I think it bears directly on the remarks I intend to make later on. Is that what he just said, that after 15 years a Government should never-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest this is not a legitimate point of order.
In any case, it being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) had the floor.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, when we broke for lunch I had just begun my address. I was pointing out how the motion before us today is a concurrence motion that has been on the Order Paper since April 1, 1985. Therefore, I wanted to demolish, first and forever, the claim by the Hon. Member for Algoma that he was genuinely interested in farmers. The real reason the motion is before us is to block us from getting to the Orders of the Day which would allow us to pass a Bill that would result in farmers and everyone else receiving $500,000 worth of capital gains tax relief.


Don Boudria: Why didn't you move it earlier if you are so smart?


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Government wants every Canadian, from the moment they are born, to have the privilege and right of being able to build up their own $500,000 pool of capital that the Government cannot touch. Just to show how fragile that right is, it was barely presented in the House when the Liberal Government of Ontario moved in on it. People can be sure that whenever they elect a Liberal Government their personal pension plans will be in jeopardy.
Not only are the farmers in trouble, but so are senior citizens, young people and business people. Not only are farmers going bankrupt. The pure and simple reason for this is the direct result of 15 years of inflation. History has shown us that it has happened before with other Governments in other countries. Whenever a Government turns to a printing press for its money and at the same time becomes involved in deficit financing, just as sure as day follows night, there will be inflation, high interest rates and the adjustment phase such as this country is in now. It is my opinion from my reading of history that this Government is handling that adjustment phase better than any other.
The farmers are not guilty of any serious wrongdoing. They are the most productive members of our country. During the last 15 years, farmers have increased the size of their operations, increased their capitalization and their productivity. They have also been very creative in moving into other crops and making the adjustment far better than have other sectors of our society.
The segments of our society that have been unable to make this adjustment are those who have come under a public regulatory system, public grant system or subsidy program. Their adjustment phase has not stopped, but simply has been delayed. Those sectors face much greater difficulty when they come to that adjustment phase.
How were the farmers able to deal with that adjustment phase? The Government offered many popular programs while maintaining a low tax. This gave everyone the perception of being wealthy. The country seemed very prosperous because we had an enormous cash flow as a result of a low tax and numerous programs. People then paid too much for the land. For instance, in my part of the country, the price of land went from $100 an acre to $1,500 an acre. Even under inflated prices there was absolutely no way it could be paid for. Yet people had to buy because the cost would be even higher the next day. People also paid too much for businesses.
We were ultimately faced with the deficit as a result of the trickery and deceit which the Liberal-NDP coalition began on the Canadian people in 1972. We had the perception that we were well off while the Government was borrowing money. Beginning in 1970, some 5 per cent of tax revenue went to service the debt. It began to rise to 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent until over 35 cents of every tax dollar must now go to service the debt. This means that people with wealth can, with no risk, responsibility or exposure, simply lend their money to the Government rather than invest it to create jobs. Therefore, the rich become fabulously rich while the middle class is eroded.
I ask Canadians if senior citizens are better off for having had that 15 years of apparent affluence under all the programs offered by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The answer, in the long term, is no because we cannot allow that debt service to increase.
December 13, 1985

If everyone is better off from the deficit, why are so many people going bankrupt today? I recall the year 1969 when there was an absolutely balanced Budget. We used to have balanced Budgets in this nation. The $35 billion annual deficit is a product of the Liberal-NDP way of governing. We used to have a small national debt, with only 5 per cent of tax revenues paying that debt. At the same time we had all of the social programs, including old age security, Canada Pension and vast amounts of money going to our universities. Those of us who went to university had 10 jobs waiting for us when we graduated.
One must ask why these groups are going belly up when the Government has borrowed over $200 billion allegedly to help them? The fact is that Governments cannot proceed in this fashion. The irony is that the ordinary Canadian is the one who must always pay. That is what is significant about the election in September, 1984. While it is possible for Governments to get away with deficit financing to buy their way back into power from time to time, ultimately the people will realize what has happened and will regain their sovereignty. They took back their sovereignty in 1984 and that is why there are 211 Members sitting on the Progressive Conservative government side of the House. Canadians have exercised their sovereignty because they knew this deficit financing was jeopardizing not only their future but the future of their children and grandchildren. Canadians made an enormous statement in the last election, and I believe the Government is handling the adjustment process well.
It is clear that the deficit cannot be abolished overnight. The entire income tax system raises $35 billion to $40 billion. In order to wipe out the deficit through the progressive income tax system, taxes would have to double. Obviously this cannot be done because there would not be enough disposable income. I believe the Budget of the Minister of Finance is a very good combination of measures that will wipe approximately $4 billion off the deficit in this fiscal year and $8 billion next year. The deficit will not rise in a geometric fashion but will level off and begin to decline. While we are beginning to get positive results for the future of our children and grandchildren, the unemployment rate is declining because the Fiscal climate of the country has changed as a result of the election of a Conservative Government. People are generally optimistic about the future of this country and are therefore prepared to make an investment. This is leading directly to jobs, which is our main concern. Increased employment means greater tax revenue and less money spent on unemployment and welfare. We are in an upward spiral and at the end of three years this country will prosper. That is what makes the Opposition unhappy because they prefer to see people in dire straits so they could show how their Government, like the great Liberal Governments of the past, could save them.
Committee Reports
Dealing with the third report of the Finance Committee on tax issues in agriculture, I assure the Hon. Member for Algoma that the Government has acted and will continue to act. Subsequent speakers will explain it point by point, whether it be the capital gains tax and the freedom that will give us, drought payments, stabilization, the Farm Credit Corporation and its moratorium, the advisory boards to help make that adjustment phase fair to the banks and to individual farmers, the small business development bond which has been carried on, interest rates which have dropped, or Revenue Canada. I have not received a letter on Section 31 for weeks and weeks, because Revenue Canada is more fair, equitable and reasonable in its treatment of farmers.


Don Boudria: That is nonsense.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I have not received a letter for weeks and weeks on that particular issue. If he has received letters, let him rise-


Don Boudria: Yes, I have.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Let him send copies to the Minister.


Don Boudria: I have, and he has not done anything about it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Government is prepared to respond. For 15 years the Liberal solution to everything was to create a marketing board. The red meat industry did not want a marketing board. Within one year of becoming the Government, the Minister of Agriculture has a red meat stabilization program which he and the Minister from Ontario have signed. Hopefully other provinces will join very quickly.
I can continue by referring to the minimum tax which will not affect farmers. It will not affect anyone who has been paying taxes. The minimum tax will get those people who were not paying taxes because they had enough cash flow to takee advantage of all the "incentives" brought in by the Liberals. Now they seem to think they are loopholes. Those people will pay a minimum tax.
So that other Hon. Members can be heard, I will sit down. However, before doing so, I should like to move the following motion:
That the motion for concurrence be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Trade and Economic Affairs presented to the House on Monday, April I, 1985, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the said Committee and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have the power to amend the same so as to recommend expeditious passage of legislation to give effect to the budgetary measures providing for an exemption of up to $500,000 from capital gains for the proceeds of the sale of farm property."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, are there copies of the motion for us to study, in both official languages?


George Albert Proud: We would like to know what is going on this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know that Members are not required to present motions in writing in both official languages. I have a copy of the motion in English. Of course it will be circulated; that is perfectly reasonable. As far as 1 can tell, from looking at the motion, it appears to be perfectly in order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I take it that some of us would like you to read it, Mr. Speaker, so that we can hear the interpretation and find out exactly what the motion is all about.


Mr. Speaker:: Fine.


George Albert Proud: Very slowly.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), moves:
That the motion for concurrence be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs presented to the House on Monday, April 1, 1985, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the said Committee and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have the power to amend the same so as to recommend expeditious passage of the legislation to give effect to the budgetary measures providing for an exemption of up to $500,000 from capital gains for the proceeds of the sale of farm property."
Therefore, the question will now be on the amendment. On debate, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have a copy of the motion, if possible.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Your Honour has deemed the amendment quite in order. That is fine. As you were able to see, we raised no objection. Now, we were prepared to deal with the main motion, and to avoid Members of both the New Democratic Party and the Official Opposition being called out of order for failing to deal with the amendment-for lack of relevancy, as the English say-I ask the Chair to allow us a few minutes of silence, in a friendly manner consistent with the holiday spirit, in order that we may receive the motions and find out what they are all about.
We had not been notified, we were not at all aware that such an amendment would be introduced, and in order to avoid being called out of order for not speaking on the amendment, we should like to have a copy ... I see that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agrees with me. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) prefers to read the original of what he is supposed to deal with this afternoon, because he is much more able to do so in his mother tongue. 1 think it is only regular and normal-


Mr. Speaker:: Can I try to help the House, if I may? I take it that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who was about to rise on a point of order-and I am interpreting-was about to ask me to reserve my judgment as to whether the motion is in order until such time as he can see it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is my point.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I recognize the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides for the purpose of continuing debate. The motion will be circulated, and I will withhold a ruling as to the admissibility of the amendment in final terms for five minutes. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Filibuster!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is debate.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Even though I represent an urban riding, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the accusation levied by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) who has spoken before me, that we are involved in filibustering. Mr. Speaker, the amendment has just been moved and we do not have a copy of it in either official language, and we are already being accused of filibustering. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Hon. Member should be called to order and invited to be careful of what he is saying, because as representatives of urban ridings in Montreal and elsewhere, we have as much interest in the well-being of the Canadian farming community. I suggest the Hon. Member is foolishly accusing us of filibustering.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is well aware that this is not a point of order. Order, please!
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for raising that point, especially since the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills
December 13, 1985

(Mr. Thacker) accuses us of not liking farmers. I may remind the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, if he would listen for a minute-


An Hon. Member:: He doesn't know how!


Raymond Garneau: 1 had a chance to visit his riding not long ago, where I even met dozens of sugar beet producers in Lethbridge-


Don Boudria: And Taber!


Raymond Garneau: -and Taber . . . who were very concerned about what was happening in the farming sector. And if anyone here does not seem to be concerned, and, to speak with the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, doesn't like farmers or doesn't want to support them, I may remind the Hon. Member that he would be better off looking after the sugar beet producers in his riding who are out of work. That enormous plant that is usually a hive of activity at this time of the year is now empty. Dead. Nothing is happening. And what are farmers asking this Government to do? They are asking this Government to take a stand and to pay the money they owe these farmers according to plans known and approved by the Government and by all farm producers. How come the Government decided unilaterally not to pay these subsidies? That is one of the questions the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills should have answered, if he was so concerned about the interests of farm producers, and especially sugar beet producers, because that was one of the issues brought to our attention and discussed at length. At this plant, not only are sugar beet producers completely idle, not only are they in dire financial straits, but in addition, this plant that employed hundreds of people now only employs a few units to do the usual winter maintenance work. Mr. Speaker, this is appalling, and I think the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) would be the last person to make the kind of comments he made in this House. I believe today's debate is entirely justified, because since April 1, we have had a report before the House that has been adopted unanimously by all Members, with both regular and substitute Members numbering Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats in their ranks. For example, I see that a number of Conservative Members were in attendance, including the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns), the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell), the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent), the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson), and the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) as substitute member, therefore representatives from all regions, many from the Conservative Party, some NDP Members, and Liberals as well. This report, Mr. Speaker, which was tabled in the House on April 1-
Committee Reports


An Hon. Member:: It was unanimous.


Raymond Garneau: -and which was unanimously adopted by all Parties, what did it recommend? There were eight specific propositions in the report, and some of them concerned the matter of loans to farmers, for example, agri-bonds as they are called, offered to investors on special terms.
Some propositions had to do with the Farm Credit corporation, others were about capital gains, and I would just as soon have spoken to the motion rather than take part in the main debate because that motion is as hypocritical as they come, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Raymond Garneau: Yesterday the Chair admitted that the word "hypocrisy" was not out of order, but this one is really unacceptable because, as we are about to recommend a reference to committee to consider the impact or advantage of the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption, we are faced with a ways and means motion introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in which he announced a new minimum tax on capital gains, yet they were supposed to be exempt as a result of the May 23 Budget. It was announced with fanfare on May 23, and Conservative Members proudly said: This was one of our election promises, a $500,000 exemption on the sale of a farm. Well, Mr. Speaker, we found out later on that the $500,000 exemption was available to anyone, not just farmers, so that a bona fide farmer aged 30 who intends to sell his farm when he gets to be 65 will have financial operations like any other worker. He can have capital gains on his investments, and after reaching 65, when he sells his farm, if he has already taken his $500,000 capital gains tax exemption, he will no longer be eligible in spite of what our colleagues opposite tried to suggest during the whole budget debate, and more recently, after the announcement made by the Minister of Finance in this House. Indeed, I would like to suggest to farmers who want to sell their farm to do it right now, before December 31, because if they sell before that date and have a capital gain, they will not have to pay any taxes, but if they sell after January 1, they will have to pay the 12.5 per cent minimum tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Raymond Garneau: The Government will provide a tax benefit with one hand and take it back with the other. When the Government says that the farmers will benefit or when the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills tells us that we should reconsider the report to determine whether it would be better to grant a capital gains tax exemption of $500,000-


An Hon. Member:: Instead of $400,000.


Raymond Garneau: -instead of the $400,000 exemption recommended in the report, I find it completely ridiculous that this is

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports
all that the Conservative Government, through its spokesman, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, has found to shelve this report, which was approved unanimously by all committee members, including the Conservatives.
Why reject the work of the committee members? We can now see a bit more clearly what the Conservative Government is trying to do. The Conservative Members who were acting in good faith and who thought that they had a role to play as Members of Parliament went to the meetings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, analyzed the situation, heard representations by many people and groups and sat from March 6 to 27 for one, two, three or six sittings. They heard the advice of independent experts, they found that certain things were reasonable, and with the NDP and Liberal Members, they made certain recommendations to this House. Now, the Government sees that it is stuck with recommendations made by its own Members and it is trying to shelve those recommendations. It is the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, the great defender of Western sugar beet producers, who is now stuck with the dirty job of proposing that the report be shelved so that the Government can get rid of recommendations made by its own Conservative Members which it does not want to implement.
These recommendations contained in the report tabled in this House on the Is' ... Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member to my right can rise later and use his 20 minutes-


Don Boudria: To the extreme right!


Raymond Garneau: Yes, to the extreme right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are other Members, including the one who used to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance before losing his job, who could perhaps tell us at what date the Quebec farm producers will benefit from the rubber cheque of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle).
1 meet with Quebec farmers occasionally and this very directly involves financing, Mr. Speaker. I meet with farmers who tell me: We voted for the Conservatives because the present MP for Joliette, the present Minister of Public Works promised us a $13 million cheque. During the election he was going around waving a cheque that big, on which this was printed: "Pay $13 million to pork producers". Mr. Speaker, today is December 13, 1985, a year and a few months have gone by, nearly a year and a half since Quebec farmers, pork producers were promised that $ 13 million cheque, and they are still waiting for it. It seems that the cheque from the Minister of Public Works has bounced. The usual term for it is a "rubber cheque". I hope Tory Members from Quebec will address that matter.
But there are very serious financial problems in farming. There are people who say that this only concerns Western Canada. It is true that in Western Canada, because of the drought situation and the grasshoppers which plagued a major part of the crops, many farmers are in dire straits. But that
problem also exists in other parts of Canada. This is why Members who sat on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic matters have been well advised to make specific recommendations to the Government concerning farm financing, and it is clear that if the report were implemented, many sectors of the farm industry, many types of products and most farming areas in Canada would benefit.
Of course, even if there is no direct reference to farm marketing boards with respect to tobacco producers, it is clear that those producers, who were on Parliament Hill a few times these last few days, would benefit from the financing proposals that were made or the implementation of some of the provisions also concerning the interpretation of Section 31, for instance, by Revenue Canada. I am sure that many farm producers would benefit if we could only respond to the rather serious issue that was raised in that report concerning farm bankruptcies and the way we treat people in difficulty during the conciliation period, that is between the moment when the financial institution says it will tighten the screw and the moment when a concrete and specific step is taken.
[DOT] (M30)
Everywhere we went in Western Canada, all agricultural communities mentioned that problem-and on their behalf I raise the issue before the Government Members-the seizure of property and machinery practically carried out overnight in some cases. They are not trying to suggest that financial institutions have no rights, but they would like to be able to talk things over and see whether it might not be possible to find alternative solutions, not so drastic solutions which would give a fighting chance to farmers who find themselves in a financial bind-and they do not deny that they are in trouble-more often than not because they acted on the advice of Government officials and experts from financial institutions. All they want is a little more time, something along the line of the private Member's Bill sponsored by my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Foster). I hope the Government will take it under consideration, a form of cushioning measure we might say, to avoid situations such as a farmer being seized overnight and losing some of his machinery or part of his herd. The report does contain very good suggestions, but the Government might not be prepared to implement them holus-bolus. What we would like is to have somebody from the Government side-like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) or his representative, or again the person responsible for the wheat pool, or others like the Parliamentary Secretary- who would tell us why the recommendations cannot be accepted, including those concerning financial matters. Perhaps they will have perfectly acceptable reasons.
On thing for sure is that those recommendations were drafted after long studies and consultations with a number of experts. Should the Government choose not to implement the eight recommendations, or only some of them, it seems quite
December 13, 1985

logical to me that it should explain its position very clearly to Members of the House and the Canadian people.
Why, for instance, did the Conservative Party make recommendations during the election campaign-and I am sure you are familiar with the document containing 338 Tory promises? They made crystal-clear promises to the agricultural community, about the so-called agri-bonds, among others.
The Conservative Members who sat on this committee were so convinced that the Conservative Party's program was meaningful, that in the report submitted by the Committee on Finance, Trade, and Economic Affairs and dealing with agricultural financing, we find a recommendation made in the Progressive Conservative Party's campaign platform.
The report was tabled on April 1, the Budget was brought down on May 23, and the Minister of Finance failed to keep his election promises and failed to act on the recommendations made by his own Conservative colleagues who sat on this committee.
1 wish someone would tell us why your campaign platform promised farmers it would create tax-free bonds that would enable farmers to borrow at 8 per cent. Why did they make this proposal during the election campaign? Why did the Progressive Conservative Members make it again in the report tabled here in the House on April 1 ? And why did the Minister of Finance fail to include this proposal in his Budget on May 23? It would be interesting to know who is telling the truth when and why. Did he have a good reason?
I suppose they could take each of these proposals, like a number of proposals that are both in the Progressive Conservative Party's programme and in this report, and perhaps explain why they refuse to implement them.
Earlier, the previous speaker raised the question of the debt load. Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider for a moment and comment on what was said by the Hon. Member for Leth-bridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and I would like to say-I only have one minute, so I will have to make it short-that a Government that wants to fight the deficit and trim spending does not give billions of dollars to oil multinationals, it does not give tax benefits to people who are making billions of dollars in capital gains-to be forced to deindex family allowances for those who need it most. If they are concerned about the deficit, they should be consistent, and farmers who saw the same Government spend one billion to bail out the banks cannot understand why it refuses to implement the proposals contained in this committee's report.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we go to questions and comments, I wonder if we might deal with the admissibility of the amendment. I have accepted that there is a question and comment period. Therefore, on the admissibility of the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Committee Reports
Thacker), the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) wishes to make a comment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I confess that the time between the moving of the amendment and my making this particular point has not been sufficient for me to do an in-depth review of all of the many and various precedents which one might want to cite in a situation such as this. I do, however, want to begin by pointing out that it is unusual to have a motion put at this point to recommit, if one will, a motion already before the House back to a committee with instruction. In an attempt to find similar circumstances, I had to review the question as it is addressed both in Erskine May, Twentieth Edition and in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
You will know, Sir, I am sure, since you have looked at this on numerous occasions before, that the whole matter of instruction addresses itself almost entirely to the question of how one deals with Bills. There is no reference that I can find to how one deals with a recommittal of a committee report. I am making an assumption, therefore, which I contend should hold up, that the same rules that apply to the recommital with instruction of a Bill should apply equally to the recommittal with instruction of a report from a committee.
Having made that point quite clear, I hope, I want then to refer if I can, Sir, to page 229 of Beauchesne's, Citation 756 under the heading Instructions. The citation reads as follows:
An Instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do.
I contend that this instruction is out of order. It is out of order because the committee could, quite clearly, when it was deliberating, have done the very thing which the instruction proposes it should now consider doing. In fact, when this matter was before the committee, the option to do what the Hon. Member now wants the committee to consider doing was already before it.
One must assume that since all Hon. Members of Parliament are intimately familiar with the rules, the committee would have considered, or at least some members of the committee would have considered, the appropriateness of making the recommendation which the Hon. Member has now suggested it should consider making. Therefore, I would argue on the basis of redundancy that to suggest that the committee now do what it otherwise could have done, or at least to consider doing what it otherwise could have done and obviously rejected, makes the motion redundant.
To back up my argument, I would draw to your attention, Sir, in Erskine May a somewhat similar case which appears on page 545 where, though not using the word "redundant", Erskine May chooses to use the word "Superfluous". I think it fair to say, once again recognizing that there is no direct, identical comparison to be made anywhere with what we have before us, that we have to look at the rules as they are applied in similar circumstances.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are talking about a Bill.

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports


Ian Deans: It is talking about a motion. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of all learned Members, to "superfluous" in subclause (2) at page 545 which reads in part:
-notice has been taken that the powers proposed to be conferred by the instruction are within the competence of the committee, the Speaker has declined to put the question.
In a nutshell, my argument is quite simple. The House of Commons cannot second-guess its committee and ask it to consider something which it could have already considered but chose not to by way of a referral with instruction. I think that is quite clear, both from reading Erskine May and Beauchesne's.
I do not want to belabour the point. I am sure the weight of the argument which I have put before the House will render the motion, which is an interesting motion, out of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider it in light of the comments that I have made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is an important point which deserves the full and considered attention of the House. It should be very thoroughly considered. I would like to refer Your Honour to Citation No. 756 and Citation No. 757 on page 229 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Citation No. 756(3) reads as follows:
There are two types of Instructions-permissive and mandatory.
Citation No. 757(1) goes on to state:
The object of a permissive Instruction, which is the more ordinary form, is to confer on the committee authority to do something which, without the Instruction, it would have no power to do.
If we look at the wording of the motion it states:
"the Third Report of the Standing Committee ... be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the said Committee and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have the power to amend the same-"
It is clear from the wording of the motion that we are dealing with an effort to send the committee what the citation from Beauchesne's calls "permissive instruction". If that is the case, I submit that the motion is clearly out of order because it asks the House to instruct the committee that it has the power to amend a report that the House is now considering. Certainly, this is something which the committe already has the power to do and which it had the power to do at the time it was preparing the report which is before the House. I think we, as well as yourself, Sir, must take notice-judicial notice, if I may put it that way-of the fact that the members of the committee were fully aware of their powers and authority and, yet, they chose not to write a report covering the point in the motion, which its mover wishes to have the committee consider.
May I again say that the mover of the motion has not drafted his motion in a form which makes the instruction it seeks to give mandatory. The motion does not say that the committee must do what is in it and nothing else. In effect, it simply reminds the committee that it has the power to amend the report which is now before the House in a certain way. This is something that the members of the committee must
have known. The power in question is one which the committee has always had.


Ian Deans: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Therefore, I submit that this motion is out of order. It is a permissive instruction, or attempts to convey a permissive instruction. Because it does so in a way which attempts to confer on the committee something which it already has the authority to do, I respectfully submit that you must rule this motion out of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I am fully prepared to rule on the matter. I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will be arguing against the argument which has been made and I think I can save him the trouble. I am sure he has a creative argument to make. Both Members have made creative arguments thus far. I want them to know that I am sure it is not because today is Friday the thirteenth that we are getting into these types of matters.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) have made persuasive arguments relating to Citations Nos. 756 and 757 of Beauchesne's. I remind the Hon. Members that these citations refer to committees studying Bills and are therefore the instructions that the House may or may not give to a committee in advance of the study of a Bill.
I remind Hon. Members that they may want to refer to Citation 660 of Beauchesne's, which I think governs the matter rather successfully. Citation 660 reads as follows:
When the motion to concur is moved, the House may refer the report back to the committee for further consideration or with instructions to amend it in any respect.
That seems to me to be entirely clear. The point of that, I suggest to Hon. Members, is that the intention of the restrictions on the power to instruct with regard to initial study is logically to say that if a committee had the power to do something, it made no sense to give it an instruction to do that since it had the power. However, once the committee has reported, it has no power over its report; only the House has power over the report. I would like to suggest to Hon. Members that the House must have the right, in logic, to refer a report back for reconsideration of the report in whole or for reconsideration of any clause, otherwise the House would be bound to deal with only the report the committee submitted. Clearly, the House cannot be bound simply to accept or reject a report on a matter. The House itself cannot amend the report. However, it can clearly refer a report back for amendment, either minor or major, or for complete reconsideration. Those are the practices and traditions of this House.
The committee's right of decision on the matter is by no means constrained, no matter what the House has asked it to reconsider.
Therefore, I find the amendment entirely in order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reflect on your order in particular. I wish to draw to your
December 13, 1985

attention a point which I do not think has been considered. The citation to which Your Honour has been good enough to refer us states:
When the motion to concur is moved, the House may refer the report back to the committee for further consideration or with instructions to amend it in any respect.
I respectfully submit, Your Honour, that the motion before us does neither.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It does both.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It does neither. It does not ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member is now making an addendum to his earlier argument. I have read Citation 660 in total. I am perfectly satisfied that the amendment is entirely in order. I can find no other interpretation of Citation 660 other than to allow the House to send the matter back in any way or in any form for any consideration that the House intends.
Are there questions or comments with regard to the speech of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau)? The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) especially as they related to the situation in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). Although the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills said that things are much more optimistic today in farming than they were a year ago, the last time I had an opportunity to visit Lethbridge it was the first time in 60 years that it was not possible to plant a sugar-beet crop there. The whole sugar-beet industry in Canada is very much in doubt. It involves hundreds of jobs and thousands of acres of land. The central point is whether or not the Government will be bringing in a long-term sugar-beet policy and whether or not it will be making a stabilization payment for 1983. This has been in doubt for at least six months now. I know that the Hon. Member has been making great representations. We have been making great representations, as have other Members. Yet, the government fails to move. I am interested to know what the Hon. Member feels about this situation since I know he has had a chance to visit plants there to meet with the growers and talk about the entire situation.
The same problem which exists about the agricultural stabilization payment for 1983 for sugar beets in southern Alberta applies in British Columbia with the B.C. fruit growers. For the first time in history, the claim of the B.C. fruit growers for their agricultural stabilization payment has been adjudicated at 80 per cent rather than 90 per cent, which is doing the fruit industry in British Columbia out of $12 million this year. It seems most unfair that we have a Tory Government which comes in and just refuses to make those agricultural stabilization payments, which I believe is exacerbating the situation.
Committee Reports
The farm debt crisis is putting young farmers out of business, and I would just like to know the thoughts of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) because I know he is very interested in this matter.


Raymond Garneau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in the sugar-beet industry. For years, when I was sitting in another Parliament, my responsibilities kept me in touch with the sugar-beet industry. As you know, for years, in the Province of Quebec we had a plan. It was established in 1944. A certain number of farmers have been involved in this plan. Many families earned their living through the sugar-beet industry. Now they have the same kind of problem in Quebec that is being experienced in Lethbridge.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) will certainly recall, because he has studied the matter, that a couple of questions have been raised by the producers. First, they are angry at the Government because it did not pay the subsidies which were supposed to be paid to the producer, and those subsidies were for the 1983 production-not the 1984 production. Normally, this should have been paid in the fall of 1984 or early in 1985, but we are at the end of 1985 and those stabilization payments have not been made, and they should have been made according to a plan which was in force for years.
I do not know why the Government, which had that kind of contract with the producers, made the decision on its own not to pay in accordance with a plan which exists. The producers in Lethbridge are very angry at the Government because the money which is owed to them is being taken away. Second, the producers want an answer for the future. What will happen in the future? Will they be in a position to produce? Are we going to have a sugar industry in this country? This is the question which is on their minds, and it is the same question which the producers in Montreal are asking. The answer is in the hands of the Government. It is talking about a long-term plan or policy for the sugar-beet industry. But the industry may have to wait and wait and wait.
You know very well, Mr. Speaker, how important it is for your own riding that an answer be given to those producers. This is why I cannot understand the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) being so arrogant in his remarks. He is in a position to defend those producers. He should defend his riding instead of fighting against the former Government which was defeated on September 4. If the Liberal Government committed sins, it has paid the price. Now the responsibility is in the hands of the Tory Government. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills belongs to the Tory Party so he should bear a part of that responsibility. He should be just as responsible as this Party is because the problem has not been settled.
Those producers now have another problem. Some of the sugar beet producers want to sell their farms. They do not know if they will be able to benefit from the capital gains tax exemption.
9478

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills proposed sending this report back to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. That committee is actually discussing this issue. The Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is studying this issue now. We were there yesterday and we will be there next Monday to study the $500 capital gains tax exemption. I do not know how this report can be sent back to the committee when the decision is going to be made on Monday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), on questions or comments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. friend from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) on his excellent speech, and I would like to ask-


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I believe the rules are clear that when we are into the ten-minute question and comment period, the time is to be distributed equally between the Parties. You have already recognized the Liberal Party for the first question, Mr. Speaker, and the next question should either go to the New Democratic Party or to the Government Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quite correct in his interpretation of the rule. However, the only person I saw rise in the whole House to ask a question happened to be the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russel, and he has the floor.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate you on your ruling. It was very objective, as usual.
I have a question for the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Does he think it is appropriate for the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) to tell us that the economy of the farming sector "is doing better" at this point in time when the sugar-beet producers are going under in his riding, and when we have heard representation after representation from the constituency he represents telling us how badly the agricultural sector is doing under the Tory Government? Can the Hon. Member tell us specifically how anyone can say that the farming sector is doing better when there was a press release from the office of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), dated December 9, entitled "Farm Income Drops 14 per cent in 1985 to rise 1.6 per cent in 1986", when we know that the cost of living is going to increase by three or four times that much? Can the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides give us his opinion as to how the comments of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills relate to the information I have just given?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member gave the answer in his question. The only reason the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills spoke as he did is perhaps for partisan reasons, otherwise, I cannot see, after the 15 days I have spent in western Canada where I met with farmers, and after having
read, as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) did, the press release from the Department of Agriculture, how he could have spoken as he did. The Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) also spoke about borrowing, the debt, and the deficit. Unfortunately, I do hot have time in this debate to comment on that. However, the Member may rest assured that if I hade another 10 or 15 minutes I would be very pleased to discuss this and ask him a few questions about it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments in this debate. I think it is eminently logical for this motion to be before the House at this time. The report we are discussing was placed before the House in April. We were hopeful that it would be used in the Budget process and one of the recommendations made in the report was put into effect on May 24. We have waited for another six months and have seen no more action. I think it is, therefore, eminently logical for the motion for concurrence, which would instruct the House to take some action on the report, to be before the House at this time.
Before I go into the three issues which are considered in the report, I would like to say that we must look at the Financing of agriculture. However, the financing of agriculture is only one issue. We should take a global look at agriculture. We should look at the costs of inputs, the cost of financing, and the price of the products that are being sold. We put band-aids on finance and other problems in farming, the net result being that we have an increasing number of bankruptcies every year.
The Government has often said that things are improving greatly because there are fewer bankruptcies this year than last. The reason for that is that once a fellow is bankrupt, he is bankrupt, and does not become another bankruptcy statistic the year after. Consequently, there are fewer farmers who can get into the position of Finding it necessary to File for bankruptcy.
The Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) moved a motion which is obviously a delaying tactic. The Government does not want to vote on concurrence in something it does not want to put into effect even if it were concurred in by a majority of Government Members. The two members of the New Democratic Party were not entirely satisfied with what is in this report, but in order to give it the power of unanimity it seemed worth while to compromise to some extent and make it a unanimous report. It did not do us much good because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) took action on it only in the area of a capital gains tax exemption. It has been part of the New Democratic Party's policy for many years to have a $400,000 capital gains exemption for farmers only, not for Florida condominiums or speculative stocks. We suggested that small businesses and farmers be allowed an exemption of up to $400,000 as was recommended in this report.
The Hon. Member spoke of redundancy a little while ago. With that in mind we should take a good look at the amendment he moved to the motion. That amendment deals with the
December 13, 1985

one recommendation with which the Minister of Finance did deal, the $500,000 capital gains exemption. He dealt with that on March 24. How redundant can we get? We are to send this report back to the committee and ask it to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance for legislation which will provide for an exemption of $500,000 for farmers. The legislation for that is presently before the House.
It makes good sense for us to be debating this, Mr. Speaker, and it makes good sense to concur. 1 abhor the idea of the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills that we should refer this back to committee, therefore delaying concurrence and delaying the giving of instructions to the Minister of Finance to bring forward the recommendations which were suggested by the committee.
The farm economy has been suffering for many years. I suppose that the last few years have been the worst, maybe because we are getting down to the bottom of the barrel. From 1942 to 1952 we had what everyone in Canada considered to be a balanced economy. According to the available statistics, at that time Canadian farmers earned about 6.3 per cent of the national income as opposed to the national product. Since 1952 the income of the farming community has declined to less than 1 per cent of the national income. That is the basic problem with which we are dealing. We are not giving farmers enough return for their products. We can deal with financing and a number of other things, but the bottom line is that we must deal mainly with the return for farm products.
I was speaking about the lessening of the proportion of the national income earned by farmers in the last 30 years. Conversely, it is very interesting to note that in the period from 1942 to 1952 financial institutions earned about 1.26 per cent of the national income. In those days all sectors thought they were doing well. I suppose that in 1953 the economic situation in the country was as well balanced as is possible. Everyone, including the labourers, union and non-union, considered that they were doing pretty well. Since then the income of farmers has gone down by 85 per cent.
From 1942 to 1952 Financial institutions earned 1.26 per cent of the national income while in 1982 they earned 10.7 per cent of the national income. Last year they got 9.6 per cent of the national income. If you have been reading the papers recently, Mr. Speaker, you will know that the banks in Canada have declared the best year they have ever had, so they are obviously earning over 10 per cent of the national income. The portion of national income for the farmers has been reduced by 84 per cent while the banks have increased by 661 per cent. It is obvious that something must be done about financing. Since it cannot be solved entirely in this fashion we must take a global approach toward farming.
One of the three items on which the committee made recommendations was the possibility of agri-bonds. The committee supported that concept but the Minister of Finance has not acted on giving us an agri-bond program which would have provided relief to some farmers and made it possible for them
Committee Reports
to survive. The committee suggested a maximum amount of $300,000 per borrower for a maximum term of five years, with a yield of 8 per cent. This would have been handled by the Farm Credit Corporation and would have been tax free as far as the lender was concerned. It would have provided relief to farmers in dire straits.
The Minister has not acted on this recommendation although every member of the committee, including 16 Government members, unanimously recommended agri-bonds as a form of relief for farmers. Where are those 16 Tory Members today? They should be advocating that the House vote for concurrence in this Bill. Instead, the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills presented a motion to send it back to committee so that the Government will not have to react and vote against its own recommendations.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We will vote for the amendment.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The only reason the amendment was moved is to delay concurrence. It is a method of filibuster.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Read the motion.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: If the motion had been allowed to come to a vote, the Government would have had to take action on it. The 16 Tory Members who were on this committee would vote for this recommendation. It would have been a message to the Minister of Finance to implement an agri-bond system as the committee recommended.
The report also contains a recommendation about Section 31 of the Income Tax Act concerning mixed income for farmers. This relates to farmers who must work part time off the farm in order to survive. Some 25 years ago these farmers were allowed a possible $5,000 in deductible losses.
Recently, full time farmers have had to work off the farm. While he is still losing money, he is no longer allowed that $5,000 deductible loss against his outside income. Our recommendation in this report was very modest. We suggested that it at least be doubled so that the first $5,000 be recognized as a loss and 50 per cent of the next $10,000 be recognized as a loss for deduction purposes. Again, the Minister ignored this recommendation and 16 Tories would have voted against the Government and the Minister. That is why the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills moved the motion before the House, in order to delay the concurrence in this report.
The third recommendation of the committee concerned capital gains tax. We recommended $400,000 capital gains tax exemption. However, the Minister gave farmers, speculators and people with condominiums in Florida a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. The motion by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills is redundant. He has recommended that we send this report back to the Finance Committee and ask it to recommend something which the Minister has already done. The Minister has already implemented a capital gains tax exemption in his May 24 Budget and that measure is presently in legislation before the House. The motion means nothing because it is redundant. It is absolutely clear that this is a

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports
filibuster to ensure that there is no vote on concurrence in this report. A vote on concurrence will split the Hon. Member's Party because there are Members who support these recommendations and obviously those who do not because the Minister will not implement those recommendations.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) told us how farmers were having difficulty surviving at this time. 1 believe people across this country who do not know farmers are making a number of incorrect assumptions. They believe that since a prairie farmer has $500,000 worth of land he should be prosperous. However, the farmer cannot eat the land and will not be able to produce if he sells it. While farmers in southern Saskatchewan may have had an investment in their land worth $500,000 at one time, they do not have enough money to feed their families. Other farmers who used to depend on the production of their land in order to survive are suddenly finding themselves in a position where they can no longer make payments on their investment in that farm.
Farmers can no longer live on their equity. While they may be able to borrow on it, conditions such as drought and high input costs will not allow them to survive for very long if they begin to live on that equity. Those farmers who live on their equity soon face bankruptcy.
The committee's recommendations in this unanimous report were ignored. I suggest that it is quite proper, after being ignored for six months, to move concurrence and thereby instruct the Minister of Finance to take action on the two recommendations which he has ignored so far.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 was wondering whether the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) could comment upon another aspect of the matter with which I think we are dealing. It has been a desire of all Hon. Members to see some parliamentary reform. There is a desire that Members of Parliament become more capable of representing their constituents rather than being caught in the straight jacket of being a member of a political Party, of a Government or of an Opposition. Unless we are able, as ordinary Members of Parliament, to get out of these straight jackets, Parliament itself and the parliamentary process become more and more obsolete. We are the representatives of the people, first and more foremost. We deal on a daily basis with the problems of constituents back home. There is the basic belief that the system can only operate if the input from the people's representatives becomes the most important input in the decisions made by Parliament.
We have seen an honest attempt to bring about parliamentary reform. Surely a key element of that is to strenghten the committees, to allow greater independence by committee members and to sit together as Canadian men and women representing their constituents, not as governments Members or opposition Members or as Liberals, New Democrats or Tories. We were elected by our constituents to sit down together to tackle the everyday problems faced by them.
The Finance Committee is doing an important job. It recognizes a tremendous need out there. As my colleague has stated, it has brought together a modest package but an important package or a "first step" type of package. Now we hear the Government saying no to this basic form of parliamentay reform. It is refusing to deal with the recommendations of the committee.
Could my colleague comment upon what he feels this signifies? Does he feel that the whole experiment in reforming Parliament is in essence just a farce and window-dressing and that the Government has no intention of allowing individual Members of Parliament to have greater powers?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very philosophical question. He hit on a very important point. We were operating to some extent under the old rules in this case. I am sure there was a certain amount of difficulty on the part of Conservatives when it came to accepting the unanimity of the report, because it was not entirely in line with the basic philosophy of their Party. They looked at it, accepted it and reported to the House with the hope that the Minister would act on it.
I hope that some time in the future-and this follows on the question of the Hon. Member-a committee such as the Finance Committee can report and instruct the Minister, the Government or the Cabinet to take action. To some extent this kind of philosophy would be much more helpful.
The report had the backing of 20 Members who were perhaps not intimately related to agriculture but knew a lot about it because of their positions in the community. They hoped that the report would be acted on. Concurrence in it would have amounted to instructions to the Government to act on it. By not acting on it, the Government is making a farce of its so-called recognition of parliamentary reform.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) because he is from the Prairies. He realizes the difficult situation faced in the southern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan with regard to the drought this year. A tremendous opportunity would have been available if the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs had been adopted. It would have benefited some of those struggling producers. They would have benefited by the 8 per cent money proposed in the agri-bond program, which is an integral part of the third report.
I believe the Hon. Member has correctly assessed the amendment we are debating. In fact it is a deliberate move by the Government to pigeon-hole the report rather than to come before Parliament for it to be voted on. I do not believe many Hon. Members would vote against the report because it recommends an agri-bond program, as was recommended in the Conservative manifesto. The report recommends an agri-bond program on a case by case basis or on a selective basis to assist farmers facing serious financial difficulty. The amendment essentially pigeon holes the whole report and sends it back to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic

Affairs. That committee is already debating Bill C-84, to provide for the $500,000 capital gains exemption on the sale of farm property. It just avoids the question of concurring in the motion before Parliament.
I would be interested in knowing the views of the Hon. Member with regard to the minimum tax. Does he feel that some farmers who will be retiring feel betrayed by the minimum Tax? There was a promise to provide a capital gains exemption. As I read the minimum tax provision, it will at least apply, under some circumstances, to those who are not paying taxes otherwise. Many farmers, because of desperate economic situations, will not pay any significant level of income tax because the profits are just not there. They will feel betrayed if they should sell their farms, realize a capital gains and be caught up in the minimum tax arrangement, after the Government promised a capital gains exemption.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, members of the farming and small business communities have felt betrayed for many years. A large group of people across the country take what they make and return it to their businesses and farms in order to build them up. It was very logical to give them the exemption which allowed them to make use of the gain they had saved over the years. When they got out of farming or out of a small business, they could use the money as a little nest-egg on which to retire.
In the case of the minimum tax, it ends up being a typical situation of giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. I highly recommend that the Government move on it, particularly for small businesses and for farms. It should provide for certain capital gains exemptions of those particular types. Otherwise, the one recommendation which the Minister of Finance took from this report will have been negated by the minimum tax. The minimum tax is a good idea. It should be in place. However, if you do it to hurt the people who cannot afford it, then you go against what you said you were going to do.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak in this debate. I must say, though, that I wish I were speaking on the main motion rather than the amendment. Of course, the amendment was presented in an eloquent manner by my good friend and distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who obviously knows a lot about agriculture. He wanted the farmers of this country to benefit as much as possible from agricultural programs. He wanted them to benefit from the worth-while recommendations made unanimously by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. However, what did we see? An attempt to filibuster on the part of a Tory Member. He does not want this issue resolved. He does not want the farmers to have more. He wants to delay. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? A Tory Member attempting to delay legislation. That is something Government Members usually accuse Opposition Members of doing. Today in this House we
Committee Reports
have witnessed a Tory Member attempting to send a Bill back to committee because he did not want to deal with it. He would not have had the courage, the intestinal fortitude, to vote against a Bill which would have obviously benefited the farmers of his riding.
How did we get into this mess? How did we get ourselves into such a quandary? Let me review it for you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will remember this vividly and objectively, being the non-partisan person that you are. During the summer of 1984 the Tories made several promises to the farmers of Canada. Actually, they made promises to everyone.


Fernand Robichaud: How many?


Don Boudria: I may have brought it to your attention before that the Tories made 338 promises. I just happen to have here a little booklet entitled "338 Tory Promises".


Fernand Robichaud: Two hundred or three hundred?


Don Boudria: That is 338.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Were they sacred trusts?


Don Boudria: Some were sacred trusts and others were just regular generic Tory promises. Some, of course, were very important. A number of them were contradictory. Yes, 113 were to spend more money and five to spend less. Two were to increase revenue and 26 to decrease revenue. Then the Tories wonder why they cannot realize their election program. Small wonder. You do not do half of it if you try to do the other half. That is how bad it is. My good friend from Westmorland-Kent asks if there are any promises for the banks. They are not in here. Perhaps it is an oversight on my part. It does not say in here: "We promise billions of dollars to the banks."


Brian Vincent Tobin: Anything on capital gains?


Don Boudria: Yes, there is something on capital gains. There are all kinds of promises here for farmers. Let me remind you of some of those promises although I am sure you remember them most vividly because you were subjected to hearing that partisan rhetoric just as I was.
Promise number one in agriculture is to abolish the capital gains tax on the sale of farm property for continual agricultural purposes. Remember what that says, it is abolished provided the land remains in agriculture. What did the Tories do? They abolished it partially and for everyone, including the owners of racehorses in the U.S., owners of villas in the Caribbean, the owners of castles in Spain, or what have you. However, only partially for the farmer. Then what did they have the unmitigated gall to do? Last week, when they found out the tax breaks they were giving to their rich friends were unacceptable, they partially taxed back some of their rich friends but at the same time viciously attacked the farmers. That is the Tory record. They made promises to reduce the price of gasoline. Would you believe that from a Government which has raised the price of gas 18 cents a gallon since it was elected? The Tories also promised a system of agri-bonds for the farmers.

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports
They promises to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. Those are the promises listed in the book of 338 Tory Promises. Incidentally, if you or anyone else out there wants a copy of that book all you have to do is write to my office, no stamp necessary, and I will gladly send you or anyone out there a copy of the book of 338 Tory Promises.
Now, let us go a little further. On September 27, 1984, a report was made by the Farm Credit Corporation stating very clearly that action was necessary by the Government to resolve the agricultural crisis. Not rhetoric, not promises; the election was over. No more promises. From that point on we needed action by Tories. I know that is contradictory in a way, but we did not get anything anyway. On September 27 the FCC released this booklet called Farm Survey. Let me read some of it to you. It says that in January, 1984, the total assets controlled by Canadian farmers amounted to $116.3 billion. That was $1.2 billion less than it was some three years earlier. In spite of the fact that the price of everything was going up, the price of farm land was going down. The value of the farmers' assets was under downward pressure because of a difficult economic situation. It said-

And I read here in one of the tables, that over a three-year period, the farmers' net value fell from $99.8 billion to $95.6 billion, a $4.2 billion drop. This shows the kind of impact which the economic situation has had on farming.
And a little later, Mr. Speaker, in November, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) began slashing expenditures. Whom did they cut first? The rich? Not at all. Whom did they slash?


Mr. Lanthier:: The Prime Minister and the Ministers.


Don Boudria: My colleague says the Prime Minister and the Minister. Not at all. The Prime Minister's Office was increasing by 157 per cent at the same time ... Yes, 157 per cent. While they were cutting off $6.2 million from the dairy industry program, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, in a single move the Prime Minister's expenses were increased, and the grants to Canadian farmers facing financial difficulty, which I just identified very clearly were reduced. Something like $9.4 billion were slashed from the Department of Agriculture, which was providing very worthwhile services to farmers. What did the Tory Members do? They commended the Government. Is it possible to be that partisan, Mr. Speaker? The Tory Members commended the Government for cutting grants and subsidies to farmers.

The Tory Members of this House move around the place to sit behind cabinet Ministers. The surfers, as we affectionately call them, the people who came in with the tide and who will go out with the ebb-tide at the next election, why were they not speaking on that day? Why were they just sitting pretty behind cabinet Ministers trying to get themselves on camera? If they wanted to get themselves on camera why did they not
stand up and defend the interests of their voters? That is what they said they would do when they ran for office. No, the Tory Members did not do that.
Let me proceed. In January, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) allowed this particular document, Tax Issues in Agriculture, to be released. This particular document spoke of the fact that farmers were, in the Minister's view, not that badly off. The document indicated that the state of full-time farmers were relatively comparable to that of other sectors which included full and part-time workers, and that therefore they were all right. That kind of logic escapes me. Full-time farmers are compared to part-time workers and all kinds of other insignificant and ridiculous comparisons are made in this document. I would suggest that the Minister of Finance should have read it before he released it because his name appears on it.
In any case, the document to which I have just referred went to the people of Canada. I distributed 1,500 copies of it in my riding because I wanted the people of my riding to know what the Government was saying about farmers. Obviously this caused the Minister of Finance considerable embarrassment. He did not know what to do. After all, he had fallen into this trap. The Government House Leader decided that we would have a Standing Committee make recommendations that would serve two purposes. First, it would get the Minister of Finance out of trouble, and second, out of this we would create programs that would help out the farmers and the Government would be able to fulfil some of its campaign promises.
You recall, Mr. Speaker, the promises that I enumerated earlier. Some of them dealt with farm finance, Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, refinancing farmers in difficulty with the assistance of agri-bonds and, of course, the capital gains issue, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), just reminded me of very eloquently.
The committee came up with recommendations which are listed in this report here. That is why we are here today. Just to remind Hon. Members, we are here to ask for concurrence in a report that was agreed to unanimously by a group of Members of Parliament who sat on a committee. These Members from the Conservative Party, the Party that I represent and the New Democratic Party worked very hard. Much of the partisan rhetoric was left aside so that Members could concentrate on agriculture. I must admit that upon occasion, I became frustrated in that process but, nevertheless, in the end we came out with a report which made eight recommendations, three of which dealt with the issues I raised only a moment ago, the amendment of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to make it fair, refinancing schemes such as agri-bonds and the relieving of retiring farmers from the capital gains tax burden.
We have now settled what it is that we want to do today. All we want is to have the House concur in or agree with the fact that a Parliamentary Committee unanimously decided that
December 13, 1985

this kind of process would be beneficial for our farmers. What have we seen? We saw a Tory Member who represents an agricultural community, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), wanting us to delay that report. He is attempting to filibuster the process. Shame on him.
When the committee was making its deliberations, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made an excellent presentation to the committee. The Federation indicated that the $3.8 billion net realized income from farming in the year 1984 was 29 per cent lower in real terms, which means adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, than it was in 1979. The salaries of farmers have gone down by 29 per cent in five years. The Hon. Member across the way wants us to delay this process. What is he waiting for? Does he want everyone to go bankrupt?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite important that the Hon. Member who is speaking appreciate the content of my motion. The motion is to refer the matter back to the committee so that the committee can recommend expeditious passage because his Party is blocking things and is not letting us get to the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Don Boudria: First, Mr. Speaker, we are not discussing a Bill at this particular point in time. We are discussing concurrence in the very worth-while proposals that were brought to our attention by the very distinguished Hon. Member for Algoma Perhaps the Hon. Member across the way could listen. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as you said, that was not a point of order. It was not even a good point.
Let me return to what I was discussing before I was so rudely interrupted. On May 23, the Government presented a Budget. The Government made us wait the longest time in history before presenting a Budget and now we know why.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They laid an egg and it was rotten.


Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That gestation period was surely long but the results were not worth waiting for.
Regarding the Budget, the National Farmers Union said on May 28 the following:
There were a great many hopes riding in the farm community for some positive policies to surface in the May 23 Federal Budget which would bring relief to many hard-pressed farm families in financial distress. Instead, many are now faced with the threat of early liquidation and foreclosure.
That was the National Farmers Union's introduction to its comments on the Budget. Now the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills wants us to further delay implementation of the measures in which we are ready to concur today. He wants the committee to agonize even longer on the matter.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, of the resolution of the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture and what these federations had to say about the Budget. I will read this resolution to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are very interested in it. The resolution reads:
Moved by: Peter Romme Seconded by: Laurent Souligny
Committee Reports
Whereas Mr. Brian Mulroney during the last election campaign made a written promise to provide agriculture with long term-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I recognize the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that the Prime Minister must be referred to as the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, even when one is quoting from a document.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has a valid point. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on the same point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Do I understand the complaint is that my colleague was referring to the Prime Minister rather than to his title as Right Honourable for she is referring to the Prime Minister as being Brian Mulroney. Could she explain!


Don Boudria: I was reading from a document, but of course, I will say that the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Mulroney):
-during the last election campaign made a written promise to provide agriculture with long term financing at stable and affordable rates-
I know that this is embarrassing for Hon. Members across the way. The resolution goes on to read:
Whereas farm financing was not addressed in the recent budget,
Therefore we, the members of the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture jointly demand that the Prime Minister of Canada fulfill his campaign promises and be it further resolved that we demand that the cuts of 60 million dollars in the Agriculture programs announced November 8th 1984 and the proposed 50 million dollars cut in the May 23rd budget be cancelled and that full funding be immediately restored to the Agriculture Department.
This resolution was agreed to at a joint meeting of the Federations of Agriculture of the Counties of Glengarry, Prescott and Russell. They approved it unanimously. If Tory Members say that the Budget received over helming approval, the three agricultural federations of the riding which I represent sure did not feel that way. That is not what they said about those Tories. With what are we faced? We are faced with more bad news from the Tories-more bad news from a Government which has so savagely attacked the agricultural sector and everyone else.


An Hon. Member:: Come off it!


Don Boudria: In conclusion, I would like to tell Hon, Members that I am ashamed of the actions of the Government with respect to not wanting to help the farmers of the country, probably as all Hon. Members are. This is unacceptable. We need action from the Government. The farmers need help. We need help and we need it now from the Tories.

December 13, 1985
Committee Reports


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief in that I wish to hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Regina West.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He claims that he represents Regina and Winnipeg some days so I made a choice.
I wish to make a brief comment. I come from a part of the country in which we do not have as large an agricultural base as that which exists in the ridings of Hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. However, I do have a goodly number of farmers who are struggling to build an agricultural base in my province where the agricultural tradition is not a long one and where the industry is not all that developed. I speak of the west coast of that great Province of Newfoundland. In particular, 1 speak of areas such as Cormack, the Humber Valley and the Codroy Valley in Newfoundland where farmers are struggling to make a go of it. As one who does not profess to have a great deal of knowledge-at least as much knowledge as I would like-about this industry and as one who has sat today in this House in order to broaden that fledgling base of information which I do have, I found a great cloud of darkness and confusion being lifted as I listened to the eloquent words of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and, indeed, the words of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), as they made clear to me something which I found difficult to comprehend. That is to say that we actually have before us a report from a committee of Parliament containing the recommendations of all three Parties with regard to improving the lot of those primary producers in the country who give so much and put so much back into the land. Having produced this report, and having made eight recommendations in a spirit of non-partisanship, reform, renewal, hope, help and recognition of the contribution of farmers, we now have Members opposite refusing to implement the proposals put forward during a quiet, serious, sober and responsible moment by all three Parties.
I can only say that is a shattering realization for a Member such as myself who does not have a great deal of knowledge about this industry. I say that from the point of view of a Member who presumed that work in this place was goodwill from every corner attempting to improve the lot of all. It is a shattering experience, one from which I hope I shall be able to recover in due course.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell if he will join with me in stepping aside in order to allow my good friend from Regina and Winnipeg to give us the benefit of his wisdom this afternoon until four o'clock.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his excellent remarks. Without speaking any further, I know, of course, that the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) would want me to say all kinds of things with respect to transportation issues. However, I will
delay those remarks for the moment in order to give an opportunity to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to speak. He is obviously knowledgeable with respect to agricultural issues. He will give us the benefit of the information which he is willing to share with us at the moment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my experience in the House so far has been that whenever there has been a unanimous report from a parliamentary committee placed before the House a motion for concurrence has been moved and the mover spoke for a few minutes. Then, there would be some kind of agreement through various means with respect to there being no further debate and the House would unanimously adopt the report in concurrence with what Members from all Parties on the committee had to say. Today, that has not been the case.
There is not any other sector in our economy which has had to take lower prices and deal with higher costs than our farming and fishing sectors. All other sectors of the economy, whether it be doctors, lawyers, trade union members, bankers or whoever else have been able to set prices. They were price-setters and not price-takers. Members of our agricultural and fishing communities have had to be price-takers while their costs have increased.
The report which is being discussed attempts to deal with this unfair situation in our economy. The report deals with the problem of the capital gains exemption regarding farmers. In order to utilize this exemption a farmer would have to quit farming. A fisherman who wishes to take advantage of the capital gains exemption would have to quit fishing in order to do so. However, a speculator in real estate and land only has to sell a property to someone else for a capital gain and take advantage of the exemption. We have always advocated that as long as a farm, fishing or small business enterprise remains within the family there should be a $500,000 exemption. We tried to persuade the previous Government in this respect. It would not go along with us. However, the Party which now forms the Government thought it was a great idea a couple of years ago. We have not heard anything with respect to this subject since. It will give the $500,000 break to any and every one with respect to capital gains.
I invite the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) to blow the dust off his copy of the Carter Commission Report of 1966. A buck is a buck no matter how one earns it. When it is earned through speculative capital gains it should be taxable from the very first dollar. In the case of a family farm, a family business or a family fishing operation which stays within the family and is passed from one generation to the next, then surely capital gains should not apply unless and until that farm, fishing or small business enterprise leaves the hands of the family and is sold for a capital gain.
Another matter which needs to be dealt with is that with respect to the requirement upon financial lending institutions to renegotiate loans which are out to the farming and fishing communities in the country and implement interest rates of 8 per cent, as is recommended by members of the committee. There are still some loans out there with interest rates of 18
December 13, 1985

per cent to 20 per cent. There have been crop losses and falling cattle prices. Farmers are losing their farms and their machinery. They are not able to function. Lending institutions must be prepared to take the bad with the good, just as our farmers, our fishermen and our small-businessmen have had to do. They cannot have it both ways. They want to collect the top dollar and yet they are not prepared to collect fewer dollars when the person who owes them money is getting fewer dollars. Surely something along this line must take place in a civilized society no matter what political Party is in power.
The Tories across the way epitomize the whole business of greed and selfishness. They ask: "What is in it for me?" They say: "To hell with everyone else". In order not to step on the toes of its friends in the corporate and lending sectors, this Government will go along with that. There is no way that members of the Government will step on the toes of organizations which are hurting the very people they purport to represent. This type of tragedy has to stop. I hope that over the next few days we can resume debate on the report which is before us and pass it with the unanimous consent of the House without a vote. Then, the Government will have no choice but to act on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved:: That, pursuant to Standing Order 71(1), a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill with the objective of providing wheat producers with higher returns from wheat sales for human consumption in the domestic market place while avoiding undue hardship to processors and consumers and other wheat users.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present this notice of motion specifically on behalf of wheat producers in my constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek, but generally on behalf of all wheat producers in Canada. The intention this afternoon is to focus debate in this Chamber on the special question of what is a fair return to the Canadian wheat farmer and how can Government ensure that fair return without inflicting undue hardship on processors, consumers and other wheat users?
Wheat Prices
In using Standing Order 74(1), I bring forward a motion that this House appoint a committee to prepare and bring in a Bill to study the intention of providing that fair return to the Canadian wheat farmer. The report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons has clearly stated that there should be more importance attached to Private Members' Business. We all know that in the past, private Members' Bills seldom, if ever, came to a vote. In putting this motion, I ask that a committee be appointed in order that we can have all-Party input into the formulation of a Bill which, hopefully, can be passed and passed in the best long-term interests of all Canadians, wheat producers and consumers alike.
Since August 1 of 1980, the domestic wheat price has been fixed under the Canadian Wheat Board Act between a maximum of $7 a bushel and a minimum of $5. Canadian mills buy wheat at prices set within this range by the Canadian Wheat Board. The formula price is set based on an average of the Thunder Bay and Pacific export prices weighted by volume of exports through the respective ports. On September 15, the price for October, November and December, 1985, was set at $218.71 per tonne for approximately $5.95 per bushel.
In putting this motion, I want to address and identify clearly the farm income crisis facing Saskatchewan and Canadian agriculture, with particular reference to the grain farmer. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the Canadian wheat crop is marketed internationally and accounts for much of Canada's favourable balance of trade in agriculture. However, record world wheat crops have increased stocks, depressed prices and lowered the expected volume. In my Province of Saskatchewan there are approximately 66,000 farmers, and the average farm size is approximately 1,000 acres. The average capital investment is about $480 per acre. Last year, in 1984, Saskatchewan farmers grossed approximately $4.3 billion in farm income. Operating and depreciation expenses came to $3.3 billion, leaving a net realizeable income approximately $1 billion which, divided amongst 66,000 farmers, gives a per farm average of $15,000.
This year, 1985, projections are for $3.8 billion in cash receipts and $3.5 billion in operating and depreciation, leaving a realized net income per farm of $5,500. From this sum, the farm family is to make payments of principal and to meet all of their other expenses, food, clothing, utilities and so on. To sum up, then, in 1985, in Saskatchewan, realized net income before various agricultural support programs such as crop insurance, stabilization and drought assistance, is a loss of some $400 million. Total realized net income after these agricultural programs is $360 million or $5,500 per farm. This sum represents the farmers' labour. It also represents the return on a capital investment of almost half a million dollars per farm.
By way of contrast, the minimum wage in Saskatchewan is $4.50 an hour. At 40 hours a week, an individual on the minimum wage would receive some $9,360 per year without any capital investment whatsoever.
Moreover, the farm cost price squeeze is manifesting itself in lower farm land values. As asset values and equities erode,

December 13, 1985
Wheat Prices
so does the individual wealth of farmers, the value of the security they have offered for loans, their ability to borrow and to invest, and their everyday consumer buying power. The results, then, is that not only farmers but manufacturers, small business people and all those dependent on farmers also suffer. Clearly, it would be nice if there were an international minimum price for wheat, a substantial price in the international market. But Canada cannot unilaterally impose such a regime on the world. With export prices at depressed levels and facing ever increasing competition from other countries, the only hope for a reasonable price at this time rests with a domestic pricing policy.
Regardless of whether an international grain agreement can ever be worked out, we must seize the initiative internally, within our own country, to deal with the only aspect of wheat pricing over which we do have some control, namely, the price of wheat for human consumption within Canada. I, therefore, urge discussion and inquiry through the establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate whether the Canadian consumer ought not to pay a modest increase in the price of bread and cookies, on the understanding that the entire benefit, or at least the greater part of the increase, will be paid to the wheat producers.
Good wheat has an extraction rate of approximately 72 per cent. Therefore, one bushel of wheat weighing 60 pounds produces about 43 pounds of flour which, in turn, produces approximately 67 16-once loaves of bread. According to these Wheat Board calculations, a $1 per bushel increase in the price of wheat should only result in an increase in the price of bread of 1.5 cents per loaf.
Clearly, the wheat producer today needs $10 to $12 per bushel domestic wheat. A $5 a bushel increase would result in an income gain of approximately $367 million annually for wheat producers in Canada and would manifest itself in an increase to western Canadian producers of roughly 40 cents per bushel and something in excess of $1 a bushel for Ontario producers.
Not only would these increases provide an immediate shot in the arm to farmers but, in turn, to those who depend on the farmer; the implement dealer, the small business person and, indeed, virtually every other Canadian. Furthermore, as Carter and Schmitz pointed out in their paper entitled "Domestic Wheat Prices and Farmer Income", if the milling and baking industry passes 100 per cent of that $5 a bushel increase on to consumers, the price of bread should rise only by 7.5 cents per loaf.
Currently the farmers' share in a 24-ounce loaf of bread is less than two slices, not enough to make a decent sandwich. The farmers' share of retail sales value of products made from soft wheat is even less. According to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, the percentage value of wheat and sweet cookies is 1.1 per cent; in solid cookies, 2.7 per cent; in crackers, 8.2 per cent and in 100 per cent wheat cereals, 4.9 per cent.
We ask for a fair return to the producers for their wheat and a fair price to the consumer. We have serious concerns about
the effect of the various spreads and add-ons and margins which affect the shelf price of baked goods between the farmer and the ultimate producer. Even a cursory examination of the past will indicate that, as wheat prices have increased, so, too, have bread prices. However, have you also noticed that as wheat prices decline the price of bread continues to increase? Mr. Speaker, any way you slice it bread prices in Canada have in fact risen by some 50 per cent over the past five years while the price of wheat has declined by some 22 cents per bushel over the same period. It is imperative that ways be found to ensure that the bulk of any increase finds its way back into the producer pool.
According to Statistics Canada the Canadian consumer spends only 11.8 per cent of disposable income on food at home, or 15.7 per cent combining home and restaurant. We, as Canadians, have one of the highest standards of living in the world and I do not think it unfair or unjust to ask that the consumer pay a modest increase in order to subsidize the producer. Indeed, in 1980 and earlier years it was expressed, quite correctly I think, that the farmer, under the old two-price Wheat Act was forced to sell his wheat at a price well below the world price, which in turn subsidized Canadian consumers. Mr. Speaker, turn about is fair play. Now we ask the consumer to help out. In this country we have a cheap food policy. The percentage of our disposable income which we spend on food is the second lowest in the entire world, second only to the United States.
If a $10 or $12 domestic wheat price were instituted and the increase in a loaf of bread reached 10 cents, the average consumer purchasing 50 loaves per year would suffer an increase of $5 on his annual grocery bill. I do not think this would cause any great hardship. The cost of non-staple items such as beer, cigarettes, and liquor is continually increasing. People grumble, but they still buy.
If we, as consumers, do not help the Canadian farmer, we will eventually cut our own throats because we will eventually become dependent upon food supplies from other countries and at that time we will discover that there is a very real cost to food. We will all wind up carrying the economic and social costs of farm failures.
I was advised a short time ago that the Canadian Wheat Board has fixed the price of Canadian wheat at the mills for the next three month period. Indeed, there is good news because the increase is approximately 95 cents a bushel over the September fixing, with the result that the domestic wheat price under the existing program should rise to about $6.90 per bushel. While this is good news indeed, it puts the domestic wheat price almost at its limit of $7 per bushel. That, Mr. Speaker, is not enough and clearly does not meet the purpose of the motion which I have put before the House.
In April a Private Member's Bill was put forward by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) with regard to parity pricing. That was referred to committee by an all-Party agreement. The intention of the Hon. Member, to
December 13, 1985

secure a better return for producers, is a worthy one which I share. Clearly, 1 believe the price of domestic wheat should rise to a least $10 per bushel, but I do have a lot of difficulty with the concept of parity and all the complications which seem to attach to it, many of which were addressed in that debate. It is not my intention to debate the meaning of "parity" here. My notice of motion is simple and straightforward. It is directed at the domestic selling price of wheat used for million purposes. It can be a very simple program to administer and to implement and, in keeping with the rules pertaining to private Member's activity, it will not result in any cost to the Government.
The proposal, however, is not without some problems. I fear that the intermediaries between the farmer and consumer will seize the opportunity, as they have done in the past, to piggy-back substantial price hikes on to the wheat price increase. It would, therefore, be most desirable if the industry would restrain itself in these circumstances to simply passing on the wheat price increase to the consumer without building on to it. Should this motion be passed today, it would be the task of the committee to hear the various points of view on this.
Another problem area relates to imported wheat products into Canada and our exports to the United States. Obviously, some of our trade could be jeopardized and there would be an increased demand in Canada for imported wheat products, particularly on the west coast. This would be another area for the committee to address.
I noted with interest the proposal put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Shellen-berger), during the debate on Bill C-215 wherein he spoke of placing some sort of retail tariff on baked goods. While there may be some constitutional and legal impediments to this, again I believe the concept is worthy of study by the committee.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my belief that the farmer is the backbone of the country. There is no other sector which pays full measure for all to its inputs and yet has no say whatsoever on the price of its products. Since time began the farmer has paid the full price for combines, trucks, automobiles, and tractors. He pays full price for manufactured products and processed foods. In fact, he often pays more than the full price for many items such as clothing and shoes which have been protected by subsidization, quotas, and tariffs. All the farmer wants is his cost of production plus a reasonable profit. There is no other business or industry in Canada that does not require the same thing. How else can they stay in business?
Producers are interested in a fair price. They are not talking about forcing bread prices sky-high so that children will starve. Consumers in Canada pay less than in any other country in the world, save one. We ask a fair price today to avert problems tomorrow, both in terms of price and supply. Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion is intentionally quite narrow. It is not an omnibus Bill which is difficult to deal with. It is concerned with wheat, specifically the approximate-
Wheat Prices
ly 10 per cent of Canadian wheat production that is consumed in Canada by humans. It is not concerned with any vague concept of parity. It simply addresses the need to bump up the domestic wheat price as a shot in the arm to help save a productive sector of Canadian agriculture, the sector which faces a vicious cost-price squeeze.
I do not intend to use all of my time, Mr. Speaker, because I want to hear from representatives of the other Parties and, hopefully, to have a vote on this motion. I would like to close by saying that there is nothing unduly complicated about this matter, other than to avoid undue mark-ups in the processing and distribution of baked goods, thus to ensure that the consumer will see every cent of the proposed increase accrue to the benefit of the Canadian producer, those same producers who, in other better times, have heavily subsidized the consumer. I, therefore, respectfully ask all Parties to honour the spirit of parliamentary reform and to recognize the desperate plight of agriculture by supporting this motion for the establishment of a committee to bring in a Bill to provide for a higher domestic wheat price.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) for bringing to this House the excellent motion that he did. If I have any reservations about the motion they are not about the mover or his intention, but about what will happen to this motion assuming that Tory members of the House will not talk it out and will allow it to go to committee. Recalling the debate which took place only moments ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, it is only too clear to all of us that, notwithstanding the spirit of parliamentary reform to which the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek referred earlier, and notwithstanding the good intentions of Members on all sides of the House, many times our good intentions are lost. They are lost because, even though we sometimes pretend to have the spirit of reform, many times the parliamentary system is run by the wishes of a Government official, of a cabinet Minister, or of the Prime Minister against the wishes of the vast majority of the Members of the House. I say this to remind the Hon. Member not to raise his hopes too high even though I believe his motion is quite acceptable and one that all Canadians would easily accept.
I am a strong supporter of marketing boards and supply management in this country to ensure that our agricultural sector remains vibrant. Therefore, I can assure the Hon. Member that I support his motion and that I want the retention of our institutions which have been established to provide for fair and worth-while marketing of our agricultural products both domestically and externally.
The farmers of my constituency do not grow wheat but many other products that are regulated through various systems of supply management and other means. They are worried that with the Government's present spirit of deregulation they may be abandoned in the process. I trust that rather than being deregulated or lost, our agricultural sector will be

December 13, 1985
Wheat Prices
improved. The few areas of agriculture which have any kind of prosperity at the moment are those which have a means of controlling the return to farmers.
The motion today deals with the marketing of agricultural products generally but specifically with the marketing of wheat. I want to make my comments brief for two reasons. I think many Members should participate in this debate and I want to ensure that this motion today goes to committee. It will not be talked out by Members from this Party.
As the Hon. Member has pointed out, we know that the price range for wheat now varies between roughly $183 a tonne and $257 a tonne. The wheat that is used for the production of bread, although it is a small percentage of the total sales, is significant. If it was increased in terms of its relative profit potential it would greatly assist farmers. Indeed, the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has indicated to the House how small a return a farmer receives for the price of a loaf of bread.
There was a song written by Murray McLauchlan some time ago entitled "A Farmer's Song" which perhaps explains best the frustrations sometimes felt by the farmer. Part of the song says that at a time when everyone is taking so much, the farmer is the only one who has given anything back. That expresses very well and far better than I can, how important the agricultural sector is to our country.
We are told by the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) that a 60 pound bushel of wheat makes enough flour for 50 24-ounce loaves of white bread. The farmer's share of the price of one of these loaves is very small, not much more than one slice. The Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said very appropriately that it is not even enough to make a sandwich. The industry that makes the bread, the industry that transports it and those who retail it to Canadian consumers would not take one or two slices as their share. Otherwise, the farmers would have many more slices. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The Hon. Member is aware that the farmers are in a difficult squeeze at this time. His proposal today will provide some worth-while relief to wheat farmers but the problems of the farm industry are far deeper. I do not say that to demean the importance of what the Hon. Member has suggested because I feel it is worthy of our support. However, I want to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House some of the difficulties facing our farmers.
Let us consider the value of assets, liabilities and the net worth of farmers producing all crops. For instance, the net worth is increasing at a rate far less than the rate of inflation and in many cases the value of assets is actually declining, not even taking into account inflation adjustment. The plight of western farmers is even worse because of the difficult climatic situation they have had to deal with over the last couple of years. Yet farmers in all sectors are in a difficult situation.
My colleagues and I had an opportunity recently to tour western Canada. We conducted a two-week study of the crisis in the agricultural area. I can tell you that what we heard was
indeed testimony that came from the heart of the farmers and their representatives. Their story was not very cheerful. They face a very difficult situation in terms of their debt load, their return on their investment and the price of their product which seems to be going nowhere but down. Their input costs are increasing. The price of fertilizer is increasing unreasonably. The price of petroleum and other products which are used so extensively on the farms are constantly on the increase. Indeed, as was mentioned earlier, the real inflation adjusted price of wheat has lost relative value in the last number of years.
I hope other Members will make their comments brief in the spirit of co-operation so that this motion can be referred to a parliamentary committee today. I hope that the motion by the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek fares better than motions that I and others in the House have moved in an attempt to provide better farm financing help for farmers.
Earlier today Members of the House representing agricultural constituencies were faced with a situation whereby another Member, in his attempt to assist a cabinet Minister, introduced a motion to delay a measure that we wanted implemented to help the farmers. That does not speak very well for the reform of this House. It is my hope that we will not see this again, not only in the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek but in any other unanimous report of a parliamentary committee.
I wish the Hon. Member all the best. I hope his motion will pass today and that it will be sent to committee. I indicate to him my support as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, to ensure its swift passage in committee. Hopefully we will obtain unanimous concurrence in the House once the report of that committee returns.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes to speak on the motion. I support it, but there is much which could be said about this particular matter. My concern about the motion is that it is a little too narrow. For instance, the Hon. Member suggests that all wheat farmers want is the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. No truer words could be said about wheat farmers, but the same could be said about barley farmers. In my part of the country, barley is a more important crop than wheat. The same thing could also be said about canola, which is also a more important crop than wheat in my area. In his suggestion of parity pricing-and parity pricing is a recognition of the cost of production plus a little profit-the Hon. Member is putting before the House, and hopefully before committee, a recommendation which will assist a large group of farmers on the Prairies.
The Hon. Member made many arguments for parity pricing. These arguments have been made across the country before. Farmers do much more for Canada than many people realize. For instance, in the last few years, more than half or at least half of the foreign exchange which has come into the Government has been from the sale of farm products. In fact, a large
December 13, 1985

portion of that foreign exchange has come from the grain industry. If we suddenly had no grain to sell or we continued to sell it at an unprofitable level, as has been the case in the last few years, the amount of foreign exchange will be reduced and eventually we will be the captives of the countries to which we ship our grain.
We are asking the user to pay for the cost of production of wheat used domestically, plus a little more. The Hon. Member very eloquently made the point that that would raise the price of bread only a few cents, if it was transferred directly to the farmer from the miller. I could make the same point in terms of barley. If we increased the cost of malt barley by about $5 per bushel, 40 cents would be added to the cost of a dozen beer, as malt barley is used to make beer. Most people who eat bread, drink beer and use other Canadian products would be quite willing to pay the extra price if they were assured that the money would be going to the primary producers or farmers, not being diverted to middlemen along the way.
Farmers are an important part of our economy. I am glad the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) made a plea for assistance to farmers. I hope his motion, as well as Bill C-215, the parity Bill, in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), go before a committee or subcommittee where witnesses will be called. Then we will be able to look at it in the same way as we are presently looking at the stabilization plan and, hopefully, when a recommendation is made by the committee, the Government will act on it in a manner different from how it acted on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs regarding agri-bonds and Section 31.
We must remember that one farmer feeds approximately 72 people. If we pay him parity price, he buys the products and services on the market. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will recognize more than others in the House that if we pay the farmer well for his products, he will go out and buy a truck or an extra combine. A plant in Welland, Kitchener, Oshawa or Windsor has to produce that truck or combine. He will purchase products produced by the rest of the country. Sometimes I think we are bailing out the wrong people. Perhaps instead of bailing out Massey-Ferguson, we should be bailing out farmers, or at least paying them enough so that they can purchase the products they need.
There is one thing about farmers: They never let money stay in their pockets. One can tell the prosperity of a farm community by the number of pick-up trucks on Main Street. In a good year they are all new; in a bad year they are two years to three years old. We should assist the economy of Canada by ensuring that farmers obtain the cost of production plus a little more.
If the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is part of the committee, I am sure he will support the same kind of approach for other products; in fact, if possible, for all products. He suggested that it was complicated. Perhaps it is, but the situation will be much more complicated if we reduce the number of farmers out there.
Wheat Prices
In the last six years to ten years, the farm debt in Canada increased from $7 billion to $21 billion. In fact the 1983-84 figure is something like $28 billion. Even when farmers looked like they were prospering on the farms in the last few years, that was not the case. They were prospering on borrowed money. We must do something about that. The way to do it would be to give them enough for their products so that they could pay off their debts.
Earlier today I expressed, I suppose one could say, the horror of recognition that in the last 13 years the percentage of the national income of farmers had gone down from 6.3 per cent to less than 1 per cent, while that of the banks and financial corporations had gone up from 1.26 per cent up to over 10 per cent. Just last week the banks told us they had the most profitable year ever last year. The farmers had their worst year ever. There is something symbolic about that but we have to deal with that issue separately. We could partially solve it by making it possible for farmers to get enough of a return on their products to pay off that debt. In Saskatchewan in 1966 there were 85,686 farmers. Today the figure would be somewhere between 60,000 and 65,000. The interest on the debt I was talking about has increased over those same six years by 322 per cent. That has become a major part of the reason why farmers are not making a profit. 1 am using Saskatchewan figures because I am most familiar with them and we are talking about grain farming, and the cost of petroleum products in Saskatchewan in that period of time rose 284 per cent; fertilizer rose 218 per cent. Chemicals rose 274 per cent. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek suggested that the farm production has not paid for those increases. If you look back six years you will find the prices we were getting for farm products then were better than what we are getting now, not just for wheat but for all those farm products. The grain from my farm has sat out in a swath for almost two months. We got 50 bushels to the acre but we are selling it for a dollar eighty a bushel because it is almost unfit for human consumption and good only for feed. That will not be taken care of to any extent by this Bill, it needs to be taken care of by stabilization or insurance payments. However, this motion would make me and I guess the farmers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario who raise wheat feel much more secure than we do under present circumstances.
We as farmers are told we are producing too much. At the same time we are told that the people of the world are starving. Surely in this day and age of great advances in communications and transportation we can do something about that. Not too long ago experts from the Bank of Canada suggested that half the family farms in Canada should disappear. That is the kind of support we seem to be getting from some of the institutions which should be giving us a great deal of support. We should approach this whole idea of farm structure a little more globally. For instance, right now we are told that countries around the world cannot buy our wheat and other products. That is true, they cannot. However, companies

December 13, 1985
Wheat Prices
like Bata Shoe and Union Carbide go to those countries and produce shoes or other products which they ship back to Canada to be sold. They are priced here as though they were made by people who were paid the going rate for wages in Canada. I lived in Nigeria a few years ago and the going wage was 15 cents an hour for a worker in a Bata factory making plastic shoes. Those shoes were sent to Canada and we paid the same price we would pay had the shoes been made here in Canada. We have to do something about that. That is the kind of global approach we in this House should be taking.
I got a little off the subject, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to support this motion in the hope that it, along with Bill C-215, will go to committee where we will get the kinds of suggestions which will allow our farmers to survive. If we do not, we are going to have a lot less farmers than we have now. We have to do exactly what the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has suggested and give the farmers enough for their products to pay for the cost of production and leave a little bit for the farmer to live on.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the discussion on this very important problem. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) on his motion today. I would also like to allay some, not all perhaps, of the fears expressed by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) when he suggests that other grains should be included in such a Bill. It has been my experience that wheat has always been more or less a price-setter. When the price of wheat improves so does the price of other grains. Therefore I think we can set aside a lot of his fears if we take action on this Bill.
It is good to see that the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is supported by his political friends from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan as well as his friend in the neighbouring riding of Medicine Hat. That shows the strength and support the Hon. Member has in the presentation he makes today. In view of the fact that the Government is prepared to accept this motion as presented by the Hon. Member, may I call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek), seconded by Mr. Towers moved:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 74(1), a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill with the objective of providing wheat producers with higher returns from wheat sales for human consumption in the domestic market place while avoiding undue hardship to processors and consumers and other wheat users.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 4.50 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, December 16, 1985