1987-04-30

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that there have been consultations with the House Leaders, and it has been agreed that the House should resume consideration of the current crisis facing Canadian grain producers. The question now before the House is that of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House do now adjourn.
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King).


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly delighted to have this opportunity to join in this debate today.


Mr. Gauthier:: Where were you yesterday?


Frederick John King: I was frustrated in my desire to speak yesterday by the inability of the Opposition, which raised the question in the first place, to provide a speaker to maintain the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: It is rather ironic that the New Democratic Party which introduced the debate could not have someone here to carry it on. I am delighted to have this opportunity and I appreciate the effort.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: He is still not standing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members will want, after all the events of the recent day or so, to hear the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). I just want the House to know that I see the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the fog has cleared today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -and the view from the Chair is clearer.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Similkameen (Mr. King) that, in fact, I was standing in my place yesterday afternoon before we had that six second dash.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has raised an important matter, but I do not think it is a point of order. It is probably a matter for debate. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Frederick John King: It is not only irrelevant, it is untrue, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: I think it ironic that we are here today-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Similkameen really means to say that other Members, remembrance of events past is perhaps not as accurate as they might be. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the revised wording. It would be laughable, if the subject were not so difficult for many Canadians, to hear members of the Liberal caucus sitting opposite talking with such feigned concern about agriculture and about the west.
Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) got into the act, making a case for everything that he failed to do in the period in which he led a Government that totally failed agriculture and totally failed the West in so many critical areas of economic activity. His speech yesterday can only be treated with a degree of cynicism that it so richly deserves. We do not need to go back to former Prime Minister Trudeau's disparaging and insulting remarks to western farmers, remarks that defined his personal attitude and that of the Liberal Party toward exercising some of the responsibility that they had to the west and to farmers. That Government chose to turn its back on both the west and its farmers, just as it did when its

April 30, 1987
policies brought about interest rates of 22 per cent and higher, which really is the root cause of the difficulties plaguing agriculture and many other segments of our economic society.
Yesterday we heard the Leader of the Opposition complaining bitterly that Farm Credit Corporation rates are averaging 11 per cent. I would like to ask what action came from his Government to help farmers locked into contracts with 16.75 per cent interest. What did the Leader of the Opposition do when it was within his power as Prime Minister to do something to assist those farmers that he is now so zealous in defending? The answer is nothing. Neither he nor the Liberal Government he led did anything. It was the Government of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, together with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) looked at those terribly high interest rates that Liberal policy had brought about and who took the action to reduce the rate for all those farmers who were locked in at 16.75 per cent interest. That is only one of the many positive actions which the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has brought to bear on the critical pressures which threaten agriculture in Canada.
If time permits I will talk later about the many varied positive actions which the Mulroney Government has taken in support of agriculture and in support of farmers. The point which has to be made is that every one of these supportive actions by the Mulroney Government could have been taken months and years ago by the Liberal Government which preceded the Mulroney Government. The problems existed then. In fact, it was Liberal policy that produced the most damaging of these problems. The problems existed but the Liberals did not have the will to address them. They refused to accept responsibility when they were in office.
[DOT] (mo)
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said some things that I think should be noted. He said that when the former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, was asked when the Liberal Government would do something for farmers facing disaster as a result of interest rates that went up beyond 22 per cent, the Liberal Minister of Agriculture responded by saying: "soon, soon". The Liberal Government never did provide the relief that farmers sought.


Mr. Taylor:: Soon never came.


Frederick John King: The "soon, soon," of Mr. Whelan, the former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, was in reality: "never, never". There was no relief from the Liberal Government under Prime Minister Trudeau nor under the Prime Minister who succeeded him.
1 would like to add my voice to that of the Hon. Member for Bow River in evidence that will add to the growing body of cynicism which surrounds the statements made in this debate originating from Liberal benches. Yesterday the Liberal Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) said that "speaking is not good enough and that there is only one Party that can act,
and that is the Government". He said that "only the Government can do something".
The fruit growers in British Columbia shower apples upon the Members of the House of Commons annually. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you profit and benefit from them. Those fruit growers from British Columbia's Okanagan Valley would say that it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for York Centre could not yesterday have spoken with some retroactive effect. Where was the voice of York Centre when Okanagan farmers were asking the Liberal Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, to honour the obligations under the stabilization Act which the Act imposes for commodities designated in it?
When I repeatedly brought to Mr. Whelan's attention the matter of a deficiency payment for Okanagan orchardists, a deficiency payment which would be triggered by the disastrous 1983 prices for soft fruits including peaches, apricots and cherries, the answer I received was "no", even though Mr. Gerald Geen, the President of the fruit growers' association, and I raised it personally with Mr. Whelan. The Liberal Government would not make that payment even though disaster faced many farmers as a result of the disastrous prices that returned only 20 per cent of the cost of production to those farmers I represent. Mr. Whelan said in the House and to me: "We aren't going to pay".
Contrast that with the action taken by the present Minister of Agriculture when this Government took office. The Minister of Agriculture reversed that unworthy decision and made that very substantial payment after the people of Canada had the good sense to put the Progressive Conservative Government in place. By that single action, the people of Canada provided Canadian agriculture a benefit unequalled in the history of Canada. Never has agriculture received so much legislative, policy and Treasury attention from Ottawa.
Let me read from the March 1987 issue of the magazine entitled the British Columbia Orchardist. The President of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, Gerald Geen, who represents some 2,000 farmers concentrated in the Okanagan, Similkameen and Creston Valleys, wrote the following in response to the $4.5 million payment made recently to apple producers in the area:
The really good news is that the federal government has just announced that stabilization payments will be made to Canadian apple growers for their 1983 and 1984 apple crops.
He went on to say the following:
I can tell you that our industry has had very positive support on this matter from the Prime Minister and one of his senior policy advisors who last summer spent two days with me in the Okanagan; Right Hon. Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs who met with Fred King, Martin Linder and myself last August; Hon. Michael Wilson, Minister of Finance; Hon. Pat Carney, Minister for International Trade; Hon. John Crosbie, Minister of Transportation; Hon. Tom Siddon, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; Hon. Frank Oberle, Minister of State (Science and Technology), several other key Cabinet Ministers and the entire B.C. Conservative Caucus.
I especially want to recognize the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. John Wise, and his assistant Mr. John Donald, for vigorously supporting our request for stabilization during the last twelve months ... On behalf of our apple growers,
April 30, 1987

I want to thank everyone at the federal government level who has in any way
assisted our industry in getting this payment. Your efforts are very much
appreciated. The forthcoming funds are very much needed by our producers.
I read that into the record because I want to emphasize the fact that despite what is coming from the benches opposite, Canadian farmers know the facts and the facts are that they and their difficulties are receiving more attention from this Government under the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) than any other Government has provided to agriculture in Canada.
On Tuesday of this week, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture was in the riding I represent, Okanagan-Similkameen, to open officially the new $24 million Agriculture Canada Research Centre. More than 1,500 citizens of the area were there to demonstrate the popular support which the Summer-land Experimental Station as it was called in 1914 when it was established, has earned from farmers in all of British Columbia.
As I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I have often brought with me apples to distribute to Members of Parliament-
An Hon. Mlember: And cherries.


Frederick John King: And cherries, and apricots, and peaches-


An Hon. Member:: And wine?


Frederick John King: All of the tremendous produce that comes from the Okanagan Valley. One apple that gets great attention here is the Spartan apple, a strain that was developed at the Summerland Experimental Station. It is a beautiful red apple, a cross between a McIntosh and a Newton. I know that it is one of your favourites, Mr. Speaker.
As I say, the Spartan apple was developed at the Summer-land Research Station. You may consider it Agriculture Canada's contribution to your well-being, Mr. Speaker. But that facility is also involved in fruit processing techniques, in controlled atmosphere storage research, and other areas.
I heard the other day about a tremendous new facility that is going up in the Province of Ontario that will keep apples for a full year without deterioration. The Summerland Research Station has been involved in that type of work for 30 years, and such facilities have existed in the Okanagan Valley for 25 years at least. In fact, we have controlled atmosphere storage for something like two million bushels of apples in place in the Okanagan Valley.
The reason the Okanagan is at the forefront of horticultural technology is the Summerland Experimental Station and the efforts that the federal Government has put into research at that facility.
Low volume orchard spraying-something which every environmentalist in Canada should rise up and cheer-also
owes its development to the Summerland Experimental Station of Agriculture Canada, as do the new irrigation techniques that are in use.
The Okanagan area has average annual precipitation of only 10 inches. Without irrigation, nothing could be grown. Water for irrigation is a precious commodity and something which must be used judiciously, and toward that end, the Summer-land Experimental Station has assisted farmers in the Okanagan in developing water saving techniques.
It is important that we point out what Agriculture Canada is doing for farmers in this country, and particularly the degree of attention the Minister of Agriculture has devoted to research in agriculture.
Let me just take a moment to outline for you some of the programs and expenditures this Government, under the direction of the Minister, has been engaged in.
At Vegreville, Alberta, we had an expenditure of $4.57 million for construction and research into soil quality; in Quebec, an experimental farm complex at a cost of $6.1 million; in London, Ontario, $16 million for an office-laboratory complex; at L'Assomption, Quebec, $8.5 million for research facilities to find alternate crops for tobacco growers; at Big River, Saskatchewan, $1.5 million for expansion of the Provincial Forest Nursery; again in Saskatchewan, $577 million for the expansion of a livestock centre; at the Lacombe Research Station, Alberta, $210,000 for library facilities and a conference room; at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, $16 million for an office-laboratory complex; at Lethbridge, Alberta, $22.3 million on the Animal Disease Research Institute; at Guelph, Ontario, $2.7 million for a new animal pathology laboratory; at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, $17 million for a pathology laboratory; and in Nepean, Ontario, $33.6 million for an Animal Research Center office-laboratory complex.
When you add to those expenditures the $24 million that has been spent at the Summerland Experimental Station, total expenditures amount to some $150 million. The expenditures of Agriculture Canada on research funding are projected to be $240 million for 1986-87.
To my mind there has been a degree of confusion brought about by the Opposition as to the effect of the lifting of this moratorium. I think it needs to be made clear that the moratorium that was in place is one that applied only to contracts with the Farm Credit Corporation. It did not apply in respect of loans or mortgages held by private sector lending institutions.
The moratorium is unsustainable forever. There is probably no time at which it could be lifted without someone being affected. It is for that reason that it was put into place in the first place.
The Government has now put into place farm debt review boards and the Rural Transition Program, both of which will be effective in easing the problems associated with the lifting

April 30, 1987
of the moratorium. The moratorium itself was not designed to eliminate these problems; rather, it merely provided some breathing space.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is drawing to a close. I wanted to talk a little more about Spartan apples. Given the time constraints, I shall just have to bring you one and demonstrate in that way what it is I am talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am glad today to be able to join in the debate on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) concerning the crisis in the grain industry-


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the rotation for this debate was to go from a government Member to the Official Opposition, and then back to the Government, and then back to the Official Opposition.
The NDP put up a speaker last, and then the House was adjourned. I should think today it would have been appropriate to have gone to a government speaker and then back to the Official Opposition. The Hon. Member who is standing now
is-


Some Hon. Members:: It would be appropriate for you to sit down. The Speaker is standing in his place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All 1 can say is that I call them as I see them. The Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River is now being called.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, a deepening crisis has been developing on Canadian farms over the past two years. Nowhere is this more evident or more serious that in the grain economy of western Canada.
We are, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, engaged in the world today in a form of trade war that is particularly vicious and one in which Canada is, in one sense, the main victim and, in another sense, has no alternative but to participate.
The export subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States has caused prices for Canadian grains to plummet. Prices dropped 20 per cent last year, and a further 18 per cent drop for the 1987-88 crop year was announced by the Canadian Wheat Board last week.
Who among us, Mr. Speaker, could face a cumulative reduction in our incomes over a two-year period of something in the order of 40 per cent? I say that, of course, in the context of a small business operation, which most Canadian grain farms are, and in the context of having fixed costs, many of which have risen dramatically over the years leading up to the
drop in revenues. We are all aware of the rising tide in interest rates that engulfed farms in western Canada in the early 1980s; we are all aware of the rising costs of energy, fertilization and labour for farming operations. Yet, while these costs were rising, farmers, for the last two crop years, have faced what can only be described as reductions on a disastrous scale.
On Monday last, with perhaps the worst timing possible, with farmers already under severe stress, the Government announced that on Tuesday, the very next day, the Farm Credit Corporation would once again be permitted to foreclose on family farms. The moratorium that had been in place for 18 months was being lifted.
I should point out that the Farm Credit Corporation is, after all, seen very much as the bellwether and leader in terms of farm lending. Everyone in this House knows what happens when one bank raises its mortgage rates. When this happens all the other banks follow suit. I think it can be anticipated, and the Government must surely expect no other consequence, that other lenders to farmers will take this as a signal that it is again open season on farm foreclosures.
The Government has refused to make a commitment to a deficiency payment program in the forthcoming crop year. It says that those sorts of announcements will come at the appropriate time. That time is now. Farmers are traditionally, and I believe never more than today, plain-spoken people who understand the facts and know what is going on. In plain talk, a deficiency payment program is a subsidy. Some people would call it a hand-out and farmers would much rather make their income on a market system which provides them with a price return for their commodities than accept a subsidy on the production of those crops.
What we are calling for, and not because this Party has any ideological commitment to subsidies, not because we believe that the farm economy and the grain war can be sustained indefinitely in the face of what has been happening, but simply because this Party understands that it is a case of survival for western grain farmers and the western grain industry, is a commitment to provide Canadian grain farmers with at least a guarantee that the total receipts for crops this year will equal those of the last crop year.
In doing so it is obvious, I think, that we ourselves and those others who support such a move are not taking this on as some sort of welfare commitment, but are very seriously addressing the short-term remedy for the Canadian grain farming situation, without which short-term remedy we will never have the opportunity to bring in the long-term solutions which, of course, can be the only solutions for the grain economy.
As Oscar Wilde observed, in the long run we are all dead, but Canadian farmers may not survive the short run. They are very willing to absorb the impact of inflation and the increase in other price factors if only they could have a guarantee from the Government on the revenue return to the farmers.
April 30, 1987

We are not bringing this motion forward in some spirit of partisan and unreserved condemnation of the Government's total approach to the farm economy because we do understand that there have been some worth-while initiatives introduced and some worthwhile accomplishments. We know that the Government is working hard on the international front. Any Canadian Government would, because the anarchy, the discounting and the marketing manoeuvres that are being carried on at the moment in the world grain market can only lead to further chaos if measures are not taken to restrain them.
We know that the Government understands also that the grain export economy is, if you like, to a large degree the mirror image of the agricultural situation in the Third World and in less developed parts of the Second World. We know, after all, that Canadian grain should never be sold or distributed in such a way as to affect the viability of the Third World farmer because, without the opportunity for the Third World farmer to produce her crop and sell her crop for a cash return, and also to use her crop to nourish her family, those who took that opportunity away would be guilty of a crime against humanity which would have the most profoundly sincere consequences in the Third World.
This Party does not say that the Government has totally failed to assist the farm sector in recent months. We question very much the Rural Transition Program. We know that something useful at least has been accomplished through the debt review boards and we know that the Government has consulted with farm organizations, although often the effects of having listened are more evident in the breach than in the materialization. I return again to the fact that government assistance has not been adequate and will not be adequate without new announcements to ensure the short-term survival of the western grain economy in order for it to be able to take advantage of the opportunities which still exist to be taken advantage of in western Canada.
The alternatives to a deficiency payment program, the alternatives to other adjustment measures, are indeed no alternatives. Without an announcement from the Government we will be looking at widespread bankruptcy. We would be looking not simply at economic dislocation, not simply at unemployment which, after all, is something which, regrettable though it is, many of us have some experience with and which we as a society have measures both to combat and to ease the short-term difficulties therein entailed, but at something as serious as bankruptcy and unemployment. The seriousness is doubled by the very fact that it means the end of a way of life for anyone in western Canada who is forced off his farm by the lack of assistance forthcoming from the Government.
We know that stress increases on individuals in direct proportion to the number and magnitude of changes that they have to undergo in their lives. If we allow the western grain farmer to be subjected to the stress of bankruptcy, unemployment and relocation all at once, we will see people who are stressed beyond belief, stressed beyond the comprehension of
you, me, or any of us, and perhaps stressed beyond their limits to sustain themselves in the face of that sort of trial.
We would be looking not only at the disappearance in the less prosperous parts of grain producing western Canada of the farms, but also at the disappearance of the entire rural community. That includes bank branches, lawyers, doctors and the co-ops and credit unions which built western Canada and enabled farmers to build up farm economies in the first place. Perhaps even more serious than those consequences, it would bring about, of course, the complete absence of soil stewardship.
Sometimes when I travel from the farm areas of my riding I travel through farming areas of Manitoba. I am often impressed by the scale of those operations and, in some way, a little envious for my own farmers who must contend with a much smaller market, who are generally much more diversified than farming only a single commodity, whether it be grain or potatoes, and who have themselves been facing many, many trials over the past few years which the provincial Government has been somewhat reluctant to assist them with and which, unfortunately, because they are not grain farmers, federal programs have also not touched on very much either. My farmers are in a serious condition but they understand that because the average western farmer does not have access to alternative employment opportunities, does not have access to the wood lots which are available to northwestern Ontario farmers. It is the western grain farmer who is in the worst situation.
In talking of soil stewardship, let me say that last week-end was a fairly windy one in western Canada. As I drove down the highway I could see topsoil blowing off at a time of the year when it would normally be nicely fixed in place even if it had been tilled. The fact is that when there is an agricultural depression, the future prospects of the agricultural economy are drastically diminished by the farmers' inability to conserve his soil.
The Government has provided some assistance, but on the other hand, it has allowed the input cost to farmers to rise. As a result of the announcement of the discontinuance of the moratorium perhaps during the worst time of the year, in spring, we face a very serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are saddled with a $25 billion debt. We know-and they know-that the interest rates set by the Liberal Government are too high and that farmers simply cannot survive.

Let me deal with the long run solutions for the farm economy, because without alternative markets for those crops there will be farmers who will go out of production. Some months ago I had the pleasure to participate in the Energy Committee's investigation of fuel alcohol. I was struck by the

April 30, 1987
strong desire of some sectors of Canadian agriculture to link their grain surplus problem with the country's energy situation, particularly in respect of gasoline supply.
There have been corporate announcements of imminent petrochemical solutions to gasoline lead octane problems, but I believe from the evidence I have seen that there are biochemical and biomechanical solutions available that could utilize grain production in western Canada as a feedstock. This could strengthen the price of grain that is sold for food and thus enable our farmers to dig themselves out of the hole in which they find themselves.
Will the Government let our mostly foreign-owned oil refining industry turn its back on Canadian farmers, or will the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), who has a grain ethanol plant producing in his riding, take some action to ensure that the octane requirements of Canada's future production streams are met in a way that provides an economic opportunity and future for Canadian farmers?
Fuel ethanol has been available in Canada for six years. It will be one year ago tomorrow that the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources produced a report that favoured a 5 per cent to 3 per cent blend of ethanol and methanol, not only in order to reduce Canada's reliance on imported additives, but also to help farmers of western Canada with a new crop market. Nothing has been done. We understand that some low-level studies have been conducted within the Canadian Wheat Board, but the fact is that the Government must take action because it knows a solution is available and that there are remedies to help the western farmers with another market for their grains.
The fact is that the Government has sold out the farm economy indirectly to the multinational oil interests. Everyone should realize that there is no free market in petroleum production within Canada. There is no free market in refined gasolines. By making the policy decision that the so-called free market would decide, the Government is on the verge of cutting off a major economic opportunity for Canadian farmers and giving it, instead, to the multinational oil companies. Furthermore, this is in a form that will create very few jobs and will essentially keep that centralized control so much favoured by the multinationals.
We are told that there are imminent investments in the MTBE plant of $275 million each for a plant in western Canada and a plant in eastern Canada, creating 100 jobs each. That is the sort of solution to Canada's octane shortage that this country simply cannot afford because when the remedies are technically available in a new and developing technology that still has its economy of scale and has its efficiency and effectiveness developments before it, we would be very poor Canadians if we were to sell such an opportunity to the already excessively dominated multinational oil industry.
Supply concerns of the 1970s in the United States prompted federal and state tax incentives, and a large independent
refining industry controlling half of U.S. capacity, which is something that does not exist here, co-operated with the move to introduce ethanol into the fuel stream. Canadian production today is the same as it was in 1981, unfortunately, when Mohawk Oil recommissioned a 7.2 million litre a year distillery in Minnedosa and began selling that 10 per cent blend. Why is that 10 per cent blend not available right across the country? Why are Canadian farmers being denied the possibility of $200 million, or $400 million or $500 million a year in additional revenue, even just in the short term, with the 5 per cent-3 per cent and 10 per cent ethanol blends that would be marketed and commercialized virtually immediately?
Recent bipartisan moves in the United States Congress and administration may soon mandate oxygenated fuels, ethanol and methanol to help meet the 1987 Clean Air Act standards. That policy is supported by 46 United States Senators, Republican and Democrat, and by Vice-President Bush, who of course has aspirations to the presidency himself.
Whether or not that happens, North American oil refiners have to fill an emerging octane gap, estimated at possibly over $10 billion a year, with lead replacers of their choice and not necessarily the public's choice.
Canadian Government and parliamentary support for proethanol forces in this country as well as world-wide could help tip the scales in favour of the biochemical option for lead removal and to reduce other emissions. Ethanol is a fuel that is well known and presents very few environmental risks. Of course, it has great economic potential.
You are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could have talked for much longer and I hope to have a further opportunity to talk on the possibilities and the potential that ethanol has for Canadian farmers, particularly Canadian grain farmers. More jobs will be created throughout Canada, more Canadian farmers will be able to keep farming and be profitable. International success in ethanol production could help strengthen world grain prices and we could keep the Canadian western grain economy going, if the Government had but the vision to use its legislative powers toward that end.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, although I acknowledge the vital import of the agricultural producers' great contribution towards feeding Canadians, as well as their right to earn a decent living and to get a fair price for their products, I must admit that the intricacies of agricultural production, particularly wheat, fall somewhat beyond the scope of my expertise. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, I feel more at home when dealing with communications and cultural matters. CBC listeners can often hear programs concerning farmers, and I can assure you that the day-to-day problems of the farm community are often explored not only on these programs but also in the course of educational and regional programs. A current topic has been the 18 per cent drop in the price of wheat and the definite
April 30, 1987

possibility that agricultural producers may very well lose both their farms and their homes.
Mr. Speaker, you also know that I used to be the critic on the status of women, and we were made vividly aware of the very serious situation of Mrs. Irene Murdoch and the discrimination she experienced when the court ruling did not give her any recognition for all the work she had done, day in and day out, seven days a week. Since then there has been some improvement in the situation of women who happen to be full-fledged partners in the agricultural community.
I believe that we should pay homage to couples, both men and women, and their children who work very hard on farms throughout Canada.
Until now, Mr. Speaker, as a woman living in urban surroundings I was hesitant to join in this emergency debate on the agricultural crisis in Western Canada. But after listening to my colleagues in the House, even though I am not all that familiar with agricultural affairs I can still readily appreciate the human drama being played in Canadian rural homes, their sentiments of fear, anxiety and frustration.
I have often travelled through the countryside with my family to admire the scenery and the wild flowers, to pick up daisies, blueberries, strawberries and raspberries, to buy fresh and tasty farm products, to marvel at the sight of wide expanses of wheat and corn fields. Particularly in the fall, I never get tired of looking at the fairy-tale colours of the trees.
However it never occurred to me that a house-for-sale sign might indeed hide a human drama due to this Government's inadequate farm support policy. Certainly this insensitive policy of the Conservative Government cannot be the result of laziness on the part of farmers, the lack of motivation, the long hours of work, a reduced budget. Quite the contrary, farmers are so anxious and so proud to preserve the heritage which in many cases was left to them by their ancestors that they do not think twice about toiling under very harsh conditions and making do with aid programs which fall far short and might even be described as being totally unacceptable.
Monday's announcement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada would lift the moratorium declared on September, 1985, with respect to foreclosures on bankrupt farms has created utter distress for hundreds of owners of small and medium-size farms, leading them to despair, family violence and, in some cases, suicide.
It has become quite evident through the course of this urgent debate that a long-term vision of society is absolutely critical in order to arrive at the short-term remedial steps required at this time. If we as Canadians value the family farm, its stability, its place in the grand design of our society, then the necessary fiscal measures must be taken to enable farmers to survive this crisis.
On the international stage the grain subsidy situation is being fully addressed and increased efforts are being made to restore sanity in international grain markets. However, my Leader and my colleagues have tried to make the Government understand that just citing figures and comparing them to those of last year or the year before, boasting about how much more the Government has invested in the West's economy than the Liberals did, are not answers to the family farm crisis. They bring no solace to the individual farmer and the crisis in his family life. The way to demonstrate leadership is not to say: You did not do it and we are doing something. The way to demonstrate leadership is to come up with a plan of action.
We acknowledge that $1 billion was pumped into the agricultural economy last year. I will not go into the way it was offered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as a sort of little lollipop dangled in front of the voters in the middle of a provincial election. It was a needed support. However, because that is true it does not mean other similar steps do not have an ongoing and important place in the plans and policies and political vision of the Government. Obviously it is a Government with no vision and certainly no heart. Farm families are paying a heavy price while the Government dallies and promises schemes for diversification of the economy.
Monday's announcement of lower initial grain prices for 1987-88 indicates that the price of wheat will be down by 18 per cent and that of barley by 25 per cent. When those announcements were made the Government should have given some indication of how it intends to react to this new crisis. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, has given this House the benefit of his wise counsel, deep commitment to and knowledge of this field. I do not pretend to have that knowledge but why can the Government not listen to our experts? It could take some direction given that it is completely lacking in any ideas of its own.
The Government has boasted of improved federal-provincial relations. If that is true, why does it not sit down with the provinces and co-operatively develop a plan to keep families on the farm in a productive capacity? Why does it not see them through this short-term crisis until it can bring forward that White Paper we have been waiting and waiting for, which obviously has no content, no concept and no political vision? Let the Government at least support the family farm which is such an important part of our heritage and our institutions. Rural family farms are revered institutions in our society. Rural communities and related industries are all in jeopardy. It is not just the farmer who is affected; it is the manufacturer of the equipment the farmer uses and the supplier of seeds and everything else needed in the ongoing operation of a farm.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is that the crisis has far-reaching social and economic implications, not just for the West but for the total economy. As I said, one cannot remain apart. We cannot live in glorious and ignorant isolation from the problems of all Canadians. We are a grand and widespread country. We have regional differences, but we are expected to

April 30, 1987
address them. That is our social contract and that is what the Government has failed to do.
I think it is important that all Canadians, Francophone and Anglophone in every part of this country, pay attention to this situation. Because you live in one of the metropolitan centres across this land does not mean you can be insensitive to this crisis. We know man cannot live by bread alone, but we also know that bread is the staff of life, and that is particularly true for the western farmer.
If you have listened to some of the root causes of the problem we are addressing, as I have over these last many hours of debate, they sound like the plagues which afflicted the Egyptians: drought, grasshoppers, dust, wind, and locusts. Then we have the heavy subsidization of the U.S. and EEC farmer. We have the astronomical drop in prices, the third straight year of decline, which could mean the total return to producers will be 40 per cent lower for wheat, 45 per cent lower for oats, and barley payments below the 1984 per tonne payment. Flax seed and canola prices are lower by 34 per cent and 32 per cent respectively. One can sense the tremendous tragedy taking place and it is easy to understand the frustration and fear for survival which is being echoed behind the doors of each one of our family farms. It becomes obvious that the responsible, dedicated producers, individual farmers carrying on a family tradition or fulfilling a private dream, watch helplessly as forces beyond their control choke life out of their land and choke and close their visions of the future.
What does this requiem for the family farm mean in human terms? Let us consider what one of the studies that was done and reported has to say about this matter. I am reading to you, Mr. Speaker, from the Western Report of January 12, 1987, in which there appears an article entitled: "Farmers Under Stress". There is an interesting quotation from Pliny the Elder who stated:
The agricultural population-produces the bravest men, the most valiant soldiers and a class of citizens the least given of all to evil designs.
I hope that that continues to be the motto of this sector of our society. I suggest, as the article states, that:
Blissful, wholesome farm life, replete with golden wheat fields and rosy-cheeked dairy maidens, is the stuff of prose and poetry. In reality, being a farmer has become so trying that two University of Brandon psychologists say it is now more stressful than being a police officer or a multinational corporate executive.
Last winter, Drs. James and Lilly Walker set out to ask 1,200 farmers what effect the poor economy was having on them. Last month the pair released the resultant report, Characteristics and Correlates of Stress Among Canadian Farm Families, at a University of Brandon conference called "Hungry for Answers-the Farm Community in Crisis." Growing food is one of Canada's most stressful occupations, they concluded. Declares the duo: "This stress is chronic and dangerous."
The study revealed that stress symptoms such as headaches, marriage problems and irritability were three or four times more prevalent in the average farmer than in an RCMP officer three days after being involved in a shooting. What's more, the stress on the policeman is "transitory," say the authors, a "one-time event." But for farmers, the stress just goes on and on.
The Walkers went on to give some additional notes of the methodology that they used in setting up the 79-question survey which included queries about the weather, social problems like spousal neglect, workload and general worry. The article continues:
Stress levels were partly measured by awarding points to such frequently troubling things as insufficient cash flow, debt load and rising expenses. Says Dr. James Walker: "Farmers create a lot of their own stress by being worried about the weather and prices."
That is enough for them to worry about without having to worry about poor government policy and inadequate government planning.
The great question which must be asked is the following. What should the Government do? We know that during the course of the last election campaign the Tories presented a series of 20 from-the-heart type promises. I would like to mention just three or four of them. One of the 20 was to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so that farmers will have access to reasonably-priced funds. Has anyone heard of the Government creating agri-bonds? I think not. Another promise was to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. There have certainly been no principles of equity mentioned in this situation. Another promise was to re-establish a long-term dairy policy. The Government cannot even bring about a shortterm policy of crisis intervention, how can it even think in terms of the long term? Another promise was to expand agricultural research and development by providing greater assistance for agricultural colleges, more funding for research and development, and amending tax policy to encourage private sector investment. What has the Government done in this respect? It has closed down research facilities.
One last point I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the Prime Minister's promise to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing rates. What the Government has really done is to send a message to the banks to foreclose, instead of having all the banks, as well as the Federal Business Development Bank and the Farm Credit Corporation, support the worker. I have not even mentioned the fact that the Government has abolished Canagrex, a fine Crown corporation created by Mr. Eugene Whelan to market Canadian agricultural products abroad.
The Prime Minister is on his way out west. If he is going to be visiting Red Deer and Lethbridge, Alberta, North Batt-leford, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg, Manitoba between Wednesday and Friday of next week, I would like to ask him to deliver the following message on his trip. I suggest he use his marvelous hyperbole in a constructive way at that time. First, let him reinstate the FCC moratorium on farm foreclosures and introduce a proper farm debt restructuring program. Second, let him announce a deficiency program for this year's crop. Third, let him announce the long-promised western economic diversification strategy.
April 30, 1987

During this debate four Ministers of the Crown have spoken, including the Prime Minister. But not one of them gave any commitment for specific assistance. I suggest the Prime Minister has a glorious opportunity, and we know how he loves photo opportunities, to announce at least those three constructive policies. If he does, I think that perhaps some of the stress, strain and family discomfort and dislocation which has been expressed in the debate over the last two days might well be alleviated. Let him show some leadership.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the issues and problems facing the agricultural industry in Canada. Many Members of the House may not be fully aware that we in Atlantic Canada have a very important agricultural industry, including an important agricultural industry in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia we have problems in our agricultural sector. In Atlantic Canada we have the same or similar problems to those about which other Members have spoken in respect of western Canada. I know from speaking to members of my caucus from Ontario and Quebec that farmers in both those provinces have serious problems as well. From time to time in caucus we have heard strong and aggressive voices concerning the agricultural industry. Members of our caucus from all provinces bring forward, in an aggressive way, the problems that are facing the agriculture industry in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick-all the Provinces of Canada. Of course, the motion before us deals specifically with western Canada.
We know what the problem is. However, that is not the issue. The issue is what is being done to address the problem. In this respect I am proud to stand here today to speak on just what our Government has done to address the problems facing the agriculture industry from the East Coast to the West Coast. The commitments that were made and honoured are well known by those in the agriculture industry.
Farmers are convinced that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the whole Progressive Conservative caucus are strong allies of their industry. For example, they know that 14 of 16 campaign promises in the Prince Albert statement have been addressed. Farmers know that 414 initiatives having a total value of $6 billion have been implemented by the Government. They know that this is a record after only two and a half years of this Government being in office. They know the mess that was left after 20 years of Government by the Liberal Party. They know that for every 1 per cent drop in interest rates there is a savings to the Canadian farmers of $120 million.
The Canadian farmer knows all about this. He has full confidence in the policies being pursued by our Government. It is ironic that food remains our best buy as consumers. It is ironic that we pay more for a litre of pop than we do for a litre of milk. That is typical of the situation that faces our farms.
.S'. O. 29
The farming community faces the situation of rising costs and decreasing revenue. It is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to outline through you, Mr. Speaker, to other Members of the House and to the Canadian public what has been done in two and a half short years to address some of these problems to rebuild the strength of the Canadian agricultural industry. I am going to start by referring to the Atlantic livestock feed initiative. This policy brought in by our Government and an agreement signed just two or three weeks ago between the federal and provincial Governments is an attempt by our Government to establish feed grain selfsufficiency in Nova Scotia and in all of Atlantic Canada. Under this policy, our Government has committed itself to maintaining for a period of time freight rate assistance on grain that moves into Nova Scotia, grain that is important to the beef industry and other livestock industries in Nova Scotia. We have done more than simply continue a subsidy in keeping with our philosophy of developing the regions. We have put in place a series of incentives that will help the Nova Scotia farmer grow his own grain so we will not have to import grain from outside our province. We will create jobs in the grain industry and we will keep money at home, money that until this point in time has been going to another part of our country. It is all relative, isn't it, Mr. Speaker?
Let us look at what was done on the same issue by the previous Government. I will tell you what that Government did. The Liberal Government did nothing over the last 10 or 15 years when the feed freight assistance rate was declining. There was no serious attempt to address this problem of the agricultural community of Nova Scotia. We have been in office but two and a half years and we have responded and put in place a program after consultation with the industry, a program which is welcomed and a program that is good for the economy of Nova Scotia, not just the agricultural sector of that economy.
What about the question of the financial plight of the farmers in this difficult time? What have we done to assist and put in place an equitable forum where their debt situation can be discussed? We have established farm debt review boards. Legislation has been passed to set up farm debt review boards composed of people with knowledge and experience in farming and financial matters. This process has enabled many farmers to remain on the land. It provides an opportunity for independent third party review to the farm community. It assists in setting up voluntary arrangements between a farmer and his creditors to help ensure the survival of the farm business. Surely that is a constructive response to the financial problems facing farmers, giving them an opportunity to have their case presented in an open and a fair way.
What else is there, Mr. Speaker? The reality is that there are farmers who, in the end, want to leave the farm. They want to undergo a transition to another kind of employment. We have responded to this reality and established the Canadian Rural Transition Program. It is designed to help families who have to leave farming because of financial difficulties to make

April 30, 1987
5514______________________________
the transition to new employment and another way of life. The federal Government will provide financial assistance for farmers' transition, relocation, job search and retraining. This is not a program that is encouraging these people to leave the farm. This is a program which has been implemented in response to representations from the people who say, "We are ineligible for many of these programs because we were farmers. We are being discriminated against". We have responded with a sensible program, one that is sensitive and addresses the social needs of these farmers.
What about the financial position of farmers? What happened to them? It was only three years ago that farmers were paying 18 per cent and 20 per cent interest rates when they bought a piece of machinery or farm property. And when they incurred debt, they had interest rates that sky-rocketed. We all remember that. We remember the foreclosures in the Canadian farming industry. You know, Mr. Speaker, and Members of this House know that we now are enjoying the lowest interest rates in almost 10 years. That is in no small measure a result of the economic policies followed by the Government. Since coming to office the interest rate has dropped from 14 per cent to about 11 per cent. That means savings of $150 on a $50,000 mortgage every month. As I said earlier, that is a saving of $120 million to the Canadian agricultural industry for every 1 per cent drop in interest rates. That is of benefit to farmers in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
These are policies of general application that have been of enormous benefit to the agricultural community. What we all remember is that the Liberals and New Democrats joined together during the 1970s to follow policies of fiscal irresponsibility that resulted in high interest rates. They just did not drop out of the air. Those high interest rates resulted from the irresponsible management practices of the previous Government, supported by the New Democrats.
What about the National Energy Program? What did the National Energy Program do for the energy costs of western and Atlantic Canadian farmers? Where were the Liberals and New Democrats? We all know where they were. They were closely bound together in support of a policy that not only destroyed a lot of economic activity in the petroleum industry in Canada but put billions of dollars of taxation on all Canadians, including the western Canadian farmer.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is the practice if not the requirement of the rules of the House that speakers tell the truth when they are presenting their arguments. I would caution the Hon. Member to check the voting records before he regurgitates material from PC headquarters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has the floor.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I guess the best test of whether or not I say is true is the fact that it is like salt on the wounds of the New Democrats to hear me bring forth the truth in this Chamber today-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You supported the Bank Act.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: -to remind the western Canadian farmers that the New Democrats were responsible along with the Liberal Party for the high interest rates-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: -and the National Energy Program which was a tax burden on Canadian farmers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is not true.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: The truth hurts. You hear them, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to hear it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Conservatives voted for the Bank Act.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: What can we do, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear the truth. The Canadian farmer knows it and the Canadian public is going to hear it.


Mr. McCurdy:: Don't get excited.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Look at the facts.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: The farm fuel tax relief program which we implemented was an attempt to reduce the tax burden.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Kiss and make up, guys.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I am very pleased that the New Democrats are so sensitive because it tells me that it is very much a political issue in western Canada. What is very much a political issue is their support for the policies of the previous Government.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is a matter of the truth.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: We have responded. We brought in policies that are aimed at reducing the financial burden on these farmers. The farm fuel tax relief program which is a saving of hundreds of dollars to the western Canadian farmer was brought in to address this very severe financial and social problem.
We have responded in a sensitive way to the economic and social problems of the farmer. The previous speaker asked where the long-term dairy policy is. It is obvious that she does not read press releases or newspapers. The federal Government's commitment of $1.5 billion over a five-year period is well known. There is a five-year dairy policy designed to ensure the long-term health of the dairy industry in Canada. We know that a dairy industry exists in all parts of the country and my riding is no exception. In my riding, there is a strong
April 30, 1987

and viable dairy industry and the dairy farmers that I represent are very supportive of that initiative, as they are of the other initiatives-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Cut by $15 million a year, too.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I hear the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) chirping today, but there was no chirp from him when farmers were paying 20 per cent interest rates, when there was no dairy policy, and when the National Energy Program was sinking the Canadian farmer with high interest rates. He should moo like a cow rather than chirp like a bird. The reality is getting through to the Liberals. It is their record about which we are speaking and which we are showing to be as weak as it was.
What about the capital gains tax exemption? That is something that was long sought by the agricultural industry. Where was it? The Liberals had 20 or 30 years to respond to this need of the Canadian farmer who spent his life building up equity in a business as his pension and who did not want to get penalized when he sold his equity which was built up over 30 or 40 years. Where was the capital gains tax exemption when the previous Government was in power? It could have implemented it but it did not.
Was that tax exemption high on the agenda of the New Democrats? I do not know, but the Canadian farmer knows how much of a priority it was for the two opposition Parties, and he knows also how much of a priority it was for the PC Government when it took over in September, 1984. Farmers know that we implemented a program that responded to their long sought goal.
What about the international situation in the agricultural community? What about the fall of prices which has resulted in some of the uncertainty in the international community? Has this Government responded to that situation in two and a half years? Indeed it has. Canada has been at the forefront of those nations calling for a new set of ground rules for international agricultural trade. We would have had trouble even getting the leadership of the previous Government to talk about farmers, but our Prime Minister at the annual Economic Summit of industrialized nations held in Tokyo last year chose to raise agriculture as Canada's number one agenda item. That was the first time agriculture was raised at such a summit. All leaders agreed that a solution must be found to the international subsidy wars.
Finally, we are trying to get an informal international agreement on agriculture trade practices during the period of negotiation of new GATT rules. This may well take years, but Canada has proposed a number of principles that we hope will result in greater international stability and security in the trade of important agricultural commodities.
Surely it is clear that in two and a half years, our Government has responded in an unprecedented manner to the problems of the agricultural industry. The Government has followed through on a total of 14 out of 16 promises and has
provided 414 initiatives valued at $6 billion. The people who must answer today for the problems in the agricultural industry are in large measure sitting on the benches of the two opposition Parties.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you know, those who come from Cape Breton are renowned across Canada and in the House for the eloquence of their rhetoric and the honesty with which they present their points of view. No matter from what side of the House we come, we are often impressed with the clear and compelling way in which they present their cases.
Just moments ago, we heard from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil), the last of the speakers on the government side. It was unfortunate that we heard from him last and I would hope that the character of that speech would encourage others to present themselves because it has left an awful taste in all of our mouths. This is so because someone who represents Cape Breton has presented a case which is based on such utter and complete falsehood as was the allegation that it was the New Democrats who supported the Bank Act when in fact it was the New Democrats with one lone Tory, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who opposed that Bank Act. I rise now to say that if we are to defend a particular point of view, we must do so truthfully or we do harm to the argument we are trying to present.
I am very, very proud of the fact that the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) initiated this very significant debate in the House of Commons. I know that he is a fit representative of the New Democratic Party because this Party is a Party that has its roots on the farm and in the west. However, it also has its roots among the labourers of the city. Because of the initiative of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert and my Party, the concerns of the farm will be clearly dramatized to those of us who live in the city.
I have heard speaker after speaker during the course of this debate suggest that those of us who come from the city should not be involved in this debate because our ignorance would contribute nothing to the expansion of knowledge or information or the solution of the problem that exists in our agricultural sphere. Among that category of Members of Parliament, I may be regarded as an example of urban rot, but I stand here proud to participate in this debate because I think it is about time the people of the city had dramatized for them the situation on the farm. I am sure they share with members of my Party the absolutely compelling point of view that just as we must seek justice and economic security for the people of the city, we must make those people understand that their security, prosperity and justice depends upon economic security on the farm.
When I, as others in the city, eat my shredded wheat, my corn flakes or my meat and drink my milk, I must recognize that all of those commodities are produced as a result of blood, sweat and tears. There is no one who does not understand that

April 30, 1987
the commitment to the land is something that can only be maintained with a great deal of hard work. I do not think there is anyone who does not know that those who work on the farm rise early and work late. They develop callouses upon their hands in an effort to produce from the land.
There are not too many among us who understand, however, that when we talk about blood, that blood truly exists. There is a higher rate of accidental death on the farm than there is in other areas of labour. As well, of the unnatural causes of death on the farm, one-third are suicides, so great is the stress. When we recognize that in that which we eat there are tears as well, it is another assertion that the stress on the farm has become overwhelming. Why should it not be overwhelming? We realize that in the last crop year, prices were cut by 21 per cent, and this year they will be cut by 19 per cent. I think it is incumbent upon every worker, every business person, every professional in this country to look at their own situation and imagine taking a 40 per cent cut in their salaries or wages. They would then begin to understand the situation in which the farmer finds himself.
When one reflects upon the fact that the dire circumstances in the farming community are made worse by the announcement that effective tomorrow the moratorium on FCC loans will end, we begin to gain a comprehension of the existing situation. How many Canadians recognize that the price of grain, as a result of cuts last year and this decision, is no different from what it was in 1976 and 1977? Yet the cost of doing business has tripled. We then expect the farmer to survive.
I understand, but perhaps others here do not, that there exists in the international market-place a severe set of circumstances which make competition extremely difficult. The EEC is subsidizing its farmers to the tune of about $70 billion a year. The U.S. is subsidizing its farmers to the tune of around $22 billion a year. World prices are thereby reduced. This is something which is not under the ready control of the Government, but we encourage it to persist in its efforts to reach international agreements under GATT which would provide a solution to the problem. However, it is no contribution to the plight of the farmer for the Government to decide that the moratorium on FCC loans will end tomorrow.
I know the Government is claiming that there are only a small number of farmers affected. I have heard both the number 6,000 and the number 600. 1 have heard that it only involves 50 farmers a month. However, if one opens up The Toronto Star this morning-I will readily admit as a microbiologist and biochemist that I do not have the information readily available to me so I must depend upon information supplied by a number of sources-he will find that the assistant manager of the FCC office in Edmonton points out that 10,000 prairie farmers are $227 million in arrears on FCC loans. He says that technically they are open to foreclosure. If one looks at the individual provinces, one finds that 21 per cent
of FCC accounts in Alberta and 24 per cent of FCC accounts in Saskatchewan are in arrears. The situation is so severe that one should not be surprised that there are 8 per cent or 25,000 fewer farmers this year than last.
When the Government blithely terminates the moratorium, one must look around to see to whom the Government looks for advice. I watched television last night and saw the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) claim that all significant farm organizations said the moratorium should be removed. When one examines that statement, as the NDP readily does on all occasions, and checks the facts, we find that the National Farmers Union, the three prairie Wheat Pools, and other farm organizations flatly deny that any such statements were made on their behalf. That they would support the lifting of the moratorium as claimed by the Minister of Agriculture is flatly untrue.
What kind of advice is the Minister of Agriculture following when he chooses to lift the moratorium in the hasty fashion in which he did and without putting in place the necessary steps to ensure the survival of our farm community? If one examines the submission of The Canadian Bankers' Association to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and looks at its recommendations, one finds that its fifth recommendation was that there should be no consideration given to debt moratorium or compromise. It is not to the farmers in trouble that the Government is listening. It is listening to the bankers. That of course is in line with a long, long tradition.
If one examines the other recommendations of the bankers, one confirms the source of the advice and direction the Government receives and according to which it acts. The banks recommended that government transition programs involving relocation, retraining and support be implemented. Get them off the farms. The second recommendation was that farm financial review boards should be restricted to an advisory capacity with consideration to be given to the powers of direct lending or provision of loan guarantees to existing lenders or future lending operations as deemed possible. That is certainly being implemented because in Ontario we find that of 425 cases before the review board, 193 have been completed and only two have signed agreements.
Whose advice is the Government following? Whose pleas is it listening to? It said there should be a great deal of circumspection about the introduction of such programs as agribonds. When one considers that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government promised the implementation of an agri-bond program and it is yet to be heard from, one confirms the source of advice for the Government and its approach to the problems of farmers.
We understand that the problems in agriculture are complicated. However, it is a sorry state of affairs when we can ensure that arms suppliers are well paid and profits are high, when trillions of dollars are spent on arms which are often given away, yet in Canada the farmers are going to food-banks and thousands starve across the seas. It must be evident that it does not need a great genius to find a solution that
April 30, 1987

would feed the world and make sure our farmers are fed. However, that is not going to be done by a Government that announces so much negative action, as it has over the last two weeks, while refusing to commit itself to the minimum contribution to an improvement of the lot of the farmer, that being an announcement for the next crop year of deficiency payments at least as high as they were last year.
I hope this debate initiated by the NDP will lead not to continuing partisan conflict in the House but to a creative culmination of an effort to ensure that in Canada we will maintain our farms and our farmland.
It must be clear to those of us in the city that if the farmers suffer and farms disappear, the city person will not be very far behind. That should be the message to all Canadians insisting that justice be accorded to the farmer.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, it is seldom we have debates like the one we are having now in the House of Commons. Canadians who are watching the proceedings, especially those who live in our major cities and urban areas and are not terribly familiar with the problems of the agricultural industry, are problably wondering what is going on.
The main reason why the Official Opposition is firmly resolved to make every effort to focus the attention of the Government and the public in general on this issue is that we have today a crisis situation, a serious and tragic one, which affects all grain producers in Canada, and especially our western farmers.
Why do we have this crisis? The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. Last year, as a result of decisions made by this Government, the price paid to farmers for their grain went down 20 per cent. And as if that were not enough to jeopardize the viability of farming operations, a few days ago the Government and the Canadian Wheat Board announced that prices for the 1987 crop year would go down another 18 per cent. Last year it was 20 per cent and this year 18 per cent. While prices paid to farm producers went down 20 per cent and 18 per cent in two years, input costs have continued to rise, including the costs of various kinds of energy and the cost of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Production costs are going up while prices are going down, so that grain producers across the country-in fact most grain producers happen to be in western Canada-are facing bankruptcy.
To give some indication of what the drop in prices paid to producers represents, the Leader of our Party, when he spoke in this debate yesterday morning, pointed out that in 1984-85, No. 1 wheat was $170 a tonne. In 1986-87, the price was down to $130 a tonne and this year, the Wheat Board announced that the price for No. 1 wheat would go down further to $110 a tonne. The producer who sees the price per tonne drop from
$170 to $110 over such a short period is under considerable financial pressure.
The price of other grains such as barley, for instance, has gone down as well. Mr. Turner told the House about these major price variations. In 1984-85, producers were getting $125 a tonne for No. 1 barley. In 1986-87, the price was down to $80 a tonne.
We heard a few days ago that the price for this year's crop is down to $60 a tonne, which means that in two years, the price of No. 1 barley has dropped from $125 to $60, less than half, so that our grain producers are facing a major crisis. The lower prices they get for their crops this year will make it increasingly difficult for farmers to finance their long- and short-term loans. It puts families, in an industry where most operations are still based on the family farm, under severe financial pressure and physical and moral stress. These farmers do not know how long they will be able to survive, to operate their farms and not only that, to stay in their homes. As though it were not enough to have to worry about the price of grain, farm producers have now been informed that the Government has decided to let the Farm Credit Corporation lift the moratorium on foreclosures.
In 1985, the Government had decided to put a moratorium on the foreclosures that would otherwise have resulted from decisions by the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. Last week, the Minister responsible announced the moratorium would be lifted, so that we have a situation where in a short period of time, farmers first heard that the Canadian Wheat Board, obviously with the Government's blessing, had reduced prices for their crops, and then that the Government had lifted this moratorium. Less income will make a bad financial situation even worse and, since the Farm Credit Corporation will now be able to seize farms and farm equipment, it only adds to the pressure and puts farmers and grain producers in a practically untenable situation.
Mr. Speaker, the decision to end the moratorium affects not only western producers but also producers in Quebec and other regions. This morning, in La Presse, there was a long article by reporter Pierre Gingras describing how a number of Quebec producers might be affected by the Government's decision to end the moratorium on foreclosures on farms whose owners are in arrears on loan payments to the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. Here is what he wrote: "Over the next few months, once the moratorium has been lifted, about one hundred Quebec farm producers will be getting Farm Credit Corporation of Canada foreclosure notices preventing them from declaring bankruptcy with respect to farms financed through FCC". He indicates as well that the FCC has 74,000 customers, including 7,500 in Quebec.
This decision obviously affects all producers, and this question does not concern only western producers, but Quebec farmers as well.
As a matter of fact, if we look at the overall agricultural situation we can see that western producers have to cope with

April 30, 1987
falling commodity prices, but eastern producers in general- including those of Quebec since we are part of the eastern region-are hard hit by other economic factors, more especially by the decisions of this Government or its lack of political courage to seek solutions to the extremely serious problems facing our producers.
We have just gone through a spring period and once again all sugar bush owners were able to see for themselves the ravages caused by acid rain. I should think that in recent weeks most parliamentarians have received letters from Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles indicating losses incurred by farmers who run maple sugar operations, losses which can be directly traced back to acid rains playing havoc with our maple forests. As can be expected, they want the Government to take a tougher and more direct approach in its discussions with the United States in an attempt to find a solution to the acid rain problem.
The second stressing situation for both eastern and western producers is that, in view of the free trade negotiations with the United States, they wonder what is going to happen to the marketing boards which regulate production. Of course this concerns our industrial and whole milk producers, our poultry producers and our egg producers because all these commodities now fall under marketing board regulations. These marketing boards may be put on the table in the negotiations with the United States. Several of my colleagues and I had an opportunity to tour the western provinces, and we also met with Maritime, Ontario and Quebec agricultural producers. We got the same message from coast to coast: Ask this Government not to put marketing boards on the negotiation table. Everywhere people told us that giving up the marketing boards would mean a large number of farm producers would disappear, and with them, a rural way of life that has been a part of our society for so many years. Farmers are in a very good position to compare the situation we have now under the marketing boards with the way things were handled previously, when milk, egg and poultry producers were subject to broad market swings, to dumping by the United States and other countries, all of which put them under extreme financial pressure. They do not want to go back to those times.
In this debate, the Liberals are asking for three things. Our Party Leader, Mr. Turner, made this very clear in his excellent speech yesterday, it was repeated by our Party's agriculture critic, and perhaps it would be appropriate for me to repeat our Party's demands at this point. The Liberals are asking for reinstatement of the moratorium on farm foreclosures by the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. The Liberals want the Government to continue the moratorium so as to avoid putting additional pressure on producers already faced with two consecutive reductions, 20 per cent and 18 per cent, in the price of grain.
Second, we are asking the Government, now that farmers are about to seed their 1987 crop, to let grain producers know what kind of price they can expect for their grain at the end of the 1987 crop year, in other words, to announce immediately a
deficiency payment program for this year's production, not last year's but the production for 1987 which farmers are seeding at this very moment.
Third, we ask the Government to deliver on the promises it has been making for the past two and a half years, and I am referring to the promised Western Economic Diversification Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, this debate may seem inordinately long. I know this has exasperated some people, but it is the only way we in the Opposition can show grain producers, both western grain producers and those in the rest of the country, that we are doing our duty, that we are concerned about their situation and that we are acting responsibly by pressuring the Government to take action. We are not only talking about farm foreclosures but about a whole way of life that is being destroyed as a result of this Government's failure to act.
For three days the House has been debating an issue of fundamental importance to every Canadian. It is the survival of our family farms.
No matter where one lives, whether it be in the Cities of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, or St. John's, every Canadian must be seriously concerned about the crisis facing rural Canada today.
To be objective, part of the problem facing rural Canada is caused by international forces such as the U.S. Farm Bill, with its huge subsidies, that was enacted by the United States to counteract the farm subsidies of the European Common Market. These subsidies must be vigorously opposed by the Canadian Government at every available opportunity. However, many of the problems facing our farmers are made in Canada and are directly the result of the Government's action or inaction.
Surely the Government realizes that one of the greatest crises in Canadian farm history is not going to be resolved by the Canadian Wheat Board cutting not only last year's price of wheat by some 20 per cent, but also cutting this year's price of wheat by 18 per cent.
As if this situation was not bad enough, the Government announced this week that it is lifting the ban on farm foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation. At the very time when farmers desperately require stability in their industry, and at the crucial seeding time of the year, the Government decides to choose this time to undermine further the confidence of the farming community by reintroducing foreclosures of our family farms. Moreover, the Government has compounded this deplorable situation by refusing to give a commitment of a deficiency payment for the new crop year this year to our farmers, at the very time when they have to make a decision on whether or not to seed. Surely, even the Government realizes that farmers have a right to know today what return they may reasonably plan to expect on their investment.
April 30, 1987

Not only has the price of wheat been going down but also decisions by competitors have been creating more problems. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to read a letter sent by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) concerning the American Government's decision on the sale of barley to Saudi Arabia. That will create additional problems for our farmers.
There are other problems in western Canada, one of which concerns the sugar-beet industry, particularly in Manitoba. In 1985, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) indicated that he would announce a sugar beet policy and that the federal Government would cover debts going beyond 1987. Neither of these commitments have been met. Instead, the Conservative Government in Ottawa continues to haggle with the NDP Government in Manitoba over developing a support program for the sugar-beet farmers of Manitoba. Meanwhile, a whole industry is on the verge of collapse.
If agreement is not reached shortly on this important matter, the Manitoba Sugar Company will be forced to close down, which will put a $90 million industry out of business, wipe out 300 to 400 farmers, and cost up to 500 jobs.


Mr. Mayer:: The Liberal Government in Quebec sold out the whole sugar-beet industry.


Raymond Garneau: If the Government of Quebec did that, it is because of the Tory Government that refused to take action. I had the opportunity to meet with the sugar-beet producers in Quebec. The Tory Government refused to give the annual payment beet producers normally receive. That is why the Quebec Government is fed up with the Tory Government. It never happened the year before. The Government refused to make the payment to the Quebec farmers, the beet producers.


Charles James Mayer: Shame on the Liberals in Quebec.


Raymond Garneau: The Tories refused to make the payment. That is why they closed not only in Quebec but also possibly in Manitoba, in your own province.


Charles James Mayer: Shame on the Liberals in Quebec who sold out the sugar-beet industry in Quebec.


Raymond Garneau: When I visited the producers in Manitoba a year ago they were well aware of the fact that the Tory Government refused-


Charles James Mayer: What a windbag.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the sugar-beet industry is in jeopardy because of the Government.


Charles James Mayer: What a windbag.


Raymond Garneau: The Quebec Government had to make a very important decision which has affected many producers because
this Government refused to make the payment that was due to the farmers, not only the Quebec producers but many of the other producers. I met, I don't know how many times, with the Alberta producers here in Ottawa. I also met with them in Alberta.


Charles James Mayer: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Raymond Garneau: I also met with the producers in the Province of Manitoba and they gave us the same message. It is the same message in Quebec, in Alberta and in Manitoba. This Government has refused to make the payment. That is why the Quebec Government had to shut down an industry which had been created in 1945 by a Liberal Government. When I was Minister of Finance in Quebec, we were making those payments. We had to support and we did support this industry. It was done by the Liberal Government. As soon as the Tories came to power we had to shut down an industry which was very viable and created jobs for farmers and other workers.


Charles James Mayer: As soon as the Liberal Government took over in Quebec the first they did was shut it down. You know that.


Raymond Garneau: I just want to say that not only the wheat producers but the sugar-beet producers in Manitoba are in great difficulty. I cannot press the point strongly enough. I would like to urge the Government to make a decision as soon as possible to try to solve a problem which could create additional difficulty for Canadian farmers, particularly western farmers living in Manitoba.
The farmers are also preoccupied by some other policies of the Government, mainly, the tax reform. We met with the Farmers Association whose members come from all parts of the country. They raised very important questions about the business transfer tax. When the price of wheat is going down and we hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that the business transfer tax will be applied to their products that is another area of concern.
In summary I would like to repeat the three requests the Liberals are making during this debate; first, to reinstate the moratorium on farm foreclosures; second, announcement of a deficiency program for this year's crop and, third, announce the long-time promised Western Economic Diversification Strategy. Those are the three points we want to stress during this debate.
We hope that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) goes to western Canada next week he will not bring with him empty promises, but concrete promises. What the farmers in western Canada want to see is cash, not just the Prime Minister of the country.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get involved in the debate and to make a couple of points with respect to the debate. I think

April 30, 1987
people who know western agriculture such as the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and many of my colleagues on this side of the House who come from western Canada, realize there are a number of facts we have to get back on the table and see where we go from there.
The first point which has to be made is that western Canadian farmers understand the root causes of the pricing situation in the world today with respect to grains. We know the reductions which have taken place. I think it is important for all of us to know what we are competing with. The Liberal Party said previously, for instance, and the spokesman for the Party with respect to financial matters made the same point again with respect to the barley sale to Saudi Arabia by the United States, that Canada's share of international grain sales is going down. That is not the case. It is quite the opposite. In fact, it appears very clearly today that the sales through the Canadian Wheat Board, Canada's portion of international grain sales, is going up. That is the first point to be made.
The second point we have to make is the pricing policy. I want to note very clearly that we are competing very well in terms of sales. We are competing very well in terms of quality, and we are competing very well in terms of traditional and new markets. What we, as Canadians, are competing against is national treasuries. We are competing, for example, against the treasuries of the European Community. The European Community has made a decision, post-war, that Europe would become self-sufficient in food regardless of the cost to the treasury. That is the first point which has to be made. No one in this House is to blame and no one in Canada is to blame.
I would suggest that no one who understands the international grain market in Canada wants that situation to continue, least of all the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the first point to be made.
The second point is that we are competing with the United States Farm Bill which was a response by the United States primarily, not totally, against the action of the EEC. The point now is that the United States is spending about $25 billion U.S. in support of grains. That is projected to go to $30 billion U.S. next year, at least that is the estimate. So the question for us then clearly becomes what can the Canadian Government, the Canadian people, do not only to maintain markets, which we have been doing, but also to sustain the efforts of our Canadian grain producers?
I think it is best if we take a look at what some farm leaders are saying. I have been hearing a lot of rhetoric around the House today. I think if we look at what was said by the former Chairman of the United Grain Growers, Mac Runciman, who is a respected person in the grains business, he really describes the contribution of a number of Members on this issue. He said that he used to say when he was Chairman that the grain business was 14 per cent protein, and those of us from the grain belt know what that means, and 86 percent politics, "And the bad news is that over the past number of years-", and I would add during this debate, "-that the protein
content of our business is falling fast and the political content is going up", and that is not helping our grain producers. I say that with respect because I think we have to get to some first principles.
The first point the Liberal Party now makes is that we have not done anything. Then when they are challenged in the debate they say: "Well, maybe you have done something but you haven't done enough". That is the point they make. When I take a look at graphs, and this source is Agriculture Canada, and I take a look at federal support of agriculture in western Canada, I see that in 1983 it looks like approximately $250 million. In 1984 it had gone to about $1.2 billion, and I can go to 1987 to the forecast of over $3 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: At least I have their attention now. They do not want to speak about that. Then we take a look at interest rates because they ask what about the moratorium on the FCC. In 1981 the prime rate in Canada stood at 22.75 per cent. That was devastating to grain farmers. It was an incredible figure. This year the interest rate is 9.25 per cent on prime.
Let us look at the Farm Credit Corporation, because the Farm Credit Corporation, as we know, has to pay the average price of the TB Bills. In 1981 it was 16.75 per cent. This year, now today, it is 10 per cent.
Of course, all of us would like to have it even below that but I think it is important to get some of these facts on the table. What I am pleased about is that when I speak to my grain farmers in my riding, they understand. They are reasonable and understand. They do not like the situation but they understand it and want to see where some of the solutions lie. But then we listen to the New Democratic Party.
I come from Manitoba and we have an NDP Government. The last time I looked at the Constitution, agriculture is a shared responsibility, a responsibility shared by the federal Government and the provincial Governments. Members of the Opposition say that there is no money for seeding now.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, we did not. We did not state that in our motion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Do Members of the House, do Canadians, understand that in the next five weeks, that is, between today and roughly the end of May, $240 million will go to grain producers in Manitoba alone under the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Special Canadian Grains Program? That money for Manitoba to be given in the next five weeks is equal to the total given to Canadian grain farmers in the whole of 1983. If that is not enough evidence for Members opposite, and maybe it is not, then let us take a look at Manitoba's contribution. I said that this is a shared responsibility.
April 30, 1987

Do Hon. Members know what the total budget of the Manitoba Government is for agriculture for next year? It is $84 million. Yet Members opposite have the gall, the audacity to come in here and say that we are not doing enough. If we are not doing enough then where is Mr. Uruski? Where is Mr. Pawley?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It's 30 per cent higher than the previous Tory Government gave.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member likes to interject. Let us talk about Saskatchewan. I could talk about the Hon. Member's province too. Let us compare these figures to the figures of Premier Biakeney. Hon. Members will see that they pale by comparison. The point is that members of the NDP like to make great pronouncements but they hate facts. They do not like facts.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Saskatchewan is all loans.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They say that they are in favour of the farmer. Let us look at that situation. Let us look at what the Government has done in this regard. I cannot go through the whole list but I will give Hon. Members a few examples of what the Government has done. Canadian farmers have been begging for and wanting an exemption on capital gains. Why? Because they say that the proceeds from the sale of their farms is their only contribution to their retirement funds. They say that when they retire that is all they will have. What is the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to capital gains?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Look at Saskatchewan. It was the first place to give an exemption.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Members of the New Democratic Party want to abolish it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Saskatchewan gave an exemption 10 years before you guys.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They do not want farmers to have capital gains.


John R. Rodriguez: That is not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Even as they see farms going down in price members of the NDP want to tax the Canadian farmer on that. That is the position of the NDP.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is not!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They hate it when they get it, but they love to dish it out.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It's too bad you don't know the policy. You should check your facts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about other issues? What about the federal sales tax on farm fuels? Measures were
taken in that regard. What about the establishment of the agri-bond program? It was done.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was not done.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about the assistance to farmers by the FCC? That was done.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Get your list straight. We know you don't know anything about it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I could go on and on and on. The point is this. Members opposite like to talk both ways.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tell us about those agri-bonds, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They like to say, yes, reduce the deficit, reduce the interest rates, reduce that liability and at the same time raise prices beyond anything that taxpayers have the ability to meet.
I want to talk about sugar-beets today because I know what is happening in sugar-beets. We have a tripartite agreement with Alberta. The Quebec Government decided to get out. There was no tripartite agreement. It was the Liberal Government in Quebec that did it. Now let us talk about Manitoba. In Manitoba we are negotiating, trying again one more time to negotiate a tripartite agreement. But Manitoba does not want to be part of it. How can there be a tripartite agreement in that case? What is happening in Manitoba, and we know it very clearly, is that Members of that Government ask why they should support sugar-beets when they are not grown in areas they represent in the Legislature. That is how political it has become in Manitoba.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: They said you did not keep your word in the 1984 agreement. Why should they sign another one when you did not keep your word on the last one?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I enjoy the Hon. Member's rhetoric. I am glad I finally got his attention.
What it really boils down to in terms of the grain industry is this. Is there a possibility, if the pressures are international, to get what I think of as subsidy programs by the EEC and as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill turned around? What have we done? What we have done is this. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has taken the lead, both nationally and internationally. That work has been very closely co-ordinated with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. What have they done? They have visited countries that are involved in grain production to try to discuss the issue and to try to come up with some modus operandi whereby we will not all drown in subsidies. That is what they have tried to do.
There is not only that. The Prime Minister in negotiations at the summit has been able to bring forward agriculture as Canada's number one issue. It is the first time that a Prime Minister, a leader, has made agriculture the number one issue on a country's agenda. Happily, it is being accepted by other

April 30, 1987
countries as being sufficiently important internationally to examine at the summit. I think almost all Governments know that we cannot continue to drive down prices artificially by subsidy and then somehow have a viable agricultural community.
Farmers do not want to have subsidies. They do not want to come cap-in-hand to the Parliament of Canada for money for a commodity which they are producing and for which they should receive a fair return every time there is a crisis. Those are the realities. The NDP can argue all it wants. Those are the facts.
Let us now consider the moratorium. It is interesting when we consider the moratorium and farm financing to consider also a Bill passed by the NDP Government of Manitoba which would remove, for example, chattels against any loans taken for farm purposes. The Government there wanted support for such a proposition. However, a great many farmers were against it. It is quite evident why they were against it. It is because farmers see very clearly that they need a consistent line of credit with banking institutions in order to keep their operations going. They are in the business of agriculture. So what they were saying in Manitoba is that it might be a well-intentioned Bill, it might even be a Bill which is seen to be "against the banks", which is popular from time to time on the Prairies, but upon closer analysis they were concerned because the last thing they want is the cutting off or a reduction of that credit or the ability to obtain credit.
That is why the federal Government came in with a farm debt review board to see if we could not work out a common position, not only on the Prairies, but a common position by which all farmers could continue to operate while not jeopardizing their ability to obtain credit and the loans of the banking institutions could be repaid.
I would now like to talk about a press release put out by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association yesterday in which it is agreed that the moratorium had to be lifted. It points out that there has to be caution taken, obviously, so that people are not put into a situation whereby they will lose their farms. The Ministers have very clearly stated that that will not be the case.
What was involved was two types of payments. There were payments to financial institutions, including banks, credit unions and the FCC on the one hand, while on the other hand there were those who had the ability to pay at least something who chose not to pay in the hope that, perhaps, there would be an amnesty or whatever. It was not fair. It was not making the credit situation any better. Those are the situations, and I do not think we should put it any other way.
I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this Government's support for agriculture is very sound. I have already given examples of that, such as the FCC, the capital gains tax
exemption, the fuels tax credit, the Special Grains Program, the Western Grain Stabilization Act amendments, and others.
The Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board announced just a week ago that there would be another S705 million allocated for payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
I was in Manitoba during that period of time and had occasion to speak to the grain farmers. They knew what the situation was, and they also knew about the payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. They were pleased that the two announcements came in and around the same time. It provided them with some form of assurance in respect of their crops.
I am pleased with the way in which our farmers have been reacting to the situation. Quite frankly, trying to create an even larger crisis than all of us recognize already exists because of world pressures is not doing anything at all to help the farming community.
I remain convinced that we must come to an international agreement, an international consensus, an international recognition that the kinds of subsidy programs now in place internationally are going to continue hurting our farmers, our economies, our international relations. It is for that reason that it is critical that the Prime Minister and others take this issue to the summit table. It is absolutely critical.
I am not using that argument to deflect what the Government should do, what the Government is doing, what farmers are doing; but, we all recognize that that is the absolute requirement.
I do not know whether or not Hon. Members recognize it, but 80 per cent of Manitoba's agricultural production must find a market outside Manitoba. Without access to the American markets, all of the subsidies in the world, all of the agreements in the world will be of absolutely no value. If we do not have access to international markets, the agricultural industry will suffer.
Of course there has to be protection in terms of supply-management and commodity prices-and we all recognize that. Everyone understands that. No one is blind to that. But, I wish, once and for all, that the Opposition, who can be as critical as they wish, would at least base their criticisms on fact. They can be as critical as they wish, but their criticism should be based on a recognition of the world situation. They should at least on occasion tip their hats to the reality that exists on the Prairies.
We hear a lot about western alienation. I think this debate on the western grain situation should demonstrate for all of us exactly how much Canadians of one region need Canadians of other regions.
Today it is the west. With the dairy policy, it was primarily Quebec. Both policies were right.
It is time that Canadians, no matter what the pressures, no matter where their region, recognized that we are one country,
April 30, 1987

and they do. While we will fight for our regional positions, there is an over-riding larger consideration, that being the ability of Canadians from one region, as the tugs and pulls and pressures come, to help Canadians in trouble in another region. That is how this country has been built.
If this debate teaches us anything, it is that we are only strong when we recognize the need to work together.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues in government from other than the prairie region have gained an appreciation of what is happening on the Prairies, and I am particularly pleased that they have shown a willingness to approve costly measures to assist in the situation.
All we on the government side ask is that there be a recognition of those facts and that there be a critical analysis of what else could be done, rather than making politics more important than the health of the grain business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it has been roughly thirty-seven and one half hours since I entered the Chamber to participate in this debate. With a short break that allowed some of us to catch a reasonable night's sleep, we now have the opportunity to continue the debate.
It is a very important debate. Quite frankly, it is a debate about the future of the Canadian farmer; it is a debate about the Canadian grain situation, about the family farm. It is not a debate, as some in this House would have us believe, particularly those on the government side, solely about the western Canada situation. There are farmers in Atlantic Canada; there are farmers in Quebec and Ontario; there are farmers on the Prairies; and there are farmers in British Columbia-and all are impacted by the decision of this Government to lift the moratorium on foreclosures.
It reaches out to those who are not directly tied in with the Farm Credit Corporation, that institution being the key element in this debate because of the decision to lift the moratorium on any foreclosures by it. But, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, in this market-place environment, if there are restrictions on one element, then, ipso facto, there are restrictions on the other sectors as well, the banks and the credit unions.
I wish to commence my contribution to this debate by reminding the House and those who have followed it of the steps taken to trigger the debate.
The first step was taken by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), that step coming in the form of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, dated April 27 last.
I should like to take a few moments to read that letter into the record. Over the course of the debate, it has become apparent that there is a misconception on the part of some as to what the intent in requesting this emergency debate was.
The letter reads:
April 27, 1987
The Hon. John Fraser P.C., M.P.
Speaker of the House of Commons Room 222-N House of Commons Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am writing this letter to notify you that tomorrow I intend to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of considering a question of urgent and pressing necessity. That issue is the current crisis facing Canadian grain producers.
At the moment there does not appear to be any opportunity in the immediate future to have these issues brought before Parliament for a full and open discussion. Recent developments have however brought an urgency to this issue that might not have existed before. These include the following;
(1)	Last week the Canadian Wheat Board announced that the initial price for Number 1 Canadian wheat would be 18 per cent lower than last year's price. This follows on last year's price which was about 20 per cent less than the year before. Taken together this is a very substantial drop in the price that grain farmers will be guaranteed for their crop and it will mean hardship for many farm families across Canada.
(2)	It was announced today that the Farm Credit Corporation moratorium on farm foreclosures was being brought to an end as a result of a decision of the Minister of Agriculture. This will mean that for those families who cannot absorb the fall in the price of grain announced last week, bankruptcy will be the only option left open to them. This is indeed a sad situation and a direct attack on the viability of the family farm, particularly in Western Canada.
(3)	At this time of year when prairie grain farmers are engaged in planting this year's crop it is extremely important that they have an idea as to whether or not they can expect a deficiency payment this year. So far the government has refused to give them its assurance.
Mr. Speaker I believe that these are sufficient reasons for granting a request for an emergency debate. The problems in the economy of Western Canada are severe and growing worse. The situation facing the prairie grain farmer needs immediate attention and I believe that granting an emergency debate so that Members of Parliament have an opportunity to discuss these issues would be wholly appropriate at this time.
And the letter is signed by Mr. Hovdebo, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, and as others in this country will be aware, the Speaker did deem the issue to be of an emergency nature and granted the request to hold an emergency debate on it. That debate started at 8 p.m. on April 27 last and went around the clock some 21 hours, to a point yesterday afternoon. This morning, the debate was resumed.
We feel very strongly that this is not just an opportunity to get up in the House to talk about farm issues, the survival of the family farm and various crops. It is not just a reason so we can have something to mail out to our farm constituents. We believe the fundamental purpose of this debate is to focus public attention and, therefore, government attention on the very serious situation that exists in rural Canada.
The moratorium is supposed to come off tomorrow, Friday, May 1, and we are hoping through this combined pressure, through the Members of the House of Commons and through farm groups and citizens across Canada that the Government will reconsider its decision. We hope it will announce some

April 30, 1987
time today during the debate that, in fact, taking the moratorium off is wrong, and that it will stay in place for a period necessary to ensure that the appropriate mechanism is put in place for debt review and to allow farmers to get rid of their debts. They will not then be under the gun of the Farm Credit Corporation, the bank or the credit union. We are getting that support, Mr. Speaker.
I have two letters here, one which actually came before the debate. It is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). It is from a very important agricultural group in Manitoba, namely the Keystone Agricultural Producers. Mr. Jack Penner, President, wrote the letter with copies to the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). I have had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Penner on a couple of occasions at grain related conferences or Seaway conferences which he and I have attended. I have grown to respect the man. I also know that he has a direct involvement in the politics in western Canada. He has worked from time to time for the Minister of State for the Wheat Board in terms of his own political career. I want to read into the record the plea from the Keystone Agricultural Producers of last week:
On behalf of grain producers in Manitoba, we call on your Government to announce, as soon as possible, intention to introduce a similar program for the 1987-88 crop year, with support levels at least equivalent to those under the 1986 program.
We feel strongly that any such additional program should be based simply on acreages to keep it production neutral. The farm financial crisis is so serious that we feel action must be taken prior to the end of April to ensure grain farmers and the business community that the Federal Government is supportive.
What did the Government do? It pulled out the rug from underneath those who were able to keep the FCC at bay because of foreclosure. Mr. Penner's letter continues:
A second important step should be a bold new initiative through the Farm Credit Corporation to save thousands of commercial farms from insolvency. In addition to new loan funds at affordable rates, the FCC should become a full service lender to the farm community. This we feel would provide the assurances required now by the farm community, in times when other lending institutions are threatening to withdraw services.
What does the Government do, Mr. Speaker? It joins in with the threats and pulls the plug. The letter continues:
The CAP supports the initiative of your government in attempting to persuade the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan to discontinue the current trade war, which is seriously affecting the economies of other grain producing countries. Unfortunately, even positive results from these efforts will be too late to save many thousands of young farmers, with serious detrimental effects for rural towns.
Your immediate and urgent attention to this matter is sought by the farmers of Manitoba.
As history will show, they did not get that support. In fact the opposite occurred.
I have another letter from the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool dated April 28, 1987. It is again written to the Prime Minister. It concerns the emergency debate on the farm economic crisis. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the largest pool elevator groups in western Canada, one that has major holdings in Thunder Bay where a lot of the grains it
handles are moved through my community. Mr. Stevenson writes:
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool believes that the rural way of life and related service industries are in jeopardy.
The Pool asks that all Members of Parliament recognize the very critical economic situation confronting Western Canadian families and communities. This crisis has far-reaching social and economic implications for the national economy, as well as for the West.
We specifically recommend:
1.	That programs be immediately developed through federal and provincial co-operation to keep families on their farms in productive capacities.
2.	That early consideration be given to the acute need for a substantial deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year.
3.	That government continue its efforts to restore sanity in the international grain market.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool continues to be prepared to work with government to achieve short and long-term solutions in the interests of the farmers and communities of Saskatchewan and Western Canada.
Those are two comments from two diverse farm groups in western Canada. Both clearly plead to this Parliament, and to the Government of Canada, to do something positive to protect their existence.
What are we talking about in terms of numbers when we talk about farm foreclosures? We have had a number of them quoted in this House. During the Standing Committee on Agriculture meeting on March 24 of this year the following information was given. Eight per cent of our farmers are insolvent. Based on 171,000 farmers that means over 13,500 farmers are considered insolvent. Some 23 per cent have major cash flow problems; that is in the magnitude of 53,000 farmers. Of the Farm Credit Corporation borrowers, 6,000 are more than two years in arrears. Can you imagine if that were one of us and it was a car or a house? It would be gone a long time ago.
There has been some compassion. The powers that have said no, that we should not be pulling the rug out from under these people. Give them a chance to continue to survive. The family farm is part of Canada. Farming is part of Canada. It is part of the reason we exist as a country.
As we developed the CPR west of Thunder Bay we were opening up more and more acres of farmland encouraging people to move out there to develop a sound economic basis to feed our country, to feed North America and finally to feed the world.
It is not just the western producer. It is not just the grain producer. First, in terms of the moratorium it is any farmer in Canada whether in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, northern Ontario, New Liskeard, the Sault Ste. Marie area, the Thunder Bay area, the Slate River Valley, in Rainy River, or in British Columbia. All farmers are affected and all farmers are nervous. It is creating a lot of stress in the family, and I will come back to that.
I want to mention that it is not just grain per se or wheat per se, it is the corn producer, the soybean producer, the small grain producers in central and Atlantic Canada. They are
April 30, 1987

affected by the deficiency payments. They need to know that when they put their seeds in the ground over the next couple of weeks that they will get enough money for the produce when they harvest it so they can pay the bills for planting and maintaining that crop. They would even like it if there was a little left over to put food on the table. They are not asking for the moon. They are asking for a decent opportunity to make a living in farming. They know the world markets are working against us. They know, whether we have the biggest crop in our history, that because of the international price that that price alone will not allow them to recover the cost of producing that grain.
We know it is a world situation and we have seen the response of the other countries. The European Economic Community is one of the biggest supporters of its agricultural sector in the world. In 1985, it provided support of $2.60 per bushel. That support jumped to $3.13 per bushel in 1986, an increase of 53 cents per bushel. The United States, in its effort to catch up with the EEC, has gone from support of $1.49 per bushel to $3.13 per bushel in 1986, an increase of $1.14. What was Canada's response? Two nickels a bushel is all we upped the ante. How can we help keep our producers producing if that is the kind of nickel and dime commitment we give to them? We are not asking that those figures be matched. We are just asking for sufficient funds for the producers to have confidence enough to survive.
I am not a farmer. I am not much good at even growing a garden other than to do the digging but my roots are in farming. My grandfather and his brothers homesteaded in rural Manitoba in a community now called Angusville which, I am proud to say, is named after them. My father was a farmer until he went off to war.
Many of the people in the community of Thunder Bay and the surrounding area moved to Thunder Bay from western Canada. They followed the grain to the Lakehead. There are literally thousands who work and live in Thunder Bay whose livelihoods depend on the viability of the western Canadian farmer. The fewer farmers there are, ultimately the less grain there is to move through the Port of Thunder Bay. The less grain that moves through the Port of Thunder Bay, the less grain that moves through the St. Lawrence and all the communities along it.
I would like to give the House an idea of the number of communities in eastern Canada that are touched directly by the resourcefulness and skills of producers in western Canada. In Thunder Bay, 2,000 people are involved in the grainhandling sector. Up to 2,000 people work on the lakers taking the grain from Thunder Bay to points along the Seaway. In Montreal, 175 people work in the elevators and their livelihoods depend on western grain. In Sorel, there are 43 people who depend on grain. In Trois-Rivieres, there are 50. In Quebec City, there are 105 and in Saint John there are 50. In Halifax, there are 60 people who depend on grain. Here is the
rub. In the riding of Manicouagan, there are 194 people, some in Port Cartier, some in Baie Comeau, whose livelihoods depend on grain being produced and sold at a decent price or at the very least sold somewhere in the world.
Yesterday morning at approximately 8 a.m., the Prime Minister spoke in the House. A number of us were quite surprised to see him here. However, we felt good that he was here because it meant the message was getting out. The Government was feeling the pressure and it had to have the Prime Minister respond. He reminded us that he is only a phone call away. Mind you, that was a phone call during an election in which there was a chance there would be a change in Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister wanted to do his best to help out his friends.
Today, yesterday and the day before we have been asking for some very specific assistance for Canadian farmers and the Prime Minister seems to be ignoring those pleas. Perhaps he will get an earful this afternoon when he meets with the premiers. We know that they too have been feeling the pressure. Although their meeting is not to deal with agriculture but with the Constitution, we would be very shocked to learn that they did not raise this extremely important matter with the Prime Minister.
We should not have to rely on phone calls. We should have a Government that is prepared to examine a sector like agriculture in the context of the world market and in terms of the Canadian need and say: "We have to do something, here is our plan. Let us protect those farmers who have loans with the Farm Credit Corporation and by doing so send a signal to the banks". Can you imagine what signal the banks are receiving today, Mr. Speaker? As soon as the foreclosure moratorium stops tomorrow, it will be open season on farmers. There are a lot of them who are in jeopardy.
Once again, it seems that the banks will get their way. Not so long ago, this broke Government that is so concerned about the deficit found $ 1 billion over a week-end. Now it cannot even say to the Canadian farmers who are under pressure from those very same banks that it will keep the wolf away from their doors and put in place a program that will allow them to get rid of their debt in a realistic way. The Government will not say that it will provide the supports that would ensure at the very least that farmers could get as much out of their products as they put into them.
I appreciate having the opportunity finally to speak in this debate. I had hoped to be the wrap-up speaker, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you will be disappointed to know that I am not and that there are many more to come.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I was able to return from western Canada this morning to offer a few comments on this critical situation. I was in Winnipeg last night and at the meeting 1 attended there were many members of the farming community.

April 30, 1987
1 notice a few of my Tory friends across the way snickering at the fact that the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount would rise to speak on a farming issue. I would like to register for the record as probably many people in the House can that I in fact grew up on a farm only a few miles from this city. I spent all the formative years of my life on a small family farm in the Ottawa Valley between Cumberland and Orleans. I do not say that to add credibility to the remarks I will make because they will stand on their own merits. I simply say that many of us in Canada come either from farming backgrounds or have roots in farming backgrounds. I believe that fact reminds all of us of the importance of the Canadian farming sector, the backbone of every nation.
Often we tend to be somewhat complacent about farmers. Over the years, Canadians have grown rather accustomed to having good quality food at reasonable prices with little thought given to where that food comes from. The trials and tribulations of the farming sector, when it encounters them, are often forgotten. I hope that if this debate accomplishes anything, and I am not sure it will accomplish much to change the obdurate attitude of the Government, it will raise the consciousness of Canadians as they sit in their living rooms and at their dinner tables across the country reflecting somewhat upon the critical situation currently faced by western grain farmers and likely to be faced by farmers in other sectors as well.
Not many of us know a lot of rich and wealthy farmers. We know a lot of hard-working, dedicated people who love both the land and their occupation. In many cases farms have been in their families for generations. Others had dreams to be farmers and now find those dreams in jeopardy.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) spoke some weeks ago in this House he said: "We will spare no effort". He was referring of course to the resolution of the farming crisis in western Canada. You will find at page 5450 of Hansard where our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in response to his own question of whether the Government of Canada would help the farmers of western Canada, that being the content of telephone calls he was allegedly receiving, said firmly: "Yes, we will help the farmers of western Canada". I ask him: What is the help? Where is the help?
We have grown rather accustomed, as has the Canadian public since the Prime Minister assumed office, to great noble declarations, but we have seen little action to give concrete expression to those declarations. At the risk of sounding cynical, it almost looks as though the way the Government and Prime Minister intend to provide that help is to drive many farmers from their farms. It is rather like the Spanish Inquisition where heretics were burned at the stake so they could move on to a better afterlife. More recently you will recall in the Vietnam War that famous declaration of an Army commander who said that he had to destroy a village in order to save it. Is what we are seeing today the destroying of the
western farming sector in order to save it? That effectively is all we have seen so far.
It is not fair, and I am the first to acknowledge it, simply to criticize a very difficult situation.

It is not fair to criticize without offering alternative and concrete policies to remedy a situation that I, Mr. Speaker, can only describe as disastrous.

What are the problems in the farming sector in western Canada? In fact many of the problems are the same in the rest of the farming community. However, what are the problems that the Government can and should correct? Personally I believe the Government can do a great deal more. The Minister says that no effort will be spared. Let him live up to his word. I have a few suggestions to make.
First, the fundamental problem in the farming sector is the unhappy fact of falling revenue. Revenue has been in a disastrous downward curve. It is falling because of declining grain prices. We then have the convergence of those declining prices on the one hand with increasing input costs on the other. We know that the costs of fertilizer, fuel and labour have increased. An infinite number of costs have increased so as to make that convergence a reality. Most importantly, perhaps, in this current situation, are the financing costs. One of the questions the Government must immediately ask itself if it intends to spare no effort is simply this: How does the Government cushion those input costs, especially financing costs?
I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) today, a Minister for whom I have considerable respect. He comes out of Manitoba and should know the situation well. I heard him making some declarations about the uninformed rhetoric in this Chamber. He then went on to make some of the most uninformed and stupid comments I have heard in this House from someone who should know better. He focused, for example, on the question of interest rates and went back to 1982.


Mr. Lewis:: Those were sad years.


Donald James Johnston: I invite the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) to listen carefully. He went back and spoke about how high interest rates were then.


Philip Derek Lewis: Under your Government.


Donald James Johnston: He referred to the prime rate being something like 22 per cent. I do not recall whether it hit that or not but according to the data I have in front of me from The Bank of Canada, StatsCan, the FCC and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the prime rate in 1981 averaged 19.29 per cent, and in 1982 some 15.81 per cent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Averaged?
April 30, 1987


Donald James Johnston: If the Hon. Member would listen for a change he will be educated on the question of interest rates. To take a prime interest rate in isolation, as the Minister did, is really the height of demagoguery in this Chamber when we are dealing with a serious issue. In 1980 the bank prime rate averaged 14.25 percent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Averaged?


Donald James Johnston: If my hon. friend will listen-


Philip Derek Lewis: Do you have a mortgage at the average rate or the highest rate, Don?


Donald James Johnston: -the FCC loan rate, 15 to 20 years, in 1980 was 13 per cent, or 1.25 per cent below the prime.


Philip Derek Lewis: Come on, Don.


Donald James Johnston: In 1981, as inflation increased and interest rates went up, the bank prime rate was at 19.29 per cent


Philip Derek Lewis: You did commercial law just like I did, so, come on.


Donald James Johnston: The FCC rate was at 14 per cent, or more than five percentage points lower than the prime rate. What is the prime rate today? As of last week it was in the neighbourhood of 8.25 per cent. Listen to this. The last Canada Savings Bond rate at which the Government goes out and borrows from the public, the Series 38 through 41, was 7.75 per cent last November. Yet here we have members of the Government bragging about the fact that the FCC rate is now something in the order of 10 per cent, and it was 11 per cent in the first quarter.


Philip Derek Lewis: Right, we are bragging about it.


Donald James Johnston: The Minister of Agriculture says he will spare no effort. I think one effort he should not spare is to walk over and have a word with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is not too difficult. There is no reason why the Government should be profiting in its loans to grain farmers during a period when grain prices were slashed 15 per cent to 25 per cent this year after an incredible 19 per cent to 26 per cent drop last year.
Exceptional and critical circumstances require an exceptional response from a Government that accepts its responsibilities. Yet we have had no response. We have had people bragging about the level of the FCC rate, which is absolutely outrageous.
I want to pick up the Minister of National Health and Welfare on another point he made. When we talk about costs and interest rates the real issue is the real interest rate. What is the real interest rate? What is the difference between the Consumer Price Index and the interest rate that anyone is obliged to pay? If we look at the situation in Canada we will find that when the FCC was lending at 11 per cent, the CPI annual rate was 3.9 per cent. That means the real interest rate for farmers was 7.1 per cent. The spread was never that high
during the most critical periods of the recession in the early 1980s.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Liberal recession.


Donald James Johnston: I think the Government should absorb some lessons of history and go back and practise some of the policies that the Liberal Government not only preached but followed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
OO)


Donald James Johnston: It is absolutely outrageous that when input costs are so high and there is one thing about which the Government can do something, namely, interest rates, it does not step in and cushion the impact of those interest rates on the farming community.


Mr. Fennell:: Like you did during the early eighties when they were 22 per cent?


Donald James Johnston: Don't tell me I have to repeat it all again. This is like a lesson in-


Thomas Scott Fennell: Spare us. You've embarrassed yourself anyway, Don.


Mr. Forrestall:: Would you please be quiet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Donald James Johnston: Let me ask a question which I hope the next Tory speaker, if the Government has the courage to put one up, will respond to. Is it an outrageous proposition to suggest that the Farm Credit Corporation, during this critical period, should lend to farmers at the same rate as it borrowed from the Canadian public on Canada Savings Bonds? Is that an outrageous suggestion? I do not think it is.


J. Michael Forrestall: Did you ever do that?


Donald James Johnston: I am quite prepared to answer those questions in due course, but I ask the next Tory speaker who has the courage to stand to tell me whether that is an outrageous proposition. We are not impotent.
I referred a moment ago to the circumstances of grain farmers in western Canada who have seen their guaranteed prices fall 15 per cent to 20 per cent in the current year, 19 per cent to 26 per cent last year, and who are faced with interest rates at the level about which we are talking. Not one Member on the other side of this House would have to pay such interest rates on a five-year home mortgage yet our farmers are being obliged by the Farm Credit Corporation to pay interest at this level.
You know a lot about business, Mr. Speaker. Do you know any business which does not have an incredible equity base that could survive a 15 per cent to 20 per cent cut in its prices this year and a 19 per cent to 26 per cent cut in its prices last year? Farms which have a very substantial equity base and those which were inherited through generations and have had

April 30, 1987
their capital costs amortized may be able to stagger through this period, but they will not get rich. All of the others that have any loans which they have been encouraged to take over the years by the credit corporation will find themselves faced with foreclosures.
That brings me to another question. Why in the name of God would the Government, given the circumstances which the farming community faces, lift the moratorium on foreclosures at this time? Only a Conservative could answer that question and I hope some of them will if they dare to stand.
This issue does not affect only Canadian wheat farmers. This is our great Canadian heritage, our great Canadian asset. Even the farms which survive this crisis are going to watch their assets erode because they have no available funding to do the important things which are necessary to preserve the quality of the farmland in western Canada.
You are familiar with the salinization problems which are taking place, Mr. Speaker. You know of the soil erosion problems. You are from the Edmonton area and you see it. You know how much of our western soil is blown away each year, and know of the expense of introducing the farm technology necessary to prevent that from happening and to prevent the saline conditions from increasing. These all cost money. The people who lose their farms are in one situation, but the people who stay on their farms do no have adequate resources to do the things necessary to preserve our great natural heritage, our great natural resource, for generations to come.
On the input cost side the Government can act, should act, must act. It can act quickly on the issue of interest payments and by getting rid of the ridiculous notion of introducing foreclosures at this time. It is admittedly more difficult on the revenue side because of the international situation. No efforts should be spared.
I realize I only have a brief moment left to speak, but I am sure I will get unanimous consent to continue because the Members are learning something which they obviously have not known before.
There is an opportunity here to do something concrete. The United States and the European Economic Community can be associated with our major problems. This crisis is effectively being driven by a price war. We know from this month's releases by the Embassy in Washington that the U.S. Trade Bill is once again introducing more measures that will be damaging to Canadian agriculture. For example, the Export Enhancement Program is being amended to expand the number of countries which will be offered U.S. agricultural products at subsidized prices. This has a direct impact on the health and welfare of Canada.
I know I have little time left and I want to make reference to a letter which my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), today sent to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He said that it has been brought to his attention that the Department of
Agriculture has a new agricultural trade subsidy initiative which will include measures damaging to Canada. They are proposing to include, under the Export Enhancement Program, an offer of 1.25 million metric tonnes of barley to Saudi Arabia. As you know, Saudi Arabia is a traditional Canadian buyer. If this is approved by the trade review committee of the U.S. administration it will mean a loss of $75 million to $85 million to Canadian farmers.
Where will this end? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has said that this is a battle of national Treasuries but the Government has said it cannot afford this fight between Treasuries. What ground will we fight it on? The ground is surely at the negotiating table between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Reisman. Why is this issue not up front? Why is this not the primary item of concern in those negotiations? This is a critical period and we are not told how-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has more than expired. Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to carry on?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians who are accustomed to tuning in just about now, especially the good people of Hamilton-Wentworth, may wonder what an MP from southern Ontario is doing participating in a debate on the grains crisis and the lifting of the moratorium on the FCC. It is a monumentally important debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who preceded me talked about the courage of Tory MPs in getting up to speak. Since this debate began yesterday seven cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), and 25 Members of Parliament on this side, I being the twenty-sixth Conservative MP, have entered this debate. The Liberals have put up 12 speakers. That is courage. That shows the commitment we have to Canadian agriculture and to the importance of this debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have 210 MPs. We have 40. That is proportionately higher. Stick around, we're not finished yet.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) would stifle himself, I could continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to listen to what the Hon. Member is saying. I will listen to all other Hon. Members when it comes their time to debate.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: This is a monumentally important debate on a national issue. It is not just a western Canadian problem, it affects all of Canada's farmers.
I am delighted to be receiving so much attention from the Opposition because it gives me and other Hon. Members an opportunity to put on the record the importance of this debate.
April 30, 1987

1 repeat that it is not just a western Canadian problem, it affects all of Canada's farmers. There are many small family farms in the 650 square miles of my Hamilton-Wentworth area. That is why Members of Parliament from across Canada feel it is important to participate in this debate so that we can put on the record the Government's commitment to agriculture and to all farmers across Canada.
I cannot help but repeat the reference that the Right Hon. Prime Minister made to one of his predecessors, former Prime Minister Trudeau. We were given an example of his attitude from his famous statement that he made when confronted with not dissimilar circumstances. He said, "Well, why should I sell your wheat?" After the former Prime Minister said that, apparently he was confronted by a number of farm leaders who said his statement was giving them a real headache. Mr. Trudeau then said, "What the hell, it may be a headache for you guys but it is not migraine". That was the attitude that the Prime Minister of the day and the Liberal Government of the day took toward the problems of Canadian farmers.
During the 1984 election campaign we promised a 16-point commitment to the farmers of this country. We have delivered on 14 of them. Since 1984 we have pumped $6 billion in initiatives into Canadian agriculture. The Government has given agriculture a priority that is unprecedented. I believe that our record is second to none. Of course, agriculture means about 1.6 million Canadian jobs.
In the recent Throne Speech we promised to spare no effort in seeking to protect the interests of Canada's farming communities in the face of unfair pricing and subsidy practices conducted beyond our borders. I will return to that question because those pricing practices beyond our borders are instrumental to the whole thrust of this debate.
We are providing the largest farm assistance package ever, with the billion-dollar Special Canadian Grains Program which is putting a billion dollars of new money into the pockets of our farmers. I am delighted that almost without exception every member of the Opposition who has spoken in this debate has recognized the importance of that much needed money to western Canadian farmers.
Our Government, led by the Prime Minister, successfully pushed for agriculture to be included in the negotiations under GATT. For the first time agriculture will be on the table. We are continuing to push for a better mechanism for settling agricultural trade disputes with the United States. Those negotiations are continuing as we speak.
We are seeking secure, reliable access for our farm products. The motion passed in the House of Commons on March 16 supports the negotiation of a trading agreement with the United States which will protect our agricultural marketing systems.
Since we came into office in 1984, we have introduced over 400 agricultural initiatives at a cost of nearly $6 billion. That is over one new initiative for every other working day. I think it is worth putting those initiatives on the record so that the
people of Canada understand our commitment to agriculture in general.
We provided $200 billion in drought assistance for the western provinces. We abolished capital gains taxes on the sale of farm land up to $500,000. The House will remember the applause we received across the length and breadth of this country as a result of that move. The NDP voted against it. That iniquitous capital gains tax was imposed on farmers by the previous Liberal Government.
We established farm debt review boards, now operating in every province, assisting financially troubled farmers to come to agreements with their creditors to avoid foreclosure.
Mr. George McLaughlin, chairman of the farm debt review board in Ontario estimates that at least 55 per cent of the cases going to the board are being resolved. That is 55 per cent more cases being resolved, when there had been no hope before.
I think it is important to point out in respect of lifting the moratorium on the FCC that the FCC cannot simply move in and foreclose. The review board gives a stay of proceedings for at least 120 days, which provides some breathing space to farmers who are desperately worried, or worse, when one listens to some of the rhetoric coming from the other side during this debate.
We removed the federal sales tax on farm fuels and exempted farmers from the current excise tax. A rebate program reduced taxes on farm fuel.
A further initiative extended the program to effectively remove all federal sales and excise tax on diesel and gasoline farm fuel until January, 1988. When the excise tax was raised in the 1986 Budget, the exemption was also raised to keep farmers from being affected.
We established an agri-bond program to provide loans at reduced rates to farmers. There was an extension of the small business bond program for two years. Hearings were held on agri-bonds.
A moratorium was placed on FCC foreclosures until programs were operating to assist financially troubled farmers. The lifting of those moratoriums is the subject of this debate, and it is definitely the concern of the Canadian Government to make absolutely certain that through this crisis Canadian farmers are treated with the concern and compassion that any Canadian Government can muster under the circumstances.
An optional shared risk mortgage program through the FCC was announced. A commodity-based loan program was introduced in February, 1986. That rose to $300 million as of April, 1987. The FCC interest rate on five-year fixed term loans is at the lowest level since 1979.
We took action to assist farmers who were locked into high interest FCC loans. A five-year $80-million interest rate conversion program assisting 5,400 FCC borrowers was implemented.

April 30, 1987
Interest rates are at their lowest level in nine years. Every 1 per cent decline saves Canadian farmers $130 million a year.
We moved to expand the PFRA to national farm and forest rehabilitation legislation, to bring new technology into the hands of farmers and rural residents. A Private Members' Motion on the PFRA was referred to a Standing Committee.
National Soil Conservation Week was proclaimed in 1985, 1986, and 1987. Federal-provincial discussions on the PFRA and soil conservation are occurring on a priority basis.
In June last year we established the farm finance boards and the farm debt review boards were functioning by September 1. Many Members have referred to the Canadian Rural Transition Program which was established to assist farmers who choose to leave the farm to seek other vocations. Every eligible applicant has been assisted since September, 1986, and $46.6 million has been spent in the interest of assisting farmers who want to move to other vocations under the CRTP.
Section 31 of the Income Tax Act will be changed to reflect the principles of equity, neutrality, simplicity and certainty.
In applying Section 31, Revenue Canada officials were directed not to limit declared farm losses when farmers, for economic reasons, are forced to take temporary part-time work off the farm. Interpretation and enforcement of the Act has been relaxed to benefit Canadian farmers. We moved to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act to double cash advance levels. The Act was amended, doubling the size of loans for advance payments back in June of 1985. Legislation was introduced to the PGAPA to enact emergency provisions more quickly and to ensure more equitable treatment.
We moved to amend the WGSA to make it more responsive to the immediate needs of producers. Amendments to the WGSA triggered a spring interim payment of $450 million in 1985, another interim payment of $580 million in 1986 and an even larger payment is expected for 1987.
We moved to establish a National Income Stabilization Program for the red meat sector. Here is where we get to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association news release. It supports tough decisions by agricultural Ministers, and I quote:
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association supports the decision of Agricultural Minister John Wise to end the temporary debt moratorium on debts to the Farm Credit Corporation.
The CCA views debt moratoria as a temporary measure and has never supported its use.
CCA President Stan Wilson emphasized, "Our concern is that the distortions caused by debt moratoria do more damage to the farm credit system than any possible benefit to individual farmers".
Mr. Wilson concluded, "As responsible farm leaders, we must do more than continually criticize these actions and decisions of our Ministers".
I hope members of the Opposition are listening. This fellow makes sense. Mr. Wilson continues:
We need to take more responsibility for contributing to farm policy formation in Canada. It took great courage for both Mr. Wise and Mr. Mayer to make these decisions.
He concludes:
As producers, we recognize that courage, and support the measures taken.
I can point out to my Liberal friends that that is another kind of courage which the Ministers have and which we as a Government are demonstrating.
In the very few moments that I have left let me point out that in establishing the Income Stabilization Program for the red meat sector, we asked that participating provinces engage in tripartite stabilization and produce between two thirds and the three quarters of Canada's hogs, fed beef and lambs. We are working with producers to establish the marketing system they desire. Tobacco producers asked for, and received, enabling legislation paving the way for a national supply management system. A broiler hatching egg agency was proclaimed in December of 1986.
Potato producers are working with the Government on a proposal for the Potato Marketing Agency. Public hearings are being held. A Government motion was passed in March of 1986 that:
This House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with
the United States-while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs,
agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry and our unique cultural
identity.
There it is. The fact is that the Government is on record as protecting Canada's agricultural marketing system.
We are re-establishing a long term dairy policy. A new five-year dairy policy was announced endorsing supply management. That involves $1.5 billion in just over five years. We are protecting producers against injury caused by highly subsidized imports. The Government, as I said earlier, at the initiative of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, has made agriculture its top priority for the upcoming GATT talks. The Prime Minister successfully fought to have agriculture put on the table. The Meat Import Act was invoked in 1985 to halt imports of subsidized EEC beef. Legislative action to ensure the Act can be invoked will be taken if necessary.
Corn countervailing duties were made permanent. Grain corn imported from the United States will have a duty of 84.9 cents U.S. per bushel assessed against it.
Let me conclude by saying I have been around this House, either on the third floor in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, or on the second floor of the House of Commons, since 1959. Unless one goes back to the days of the distinguished former Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) back in 1959, when I came here and watched the Hon. Member in action as the Minister of Agriculture under the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker I do not think one has ever seen Government which has been more committed to Canada's agricultural sector than this Progressive Conservative Government. There is no Ministerial expertise anyone can name in any Government which I have watched since 1959 that can match the concern and confidence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr Mayer). There is no
April 30, 1987

Prime Minister who has demonstrated as much compassion toward farmers or is more dedicated to helping preserve the family farm than the present Prime Minister and the Leader of this country.
This crucial agricultural sector, this sector of the economy, does face difficulties from time to time, just as the energy sector faces bumps as a result of world prices, just as every other sector of the Canadian economy every once in awhile has to ride the roller-coaster of international pricing. However, these crises ride themselves out and I have the utmost faith in the efforts of Canada's farmers, their traditional dedication to the preservation of the family farm, and utmost faith in the realization of this Government that we must be determined to see the family farm through this crisis. We are proud of our record and we intend to build on it.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Conservatives speaking, I think of the movie "Back to the Future". All they ever do is refer to the golden years of 1959, the Diefenbaker era and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who was Minister of Agriculture. I think they should get Michael J. Fox to be their Minister of Agriculture then they could really go back to the future.
We have been told by the previous speaker that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is dedicated to agriculture. All I know is that he does pay for his own groceries, although perhaps not for his expenses for renovations to his house or his Gucci shoes. He does pay for his own food and I suppose that is a step forward.
I suppose Hon. Members are wondering why a Member of Parliament from a working class riding in central Vancouver is rising to speak on an agricultural debate. I pose that question before some Conservative Members start heckling me about it. The answer is that my constituents do have to eat so they are concerned about what is happening on the family farm. Second, my constituents consider farmers as fellow working Canadians, and when one kind of working Canadian is in trouble, all kinds of working Canadians are in trouble.
I suppose our audience today and those people watching us here and on television, must be wondering what is going on? Where is Question Period? Where is the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent)? Where is all the action? What is this debate on farming? I was hoping that before he leaves the House the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), who is the most skilled Member of this House-perhaps not when it comes to debating farm issues but when it comes to imitating politicians-he would entertain us a little with some of his imitations. He is well known for it. He did a good imitation of Mr. Trudeau when he said "Why should I sell your wheat?" Actually, it was a rhetorical question asked by Mr. Trudeau. He said "Why should I sell your wheat?" He then responded "The reason why I should sell your wheat is because ..." I say that to be
fair to Mr. Trudeau, not that we have been in the past or have any intention to be in the future.
I thought that the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth might have entertained us. He mentioned that his Government had done a great deal in the area of farming, and I followed his remarks closely. He mentioned different agencies, red meat agencies and so on. I got lost, I must admit, although I am sure other people were able to follow. I did write down that a broiler hatching egg agency was set up. I give credit for that being done. I thought that the present Prime Minister just laid eggs. However, 1 understand this agency was more sophisticated, it was a broiler hatching egg agency.
I would like to return to the present to indicate why we are having this debate today and why there is not a Question Period taking place. I am a neophyte farmer, although I did have a farm once on Mount Lehman Road, in the Fraser Valley. I see the Hon. Member who represents that region is in his place across the way. It was a 20-acre farm on which we had some-


Mr. Nunziata:: Marijuana plants.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend suggests we farmed marijuana plants, which is not true, although I understand that crop is booming where the Hon. Member comes from. We farmed cows and eggs, if one can farm cows. We also had some experience with the tax system as well, which is why we know where it should be reformed.
I want to say where we are at here. As I understand it, and I will try to make this simple so that even a thick-headed person like myself can understand, we have a deepening crisis developing on the Canadian farm, especially over the last two years. There is a grain export subsidy war going on. In other words, the European Common Market, with a market of 312 million people, is subsidizing like mad by giving grants to its farmers. The United States has also started that up. The Reagan administration gave a great many grants to American farmers. Of course, philosophically, the Americans would like the market to handle everything, they being conservatives, but when push came to shove they gave their farmers a heck of a lot of money.
That has caused the price of Canadian grain to drop dramatically. In fact, it dropped 20 per cent in price last year and will drop a further 18 per cent in the 1987-88 crop year. Those figures were announced by the Canadian Wheat Board last week. This is part of the reason we have an emergency debate here in the House of Commons today.
Yesterday, the Government announced that on May 1 the Farm Credit Corporation will begin to foreclose on family farms. The Farm Credit Corporation lends money to farmers. As we all know, farmers in Canada are constantly in debt, borrowing to buy machinery and seed in order to plant their crops. They receive money later when they sell their crops. A

April 30, 1987
moratorium was placed on the corporation by the Government some 18 months ago which prevented the corporation from foreclosing on farmers; that is to say, that the corporation would not go around grabbing family farms. So what does the Government do at a time when grain prices will drop another 18 per cent? True to form, the Government hatches another egg. It got rid of the moratorium on the Farm Credit Corporation thus putting many farmers in a panic.
We in the NDP are calling for, at the very least, an immediate commitment by the Government to provide Canadian grain farmers with a guarantee that total grain receipts for crops being planted now in the 1987-88 crop year will equal those of the 1986-87 crop year. That commitment will cost in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
Members opposite say that the Government is working hard on the international front to bring about peace. Hon. Members will recall that I talked about the European Economic Community and the United States subsidizing their farmers, thus forcing down the price of grain. That creates a problem for our farmers. However, I say this to the Government. Be careful. You may be working hard in this area, but it would be wrong to assume that you are really going to get somewhere by trying to wait out the Reagan administration, which will be gone in 1988, or to wait out the European Economic Community. That is a fallacy because measures have to be taken now.
The view of members of the New Democratic Party, unlike the view of members of the Government who think that it is all a problem with the international community, is that as Canadians we can take measures to do things here in Canada.
I remember well Tommy Douglas, whom I had the pleasure of knowing. He once told me here in the House, where he was a Member of Parliament since 1935, that he stood up in the House day after day and said, "Look, we can put people back to work on the Prairies during the Great Depression. We can do things. We can help the farmers and the workers". Day after day the Government would get up and respond, "Sorry, we cannot do anything". Then Tommy Douglas told me that within 18 hours of war being declared Parliament sat all night and into the next day and enacted a series of measures that helped farmers and the workers to get back to work and so on.
We are not in a war today. That was an extraordinary situation then. The fact is something can be done if one has the will. We in the NDP believe that we can do things here in Canada. We do not have to rely on Ronnie Reagan or on the European Community. We acknowledge that we live in a global village, but we should still try to do some things here at home.
The Government has provided some assistance to prairie farmers. It gave them $1 billion, but look at the way it was done. This is the problem the Prime Minister has. A previous Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, looked smug for saying, "Why should I sell your wheat?" But the present Prime Minister looks smarmy and opportunistic. He gave $1 billion to farmers. Why did he give it? Because the Premier of Saskatchewan
phoned and said, "I have an election going on in which the Conservative Government will be defeated. Please send the money right away". How did he give money to oil producers? By getting rid of the petroleum gas revenue tax. He did not do it right away, as promised. He waited until there was a byelection in Pembina when it looked as if the NDP would win the by-election and, bang, the grant came. Such actions catch up to those who take them. People see this as an opportunistic Government, which is why the Prime Minister's Party is at 24 per cent in the Gallup polls.
The Government has consulted farm organizations. Members opposite have said that. But it does not seem to listen to them. The Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth mentioned the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Everyone knows that those cattlemen are big ranchers. What about the little guy who owns a small mixed farm and a few head of cattle? He is not represented by that big organization. He does not want to see the end of the moratorium.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Cattle people are all in good shape.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are getting money, but not some of the smaller ones. I used to be a cattleman, my friend, as I said, in a minor way, and we used to always complain. Government assistance, though significant, was inadequate. It also came at an opportunistic and awkward time.
We know that the Government says it is fighting the deficit, but there are other ways of dealing with it. It could put in place a fair system of taxation so that it could collect more money, therefore having more to redistribute to save the family farm. Even while the Government provides some assistance with one hand it seems to take away money from farmers with the other through the imposition of increased taxes, service fees, freight rates and a whole host of other direct and indirect costs which must be borne by farmers.
The Government should not lift the moratorium until, first, it announces a deficiency program for the upcoming crop year and, second, until it addresses the broad question of the farm debt, which is about $25 billion, most of which is still held at the high interest rates that came in at the time the Liberal Government was in power.
I have heard members of the Conservative Party criticize the previous Liberal Government. We all agree that it had its faults. But why do we not get on and deal with the present? It seems to me that the Government can do something.
On April 1, 1985, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs tabled in this House a unanimous all-Party report, a report that contained several recommendations that could have been put in place to assist the agricultural community.
The first of those recommendations was that the Farm Credit Corporation be encouraged to write down loans. Nothing happened.
April 30, 1987

The second recommendation was that the Minister consider the issue of agri-bonds. Again, nothing happened.
I believe I heard the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp) speak in the House about the Government implementing agri-bonds. But, when and how have they done that? It simply has not taken place. Certainly agri-bonds would be of assistance. It is something that the Government promised at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan during the 1984 election campaign.
Either or both of those suggestions, had they been implemented, would have alleviated the situation somewhat.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am trying to be positive. I am merely trying to suggest some action that could be taken.
This morning we listened to the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) speak in this debate. He was the lead-off speaker this morning. However, he stayed in his seat yesterday afternoon, leading to the adjournment of the debate. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen took the traditional position of the Government side in this debate, that of defending the Government's record.
I managed to search out some material about what was happening in the Okanagan, and according to that material, he takes a different position when in the Okanagan. On one occasion while in the Okanagan he described the situation as being of crisis proportion, and he went on to say, and I quote: "It is the same story on the Prairies. They have the product, but they cannot get the money for it."
This same article goes on to talk about the Jones family. The Jones family bought a farm for $385,000 in my Province of British Columbia, the beautiful Okanagan. That breaks down to a value of $19,000 an acre. Today, that farm is worth $10,000 an acre.
The article points out that there was a federal Government moratorium on farm foreclosures for a year and a half; but that, even with that moratorium, 44 farmers found it impossible, finally giving up their lands to the Farm Credit Corporation.
I listened to my colleagues from the Prairies talking about suicides and depression among members of the farming community. I had not realized how really bad the situation in that regard was.
One of the articles I have here has to do with how the apple growers of the Okanagan were squeezed out of their markets by imports from Great Britain, the Granny Smith apples. We were even serving these apples here in the Parliamentary Dining Room.
When I first became aware of that program through British Columbia television, I made fun of it. It was almost like Mr. Trudeau saying, "Why should we sell your apples?" But in fact I now realize how serious that situation was. The fact is, the British Columbia apple growers had their product
squeezed out of the market. We in Canada could have consumed Okanagan-grown apples rather than importing Granny Smith apples from the United States.
In this article, Mr. Jones, the farmer of whom I spoke earlier, says that while he may be walking away from his land, he refuses to stop farming. He says that he will lease his property from the Farm Credit Corporation if it cannot be sold, or find some other leased land on which to work. He goes on to say:
We have a few options, but we don't know exactly what we will do. The situation will steer the course. If I were to pick up some property, on lease, I would stay farming. I don't have a lot of control over the situation with our debt, so there is not much point in worrying about it. Anyway, if you are a farmer, you get used to disaster.
One can get some glimpse of what it is like for the farmers to have to face these terrible problems, and the determination that they show.
The question I ask, Mr. Speaker, is, why would the Government at this time end the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loan foreclosures? That, it seems to me, is the worst kind of action to take at this time. It is indicative of the worst kind of logic, and it is typical of the Mulroney Government to be so insensitive and inconsistent.
According to my information, FCC loans in British Columbia number 448, of which 249 are more than two years in arrears, with a total value of $12.6 million. Does that mean that 249 farms are going to be seized? Again according to my information, 60 farms will be immediately affected by the lifting of this moratorium.
My concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, will be on quite a partisan note. As I go through this 1 invite you to guess who wrote this policy. I am about to read the Executive Summary of a report published in May of 1986. This is something that has become the policy of the Government.
It reads as follows:
The (blank) would recommend:-
And I will fill in the blank once I conclude this portion of my remarks. Once again:
The (blank) would recommend:
-government transition programs involving relocation, retraining, and support;
-farm financial review boards be restricted to an advisory capacity with consideration to be given to borrowers of direct lending or provision guarantees to existing lenders where future turnaround of the operations is deemed possible;
-continued improvement in farm management and financial information be promoted by creditors and government;
-proposals involving income supports, target prices, agri-bonds, subsidized loans and interest rebate subsidies should only be adopted where long term benefits clearly outweigh the costs and where the application of such assistance is clearly targeted to specific objectives and a designated user group;
-no consideration should be given to debt moratoriums or compromises.
This is the policy of the Government. And who wrote it, Mr. Speaker? The Canadian Bankers' Association has written the

April 30, 1987
Introduction of Bills
policy of this Progressive Conservative Government, and they are following it. This Government is in bed with the big banks, as it is in bed with the big oil companies in allowing Amoco to take over Dome Petroleum. It ignores the small Canadian oil companies; it ignores the farmers; it ignores ordinary Canadians.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that a government that does that does so at its jeopardy. It is a Government that will be tossed out by the people at the next election. Unfortunately, that is two years away.
I urge this Government to come up with a real farm policy to assist those who are suffering so much. The Government will find support for such a policy in the cities of this country, on the part of those who consume the food and on the part of the working people who sympathize with the farmers.


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House Leaders, and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to interrupt the emergency debate on agriculture to deal with four items, as follows: number one, the introduction and first reading of a Bill sponsored by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) relating to tobacco products; number two, the tabling of the Standing Committee report on International Banking Centres; number three, the tabling of the legislative committee report dealing with Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges' Act, the Federal Court Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act; and number four, the tabling of a report by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) dealing with Public Service lay-offs.
Once those items have been dealt with, we will immediately return to the emergency debate on agriculture that is now before the House.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been discussions and we are agreeable to dealing with the four items as outlined.


Mr. Hovdebo:: The New Democratic Party also agrees to that, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Moved that Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and
promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be now read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, dealing with international banking centres, in both official languages.
It is the unanimous view of the committee that the real problem in developing international banking centres, as this country could well do, is in relation to the withholding tax, and thus the report makes extensive recommendations in respect of work to be done by the Ministry of Finance in connection with treaties dealing with the payment of money from one country to another through the banks of each country tax free and free of withholding tax. These would be treaties of the same nature as those currently in place in such places as Great Britain, the United States and Germany. We feel there is a real future for Canada, and the report makes those recommendations.


JUDGES ACT, FEDERAL COURT ACT AND TAX COURT OF CANADA ACT PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, I have the honour to report the Bill to the House, with amendments.


ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on August 21, 1986, I promised the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I would report regularly to the Members of this House on the impact of person-year reduction in the Public Service. Considering this commitment and the statement I made before the House on
April 30, 1987

March 2, 1987, when tabling the Government's Main Estimates for fiscal 1987-88, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, a report to Parliament on the impact of person-year reduction in 1986-87 on Public Service employees.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29   AGRICULTURE CANADIAN GRAINS CRISIS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House do now adjourn.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the reason Members in increasing numbers are participating in this debate, whether from rural or urban communities, is simply that we cannot understand why two days ago the Government would announce this rather cruel and insensitive measure to lift the moratorium on farm debt by the Farm Credit Corporation. Many Members got upset because one week after initial grain prices were lowered by 18 per cent, by almost one-fifth, 6,000 farmers who were at risk were put into immediate jeopardy as a result of these two announcements.
We cannot understand these developments. As the Leader of our Party put it in this House yesterday, we want a rationalization of them and we want to have a number of questions answered. As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) put it yesterday, we on this side of the House believe that we need an announcement now of a deficiency payment sufficient to restore this year's prices to last year's prices and so guarantee to Canadian farmers the same returns as they received last year. That was the first point of our Leader.
Second, we on this side believe that not only must cash flow be maintained so that farmers when they seed, know what to seed and whether to seed, we also believe that the growing credit crunch and the avalanche of debt punishing Canadian farmers should be resolved soon in a meaningful way. We do not find it difficult to imagine that if the Farm Credit Corporation begins to go after certain farmers that that phenomenon will also be adopted as a measure by banks from which farmers have received loans. Therefore it is a measure that is not limited to some 50 farmers a month, which the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) made reference to two days ago in Question Period, it is a measure that could snowball and become a real threat at this time to the farming community.
The situation is one that has distressed us in the Opposition to the extent that I have just described. I submit that the roots of this decision can be traced back to November 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr.Wilson) made his statement at that time. Since then, systematically, one after the other, the
Government has managed to alienate, irritate and damage a number of sectors in the Canadian society.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the laughing Progressive Conservative Member who just entered the Chamber, when the Government attempted to deindex the pensions of our senior citizens. That was one of the many measures tried by this Government since November, 1984. That measure was stopped, but there were others that could not be stopped and have been implemented. For instance, the imposition of the federal sales tax, that hidden tax which has been increased three times since the Government was elected.
It is not just a matter of deindexation of pensions or the imposition of federal sales tax; what about the restrictions imposed on workers who are unemployed and whose benefits will not be paid until certain severance pay and certain pension payments are exhausted? It is not only the unemployment insurance measures or the federal sales tax, you will also recall the constant and systematic increases in another tax, namely, the gasoline tax. Or, if you like, a measure that was just announced a few minutes ago by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the systematic reduction in person-years in the federal Civil Service. This is another form of penalizing the public by way of reduced services to people who need federal services, in any daily aspect of life, from the applicants of Canadian citizenship to those who seek guidance and counselling in our employment centres, to those who apply for immigration, landed immigrant status, reunification, or sponsorship of a family member abroad, those who have to wait for weeks and months before they can be given an appointment.
It is these delays and the slowness of the federal machinery in implementing programs that exist and are approved by this Parliament that are the long-term, slow but inevitable result of measures introduced by the Government. We must see this measure that we are debating now for the second day with understandable outrage within the context of a general policy that the Government announced and somehow forewarned us and the public about way back in November, 1984.
In the case of the farming community, having suffered the reduction of 18 per cent in prices and, while attempting to survive despite that, being given this additional kick with the suspension of the moratorium, we see the farming community in a form of crisis that has been exacerbated by these measures we are debating today.
In essence what is emerging in the farming community, east and west, is a crisis that also includes a phenomenon that has been examined and identified in the last five years twice by Ottawa in a variety of ways. I am referring here to a problem which the farming community has to face and would like to resolve, if given the assistance that it requires by Ottawa, namely, soil erosion.

April 30, 1987
The House will recall that five years ago the Senate Committee on soil erosion produced a report entitled Soil at Risk. That was the first indication of awareness at the federal level of an issue that needs attention in order to facilitate a rather difficult transition problem in the farm community. Chaired by Senator Sparrow, the 1984 report brought up a number of interesting facts. One was that lost income to farmers as a result of soil erosion amounted at that time to $1 billion across the nation. That is an amount that has a staggering impact when heard for the first time.
Two years later, the Science Council of Canada followed up on this study and became preoccupied with the same issue. The Council felt that the farming community needed attention from the Government in Ottawa, in a variety of ways, never anticipating that the kind of measures we are debating today would be in store.
In 1986 when the Science Council reported, it estimated that the loss per year to the farming community by way of soil erosion had risen to the staggering figure of $1.3 billion annually. The Council also attempted to estimate the losses associated with soil degradation per hectare and even to define it in terms of net farm income. The figure the Science Council produced is worth tabling. Its conclusion was that the loss to the farmer per acre in 1986 was anywhere between $20 and $25 and the impact of soil erosion on net farm income amounted to some 38 per cent.
An additional refinement of these studies on soil erosion was conducted in southwestern Ontario. Here it turned out that soil erosion caused a 30 per cent to 40 per cent decrease in corn crop yields. We were told that the loss of one inch of soil could reduce wheat yields by 1.5 to 3.4 bushels per acre. We are dealing with a situation-the roots and causes of which would take some time to define-that, if anything, should demand the intervention of the federal Government in order to reverse a trend and help the economy and the income of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on soil and its tillage.
The studies to which I have referred have pointed strongly to the necessity of soil conservation. Last April, the need for a national strategy on soil conservation was defined at a meeting which included farmers, agricultural scientists, business men, policy makers and environmentalists from all provinces and regions of Canada. They met in Saskatoon to develop a so-called framework for a national action plan for soil conservation.
The most pressing issues limiting the effectiveness of current soil conservation efforts were identified at the meeting. One was production or the lack of environmentally sound and economically viable production systems supporting soil conservation. The second was technology transfer or the lack of co-ordination and the negative perception of conservation as an added cost rather than a long-term benefit. The third was marketing or the lack of strategies to decrease uncertainty of product prices and increase efficiency consistent with sound
conservation practices. The fourth was research or the requirement for increased co-ordination and collaboration among federal and provincial Governments, universities, agricultural colleges, industries and farmers, a role that could be played very strongly and centrally by the federal Government. The fifth was education or the need to create an awareness of conservation among the general public and particularly the young and an increased emphasis on conservation practices for students of agriculture. Finally, there were the environmental effects, or the deteriorating quality of surface and ground water by sediments, nutrients and pesticides that are transported from agricultural land because of poor soil conservation. This must be understood, quantified and become the object of alternative policies as early as possible.
I would like to refer the House to a study conducted by Dr. D. A. Rennie which in 1985 estimated the cost of erosion to farmers in western Canada alone. He came to the conclusion that this amount would be some $440 million. To that he added the loss of organic matter amounting to some $326 million per year, and the cost of salinity amounting to some $212 million, for a total loss to western Canada alone of $978 million per year. This has been translated into 16.7 per cent of operating costs or to some 79 per cent of farmers' net income.
When we approach the question of the economic cost of soil degradation on a province-by-province basis, we come up with interesting figures which add up to a different total but, nevertheless, to a figure that has been worked out with great care, I am told. In British Columbia, the estimated annual economic cost of soil degradation amounts to some $45 million, in Alberta to some $429 million, in Saskatchewan to some $560 million, in Manitoba to some $21 million, in Ontario to some $90 million, in Quebec to some $114 million and in Atlantic Canada to some $23 million, for a total of $1,283 billion per year. As I mentioned earlier, this kind of degradation includes erosion, organic matter loss, acidification, salinity, drainage and compaction.
This over-all picture must be defined within the framework of this debate because it is an added economic crisis faced by farmers at the present time. One would have thought that a Government worth its salt would try to come to the aid of the farmer by realizing that when revenue is declining and there are gluts on the market, this could be the appropriate time for Government to provide certain incentives and economic shock absorbers to facilitate the initiatives required to bring the viability of soil back to where it was decades ago before intensive cultivation took place.
I want to reiterate what the Leader of my Party said in this House concerning the Liberal position in this debate. We want the Government to announce a deficiency payment sufficient to raise the return this year to farmers equal to last year's return. We want the Government to do it now so that farmers have some assurance that when they seed they will receive a
April 30, 1987

return that will cover at least the cost of production. That is a very reasonable position.
In addition, we call for a rationalization of farm debt and revocation of the decision by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to lift the FCC moratorium.
Having said that, I would like to conclude by saying that if this debate is proceeding at the rate it is, with interventions from the most unexpected quarters, and I can assure you that there are not many farmers in the riding of Davenport, it is because we are profoundly upset. We do not understand the logic or politics of this decision. That is why we are rising in increasing numbers on this motion. We feel a strong message has to be sent to the Government on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to western Canada. We hope that this debate will have some effect and register some messages with him so that next week he will have something to say to the farmers, east and west, which is sensible, humane, and takes into account their incredible economic plight.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on agriculture. The NDP referred to the urgency of this debate. I think it is high time we gave some recognition to the progress this Government has made in two and half years, compared with what the previous Government was able to do in 20. I also think it is high time we reminded opposition Members and the Canadian public that in two and a half years, this Government has fulfilled more than three quarters of its election promises. Earlier, I heard the previous speaker for the Liberal Party talking about the moratorium that was being lifted. Did it ever occur to them that a moratorium was necessary because of the poor administration of the previous Government, when interest rates for farmers went as high as 16 per cent?
When we came to power we had to deal with this problem. The previous Government never had the courage to face up to the banks and deal with the situation, and say they were going to introduce a moratorium until interest rates got back to levels that were reasonable and acceptable to farmers. During the election campaign, we talked about getting back to an average rate of around 10 per cent.
Well, we did it in two and a half years. We got back to an acceptable interest rate, and it is entirely normal we should consider lifting the moratorium. The Government, however, is not abandoning farmers in the process. On the contrary, it has taken steps to ensure that regional panels will examine, on a case by case basis, the situation of farmers who are in difficulty despite a return to normal interest levels. I am surprised that Members of the previous Government should be demanding reinstatement of a moratorium they never had the courage to introduce.
I am also surprised at the comments of the Member of the New Democratic Party who spoke earlier. In concluding his speech, he said that he could see nothing positive in the Government's actions. Since they are so blind to the obvious, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity
I have been given today to speak to this honourable House, and remind the Hon. Member and his colleagues of what the Government has achieved in the past two and a half years. It has been two and a half years since we came to power, after an election campaign in which we produced a document where our objectives were clearly defined. Nearly 75 per cent of those objectives have been met. I may therefore remind him that if he is looking for positive signs, there are plenty among the achievements I am about to mention.
At the same time, I take great pleasure in greeting our farmers in the riding of Richelieu. During the last election campaign, when I was canvassing door to door and at riding meetings, I found they were desperate and depressed because of the crushing pressures of interest rates and also because of the lack of a long-term dairy policy.
There are 800 dairy farmers in my riding who were looking for this kind of stability. There are also pork producers who were absolutely debt-ridden, and who today are all smiles. There are also sheep farmers and grain producers who were suffering again as a result of falling prices, and who were saved by the billion-dollar subsidy. Once again, this Government has acted responsibly.
The farmers I met last week at a meeting to discuss free trade, among other things, told me how pleased they were with everything the Government had been able to do for them in the past few years because, in 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation rate was 16 per cent.
I may also recall the problems farmers were having as a result of oil prices. In fact, it was the previous Liberal Government which brought down the previous Conservative Government during an historic vote in December, leading to an election that cost taxpayers $105 million, and all because of a promise that the 18 cent increase would be scrapped. And lo and behold, less than six months later, we had an increase of over 65 cents. In fact, our Party admitted during the election campaign that the price of oil was having a serious impact on Canadian farmers. Today, thanks to our Government's action, farmers have had some respite as a result of price controls, a drop in the price of oil and fuel tax rebates, either in the form of income tax rebates or direct refunds.
In 1984, Quebec farm producers were hoping to receive compensation for the 1983 drought. The previous Government had flatly refused to make any compensation payments or even listen to these farmers explain the problems they had in 1983 because of the drought. However, thanks to the new Government's awareness of these problems, millions of dollars were set aside for this purpose. In my riding alone, $1,200,000 in compensation payments were paid in connection with the 1983 drought. I think that can be seen as a very positive measure benefitting Canadian farmers, and especially those in Quebec.
Farmers had been waiting five years for a permanent dairy policy. They got one in less than a year with the Conservative Government elected in 1984.

April 30, 1987
The Liberals set up a Crown corporation, Canagrex, which, instead of helping farmers, has been a constant drag on their budget. Our Government has done a great deal for Canadian agriculture, directly contributing to the survival of many farmers.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say what the Opposition is afraid to mention, and I am referring to all the help we have received.
Signing the five-year policy cost the Government $1.5 billion. It was a commitment that was difficult to meet, in the knowledge that we were embarking on free trade discussions, but we nevertheless wanted to provide guarantees for our dairy producers.
The $500,000 capital gains exemption. This program has made it possible for farmers to sell to their sons or neighbours without having most of their profits taxed away. This program has made it possible for farmers to pass on the family farm to the next generation, something they wanted for many years. The capital gains tax exemption has had an extremely positive impact on the number of young farmers which has increased to twice or three times the number noted in the five or six years previous.
The Opposition was against this measure even before it was introduced, but nevertheless, it has been very successful. The Opposition talks a lot about morality. I suggest we call it political morality, and I think that political morality is reflected in acceptable interest rates. It means helping young people who want to take over the family farm. It also means a drop in the unemployment rate and investors who are investing in Canada as never before. Political morality is not the morality of the individual but the morality of a Party that takes charge and defends the interests of all Canadians by increasing their well-being.
For instance, FCC interest rates which were at 16.75 are now below 10 per cent. And we have all the case-by-case studies to help individual farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) introduced 6 per cent programs for farmers in financial difficulty. Is that not an example of the positive factors the previous NDP speaker was looking for?
We introduced a shared-risk mortgage plan at a rate of 9.75 per cent. These measures had been called for by the Opposition, both by the NDP and the Liberal Party. We implemented these measures and today, they tell us we have done nothing positive. We set up a farm debt review board, and in my riding, a dozen cases have already been dealt with successfully, thanks to this board.
Mr. Speaker, we also introduced a diesel fuel tax rebate. Our farmers had been asking for this for years. It means that now they can get a refund, which will help them cope with their debt load and expand their operations. That was another concept people had been talking about for years, but the previous Government never had the courage to put it into practice.
We have compensated Quebec producers for crop losses, as I said earlier. In my riding alone, producers received $1,200,000. We have signed federal-provincial agreements with several provinces, including agreements worth $35 million with Quebec. Under the previous Government, misunderstandings and petty quarrels about protocol and precedence were the order of the day, and while constitutional debates and those same petty quarrels made the headlines, farmers were left to their own devices. All that changed when this Government came to power, and today, farmers are delighted with programs that are bringing in $35 million more for Quebec. I meet these people every week-end and talk to them in my riding. In fact, my riding has the largest number of dairy producers in Canada: 800 farms. These people say they are satisfied and, in fact, delighted with the attention they are getting from the present Government, which listens to them and consults and lives up to their expectations.
We have given $1 billion to help grain producers, and for the first time, the money has not been funnelled into one specific region. Funds have been spread across Canada, so that for the first time, Quebec's grain producers have received $37 million. This is a first, and it is very gratifying. I met with the mayor of Saint-David on the weekend, and he said that for him and his children, $55,000 meant he would be able to save some of his year's production, and he was very pleased.
Yet this man is not a fanatic nor does he support any particular Party. His objective remark to me: the agricultural producers of the Saint-David region are quite satisfied with the wheat output and the deficiency payments they will be getting.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on like this for a long time since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) have successfully debated the implementation of 414 agricultural initiatives worth in excess of $7 billion. These are concrete achievements which attest to our sense of responsibility towards the Canadian agricultural community and the fact that we believe that agriculture is one of the key sectors of our economy. It goes to show that we intend to continue working along those lines.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever agriculture will top the agenda of the GATT negotiations. Thanks to the intervention of our Prime Minister, for once we will be able to give priority to the agricultural sector at the next GATT summit, proof positive that one of our first concerns over the past two and a half years has been agriculture and the farm community because we wanted to help them get out of the slump into which they had been driven by the previous Government.
Yet the Opposition still finds something to criticize. But what exactly is the agricultural program of the Liberal Party of Canada? What specific solutions do they have to propose? What are the solutions of the NDP-and I am talking about realistic solutions, not dream-like solutions which do not even take into account the Canadian Government's ability to pay?
April 30, 1987

Being more realistic, our Government is controlling the state's budget and expenditures and co-ordinating departmental activities to provide the best services possible at the lowest cost to invest billions of dollars in our agriculture to save our western grain producers, to help our Quebec producers and support our potato producers in eastern Canada. Each farm industry has been scrutinized by our Government, a true national Government, and we are proud indeed of its accomplishments and very positive actions. I do not share the opinion of the NDP Member who spoke before me, nor that of the Liberal Party Member who was eager to have the moratorium continued, something his own Government had not had the courage to initiate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me so much time. 1 hope the Government will continue its good work in the area of agriculture.
[DOT]	(1520)


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate, not because I represent a dominant farm sector of the country-


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: And not because you know anything about it.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, that has never stopped me in the past. I have never known Members of this House to be hesitant about making a speech on a subject of which they have extremely limited knowledge. It is almost accepted that the less you know about many things, the better Member of Parliament you are.


Mr. Boudria:: We're generalists.


John R. Rodriguez: Everyone thinks that the only thing we farm in Nickel Belt is nickel. However, for the erudition and enlightenment of Hon. Members, there is one valley in Nickel Belt called the Chelmsford area which was the greatest and best potato-producing section of this country. Indeed, with all due respect to my colleagues from Prince Edward Island, the potatoes from Nickel Belt, and Chelmsford particularly, won many awards for being the best potatoes in the country. I know that Members opposite are scoffing at that, but it is a fact. That was some 30 or 40 years ago before Inco got at the soil, but I knew I would be able to bring that information into the debate. If we are not in that position any more, it is due to the other single industry that has grown up in the Sudbury area.
[DOT]	(1530)
Some may ask, since I do not know much about agriculture why am I speaking? This crisis facing the farm community is not just a farm issue or a western issue, it is one that affects every Canadian man, woman and child. We have a moral responsibility to stand up and air the issue thoroughly.
I do not want to cast stones at the Government continuously. I am a reasonable person and I think they have done some good things. There is no doubt, as I read and listen to those who are knowledgeable on the subject, that there is a crisis. The Ottawa Citizen on April 28 contained a large headline: "Black Friday Looms For Farming Families". In The Windsor Star there is a large headline stating: "An Industry Gone Wrong". In the Business Day of The Toronto Star the headline reads: "One In Five Farmers Seen Leaving The Land". In the same newspaper there is the headline: "Thousands of Prairie Farmers behind $227 Million in Loans". Another article states: "Census finds farms falling in number".
Every time that one acre of farmland goes out of production in this country a little bit of Canada dies. I recall when I first began teaching in the St. Catharines area in the Niagara district I used to spend my summers going to the peach farms to pick peaches and subsidize my wages as a teacher. When I return there today I see highway. There are many small businesses along that stretch between Hamilton and St. Catharines where there used to be all sorts of canneries that primarily employed immigrant women to can peaches and pears. That has all disappeared. If the present trend of disappearing farmland continues, we will be a net importer of food in this country. That has very serious implications for future generations of Canadians.
Members on the government side who stand up to say there is no crisis are taking the ostrich approach.


An Hon. Member:: Nobody is saying that. You are way off base.


John R. Rodriguez: The Member says that no one is saying that. I am holding the debates from April 28. In a speech by the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), which appears at page 5405 of Hansard, he says:
Mr. Speaker, it takes incredible nerve to ask for an emergency debate on the
situation of Western grain producers.
He said that the NDP has an awful nerve to suggest that we should have an emergency debate on this question. I have listened to other Members opposite, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He said that everything was fine. There are those who prefer to put their heads in the sand and say that there is no problem because the matter has been rectified. They suggest that the debt moratorium program which was introduced 19 months ago can be taken off.


Mr. Blaikie:: When things are worse.


John R. Rodriguez: We will get to that a little later.
We also see the Pontius Pilate approach, in which they wash their hands and say there is nothing more that can be done. They say that after all, they gave a billion dollars to save the "diviner" and cannot find any more money. Perhaps one solution is to give the farmers access to the PC Canada Fund. I

April 30, 1987
hear Members say that the Government does not have any money for them and it has done as much as it can do.
Excellent speeches have been made on both sides of the House I have learned a lot from listening to Conservative Members who represent western ridings. It appears to me that the crisis hinges on three specific issues. One concerns the fact that the United States and the European Economic Community are subsidizing their grain producers to such an extent that the Canadian grain producers cannot compete. The second issue seems to be a problem with respect to removing the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation mortgages as of May 1, which is tomorrow. The third contributing factor to the crisis would appear to be that the Government has refused to make a commitment to a deficiency program for the upcoming year. Those three facts indicate to me that there is a crisis.
Let us consider the first matter. Can we blame the Government for that situation? To be fair, we cannot blame the Government because it is an international situation. I think the Prime Minister was correct when he said that he will take this matter to the appropriate international authority to discuss it. I think that is fair. The Government cannot do anything about that.
However, let us consider the Government's step to lift the moratorium on Friday. 1 suggest that the Government has to learn that timing is of the essence in politics. On Monday, when the press release was issued from the Department of Agriculture that the moratorium would be lifted as of May 1, the Government scheduled a debate on capital punishment. That debate continued for two days. Meanwhile, farmers who are experiencing these problems and living on the edge were getting notice that the moratorium would be lifted on May 1. I could just see them watching what Parliament was debating on television and asking what Members of Parliament were doing. What is really important, is it the noose or their livelihoods and their farmlands? It was absolutely incredible that when people are faced with these serious problems Parliament engages in a debate on something that had been decided in 1976. I think that the priorities ought to be rethought in this House and by the Government.


Mr. Brightwell:: Why have you been stalling for a month? You wouldn't let business go ahead.


John R. Rodriguez: There are issues which are extremely vital to Canadians. One issue was the drug crisis and the high price for drugs Canadians will have to pay as a result of Bill C-22. No self-respecting Opposition would avoid doing all in its power to ensure that that matter was thoroughly examined. In this particular instance we took the opportunity, and the Chair agreed that this was an emergency situation. Therefore, we have launched this debate on the whole question of grain producers and agriculture.
We know, for example, the Farm Credit Corporation only covers about 30 per cent of all farm mortgages across the
country. Once the moratorium comes off on Friday, you can bet your bottom bippy, Mr. Speaker, that the private lenders- the banks and all the other private lenders-will move in like a bunch of buzzards.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: They were before. You are dreaming.


John R. Rodriguez: They took their lead from the fact that the Government clearly indicated that it wanted a moratorium on the debt.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: You are dreaming, John.


John R. Rodriguez: No banking institution is going to fly in the face of what is a clearly perceived intention of the Government. Once that moratorium comes off, they will be right there.
I think farmers, no matter where they are in the country, are listening to the Prime Minister, and I know he wanted to get up early so he could prove that he is like a farmer, working hard, knowing the early bird catches the worm, or whatever the saying is. He was up really early because he came down and joined in the debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Guccis and overalls.


Maurice Brydon Foster: At 8.30 in the morning.


John V. Nunziata: Farming in Gucci shoes.


John R. Rodriguez: Do not cast aspersions on the Prime Minister's dress. He said, "If they phone me up and ask for help, I will not let them down. Brian Mulroney will not let them down. I will be there". He said that.


John V. Nunziata: Hallelujah, brother!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: New carpets in the barn.


John R. Rodriguez: He said, and I quote from Page 5451 of Hansard:
It happened that we received telephone calls from western Canada for help- and I can tell you what the position of my Government was then, what it is today, and what it will always be: When western Canada asked for help, to the extent humanly possible, Brian Mulroney and the Government of Canada will say, "Yes". We are there to build a stronger western Canada and to build a stronger Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You should put your glasses further out on your nose, John, if you want to imitate him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You look just like Brian.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to say to all the leaders in western Canada, and wherever else in Canada, Ontario and the Atlantic, you heard what the Prime Minister said. Pick up the phone and call now, today, and he will make a contribution.


Mr. Merrithew:: Watch the old ticker.


John R. Rodriguez: They have to phone. The Prime Minister said if they phone he will give help. A previous speaker asked
April 30, 1987

what concrete suggestions the New Democratic Party can make? Here is one. I am appealing to Hon. Members opposite to extend the moratorium. Extend the moratorium tomorrow.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: So the banks won't foreclose?


John R. Rodriguez: So that the FCC will not foreclose on the farmers. To make it crystal clear to the private sector lenders, the Government should send them a message directly and that message is to follow the lead which has been given to the FCC, a moratorium.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: No more loans for farmers after that.


John R. Rodriguez: That is one suggestion we were asked for. We are not the only ones saying that. The Keystone Agricultural Producers from Manitoba are saying the same thing. They are saying the moratorium should be continued. We are not the only ones.
The third factor in the crisis is that the Government refuses to make a commitment to a deficiency payment program for the upcoming year. It did so a year ago with $1 billion. There is no problem with that and we give the Government credit. But the situation now is that prices are going to drop another 18 per cent. The condition still exists. In fact, it is exacerbating. Now is not the time to leave the farmers in a quandary.
I want to make a second suggestion to my colleagues opposite on the Government side. Why does the Government not give the assurance that the farmers will receive the same price for their product this year as they received last year? Why does the Government not give them that assurance? That is reasonable.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Eminently reasonable.


John R. Rodriguez: I think that is what they have asked for. If we ran into some difficulty in our nickel industry in the Sudbury Basin, I would be the first one to argue with the Government to extend assistance, even though I have my biases about multinational mining corporations. Because it involves the economy of the community, I would be the first one on my feet. I urged the Government when nickel prices dropped, to stockpile nickel, in other words, to purchase the nickel the workers produced and guarantee the price so they could continue to work. I argued for the workers in the mining industry, so why would I not defend our brothers and sisters in the agricultural industry? It seems to me that that is the whole concept of solidarity. That is what it means. We are all brothers whether we work in the mines or in the fields. It seems to me that that is an investment which Canadians, and all opposition Members who have spoken, have urged the Government to make. It is politically wise and it seems to me it is one thing which would help the Government to raise its profile in the polls.
That brings me to my last argument. The bottom line is this. If the Government will not do it because it is eminently
reasonable, will it at least do it because it is politically expedient? I give a promise that I will not go out and criticize the Government if they did that. I would not say it is because of political expedience. I would not critize the Government for that. I am prepared to give it credit. I am really appealing to the sense of Canadianism on the part of the Government. I am urging the Government to in fact realize that all Canadians want the survival of their agricultural sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am appealing to the Hon. Member. Another 30 seconds. He is over by a minute and a half now.


John R. Rodriguez: If I could not convince Members opposite in 20 minutes, perhaps I could try once more in 30 seconds. I say to Members opposite, look, there is a crisis. If they watch the news and read the newspapers which are emanating from western Canada, and from other parts of the country where there are farming communities, they would recognize that there is indeed a crisis.
We on this side of the House have proposed two specific and, we recognize, short-term, proposals. At least they deal with the immediacy of the problem. After that we will have to go back to deal with the long-range and long-term problems. We would be right behind the Government in trying to reach a resolution to those long-term problems.
I make that appeal to the Government. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is in his place. He is busy talking to someone else at the moment, but I trust that he will convey this message all the way to the top. If he will not do that then I will have to go and use the telephone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Am I to understand that we are to continue with debate, or is the House business question to be asked?


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest that Your Honour continue with the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) as the next speaker.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, while I represent an urban riding in Winnipeg-St. James there are many people in my riding who are employed either directly or indirectly by the agricultural industry in Manitoba. I was born in the small country town of Morris, Manitoba, which existed primarily because of the agricultural industry around it. I have many relatives who are farmers. So I am quite aware of the importance of the agricultural industry in Manitoba and in Canada. I am very happy to be able to participate in this debate.

April 30, 1987
I am sure that Elon. Members recognize that the farming and agricultural industry is having difficult times at the moment. The Government of Canada is trying to do something about it, to the best of its financial and physical ability. I would like to comment on the importance of the agricultural industry to Manitoba since, according to Statistics Canada, there are some 39,000 Manitobans who are employed in this industry. It is the third largest industry in terms of employment in Manitoba. As well, it is the second largest industry in terms of dollar value in our gross provincial product. In actual fact, it is the fuel that powers the engine of the Manitoba economy.
Why do I raise these particular items with regard to the importance of agriculture to Manitoba in my comments? During my participation in this debate I will attempt to put before the House the record of the present Manitoba NDP Government, as well as its attitude toward agriculture. I will also put forward our Government's record to date since our election back in 1984.
As Hon. Members know, since our Government was elected in 1984, we have initiated 400 different grants and benefits to Canadian agriculture amounting to approximately $5.76 billion. In the two and a half years that the Government has been in power we have assisted agriculture to the tune of $5.76 billion. To me that shows a great deal of effort in terms of trying to preserve this very important industry.
I would like to remind Hon. Members of some of the programs that have been instituted by the Government. First, I would like to mention the special Canadian grains program, which has been mentioned before. Under that program $1 billion was needed to boost the cash flow of grain producers. Over 80 per cent of this money will go to western Canada. Then, there was the new grains deal that my colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), arranged with Russia. It is a five-year agreement that will see the purchase by Russia of at least 25 million tonnes of grain. We also entered into a new long-term agreement with Brazil which guarantees that that county will purchase between 750,000 tonnes and 1.5 million tonnes of wheat annually between 1986-87 and 1988. I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette for the efforts he is taking on behalf of our farmers to sell their grain in a very difficult world market-place.
There was also the crop and livestock drought assistance which amounted to some $210 million, $150 million of which went to grain farmers hit by last year's drought and grasshopper damage. Then there was $60 million in drought assistance to livestock producers in western Canada. There was also a record interim pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act of $705 million for the 1986-87 crop year. Last year's total pay-out in this regard was $859 million.
We amended the Western Grain Transportation Act. We rolled the rate back to an average of $6 per tonne while the rate projected by the Liberals was going to be $ 11 per tonne. Another very important program which we introduced was the
commodity-based mortgages program. Commodity-based mortgages will be available at a basic interest rate of 6 per cent with a limit of 13 per cent being placed on them should the price of commodities rise again, which we hope will happen. That limit would only be reached if the price of wheat went from $3 per bushel to $6 per bushel. This is a very progressive and forward-thinking program which was introduced by our Government.
We know also that because of our Government's approach to the finances of the country and its determination to bring the deficit under control, and as a result of our economic guidelines, interest rates have dropped. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act interest rates declined to 11.25 per cent from the level of 14 per cent on election day. In terms of the Farm Credit Corporation, five-year mortgages have fallen by 3.75 percentage points to 10.75 per cent.
What I would now like to comment on is what the Liberal Government did when it had the chance to try to assist agriculture, particularly with respect to interest rates. I direct these comments in particular to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who stated the other day what the Liberals would do and how. I ask the Hon. Member where he was when interest rates on farm improvement loans reached some 23.75 per cent. Where was the Hon. Member then? He was in the Cabinet of the Trudeau Government.
With respect to interest rates in 1987 the prime rate is 9.25 per cent, while the Farm Credit Corporation interest rate is 10 per cent. There is a difference of 0.75 per cent between the two. In 1981 the prime rate was 22.75 per cent while the rate at the Farm Credit Corporation was 16.75 per cent. There is a difference of 6 per cent between the two. Where was the Liberal Government in 1981?
With respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a very important Act for farmers, the interest rate is 10.25 per cent, which is just 1 per cent higher than the prime rate. What was the interest rate when the Liberals were in power? It was 23.75 per cent. There is a difference of 12.5 per cent between 1981 and 1987. Where were the Hon. Members from the Liberal Party who were members of the Trudeau Government then? Where were they when Prime Minister Trudeau said in Saskatchewan, "Why should I sell your wheat?"
We have seen what the Government has done through the Canadian Wheat Board. It has gone out and found new markets and increased markets in these very trying times. Who really believes the Liberals when they stand up today and say what they will do if they formed the Government? Nobody. I tell Hon. Members that nobody in western Canada would believe them because they proved when they were in government that they did not do anything.
I would like to talk about the present Government in Manitoba, the Government formed by the New Democratic Party, and its attitude toward agriculture. As Hon. Members are aware, I am a member of the finance committee. Today we
April 30, 1987

had representatives from the Economic Council of Canada before us who presented us with the Council's activities for the coming year, as well as the issues and reports with which they will be dealing.
One of the studies-and it is probably one of the key studies that we are going to deal with over the next year-is a study dealing with the future of the prairie grain economy.
This was a study requested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and it is one that is jointly funded by the provincial Governments and private sponsors and the council itself. Those provinces providing funding are eligible to appoint a representative to sit on an advisory committee to this special report and study.
The Government of Saskatchewan contributed $300,000 toward the study and the Government of Alberta contributed $50,000. What did the NDP Government of the Province of Manitoba contribute to the study? Zero dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


An Hon. Member:: So much for the socialists.


Clement George Minaker: The Province of Manitoba is not even represented on the advisory committee, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I asked Ms. Maxwell, the Chairman of the Council, why it is that the Province of Manitoba is not a party to the study, and the answer 1 got was that it wouldn't contribute $50,000.
That is indicative of what the NDP thinks about the agricultural industry in Manitoba. It will not even put up $50,000.


An Hon. Member:: So much for the NDP commitment.


Clement George Minaker: Why is it important that Manitoba should be represented? In addition to other things, this study will look at the diversification of the agricultural industry in western Canada, the grain industry in western Canada. Manitoba is leading in the field in this respect. Certain lands in Manitoba that had been used for grain production are now being used for other crops. To give some examples, on these lands there is now grown black beans, pinto beans, and peas. In addition, we have two potato plants in Manitoba, Carnation and McCain's, and McCain's wants us to grow peas and carrots. We are growers of grain for ethyl alcohol. We have an ethyl alcohol plant in Minnedosa. And, of course, we have our sugar-beet industry.
The Province of Manitoba should be represented on that advisory committee. It should be part of that study. Those conducting the study itself will be presenting their recommendations to the advisory committee, and that committee will thus have an input in terms of the direction the final report will take and its conclusions.
The Government of the Province of Manitoba has said that it has not got $50,000 to give to that study; that a seat on that advisory committee is not worth $50,000. That tells me that
while the NDP Government makes promises about assisting agriculture, it doesn't do anything about following up on them.
What about our sugar-beet industry in Manitoba? What does the NDP Government of Manitoba think about sugar-beets? There is the opportunity for the Government of the Province of Manitoba to enter into a jointly funded program with the sugar-beet producers that would cost the Government approximately $2 million over five years, or $400,000 per year. This annual funding of $400,000 a year would go a long way toward helping the sugar-beet growers in Manitoba, not to mention the sugar-beet plant that is located in the riding of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
And what is their answer? They refuse to enter into that agreement. If they were to enter into that agreement, thus keeping the sugar-beet industry going in Manitoba, that same Government would receive in taxes from the trucking industry alone $200,000 annually. That is the approximate revenue that would be returned to the Government through fuel taxes and income taxes. In addition, the Manitoba Sugar Company would be paying to the Government $550,000 in taxes. In other words, for an expenditure of $400,000 to save this industry, the Government would be receiving in revenue $750,000. And yet, it has refused to participate.
That attitude prompts me to ask where that Government's policies in support of agriculture are. It is for that reason that I say what we are seeing during the course of this debate is hypocrisy. Who is to say that the federal New Democratic Party would not have the same attitudes toward agriculture as is exhibited by the Manitoba NDP Government. The NDP Government of Manitoba in the last election promised to assist the agricultural industry in Manitoba. We have seen how it has assisted agriculture. It is not doing anything.
We cannot believe the federal New Democratic Party. We know how closely tied it is with its provincial counterparts. How can we believe that it would do anything different if it were to form a federal government-heaven forbid!-than the NDP Government of Manitoba is doing. That Government will not even pay $50,000 to help out the grain farmers of Manitoba or of western Canada. It will not put up $400,000 a year to assist the sugar-beet industry, notwithstanding that it would receive, in return, $750,000 in revenues. It is a Government, Mr. Speaker, that is obviously not interested in agriculture at all.
The Progressive Conservative Government recognizes the seriousness of the problems facing the agricultural sector. It recognizes the difficulties it is experiencing at the present time. As is indicated by the number of programs we have instituted since forming the Government, we want to see the agricultural industry thrive and grow. We have indicated, through action, that we do have concerns and that we are prepared to provide assistance, and we shall continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, for however long we form the Government of this country.

April 30, 1987
5544______________________________________
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader what business the Government intends to call tomorrow and for the beginning of next week.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, assuming the termination of this debate, we will be dealing tomorrow with Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act. We understand that there is a disposition to move through Routine Proceedings in a routine way, thus giving us the full day on the report stage of the Patent Act. We anticipate that there will be full debate on that. That will then constitute the allotted day on the Patent Act, as decided by the House earlier.
At the present time, the contemplation is that on Monday we will be dealing with the legislation on financial institutions.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29   AGRICULTURE CANADIAN GRAINS CRISIS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), on debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate with regard to the plight of the Canadian farmer. Needless to say, the farmer in Canada is in a desperate situation. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the very future of the Canadian farmer is in jeopardy, mainly due to the inaction of this particular Government.
Canadian farmers are in deep trouble, and the response of this Government, this Progressive Conservative Government, has been totally inadequate.
Over the last several weeks, the Government of Canada administered to the farm family in Canada a double whammy. First, the Government, through the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), announced that there would be an 18 per cent decrease in the price of wheat
over last year. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that comes on top of a 20 per cent decrease that occurred last year.
In 1984-85, the price per tonne for Canadian wheat was $170. In 1986-87, the price of that same tonne of Canadian wheat had been reduced to $130. Today, Mr. Speaker, the price is $110 per tonne. The price of barley in 1984-85 was $125 per tonne; in 1986-87, $80 per tonne. This year, Mr. Speaker, it is at $60 per tonne-less than half of what it was two years ago. We have had the price of wheat go from $170 a tonne in 1984-85 to $110 per tonne this year.
The Canadian farmer, the Canadian farm family, is in jeopardy. In effect, the very heart of our nation is being pierced by the inaction of this particular Government.
First it reduced the price of grain. If that isn't enough, on Monday of this week, the Government announced that it would be lifting the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation mortgage foreclosures. A double whammy, Mr. Speaker. The price of grain plummets because of the policies of this Government, and then it turns around and lifts the moratorium on farm foreclosures. As a result of the lifting of the moratorium on FCC mortgages, up to 6,000 farms are immediately subject to foreclosure by the Farm Credit Corporation, and another 10,000 farms are in jeopardy.
One might ask why the Government decided on Monday to lift the moratorium. What message is the Government of Canada, through the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), giving to the farmers of Canada? The message is clear and obvious. The Government of Canada does not care. Is it any wonder, given the inaction of the Prime Minister of Canada and given the inaction of the Government, that the Prime Minister is the Leader of the least popular Government in Canadian history? It is not surprising.
Is it any wonder that the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), a Conservative Member of Parliament from Edmonton in western Canada, found it necessary to criticize the Government of Canada? He found it necessary to criticize the integrity of the Prime Minister because of the inaction of the Government regarding the problems existing in western Canada. Notwithstanding the very serious difficulties being faced by farm families in Canada, this Government, for no explicable understandable reason, decided to lift the moratorium and basically drive off the land 6,000 more farm families, with a potential of driving off 16,000.
The Prime Minister, wearing his famous Gucci shoes, blessed the House of Commons with one of his very rare appearances during this debate. What did he say to the House and through the House to the farmers in western Canada? He said precious little, but he did say:
When western Canada asks for help, to the extent humanly possible-
And then his voice deepened:
April 30, 1987

-Brian Mulroney and the Government of Canada will say, "Yes". We are
there to build a stronger western Canada and to build a stronger Canada.
The farmers in western Canada are on their knees begging the Government of Canada to come to their assistance. The Prime Minister says all you have to do is pick up the phone and call.


Don Boudria: What is the phone number?


John V. Nunziata: I will tell the farmers of western Canada what the Prime Minister's phone number is. It is 992-4211. I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It is 992-4211.


Ms. McDonald:: And the area code?


John V. Nunziata: The area code is 613. They can call collect because the Prime Minister of Canada is concerned, he says, about the plight of western farmers. So, pick up the phone, call 992-4211 and ask for Brian. Tell him, because he does not seem to understand exactly what is happening in western Canada to the family farm. He says that the Government of Canada is acting in the best interests of western Canada and in the best interests of farmers in western Canada. He invites the farmers to call and ask for help. The farmers do not have to call. If this Prime Minister was doing his job, he would understand what is happening on the family farm. How often has the Prime Minister, wearing his $700 silk suits and his Gucci shoes, visited western Canada?


Don Boudria: Eighty-four pairs of them.


John V. Nunziata: Yes, 84 pairs of Gucci shoes. How often has he gone to western Canada? Our Leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), has gone there at least 32 times over the last two and a half years to talk to western farmers to understand what the difficulties are. The Prime Minister says he is going out next week to see exactly what is happening.
One would have thought that the Prime Minister would understand and that his western Members of Parliament would explain the very serious difficulties for the western farmers. We know that the western Conservative Members of Parliament have done absolutely nothing. They sit in the House here as bench warmers. They applaud the Government. They applaud the Prime Minister when the situation back home is desperate. Why have the Conservative Members of Parliament not explained to the Prime Minister the very serious difficulties that exist in western Canada, the very serious difficulties facing farmers?
For example, have western Conservative Members of Parliament explained to the Prime Minister that 9.9 per cent of farmers in Alberta are insolvent as of January 1, 1987? Have they explained to the Prime Minister that 11.4 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan are insolvent, and that a further 28.3 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan are having cash flow difficulties? Have they explained to the Prime Minister that 18.3 per cent of the farmers in Manitoba are having cash flow difficulties? It is obvious, Mr. Speaker,
that they have not. It is obvious that western Canadian Conservative Members of Parliament, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, have done precious little.
We in the Liberal Party recognize the difficulties facing western Canada and, in particular, the western Canadian farmer. We in the Liberal Party are prepared to take the necessary action to ensure that the farmers in western Canada will be given the opportunity to continue a way of life that has existed since the very birth of our country. Our Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, has made some very basic requests of the Government. First, it is important and incumbent upon the Government of Canada to immediately announce that it will continue the moratorium with respect to FCC mortgages. Now is the time to do it.
I must say at this point that it is somewhat ironic that on Monday the Government should announce that the moratorium would be lifted. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Monday was the day that the Government decided to start debate on the death penalty. What this Government in effect is doing is condemning the Canadian farmer to death. This Government ought to be condemned for its inaction to the plight of western Canada. We have said continue the moratorium. Now is the wrong time to lift the moratorium. It is important that there be some stability, some assurance from the Government of Canada that it will assist the farmer through these difficult times and by lifting the moratorium, the Government is sending the wrong message.
We in the Liberal Party have said, as well that the Government ought to guarantee to farmers immediately, now, as they are about to seed for the upcoming crop year, at a bare minimum the same return that the Canadian farmer received last year in order to assist the farmer to know when to seed, what to seed or whether to seed at all.
The farmers in western Canada are in a state of flux. They do not know what to do with the price of grain as it is today and with ail of the other factors. They do not know whether they should plant a crop at all this year. We know, with the reduction in the price of grain by the Government, that a great number of farmers will be barely recovering the costs involved in carrying on with their farms. First, the Government should continue the moratorium. Number two, it should announce that farmers will be guaranteed the same returns they had last year.
As well, it is important that the Government announce that there will be a deficiency payment this year. We know that last year the Government announced a deficiency payment in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. One must ask, of course, what prompted the Government to provide that assistance to western Canadian farmers.


Don Boudria: A certain phone call.

April 30, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Yes, it was a phone call, and no doubt the person who called dialed 992-4211.


Don Boudria: At 5 a.m.


John V. Nunziata: And who was that individual who called?


Don Boudria: Oh, I think it was someone from Saskatchewan.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps it was the Leader of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan.


Don Boudria: Could be.


John V. Nunziata: He picked up the phone and said: "Brian, I need help". He did not say that the farmers of Saskatchewan need help, he said that he needs help.


Don Boudria: Political help.


John V. Nunziata: He said: "I need political help. We're in trouble here. We're in the midst of an election campaign and unless you deliver to us, we will lose the Government".
So what did the Prime Minister do? He put on his Guccis, he flexed his muscles, he called up a few of his friends and said: "Well, we can't afford to lose an election in Saskatchewan, we had better do something". So they delivered. They did not deliver to assist the farmers. They were not listening to the farmers in western Canada, they were listening to the Premier of that province who was in the midst of an election campaign. There is no election campaign going on in western Canada right now. Does that mean that the Government, through the Prime Minister, will not respond to the plight of the western farmer? It seems obvious, because of the lifting of the moratorium and the announcement of the decrease in grain prices, that the Government will not do anything.
During the last election campaign, Conservative Members made a number of promises, and you know them as well as I do, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has put together a list entitled "338 Tory Promises, the Tory Collection, 338 Commitments in the Election of 1984". Let us see what this book has to say about agriculture. The book lists promises made by Conservative Members during the last election campaign.
One promise made was to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so that farmers will have access to reasonably priced funds. Did they deliver on that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: No, we know they did not deliver. We know as well that an all-Party committee recommended that they in fact do that and instead the Government turned a blind eye. The Prime Minister said: "Well, it's just another broken promise and what do they know in western Canada, we have
broken so many promises". Another promise made by Conservative Members during the last election campaign in their thirst for power was to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. That had to do with part-time farmers. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: No, another promise that was broken. As well, they promised to expand agricultural research and development by providing greater assistance for agricultural colleges, more funding for research and development and amending the tax policy to encourage private-sector investment. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: I could go on and on. There was another promise to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing rates. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: Another promise was to work to increase exports and stimulate production to meet those export demands. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: What did they do instead? They abolished Canagrex. Is it any wonder that the Conservative Government is in last place in popular support, not only nationally but in western Canada? Is it any wonder that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona said to the Prime Minister: "I don't trust you any more and I don't want to be a Conservative Member of Parliament any more because you lied to the people of Canada, you lied to western Canada. You don't care about western Canada. You gave the F-18 contract to Quebec when it should have gone to Manitoba. You have given all these lucrative contracts to your friends and relatives when you have neglected western Canada".
The people of western Canada will not forget-


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the "blues" will show quite clearly that the Hon. Member who is now speaking called the Prime Minister a liar, albeit indirectly through the words he ascribed wrongly to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). In that event, might it not be appropriate for you as Speaker to call upon the relevant Member of Parliament to withdraw that remark?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) knows if he did that or not and if he did, would he please say one way or the other? If he did say it, would he excuse himself? I want to know whether he did or did not.
April 30, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Far be it from me to offend the Hon. Minister and the Prime Minister by calling him a liar. It might have been construed as calling him a liar but I did not intend to do that. I did not intend to breach the rules of the House. However, if the Gucci shoes fit, wear them.
In closing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that basis, the Hon. Member's time has now expired.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, as a Toronto Member, I am very pleased to be taking part in this emergency debate. I think it is important for those of us who live in cities, do not grow our own food and depend on agriculture to show our support in this real crisis that is being experienced.
I happen to represent a riding in Toronto, Broadview-[DOT] Greenwood, which was in its origin as a European settlement an agricultural area. It was a farming area that supplied food to the City of Toronto, across the Don River. That, of course, was back in the old days when the Don River itself teamed with Atlantic salmon in the appropriate seasons. Now as an industrial and manufacturing centre, we largely depend on the agriculture of the west and the vitality of that agricultural sector is of course extremely important to us as consumers and of course to the entire Canadian economy.
I recently spent a week in western Canada. When I was in Edmonton and Calgary, I saw the plight of the people there who are particularly concerned about the petroleum industry. There is despair, confusion and anxiety as people contemplate their future with falling prices in that sector. From Alberta, I went on to Regina and Winnipeg where I found despair, anxiety and uncertainty about the future that was much more profound. There was a real desperation and a sense of crisis in Regina and Winnipeg over the matter we are debating today.
We know that grain prices are falling. In the case of wheat, there has been an 18 per cent drop on top of a 20 per cent drop, an absolutely staggering drop for farmers to have to face. The question one must ask is why this is and if this has been caused by some fault of the farmers. Are they not being productive? What has gone wrong? Why are farms failing? Of course, we know that it is not due to lack of hard work, effort, skills and productivity. It is simply a question of international markets which are entirely beyond the control of individual farmers.
We know how the political system works and we know that there are massive subsidies for agriculture in the United States and the European Community. The result has been, of course, expanded production there and falling prices on the world markets. This is occurring because those countries see agriculture as being very important and they have ensured that their own farmers will be able to compete and to continue in that way. It is absolutely important for their own economies. Those countries are very clear about the economic, social and political consequences of farm failures. They have massively
subsidized that sector because they want to keep production up. The result, of course, is this enormous instability which our own farmers face, so far without any concrete, adequate solution proposed by the Canadian Government.
Yesterday morning, I listened to the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Of course, it was a speech long on rhetoric. My goodness, I heard such free-flowing phrases of sympathy. The crocodile tears. The commitment in his heart to the west. However, the speech was totally bereft of any practical assistance, as was the Prime Minister's response and that of various Ministers when our Party raised these questions in the House.
One of two particular measures we have advocated, the moratorium on FCC foreclosures, was lifted on Monday. The response from the Government was that a moratorium has to come to an end some time or another. The question is when and why at this time of acute crisis? The moratorium was introduced for a very good reason and the situation remains the same. If you introduce a measure because of need, you should not withdraw the measure until the need has been met. We know that is not yet the case.
The other most pertinent issue is the question of deficiency payments. We have had an important deficiency payment, but we do not have any guarantees concerning what farmers will be given for this crop year. They are seeding without any expectation that they will be able to recover their investment. We call for at the very least an immediate government commitment to provide Canadian grain farmers with a guarantee that total grain receipts for crops being planted now will equal those of the 1986-87 crop year. That is, $1.5 to $2 billion.
Unfortunately, the Government response has been simply to cloud the issue and to suggest that farmers are now getting cheques in the mail. Those cheques are for last year's crop and it was a very poor payment, thanks to falling international prices. One of the purposes of this debate is to put the heat on the Government, remind it of the urgency of the situation, and see if we can get a firm commitment for practical measures.
The Government has not totally ignored this question. It has made some gestures. It seems to be aware up to a point. It is working on the international front to try and bring some stability to grain market prices. It has provided assistance to the farm sector through these payments which have only recently gone out. It has consulted farm organizations. Yet government policy on consultation seems to be, yes, Government listens, Ministers listen, meetings are held and organizations are called in for consultations, but what the organizations say is not translated into action. It is not implemented. So we have a pseudo-consultation, a process of listening, but it does not lead to respect for the proposals or their implementation.
Even while Government has provided some assistance on the one hand, it has been taking it away with the other. The

April 30, 1987
Conservative Government has increased taxes that farmers, as do other Canadians, have to pay. It has increased service charges, freight rates, and of course a host of other direct and indirect taxes. The Government should not lift the moratorium on FCC foreclosures until it announces a deficiency payment program for the upcoming crop year and until it addresses the broad question of farm debt. Of course that is an enormous amount, something in the order of $25 billion across Canada. Much of that debt is still subject to very high interest rates. The Government must let farmers know where they stand now.
The crisis is growing. It has been developing over the last couple of years. Its effect on farmers has been devastating. We are beginning to get a lot of information about what it means for farm families and farm communities. Doctors are telling us that their farmer patients are coming in with more troubles than they have ever had before. We know more are going to psychiatrists. We know there have been more suicides as a result of despair. People are unable to sleep or even relax. They are constantly worried. They have no relief from those worries. The economic burden they bear is tough on the entire family. We as Canadians have to be extremely sensitive to this. We are one family together and when one region of the country is hurting as badly as this, we have to be extremely concerned.
I note that a professor at Brandon University reported to a committee on this issue with some absolutely dire statistics concerning stress. One in two farmers in the sample studied reported feeling chronic fatigue, frequent trouble in relaxing, forgetting things, and losing their tempers. One in three farmers experienced serious disruptions in sleep patterns, increases in family arguments, back pain, trouble in making decisions, frequent headaches, and deteriorating health. They also noticed increasing behavioural problems in their children.
These are the absolutely devastating effects of this situation on the people who have to face it. The suicide rate for farmers in Alberta is going up. A Canadian Mental Health Association study in Saskatchewan found 88 per cent of those surveyed said they experienced stress-related symptoms, including health problems, headaches, fatigue, insomnia, depression, anger and frustration. In some cases there was alcohol abuse. Suicide is the number one cause of death on farms in Ontario after machinery accidents. Suicides are one-third higher for farmers than the rest of the population. We are dealing with a group which has traditionally been considered the most problem-free, the one with a better, healthier life-style without the so-called stresses of urban life. Now we see the situation reversed. People who live on farms and who have to face these enormous financial burdens are under far more stress than city people. I think we should be much more sensitive to that problem and I wish the Government would take this as a real sign of crisis and begin to respond.
We have had communications, representations, proposals and recommendations from numerous people working in the agricultural community. Let me just refer to a couple which I think are particularly significant.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool believes that the rural way of life and related service industries is in jeopardy. They ask Members of Parliament to recognize the critical economic situation confronting western Canadian families and communities. This crisis has far-reaching social and economic implications for the whole national economy as well as for the west. They recommend that programs be immediately developed through federal and provincial co-operation to keep families on their farms in a productive capacity, and that early consideration be given to the acute need for a substantial deficiency payment for this crop year. Government should continue its efforts to restore sanity in the international grain market. Those are obviously very eminently reasonable proposals to be making. I am sorry that those proposals have not yet been acted on.
Keystone Agricultural Producers from Manitoba is another organization writing on behalf of the farmers of Manitoba with a number of similar very concrete proposals. They call upon the Government to announce, as soon as possible, its intention to introduce a program for this year's crop similar to the Special Canadian Grains Program of last year, with support levels at least equivalent to those under the 1986 program. I will not go into the details, but they are asking that they get at least the same kind of support they got last year in order to sustain them.
A second important step should be bold new initiatives through the Farm Credit Corporation to save thousands of commercial farms from insolvency. There should be new loan funds at affordable rates and the FCC should be a full service lender. I am sorry to say that instead of bold new initiatives, we see the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures.
I am extremely disappointed with the response of the Government which is big on rhetoric, talks about its sympathy, wants to blame other people, previous governments, other governments and markets in the world economy, and yet is not willing to do the things which are within its power to do. There is no doubt that there are long-term solutions to be developed. There must be a long-term solution suitable to the politics of what is happening in Europe and the United States. However, in the meantime there are short-term solutions within the power of the Government. I call upon the Government to act now to deal with the immediate crisis facing agriculture in the west.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Mlinister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I am called upon to speak in an agricultural debate, but I do not suppose I will be any more strange to this debate than the hon. lady who just took her seat. I am tempted to ask her how she and the tobacco farmers are getting on these days and whether her remarks apply to them as well as to the other farmers whom she is addressing.


Lynn McDonald: We are talking about wheat, John.
April 30, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: I wonder whether the hon. lady would agree with abolishing the CBC and devoting the proceeds saved to the grain farmer.
I want to address the transportation aspects of the current situation, primarily in western Canada. The Hon. Member wanted government action rather than rhetoric. The Government has acted again today. The Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and I have just announced a $64 million assistance program to help protect farmers from the statutory increase which was announced today by the Canadian Transport Commission in the 1987-88 western grain freight rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Under the legislation introduced by our predecessors and enacted here a few years ago, the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Canadian Transport Commission has to announce by April 30 each year what the freight rates will be for grain in the following crop year. The next crop year, as our western representatives here well know, will commence next August 1. The Canadian Transport Commission must announce the freight rates for the movement of grain in accordance with the formula and stipulations laid down in the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Unfortunately, it therefore announced this afternoon that the grain farmers' share of the rates to be received by the railways for the next crop year will increase from the $5.97 which they are paying in the current year to $8.32 per tonne in the next crop year. The mathematicians among us will realize that that is a 39 per cent increase, a very large increase in the producers' share of the cost.
In 1984-85, which of course was the last year in which our predecessors were in Government for the majority of the year, the total freight rate for the movement of grain was $25.32 of which the Government share was $17.62. At that time the shipper paid $7.70 as the producers' share of that rate. When we came into office three years ago, the producer had to pay $7.70 per tonne of grain moved. In 1985-86 the total freight rate was $28.03 of which the Government paid $22.03 and the shipper paid $6. That, of course, was the year after we came into office.
In the present crop year, 1986-87, the total freight charge is $30.94, of which the Government contributed $24.97 and the shippers contributed $5.97. That rate was calculated last year based on the estimated amount of grain to be moved in the then coming crop year. As it happens, there was an underestimation last year and a great deal more grain has been moved in the present crop year than was anticipated. Approximately 34 million or 35 million tonnes of grain will be moved through the system in the present crop year. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) points out that that is a record.
In June, 1985, the Government amended the original Western Grain Transportation Act to include a ceiling on the producers' share of the freight rate at $7.70 per tonne for the
crop year 1985-86 and the present crop year and replacement of the former rate-setting mechanism with a new tally system.
Action was taken by the Government to ensure that a ceiling of $7.70 would not be exceeded for the last crop year or the present crop year. However, we are now faced with the situation that under the formula in the legislation the producers' share in the forthcoming crop year will be $8.32 per tonne. The Government has acted immediately because the present circumstances of our grain farmers are extremely unfortunate. There has been a decline, as we all know, in the prices they are receiving. The Government has acted in order that this increase will not have to be absorbed by the farmers. We will contribute $2 per tonne in the crop year starting August 1 to that increased cost to the producer.
The over-all cost of that increase in the freight rate was estimated to be approximately $74 million. The government assistance of $2 per tonne based on the estimate of the movement next year of 31.8 million to 32 million tonnes will likely cost the Government $64 million. Therefore, rather than a 39 per cent increase in the producers' freight cost, the actual increase will be in the area of 5 per cent.
It is a disappointment that there are only two people left on the opposition benches, one NDP and one Liberal. I know I am not supposed to comment, but it is so shocking that I cannot forebear to comment on the intense interest being shown in this subject.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought it would only be fair for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), if he is going to talk about statistics, to at least remind the House that the opposition Members are outnumbered by about 20 to one. Also, he might care to comment on the quality of Members who are here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about statistics, I am talking about individuals. There are approximately 140,000 or 150,000 grain farmers in western Canada. That is what we are talking about and that is why the Government is contributing another $64 million to their assistance.
I do not know how many programs we have in effect now, but there are at least five programs of special assistance that come to mind for western grain producers, including the Special Canadian Grains Program of $1 billion that was introduced a few months ago. I believe that $840 million of that was for western grain producers. This is another step in our long battle to assist the western grain producers in the troubles they are currently experiencing.
The effect of what we are doing will mean that the majority of those grain producers will not have an increase in their freight rate for moving grain this year in excess of 5 per cent, while a number of them-those who belong to the Western

April 30, 1987
Grain Stabilization Fund-will have an increase that will be less than that. I believe the calculation of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board is in the area of 2 per cent.
It was bad news that under the formula in the legislation the Canadian Transport Commission had to make the announcement of this new rate for the crop year today, but the good news is that this Government, as always, is standing behind the primary producers of this country and is assisting them as much as it can.
I also want to point out to the House, in case anyone from the Liberal Party has the gall and audacity to participate in this debate, that when they were in office in 1984 the western grain producers to whom I am referring had to pay a rate of $7.70 per tonne for each tonne of grain they moved through the system. However, as a result of the action we are taking today, three years later, and despite the announcement of the Canadian Transport Commission of the increase they had to announce this afternoon, the western grain producers in the crop year that commences August 1 will have to pay not in excess of $6.32 per tonne to move their grain, or $1.38 less per tonne than they were paying in 1984-85. That is the essential point that Hon. Members of the Liberal Party opposite might keep fairly fixed in their minds in the event that any of them have the effrontery or temerity to speak further in this debate.


John Napier Turner: Speak in French, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 notice that my learned colleague from Ottawa-Carleton is here. He is not speaking because he is not in his own seat.
The result of this action that I am announcing today is that the cost of the freight rate to be met by the producer this year is an 18 per cent decrease from the rate that they paid in 198485, as we took office.
We will pay an average of $2 per tonne difference to the railways. The grain producer will deliver his product to the railway. The railway will show a freight rate of $8.32, but will also show a credit of approximately $2.00 per tonne on the invoice to the farmer so that the farmer will not have to pay $8.32 per tonne to have his product moved. He will have to pay a rate of $6.32 and the other $2 will be met by the Government of Canada.
If we had not taken this special step of implementing this new assistance program for these transportation costs, in the next crop year we would be paying about 75 per cent of the grain costs for the movement of grain on the basis of the projected volume of 32 million tonnes, which would have been $675 million in the next crop year for the Crow benefit paid by the Government.
With the additional $64 million that I have announced this afternoon with the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Government's share of the cost of moving the grain crop of western Canada next year will be in excess of 80 per cent.
The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and I certainly deplore the terrible fact that world grain prices are about half what they were five years ago. But certainly the program that we announced today will help the farmers with the cost of moving their grain.
We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board are doing all they can to initiate discussions among the nations of the world most involved in the export of grain to attempt to get some rational approach to the problems that are facing grain producers around the world.
Discussions are continuing with farmers and provinces about the economic situation facing our grain farmers. I have no doubt that this will not be the last of the measures that will be announced by the Government for the assistance of farmers and agriculture during our term in office.
I have not had the opportunity to listen to the whole of this debate, but I am certain it has been remarked that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has been very busy in Japan in recent days attempting on behalf of the Prime Minister to get the world grain exporters to deal with their problems. The Prime Minister himself has taken every initiative, together with the Ministers I have mentioned, to see that it tops the agenda at the world economic summit in Venice in June.
I suggest it must be admitted by anyone who is fair and makes any pretense to fairness or impartiality, that no group of people in the world could be doing more to assist the agricultural area and their own grain farmers than the Government of which I am happy to be a Member.


Don Boudria: Even if you do say so yourself.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not have many spare moments, as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, but when I do I love to rush into the House to hear Members speak, particularly Members of the Opposition because that serves to convince me that I did the right thing when I left them many years ago.
In conclusion, and continuing to be as non-partisan as I usually am, I want to refer to an article "Down and Out on the Farm" that I happened to read in Macleans magazine. I think it is the latest issue. I am not following agriculture closely because my own province is not a great grain growing province. In fact, I have never seen a report of any grain growing in our province. That is why I am looking to my hon. friend, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board to ensure that the Feed Freight Assistance Program is improved and that the plight of the livestock producers and the other producers in Newfoundland are recognized. In other words, I am scratching his back today. I hope he is going to tickle mine tomorrow.
This article is in an international magazine, and if you glance through it, Mr. Speaker, you will see various programs.
April 30, 1987

I recommend it to opposition Members. For example, I will give a quotation from the article, and I quote:
As a result, for the first time in Canadian history federal assistance to prairie
grain farmers will be almost as large as their total revenues from grain salesan estimated $4 billion.
The Government cannot do much about the world price of grain other than the extraordinary methods which are under way to try to get President Reagan and other world leaders to deal with it. We cannot control the world price for grain. We cannot control the world price for oil, nor could our predecessors nor will our successors. For the next 1,000 years our successors will not be able to control the world price of grain or the world price of oil. However, we can control what programs we can produce to assist the farmers. As a result, for the first time in Canadian history, federal assistance to grain farmers is just about as large as their total revenues from grain sales.
The article lists a number of these programs such as an interim payment of $705 million from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, which was announced last week by my colleague, the subsidies I have already mentioned today, almost $700 million for transporting grain to market, the picking up of the Canadian Wheat Board's loss for 1985-86 and the $1 billion Special Canadian Grains Program. I notice Mr. Kraft, who is an expert in the field, said:
As a source of income for prairie farmers, the Government now is almost as
important as all of their customers.
I think my announcement this afternoon is in line with those facts and that this Government is to be congratulated and supported in the many programs we have under way to help the afflicted grain farmers of this country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the Minister would permit one brief question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Faurier (Mr. Berger) has the floor. There are no questions permitted.


Maurice Brydon Foster: By unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that everyone wants to get information-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister did not just announce a 6 per cent increase in freight rates?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Laurier is on debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: What a sourpuss.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister announced was $64 million of aid to western grain farmers. That is what he just announced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laurier has the floor for debate.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat like a jack-in-the-box. I got up and down about six times on these points of order. Shall we try it a few more times?
1 was quite astonished to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) say we cannot control the world price of grain, but he went on to say that we can control the programs which are under our control. That makes a lot of sense, of course. He then listed a whole series of programs the Government has instituted presumably to assist farmers. However, he did not mention science and technology or research and development, which is one of the major failings of the Government. That is something for which the Government could do more for the long-term interests of Canadian agriculture and the Canadian farmer than any one of the other measures the Minister mentioned. I would like to refer to aspects of the question of research and development in my comments. Before I do so, I want to say a few words about the moratorium on farm foreclosures, the question of the Farm Debt Review Board and the possible debt restructuring program.
These measures, as 1 say, I regard in many cases to be temporary palliatives. I think what we have to spend a bit of time on in this House is addressing the long-term solutions, not the band-aids and not the half-baked measures taken by the Government in its two and and a half years in office.
What has precipitated the current debate, of course, is lifting the moratorium on farm foreclosures which has been in effect for the past 19 months. In this period, interest rates have come down, according to the Government, and that is the reason for lifting the moratorium on farm foreclosures. It has been pointed out to me by my colleague, our critic for agriculture, that real interest rates today are higher than they were in 1984. Of course the moratorium itself is nothing but a shortterm solution.
Another short-term solution is the Farm Debt Review Boards. If we look at the statistics and at the facts, we see this mechanism has not been functioning well. In Ontario, I understand there are some 400 cases which have been considered by the Farm Debt Review Board. Agreement was reached in some 195 cases but only two agreements were actually signed. I look with particular interest at the question of the Farm Debt Review Boards because I served on the committee on agriculture two or three years ago in the last Parliament which studied Bill C-653, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill was proposed by a former colleague of mine, the former Member of Parliament for Lambton Middlesex, Mr. Ralph Ferguson.

April 30, 1987
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act attempted to bring back a procedure that existed in the 1930s and which would allow a farmer to apply to a court for a restructuring of his debt. In the first instance, the farmer would be entitled to apply for a moratorium for a stay of proceedings, if you will, to stop his creditor from proceeding with a foreclosure. The court would be empowered to give the farmer a period of time in which to reorganize his affairs to seek alternative financing. In addition, I believe one of the features of that particular legislation was that the courts in certain extraordinary circumstances had the ability to write down debt.
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was an attempt to come up with a viable permanent solution of which a farmer could avail himself. He would not have to seek a privilege, if you will, or go before a Farm Debt Review Board and try to get the co-operation of the banks. He could actually have a legal recourse which would be binding, of course, if granted by the court.
We got no action from the Government with respect to setting up this type of legally-binding mechanism. Indeed, there has been no action through legislation, specific legislation such as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, or through amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. A procedure of this nature would introduce into Canadian law, or bring back into Canadian law, a procedure which exists in the United States. It is not something which is totally unknown or new in the United States.
Under the Bankruptcy Code of the Americans, I believe Chapter 11 of the Code, the owner of a business can ask for the protection of the court and be given a period of time to rearrange his activities, provided, of course, that there is some opportunity to continue a viable business and provided that the owner of the business convinces the court that his plans are viable or have some semblance or hope of success. That is a right under the law; it is not a voluntary arrangement.
1 am sure that most Members of Parliament who have had contacts with businesses which have experienced financial difficulty from time to time understand the importance of having this type of provision in law. I am familiar with a number of businesses which have experienced financial difficulties due to extraordinary circumstances such as market conditions, the 1982 recession, or, say, problems in the steel industry, for argument's sake.
In such cases the creditors, banks in most cases, acted hastily. Bankers panicked. They called the line of credit. They pulled the plug on the company. Very often the owner of the business does not have the opportunity under the law to fight back. I am aware of circumstances in which owners of businesses have had to come up with extraordinary means in order to get the trustees out and in order to maintain a viable business. So it is absolutely crucial that this type of a mechanism be introduced into law, a mechanism which would apply to all businesses and not just to farmers. Of course, the
situation of farmers requires some further assistance, further programs, and I would like to refer to the idea of debt restructuring in particular.
In that respect I am sure that Members of the House are now familiar with the ideas of the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Mr. Garf Stevenson, who in a memo of March 13, 1987, which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on April 28, suggested that the Government consider a program of debt restructuring. In his memo Mr. Stevenson states that what he has been suggesting is the:
-need to join in developing a method by which farmers with significant debt could temporarily relinquish title to some of their land while perhaps retaining title to the home quarter. The farmer would continue to operate the land under some lease arrangement. The producer hopefully would have the right to retain title at a later date by repurchasing the land or paying out the accumulated debt.
This type of solution obviously merits the immediate consideration of the Government so that some form of debt restructuring program can be introduced in short order.
At this point in my comments I would like to deal with the question of research and development which I do not think has figured too prominently in the debate up to now. In my comments I will try to be positive and appropriately critical. I know that Members of the Government say that opposition Members have nothing to say other than to criticize and, indeed, that we engage in debate for purely dilatory purposes. I would like to inject somewhat of a different tone and respond to those comments by making some remarks which I believe can be taken in a positive light.
As I said earlier, the Minister of Transport threw up his hands and said: "We cannot control the world price of grain". But he did not comment on the promises that were made by the Government prior to the last election in terms of research, promises which have been abandoned by the Government since taking office. We are all familiar with Canada's poor record when it comes to research and development. As the recent round table report of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association reminded us, we do things by halves in Canada. We do half the research and development. We have half the number of scientists and engineers, and I think that is being somewhat generous. We have half the investment and half the jobs. Prior to the last election the Tories promised to double spending on research and development. However, since taking office they have cut practically every form of assistance to research and development.
On a trip to western Canada last November, and I was back again in Manitoba for the high school science symposium in February, I visited a company in Winnipeg by the name of Hi-Qual Manufacturing which has developed a process to treat feed grains with anhydrous ammonia. The company has developed a machine-and I am reluctant to call it a machine, perhaps it might be better to refer to it as a contraption although that would not be doing justice to it either-which will automatically pick up a bale of hay, wrap it in plastic and treat it with anhydrous ammonia. This ammonia treatment swells and breaks down the outer lining or husk of the grain
April 30, 1987

and adds protein to the feed. The purpose of the treatment is to produce a better feed, which in turn produces a healthier animal.
It is calculated that this can lead to a 20 per cent to 40 per cent savings in feedstock costs in an average year. In addition, it increases the digestability of the grain, thus permitting better finishing or fattening, with the result that the cow-calf operator will be able to raise the cattle himself rather than shipping them elsewhere.
This particular procedure costs $250,000 to develop, and its development came with remarkably little assistance from Government. Under the Industrial Research Assistance Program of the National Research Council, the developing company received some $14,000, enabling it to improve its communications and understanding of the technologies in other parts of the world.
It is forecast that this treatment will enable this company to obtain 5 per cent of the total forages market. Just to obtain a 5 per cent market share would require some 3,600 units operating at full capacity. That represents an investment of $60 million-and that is just the cost of manufacturing the equipment.
This kind of development in agriculture only results from an investment at the front end in research and development. There are many other examples I could refer to, such as Export Packers in Winnipeg, a company in the egg processing industry. That is a company that has developed a technology to extract enzyme from eggs, dramatically increasing the value of the ordinary chicken egg.
A study by the Food Sciences Department of the University of Manitoba observes that the potential for similar products is enormous. The problem, of course, is that we are not doing enough research and development in Canada. We are not doing nearly enough. We are only doing half of what our competitors are doing. We will not solve some of the desperate problems facing the agricultural industry, and our other industries, if we do not get more serious about research and development. We have to understand that in research and in science lie the beginnings, if you will, of the answers to some of the economic problems that we face.
I would hope that the Government, in considering the solutions to this crisis, would begin to address the question of research and development, and in doing so I urge it to remember the promises that it made during the 1984 election campaign.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are addressing does indeed reflect a serious situation, not just for Canadian agriculture, and especially the growers of grain and oilseeds, but also for the suppliers of farm equipment, agricultural chemicals, as well as for the transportation sector and even the energy sector. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this debate involves not just one sector of our society
but indeed every Canadian in virtually all areas of this great country. It is a social as well as an economic debate. The future of the Canadian family farm is not something that can be decided solely on economic terms.
Our farm families have come to mean much more to us, and to most Canadians, than simply being the providers of various commodities. These families also represent a way of life which is desirable for many Canadians, and is indeed a way of life which many of our young people aspire to for themselves and for their children.
I am not saying that farming is an easy undertaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, like many of the Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, it was my privilege, and my responsibility, to farm in southern Ontario, along with my husband and our two children. And, Mr. Speaker, I can personally assure you that, compared to my experience in the business world, farming is far tougher in its demands. Farming makes it easy to go broke.
I do not know of any other area in small business where one must try to survive by buying retail and selling wholesale. I do not know of many other businesses where the determination of the price of the product is so totally out of the producer's hands, or where the rate of return on equity can fluctuate so dramatically from season to season.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, these incredible Canadian families persevere. They continue against these substantial odds. I say that these families deserve our admiration and our respect, for these families represent the values that we most respect in our society-values that include hard work; values that include determination; values that demonstrate a love for, and respect of, our environment; values that find their reward in benefits that could never be appreciated by those who measure success solely in monetary terms.
In dealing with the farm families of Canada, we are not dealing with people who wish to become rich, with people who wish to make a killing at the expense of the taxpayer; rather, we are dealing with people who want to perpetuate a way of life-and the survival of that way of life may ultimately mean more to those of us who inhabit the urban sprawl than to these farm families themselves.
I have heard statements from all Parties in this House about the need to protect and preserve our Canadian cultural identity. That identity comes from our backgrounds, from our roots, and is reflected by our great Canadian poets, authors, and painters. It is a cultural identity which is forever tied to our land and to the present and former generations who have tamed it and nurtured it. So, when we speak of a crisis in Canadian agriculture, we speak of a crisis which is all-encompassing, one which is manifested in not just financial terms, but also social and cultural terms.
But, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the comments of many of the members of the Opposition, one would believe that this crisis has only suddenly come upon us; that perhaps it crept through the barn door-and who knows when; that it has only just

April 30, 1987
decided that now is its moment to hurl its plague and the pestilence upon the farm families of Canada.
Well, I can assure the Elouse, Mr. Speaker, that that just isn't so. This crisis, as it may in fact be rightly called, has been with us for a long, long time. This crisis was visiting our agricultural communities in various forms long before Confederation, and this crisis will be back on our doorsteps again, awakened by such factors as weather, market prices, world surpluses and interest rates, and by those two indomitable characteristics of the human spirit, greed and fear.
In listening to some of the comments made during this debate, one could easily be deluded into thinking that the problems facing our farm families are the direct result of either government action or government inaction, that is, depending upon your political persuasion. If that were in fact the case, we could cut off foreign aid substantially by offering the services of our colleague in the other place, specifically Senator Davey, to provide rain to those drought stricken areas of our planet that so desperately need the surplus grains that our world has but cannot supply. To all but the most idealistic among us, there are limits to what Governments can do. Our farm families know this. They know that problems created by the European Economic Community cannot be solved through unilateral action in Ottawa. They know that product prices must be affected by a world-wide surplus. They know also that many of the problems they face today could have been avoided by proper planning, by effective marketing and by good management.
Two and a half years is not a long time to spend on the land, but it is the time that so far has been allotted to our Government for proper planning, effective marketing and to implement good management practices.
Our government policies are addressing the challenges of Canadian farm families in effective and substantive ways, ways which offer long-term solutions, ways which meet with the approval of our agricultural community. First, Canada is taking the lead in seeking international solutions to an international problem. Canada played a lead role at the GATT meetings in Uruguay, and agriculture is now part of the main agenda of present and future GATT discussions.
Second, our Government has not been content to sit back and wait for these international negotiations to produce results. Our Government has provided tremendous financial support, support that is unprecedented to Canadian agriculture. This support to the Canadian farming community has been so well articulated by many of my colleagues that there is no need for me to simply duplicate their rhetoric. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program and the billion dollars it will provide to the cash flow of grain producers. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program. Everyone knows about the $705 million just announced under the Western Grain Stabilization Act to put money into the hands of farmers when they need it
in time for spring seeding. No one should have to remind this House about the cash advances for unharvested grain that kept many farmers from going under in the fall of 1985 when their fields were wet and snow covered.
Our farm families know about this Government's record in amending the Western Grain Transportation Act and the announcement made by our Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) this afternoon. They know about the new commodity-based mortgages designed to take the heat off when commodity prices plunge around the globe. They know about interest rates and they know the interest rate coin too well. They still remember the other side of that coin, the side where they had to pay 20 per cent or more as a result of the policies and programs of the previous Government.
This debate may be important in emphasizing the problems of the Canadian farm community, but our farm families do not need to be educated about the value of our Government's policies. They recognize the benefits of what we have done and of what we are continuing to do.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our Government has adopted a policy of marketing and is aggressively pursuing that policy on behalf of the farm families of Canada. This Government believes that it is its responsibility to sell Canadian grain. Through the distinguished efforts of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), Canada is positioning itself to take advantage of global marketing opportunities as the cycle changes and these markets turn around.
Negotiations have been completed on a new five-year deal with the U.S.S.R., a deal that will see 25 million tonnes of Canadian grains being sold and shipped to that country during the same period. Another 4.5 tonnes will be shipped to Brazil between now and 1988 as part of a new, long-term agreement. In terms of commodities, our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board may go short on rhetoric but he sure goes long on sales. The agricultural management policies of this Government are clear, clear to anyone who cares to look.
First, the Government is dealing with the causes, not the symptoms. It is demonstrating leadership on an international basis. It is resolving a global problem at its very roots.
Second, this Government is providing interim support, support that is practical, support that is substantive, support that far exceeds that offered by any previous Government.
Finally, this Government is out there in the global marketplace hustling on behalf of the Canadian farmer and hustling successfully, bringing in the orders that are the only thing that will restore our Canadian farm families to vibrancy and economic health.
Our farmers will not be put off by political rhetoric. They will not be satisfied with interventionist programs designed by Government. Our farmers want action, action in dealing with offshore subsidies, action in helping them ride out the current market, action through aggressive marketing. In terms of action, our farmers are giving overwhelming approval to the
April 30, 1987

initiatives and the results that this Government has achieved for them and will continue to achieve in the future.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I agree with the Hon. Member who has just spoken that the Canadian farmer does want action rather than just words from the Government of the day. Indeed, this is the whole purpose of the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party that we have been debating now for a great many hours. The two specific actions that seem to us in all fairness that should be taken, if we do not want to see the Canadian farm family destroyed are, first, the action of not removing the moratorium on farm foreclosures tomorrow, of keeping the moratorium in place and, second, of giving grain growers of the West some assurance that the 1987 deficiency payments will at least equal those of last year.
The Hon. Member who has just spoken somehow leaves me with the thought, and I guess I get left with it every time 1 listen to a Conservative, that there has never been any Government involvement in the grain business in Canada, that somehow or other all that is needed is protection against subsidies that other countries are providing and, of course, we all would like to see that, but that no assistance be given to the grain growers themselves.
There have always been prairie farm stabilization Acts. There have always been deficiency payments. There was the Crow rate. There has been a very substantial amount of government involvement in agriculture in Canada's history. 1 do not suppose the Tories want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Therefore, I really do not understand the plea that is made from time to time to have no government involvement when the Canadian economy itself is, as we well know, built on a good deal of government assistance and involvement.
The motion which covers two main points, keeping the moratorium on foreclosures in place and providing deficiency payments at least equal to those received in the previous crop year, describes the kind of action we were hoping the Government would take. Indeed, practically all if not all farm leaders in the country were hoping the Government would take that action. Instead, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who was present a moment ago, announced that the freight rate increase triggered by the Act would in effect and in part at least be transferred to the farmers.
I should remind the House that last year, none of the freight rate increases were transferred to the farmers but this year they will be. On top of all the other increases in costs grain producers have to face, they will now be faced with the increase in freight rates announced by the Minister today.
I would like to remind the House of the price cost squeeze about which we are speaking. The House will recall that a year ago, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) announced a 19 per cent cut in wheat prices, a 28 per cent cut in barley prices and a 28 per cent cut in oat prices.
This crop year, 1987-88, there was an announcement of further cuts. Wheat prices will be cut by 18 per cent, barley by 25 per cent and oats by 28 per cent. This will put prices for these products at levels similar to those of 1976-77, over 10 years ago. However, costs are about three times as high as they were that year.
To put it in specific dollar terms, prairie farm operating expenses and depreciation charges in 1976-77 were about $3.5 billion. The projected expenses and charges for 1987 are over $8 billion, yet prices are back to where they were in 1976-77. The Minister of Transport announced an addition to this today.
Speaking of the Minister, he comes from Newfoundland and was saying there were no grain growers there. He sort of implied that because of that, this was not a particular problem. This reminded me that one of the real problems is that the Government is not listening. This is a national problem, not just a western problem about which the Government really has not been listening. It consults but it does not pay much attention to what is being said.
One of the things for which farm leaders have been asking and waiting is a meeting with the Government to discuss possible deficiency payments for the 1987-88 year. In fact, that is the basis of the debate that has been going on for the last two days. Why will the Government not hold that meeting? Why will it not even set a date for it? The Government says it wants to consult but it does not even hold a meeting with farm leaders to discuss possible deficiency payments for the current crop year.
The lifting of the moratorium affects farmers in all parts of Canada including Newfoundland, though the Minister of Transport made no reference to that. Apparently he did not realize that that was part of the motion that is being debated. The lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures will obviously affect Saskatchewan most of all as well as Alberta and Ontario, but it will also affect the Atlantic Provinces and my own Province of British Columbia. Farmers will be going down the tubes after tomorrow when the FCC foreclosure moratorium is lifted.
I was astounded when I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) say on The Journal last night that most farm organizations want the Farm Credit Corporation moratorium lifted. I consulted with my colleagues who are in touch with the leaders of farm organizations and they informed me that all three prairie Wheat Pools with over 100,000 members as well as the National Farmers Union are absolutely opposed to the lifting of the moratorium. I really do not know where the Minister of Agriculture was coming from when he made that statement last night.
If I may turn for a moment to British Columbia, the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures will have an immediate serious effect on at least 60 farmers, many of whom are tree-fruit farmers. Ultimately, it may affect another 300 or more.

April 30, 1987
Let me put the statistics for British Columbia on the record. According to the Farm Credit Corporation, the number of British Columbia farmers in arrears is 488 and these farmers are in arrears to the tune of $15.7 million. Of those, the number of farmers who are two years or more in arrears is 249 with a total dollar value of $12.6 million in arrears, the bulk of the amount. Of those, the number affected by the lifting of the moratorium is 60. The reason I say the 60 will grow to more than 300 is because those farmers who are in arrears two years or longer are not likely to be able to survive as farmers in the Province of British Columbia.
I find rather incredible the implication of the Elon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) that everything the Government had been doing was fine and good and that British Columbia farmers were doing well. In fact, a good many of them are very seriously in debt. Indeed, that has become one of their major problems.
I would remind the House that according to the President of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, the problem with arrears is even more extreme than that shown by Farm Credit Corporation statistics. A few months ago President Geen said the accumulated debt tends to feed on itself. Those who have not been able to meet their annual commitment to the debt are getting into worse shape. -We are going to see more people leaving the land, including third generation farmers.
The other reason that the problem is more serious than the statistics suggest is that most of the debt in B.C. is owed to the banks. Only a small proportion, about 2.7 per cent, of the FCC loans is to B.C. farmers. Dropping the moratorium tomorrow will be a clear signal to the banks to think of further foreclosures themselves. I do not have the figures of all the loans owed to the banks, but it is obviously a very great deal more than those owed to the FCC. The problem for the farmers of British Columbia is indeed serious and not to be lightly touched upon as the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen seemed to do.
I was listening to the Minister of Transport, and both he and the Minister of Agriculture seem to be taking their orders from The Canadian Bankers' Association. Today I read the background paper submitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture about a year ago by The Canadian Bankers' Association. To summarize briefly, the association concludes that people are going to be forced out of farming. The family farm will not be able to continue and there is nothing much one can do about it. It is the way the market operates. They
have no intention of seeing anything more than a few transition programs undertaken by Government. They make some very specious arguments. For example, the industry, while continuing to support agriculture, must also meet its obligations to depositors and shareholders. As such, the banks are strongly opposed to any government credit legislation that disrupts the lender/borrower relationship and retroactively changes contractual powers and obligations. The banks question the effectiveness of government subsidy or income-support programs due to their discriminatory and costly nature and often untargeted thrusts.
What a lot of gobbledegook. What they are really saying is that they want a totally free hand and they have no interest whatsoever in the survival of the Canadian farm and farm family, apart from some transitional programs.
They end their brief by saying proposals involving income support, target prices, agri-bonds, subsidized loans and interest rebate subsidies should only be adopted where long-term benefits clearly outweigh the costs. No consideration should be given to debt moratoriums or compromises.
That is The Canadian Bankers' Association, and the Minister of Agriculture seems to be taking his orders from them, both in lifting the moratorium tomorrow and in absolutely refusing to make any deficiency payment commitment to farmers for the next crop year.
I have noted the effect not only on grain farmers but, in my case, as far as the moratorium is concerned, on the tree fruit farmers, dairy farmers, and mixed farmers generally in my province. This is having and will continue to have a Canadawide impact. Therefore, we urge the Government to set a meeting date now with the farm leaders of this country to discuss the grievous debt problem, revoke the lifting of the moratorium, and discuss the deficiency payment program for the 1987-88 crop year. Farmers must know now and the Government has said it will consult. If it does not want to see further deterioration of agriculture in Canada, it must meet immediately with the people concerned to discuss these problems.
This is not a new form of Government intervention. This is part of the Canadian practice of making sure that our agricultural economy is strong and that it will not simply go down the tubes as has happened to many individual farmers already. We are asking the Government to take these actions for the sake of all Canadians. We have a highly integrated economy in so many respects and what happens to farmers affects all of us.

Thursday, April 30, 1987


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this debate is really part of a cry for action on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians involved in the western grain industry, the western grain economy. I think it can be said quite accurately that there are three cornerstones to the foundation of our economy. One surely is the western grain economy and our agricultural sector generally. The others are automobiles and forest products.
The Government has gravely weakened if not sold out a major part of our forest sector through its foolish and weak-kneed deal with the U.S. on softwood lumber. In that deal it quite unnecessarily caved in and agreed with the U.S. to impose an export tax on our sales of softwood lumber to the U.S. In the free trade negotiations now under way the Government seems ready to sell out, to undermine, to weaken another cornerstone in the foundation of our economy, the Canadian automobile industry.
I say this because the Government has not denied reports that it is willing to give up, in these free trade negotiations, the tariffs which exist on imports of cars and parts into this country from the United States. If this happens there will no longer be any way to enforce on the North American automobile companies which are subject to the Auto Pact the Canadian content and product requirements, the safeguards which are so important for the preservation of the industry and the jobs in it.
If there are no tariffs which can be imposed on the North American automobile companies, if they do not meet the production, content and job requirements of the Auto Pact, we will in effect no longer have an Auto Pact and our Canadian auto industry, one of what I have called the three cornerstones of the Canadian economy, will be gravely weakened and seriously damaged.
The Government also seems ready to sell out or weaken the Canadian auto industry in another crucial way. It refuses to insist, by means of law if necessary, that the new Japanese and Korean manufacturers setting up plants in this country play by the same rules as the North American manufacturers with regard to meeting requirements for production, content and jobs. As the Government continues to allow these plants to be set up essentially to put together parts and components imported from offshore, these plants will likely-and I say this
with great regret-displace two or three Canadian jobs for every job they create.
This point was well made and confirmed in a speech made by Moe Closs, President of Chrysler Canada Limited, to the Canadian Club of Montreal yesterday as reported in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
He said Canada's industrial base could be seriously weakened by all the offshore automobile investments in Canada because the Japanese and South Koreans don't play by the same rules.
"I don't see anything fair about all these new auto companies being enticed to set up shop here without having to make the same kinds of commitments in jobs, purchases and investments the North American auto companies have always considered the price of admission".
This very important speech was also reported in La Presse of Thursday, April 30.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to quote a few paragraphs of this article which summarizes the views of a major Canadian automobile industry spokesman, Mr. Moe Closs, and I quote:
The automobile industry is concerned abut the possibility of 40,000 layoffs in Canada, which represent 30 per cent of its total work force of 130,000, and the possible closing of one or two plants because of unfair competition from foreign manufacturers with the support of Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec.
Moe Closs emphasized that each assembly plant of foreign manufacturers in Canada which does not meet the requirement of the Auto Pact (60 per cent of Canadian content) replaces three old jobs with one new job.

I pointed out how the Government, through its foolish policies, is weakening, undermining, selling out two key cornerstones in the foundation of the Canadian economy, our forest products industry and our auto industry. I believe Canadian farmers and Canadians generally can now well be afraid that the Conservative Government is getting ready to do the same thing with Canadian agriculture, especially the western grain economy. This puts at risk not only the foundation of the economy of the three prairie provinces, but a way of life, thousands of family farms and the survival of thousands of rural municipalities and small towns, the tax revenues of which depend on the ability of these farms and the families living on them to exist and pay taxes and to use their income to buy goods and services from businesses in these communities.
I think it could be said in light of recent events that western farmers, farmers generally, and Canadians generally could have a well grounded fear that the Conservative Government is abandoning Canadian agriculture, and especially the western grain economy.

April 30, 1987
When someone from an urban area of southwestern Ontario rises to speak on this kind of subject there are always those who ask why such a Member would rise to take part in the debate. It should be clear that Members of Parliament are here to work for the best interests of the entire country, not only for their own riding, community, or even their own region.
By virtue of being elected to serve in the House of Commons we are all compelled, in fact duty bound, not only to vote but to understand and give consideration to the needs and problems of our entire country; the needs and problems of the fishermen of Newfoundland, the forestry workers of northern Ontario and British Columbia-

-the needs and problems of workers employed in the Montreal East plants which are closing, those workers in the CN Moncton plants which, because of a lack of policy and support from this Conservative Government, are losing their jobs, on top of the several hundreds of jobs which have already been lost because of the unfair and inefficient behaviour of this Conservative Government.

We must understand that the purpose of a national Government and, therefore, of a national Parliament is to enable us all to work to help one another and provide, with a sense of sharing and compassion, a way of making the country work for all its people and all its parts to the mutual benefit of every one of its regions. Each Member in this House of Commons should be able to say that every part of Canada is part of his or her country. I hope that if and when the need arises, Members of Parliament from our prairie provinces or our Atlantic Coast will take an interest in the needs and concerns of my city and my region, just as I am anxious to do when it comes to the needs and concerns of their regions.
However, as the Member of Parliament for Windsor West I do have a concern about the needs of all of southwestern Ontario, especially the peninsula that makes up the County of Essex. I hope Members of this House are aware that the County of Essex is a very important agricultural area, as is the entire southwestern part of the Province of Ontario. In the County of Essex we have a tremendous industry growing cash crops for canning factories. We grow tomatoes, peas, corn and all sorts of fruits and vegetables. That is why major canning companies such as Green Giant and Heinz are located in my County of Essex.
In our region there is also a substantial dairy farming industry, and the growing of corn and wheat is very important in southwestern Ontario including the County of Essex. In fact, I was once told that southwestern Ontario is a major grain producer which grows more wheat than most of the Province of Manitoba,
Although I must say that the wheat growers in my area do not benefit from the support and protection of the Canadian
Wheat Board. Agriculture therefore is of importance to the economy of Essex County, wherein the City of Windsor is located, and the entire southwestern Ontario region. It is a source of employment, not only on farms, but also in food processing plants. The people of my area are very concerned about the crushing burdens of debt and low commodity prices which face all too many farm families in Essex County and southwestern Ontario.
Together these two burdens of debt and low commodity prices, especially in recent months, have been delivering an unfair and, as I said, a crushing blow to all too many farmers in Essex County and southwestern Ontario, for whom not only their immediate livelihood but an entire way of life is as stake.
We have had a crushing blow in terms of debt and low commodity prices in my area, but there has been an especially heavy blow when it comes to the way these twin burdens have been placed upon the shoulders of farmers in western Canada and the western grain economy.
Only last week the Conservative Government announced that initial prices for wheat would be 18 per cent lower than those of last year. Now, just a few days after this bad news, the Government delivered another serious blow to western grain farmers-in fact, to farmers in my area and across Canada- by saying that as of tomorrow it will lift the moratorium, which has been in place for some 19 months, on foreclosure action by its Farm Credit Corporation on farmers in arrears on mortgages that they had obtained from that federal government agency.
One of the Ministers speaking in this debate said that the lifting of the moratorium would involve only 50 farmers per month or some 600 per year. If that is correct, it is still 600 farmers too many. The evidence is that the numbers will be much, much higher.
As has already been pointed out in the debate, some 6,000 of the 75,000 accounts with the FCC have been in arrears for more than two years. The experience with the FCC is that if a loan is in arrears for more than two years it almost invariably leads to foreclosure.
The Government has never explained satisfactorily why it was so heartless, insensitive, and uncaring as to lift this moratorium only a few days after it announced that initial prices for grain would be 18 per cent lower this year than they were last year. As I said, the lifting of the moratorium not only affects western Canada. It affects many farmers in my area.
I should like to refer to what Janice Vansickle, the agriculture reporter for The Windsor Star, wrote about this in yesterday's edition of that newspaper. She said:
A day of reckoning is about to dawn for 110 farmers in Essex and Kent
counties covered by a moratorium on foreclosures by the Farm Credit
Corporation.
The article went on to say:
Local farm leaders generally lashed out at the federal Government for
removing the moratorium.
April 30, 1987

"It's a pretty ruthless step", said Claude Giroux, who stepped down last week as president of National Farmers' Union Local 309 ... The removal of the moratorium indicates the Government is backing down on its commitment to help farmers through a period of crisis in agriculture, said Giroux-
The article went on to say:
The locals' new president, Roger Rivest, questioned the ability of the federal farm debt review board in Ontario to deal with a flow of FCC clients.
As we know, "the boards were put in place last August to act as mediators in credit disputes between farmers and their creditors". However, The Windsor Star went on to report:
Most farm leaders-believe they are not yet functioning properly and lack the authority to obtain legal binding agreements between farmers and creditors. "The farm debt review board has no power," said Rivest.
In today's edition of The Toronto Star, George McLaughlin, Chairman of the Farm Debt Review Board for Ontario, said that "about one Ontario farmer in five will leave the land during the next five years". Mr. McLaughlin went on to say that he asked for "an 18-member board, up from the current 11, to handle the load". He does not have enough people to handle the existing load, not to mention the additional load which will be created when the FCC starts its flow of foreclosures.
According to The Toronto Star, Mr. McLaughlin also said that "the review board had already received 425 applications from farmers and completed 193 reviews. He went on to say that of those completed reviews, only five had been translated into firm legal agreements". That is not a very strong endorsement of the efficiency and the usefulness of the board by the very person which the Conservative Government appointed to chair it.
Obviously, farmers have to be sceptical about the value of these farm debt review boards. Farmers across Canada are being squeezed, not only by low prices for what they grow, but by the problem of debt. There is a strong reason the Government should continue the moratorium against foreclosures of FCC mortgages. It is the absence of an effective system to deal with the farm debt crisis. Farm leaders and individual farmers across the country say that the Government has not put in place an effective system for this purpose. We in the Official Opposition call upon the Government to say today, before the debate ends, that it will continue the moratorium on foreclosures of FCC mortgages.
The Government says that if it does that, the banks will be unhappy and that farmers who have their mortgages with the banks instead of the FCC will also be unhappy. The Government is not here to serve the banks; it is here to serve the people of Canada.
In these circumstances the Government should not drag down the clients of the Farm Credit Corporation to the level of pressure which is being imposed upon clients of the chartered banks, pressure that might be increased if the Government's moratorium on foreclosures of Farm Credit Corporation mortgages is raised. Instead, it should take action right now to get the banks to commit to having an equivalent moratorium on their mortgages so long as the Government's FCC moratorium is in place.
That seems to make more sense than to pull down the clients of the FCC in the agricultural community to the level of those
farmers who may now be facing more pressure by way of foreclosure from the chartered banks.
In the face of the 18 per cent drop in initial prices of grain this year, surely the Government must commit itself today, before this debate ends, to putting in place deficiency payments to bring returns to grain farmers up to the level where they will be equal to those of last year.
Earlier in the debate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) rose to his feet with a great deal of fanfare and said:"Oh, we are doing something. We are going to provide a subsidy of $64 million on freight rates for shipping grain". The 18 per cent drop in initial prices alone is worth $1 billion. While I am sure $64 million is welcomed, it is only a pittance or a drop in the bucket in the face of the reduction of $1 billion in income. Also, farmers will still have to pay $11 million to $12 million in increased freight rates.
All the Government has done is to go through a smoke and mirrors exercise, holding out the hope of survival to farmers, but as they get close to it, like a train moving away from them, it gets farther and farther away.
I conclude by saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in his trip out west should not be looking for photo opportunities. Instead, if it cannot be done in this debate, he must reinstate the FCC moratorium on farm foreclosures, introduce a proper debt restructuring program, and announce a real deficiency program for this year's crop. Nothing less will do, if the Government is serious about preserving one of the three crucial foundations of the Canadian economy-the western grain industry-and the way of life it represents.
We owe it to the people in the western grain industry to ensure that this debate does not end unless we get this type of commitment from the Government. I call upon the Government to show some small element of heart, concern, and caring, by making this kind of commitment. This is the very least it can do for the western grain economy, for agriculture generally, and for the entire economy of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in this debate today. I did not intend to start this way, but I do want to deal with the moratorium the Opposition House Leader has called upon us to reinstate.
Let me point out to the Hon. Member that there are about 225,000 commercial farms in Canada, 75,000 of which do business with the FCC. After the moratorium is lifted, the FCC will deal with a potential 50 foreclosure cases a month. Only 20 per cent of these are in arrears, including some 6,000 that have made no payments for at least two years. This means that one-quarter of 1 per cent of Canada's farming community will potentially be affected by this moratorium.

April 30, 1987
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the moratorium was imposed while programs to assist troubled farmers were being developed. Those programs include the interest rate conversion program that assists over 5,000 farmers, the shared-risk mortgage program, commodity-based loans and farm debt review boards. As well, the moratorium was creating a two-tier system in agriculture: those farmers who were protected and those whose creditors were not the Farm Credit Corporation and who therefore had no protection.
The lifting of the moratorium is supported by organizations like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which talked about distortions caused by the debt moratorium although it sympathized as did others with our reasons for bringing it in in the first place. The association said that this was not a good solution because it provided no lasting benefit to Canadian agriculture. That is what I would like to talk about throughout most of my address to the House today.
It was interesting that in the first part of his address, the Opposition House Leader did not refer to farmers at all. He talked about the automobile industry, the forest products industry, fishermen and railway workers. Then he finally got around to talking about farmers. However, I did agree with him when he talked about being an urban Member from southern Ontario. I myself am a Member from Toronto. There are compelling reasons for people like me and the Hon. Member to talk about farmers, and those reasons are how important farmers are, not just to the Canadian economy but to every consumer in Canada, and the way of life they represent.
I feel particularly strongly about this because, although I am an urban Member, like many Canadians and probably many in this Chamber, my roots are with the land. My family farmed in Ontario for 150 years. My grandfather who owned the farm in 1929 came very close to losing it then because of the kinds of conditions we are seeing today. He was able to save it through hard work and community assistance, but it took him many years to pay for what happened to him in 1929. That is why we on this side of the House recognize the importance of farming to our communities and that all issues that affect farmers affect Canadians across the land.
I would like to point out how the situation facing Canadian farms affects women and their lives on the farm. Of course, there is nothing new about women taking active and equal roles on the farm, but two things have changed over the years. Farm women are now far more involved in the decisionmaking aspects of the family farm than they were years ago. Second, the structures on the farm have changed. When my grandmother worked side by side with my grandfather, they had help in the house, on the land and in the barn.
Now there is a wider public understanding of the contribution of farm women and how it has increased so much throughout the last generation or two. Women on the farm are now involved in all aspects of the farm business, from domestic activities to work in the fields. Studies show that 49 per cent of farm field work and 97 per cent of farm domestic work is done by women. Something that has not changed is that most farm
women are responsible for keeping the books as well, just as my grandmother did.
One of the problems with the family farm today is that with increased pressure on families, more and more women are seeking employment off the farm. That creates additional pressures on farm women and their families. They are continuing to do the domestic work and the work in the barn and the fields. They are also taking jobs in town. Along with the lack of availability of help, that is leading to a greater dependence on child care, a need that must be met, a need to which the Government has been committed since its first day.
High quality child care is particularly hard to find in rural areas, particularly in the spring planting season and the fall harvest when care is sometimes required around the clock. At the same time, women working off the farm require year-round child care. The demands are diverse and our sensitivity to those issues has been expressed many times. I have been in touch throughout the past year with farm women across Canada to deal with how we can jointly find a solution to this problem. That is why when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has talked in the House and in public about our commitment to child care, he has always talked about flexibility. He knows that women in rural Canada have different needs than women in the cities.
Farm women have played such an important role throughout the history of farming, but so has this Party. In the history of Canadian farms, the Progressive Conservative Party has always had a strong relationship with farmers. In fact, I could say it is a relationship that is unique among Canadian political Parties. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that created the Department of Agriculture. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that founded the Farm Credit Corporation. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that set up the Canadian Wheat Board. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that established crop insurance. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that brought in the Agriculture Stabilization Act. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that set up the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation administration. The list goes on. I will bet you your very last bushel, Mr. Speaker, that if it is positive for Canadian agriculture, it was put in place by a Tory Government.
Let us now turn to some more recent history that has led to the problems Canadian farmers are now facing. The problems faced by farmers in Canada today arise out of both domestic and international occurrences. Domestically, the Canadian farming community was devastated by the economic conditions of the early 1980s when a Liberal Government was in power. I can understand why the Opposition House Leader did not talk a lot about farmers in the first part of his address. Interest rates in excess of 20 per cent crippled the farming industry. The economic policies of the Liberal Government contributed significantly to the large number of farm bankruptcies which occurred from 1981 to 1983. It was this attitude of the Government led by the then Prime Minister who asked why he should sell their wheat, that devastated the Canadian farmers. That is why the policies we put in place and the temporary moratorium were so needed.
April 30, 1987

The attitude of the former Prime Minister is not the attitude of our Prime Minister, our Party or our Government. Our record in agriculture is second to none. We have implemented a 16 point agricultural program that has been widely praised. As the Prime Minister stated in this debate, when Canadian farmers are in need, this Government responds. That is why we have committed $1 billion to assist grain producers. Without this program, farm income would have declined by 17.9 per cent this year. That is the kind of action we are prepared to take.
The Liberals would not sell our wheat. We are selling Canadian wheat.
In our Party we know that Canadian farmers are efficient. They are on the leading edge of agricultural technology. Throughout the world they have a record second to none. Our farmers are adaptable. Our farmers work hard while dealing with one of the most difficult climates in the world. But, of all of us closest to this great land of ours, we recognize that our farmers know of the richness of our country more than anyone else.
We are committed to selling Canadian wheat. We are selling 25 million tonnes of grain to the U.S.S.R.; 4.5 million tonnes to Brazil; and 2.5 million tonnes to Egypt. We are proud of the products produced by our farmers. We care enough not just to sell those products internationally but to drive forward for a better deal for Canadian farmers.
Last year we provided $150 million to grain farmers hit by the drought and by grasshopper damage. We provided $705 million under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, providing much needed cash to farmers for spring seeding. We have amended the Western Grain Transportation Act to protect farmers from sharp increases in freight rates. We have established a 10-year $700 million loan program to provide commodity-based mortgages. This initiative helps those farmers with substantial debt problems.
Earlier today my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), discussed in the House his new measure to protect farmers from the statutory increase in 1987-88 western grain freight rates. So when the Opposition House Leader said that farmers will spend more on freight, I think that for the record I should point out that when farmers deliver their grain to the elevator this year they will pay $6.32 per tonne on average in the upcoming crop year. That compares to a rate of $7.70 paid by producers in 1984-85 prior to the present administration coming to power. It is an 18 per cent decrease from what was paid by producers in that year. The federal Government will pay the average $2 per tonne difference to the railways.
Our Government established farm debt review boards to provide independent third-party review, thus assisting farmers who were having difficulties with their creditors. Providing this third-party analysis is an assistance and comfort in many cases that has been able to have an influence on a farmer's ability to keep his farm and to ensure the survival of the farm business.
The pattern is clear. This is a Government that understands the Canadian farmer. This is a Government which, throughout the history of the country and the history of the Party, has understood the Canadian farmer.
Let me get back to the international work that we have been doing to improve trade in agricultural products. We have been in the forefront of nations calling for new ground rules. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had agriculture discussed at last year's economic summit for the first time ever. That was an initiative of our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister and this Government are going to bat for farmers hurt by protection in other countries, hurt by the fact that it is a deliberate policy in European communities to protect their farmers and to subsidize them no matter what the cost to the consumer.
We, as a Government, have involved Canada in the Cairns Group, nations formed to counter the power of the European Community, the United States and Japan. We are in the forefront of negotiations in GATT to stop the international trade war in agriculture. We are involved in trade talks with the United States that will be of great benefit to Canadian farmers. We know that our farmers can compete with any of those farmers in any of those countries if they are given a fair chance to do so.
On a political level, western Canadians and farmers have never been better represented in Cabinet, in Government and in caucus. I will not list the great extent of their involvement since the Prime Minister pointed that out to the House in this debate. However, I can say that when I look at our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), and when I listen to the voices that they represent on behalf of Canadian farmers, as a Member from Toronto I am very proud to support them in their endeavours and to sit beside them in Cabinet and in this House.
On an economic level we all know the disastrous effects of the Liberal economic policies on Canadian farmers. Our Government's economic policies have had a positive effect on farmers, a stabilizing effect under enormously difficult circumstances for farmers and for this Government. But we have never, ever, betrayed our farmers, and we never will. I would like to remind Hon. Members that just by our general economic policies a 1 per cent decline in interest rates represents a savings to Canadian farmers of $130 million a year.

April 30, 1987
1 am proud of our record in agriculture. We intend to build upon it. Traditionally, our Party has been the voice of Canadian farmers in Parliament, and this will continue. It will continue as long as this Government remains in office with its representatives, not just from western Canada but Members such as myself who come from downtown urban centres and who are totally committed to the Canadian farmer. We will keep working diligently to ensure a better life for the people on our farms, men and women, and to ensure that the children on the farms will have the right to inherit a stable and happy farm environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak in this emergency debate today which concerns the current crisis facing grain producers. My Party, the Liberal Party, is concerned by the tremendous tragedy that is taking place in the western grain industry.
The Conservative Government has failed the producers, despite the good words that have just been spoken by the Minister. It is clear that the Conservative Government believes grain producers will have a great future in two or three years' time when the market turns around. But most western farmers are not very certain in their own minds whether that will be the case, because there has been absolutely no commitment of a deficiency payment for the new crop year. Farmers do not want nice words, such as those just expressed by the Minister. They do not want nice words for the future. They want money now. They need it, and they need it badly. They should get it from the Conservative Government.


Charles James Mayer: That is what they are getting. They are getting $1.3 billion in the next month. That is money. That is cash. That is now!


André Ouellet: I realize that the Minister is very concerned and he is becoming very nervous. I certainly appreciate that he is very sensitive because it hurts. It certainly hurts-


Charles James Mayer: All I am trying to do is tell you what is going on so that you do not make a fool of yourself when you speak.


André Ouellet: The Conservatives have made a mess of farming. It hurts them. Certainly this debate is a clear indication of how nervous and how desperate is the Minister.


Charles James Mayer: It is a clear indication of all the things that this Government has done for farmers.


André Ouellet: Last year, when grain prices went down by 20 per cent the industry said that, in constant dollars, grain prices were at the same level as they were in 1933 under R. B. Bennett. Tory times are tough times. This has been said many times in the past. I think it has to be repeated today. Tory times are tough times. They certainly are for a great number of western farmers who must now realize that, because grain prices have gone down by a further 18 per cent this year. There is not only the 20 per cent reduction of last year to consider, but the additional 18 per cent which will take place this year.
Western wheat growers were saying to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who is the Liberal
critic for agriculture, that the crisis today is not so much with respect to price, although that is certainly a serious problem, but that the major problem is the uncertainty of government policy. They have said to my colleague that they do not know whether there will be a deficiency payment or a special grains program, and they do not know on what basis.
This is unacceptable because other governments are taking care of their farmers. They are letting them know exactly what they are going to do for them, or what they are doing for them now. This is not the situation with the Canadian Government. We know what the Government of the United States is doing for its farmers, and we see what is happening in Europe. Those Governments are providing all kinds of support and help for their farmers.
Earlier in this debate, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that he was going to take steps to reduce freight rates. In this regard, it is interesting to make some comparisons. In 1984, the freight rate was $7.70 per tonne. At this time, it would be $8.32 per tonne. Taking into account the $2 subsidy announced by the Government, the rate will be $6.32 per tonne. This subsidy on freight rates will reduce the cost to the growers some 8 per cent. Let me remind the Minister and others that the price of wheat in 1984 was $170 per tonne. The price for the 1987-88 crop year will be $110 per tonne, a difference of $60, or roughly 35 per cent.
If the Minister of Transport is serious about helping our farmers, if he really wants to do something, why does he not reduce freight rates by 35 per cent? We have had a reduction of 35 per cent in the price per tonne of wheat, and certainly the same reduction should apply to freight rates. If he were to do that, I would applaud the initiative of the Minister. But, all the Government can do after this two day debate is to come out with that kind of insignificant support.
It is incredible to me that this Government can make the claim that it supports our farmers. What it has come up with is a farce. We on this side of the House want to vigorously express our opposition to the lack of action on the part of this Government.
The U. S. Farm Bill is not going to be changed in the near future, and certainly not during the term of the Reagan administration. In addition, it is clear that the U. S. Export Enhancement Program will be strengthened, increasing yet again competition for Canadian Wheat Board sales.
As a result of the information we have received of late, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and despite all the apparent goodwill, all of the niceties between the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), it is clear that American policies are hurting Canadian farmers and Canadian workers, and our Prime Minister is doing nothing about it. Yet, he tries to make us believe that he has a very special relationship with the President of the United States. Indeed, he has; he is selling Canada to the Americans at a very low price.
April 30, 1987

My colleague the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry today wrote the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will take a moment to read that letter. It is as follows:
It has come to my attention that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has today prepared a new set of agricultural trade subsidy initiatives that include measures of great damage to Canada.
Specifically they are proposing to include under the Export Enhancement Program an offer of 1.25 million metric tons of barley to Saudi Arabia, a traditional Canadian buyer.
If this measure is approved by the Trade Review Committee of the U.S. administration in the next week, it will mean a loss of 75 to 85 million dollars to Canadian farmers.
The Minister today spoke of providing $64 million for western Canadian farmers. A single sale of U.S. grain to Saudi Arabia will cost Canadian grain producers $85 million-much more than what the Government is prepared to give them today.
The letter goes on:
This initiative certainly flies in the face of assurances apparently gained from President Reagan that he would be considerate of Canadian agricultural concerns-
Well, these concerns are not being given very serious consideration.
In addition to this sale to Saudi Arabia, we have recently been told that the Americans have negotiated a sale with the U.S.S.R. Under that agreement the Americans will sell to the U.S.S.R. four million metric tonnes of wheat, and for every three bushels of wheat bought by the U.S.S.R., the Americans will provide one bushel at no charge.
This is the type of endeavour that other countries are becoming involved in so as to sustain their agricultural industries, their farmers. We would like to see what this Government is ready to do to sustain our own farmers.
Unfortunately, the attitude of the Government thus far has been rather puzzling. If our agricultural industry is to survive in the face of international competition, we are going to have to provide more in the way of deficiency payments, more special grains programs, and more aggressive marketing.
In closing, I should like to refer to another aspect of government initiative that is, to say the least, a real slap in the face for our farmers. I refer to the decision taken earlier this week by this Government to lift the foreclosure moratorium imposed upon the Farm Credit Corporation.
This action will permit foreclosure proceedings to be commenced against those farmers whose Farm Credit Corporation loans are in arrears. FCC loans represent 30 to 40 per cent of long term debt in the agricultural sector, and we are told that 6,000 of the 75,000 accounts with the Farm Credit Corporation have been in arrears for more than two years. This has just been confirmed by the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) who spoke just before me.
The history of the Farm Credit Corporation has been that if a loan is in arrears for more than two years it almost invariably leads to foreclosure. That means that 8 per cent of the Farm Credit Corporation loans are certain to face foreclosure proceedings.
The Minister of State for Privatization has just said, "Don't worry about this, we are only going to foreclose on about 50 a month". I believe that is what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said as well earlier in the week. That means that about 600 farmers a year will have to worry about foreclosures. This is incredible. I am not concerned about thousands of farmers, I am concerned about every farmer who has to face foreclosure. It is unacceptable for the Minister to say that we should not worry, that only 600 will be foreclosed upon. We should have a policy which protects every farmer and no foreclosures should take place. This is absolutely unacceptable. This kind of thing will not wash.
I believe that if the Government has lifted the moratorium on foreclosures, then it is lifted and it may apply to many thousands of farmers. The Government should take every step possible to prevent this from happening. It is certainly agony for farmers who have devoted years, their entire lives in some cases, and have planned great future projects for their farms, to see them go by the wayside because of the incredible misunderstanding or bad heart of the Government.
It has been said many times that the Conservative Government is very close to big business, the big multinationals, the big oil companies, and the big banks. Time and time again the Government has passed legislation in the interests of the prissante, the people who are rich and influential, but very seldom does the Government take up the interests of the poor, those who are in difficulty. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that this is the time to act. This bad decision could be cancelled, because it will only come into effect tomorrow.


Mr. Wise:: Farmers don't want it cancelled. Farmers want it lifted.


André Ouellet: Regardless of how the Minister wants to sugar-coat it, this is not the way to do it. The moratorium has been in place for 19 months. During that time the Government should have put in place a debt restructuring program to solve the plight of farmers. Had it put in place a proper debt restructuring program the moratorium would not be needed in place at all. However, the Government did not have such a program and the moratorium bought it time. The Government had 19 months to put in place a debt restructuring program which could work well. As the Minister knows, the things which are in place do not work. The situation is getting worse and worse.

April 30, 1987
In conclusion, the Leader of the Liberal Party put the situation quite clear earlier in this debate when he made a vibrant plea to force the Conservative Government to work for the farmers. On behalf of farmers he said that unless special programs are put in place to cope with it, we will see the loss of an entire way of life in rural prairie communities across the country. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that action is needed now. I want to repeat his words.
The Government should come clean, give a commitment to a deficiency payment, stop foreclosures which will begin tomorrow, and put in place a proper debt restructuring program. If the Government does not do so the problems faced by western Canadian agriculture and agriculture in other parts of the country will be horrendous. People in this House, the Liberal Party, and many, many Canadians across the country who are concerned about agriculture are willing to make that commitment. The Government must make that commitment now to our rural communities. It is absolutely essential. I hope this debate has opened the eyes of the Minister and has opened his heart and his pocket, because the farmers desperately need money and they need it very soon.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I gladly participate in this debate. I want to refrain from rhetoric, place facts before the House, and deal with this matter in a manner which I hope will be helpful.
I am honoured to represent the constituency of Saskatoon West, which is a very important part of the great Province of Saskatchewan, a province which relies on agriculture, on a per capita basis, more than any other province in the country. I am very proud to represent a rural area in my constituency, although it has diminished over the years since I was first elected.
I am very proud of how many of our Ministers and Members have participated gladly in this debate. We have a record of which we can be justly proud in most difficult circumstances. I want to compliment in particular my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). As a western Canadian representative in the House of Commons, I feel comfortable in Government with the representation which these two Ministers have given us in these important portfolios. I say that on behalf of my constituents.
The Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who brought this matter forward, knows that farmers in Saskatchewan are not a bunch of dolts. They understand exactly what is going on. They follow the proceedings of the House of Commons very closely and are not taken in by the hysterical rhetoric which I have heard from opposition Members.
When the Liberal-NDP coalition brings forward a motion in an attempt to demonstrate that they represent western farmers, nothing could be further from the truth. It pains me and western Canadians to see Liberals stand up in this House and suggest that they are somehow interested in the plight of
the farmers of this nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) participate in this debate. I want to remind people that the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Finance in the Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. He had great influence in that Government. Where was the Leader of the Opposition when Mr. Trudeau asked western farmers, "Why should we sell your wheat?" and turned his finger on western Canada? He was silent. Now all of a sudden he has a newfound interest in the western grain farmer. This is not being believed at all in western Canada.
Our policy was developed in the tradition of John Diefen-baker with whom I had the great honour of serving, as did many of us in this House. The leadership which was given by John Diefenbaker with regard to western Canada is being continued under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Indeed it is a fact that the Prime Minister first came to Ottawa to work for the Minister of Agriculture in the Government of Mr. Diefenbaker, and that was the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). That was his exposure to politics in Canada. That has given him an abiding faith in the sanctity of the farmers of Canada.
I say to my colleagues in the House of Commons that I do not want to indulge this evening in anything except the facts relating to the very serious question facing farmers across the nation. On CBC this morning I heard the Hon. Member for Prince Albert, who precipitated this debate, complimenting the fact that the Government had taken initiatives in terms of international discussions to deal with the root problem of the difficulties facing Canadian farmers today, that is to say, the position of commodity prices in Canada.
I must compliment him for saying that. In fact, he complimented our leadership, the Prime Minister in particular, on the CBC farm program at six o'clock this morning. I give him credit for stating a fact which I think has not come out of any member of his Party during the course of the debate. He gave proper recognition to the role played by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board.
What are the facts? We in the Government have come forward at a time of crisis and difficulty for western farmers in a way which any thinking Canadian would have to say was fair and reasonable and demonstrates our priority toward agriculture.
I should like to give some indication of comparative figures of spending, because the Opposition keeps talking about the money we should be spending. Federal support to agriculture in Canada in 1983 totalled $300 million. However, what is it now? It is anticipated that this year we will be spending something in the vicinity of $3 billion.
April 30, 1987


John Wise: At least.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Three billion dollars at least. Does that sound like a Government, in comparison with what we experienced under a previous administration, insensitive to agriculture? Anyone who suggests the contrary is not telling the truth.
I should like to remind my colleagues of the situation in 1984 in respect of input costs. For example, what was the cost for farm fuel? In September, 1984, the cost to fill a 100-gallon tank was $115. Because my colleagues in Cabinet have been so effective and have been thinking about producers, in February, 1987, the cost was $40. This is a $75 reduction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We must look at some of the fundamental problems, not only in agriculture, but also in small business. Average farmers, whom the Progressive Conservative Party have represented so faithfully and so well over the years, have been concerned with some of the root problems. We must remind ourselves of them.
What was the prime interest rate in 1981? What were farmers paying when they had to go to banks and credit unions for assistance to carry on their operations? Have we forgotten what it was? It was 22.75 per cent. What is it now? It is 9.25 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do we remember these figures? I am not being partisan. I am being factual by showing the management of the Government and the Prime Minister.
What was the cost of a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in 1981? The interest rate at that time was 23.75 per cent. Today it is 10.25 per cent. That is a 12.5 per cent difference.
We must ask ourselves why the Liberal-NDP coalition is raising this debate at this time. It is clear that the only reason is that it wants to prevent the passage of other government legislation. It has nothing to do with agriculture. Opposition Members want to stall the business of the House because they do not want to deal with Bill C-22 and other legislation in the House of Commons. This is not bona fide.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You want to put the price of drugs up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think I have hit a responsive chord. The agricultural critic of the Fiberal Party, who stands in the House to speak about agriculture, understands precisely what it is. I think the people of Canada should understand why we are here. They have given us a telling blow, but this time it was with the point of their chin. They are giving us on this side of the House an opportunity to remind Canadians-and we do it gladly-that we in fact have a commitment or priority to
agriculture which has been unexceeded, quite frankly, by any other Government in the history of Canada.
There has been much talk about farm bankruptcies, but I think the fact is that it is a regrettable matter. We understand that. I know what it is like to go home and see farmers in difficulty, wondering what they will do this year and living in a situation brought on by international circumstances. 1 understand all that because I go home every week-end. I do not maintain, as do some Members, a residence in Ottawa or Aylmer. I go home and talk with these people, and I understand what they are saying. We are working as hard as we can, within our financial ability, to bring some relief to farmers.
Fet us look at the number of farm bankruptcies under the Liberals. In 1981, there were 261 farm bankruptcies nationally. In 1982, there were 410, which was a 57 per cent increase; in 1983, 488, which was practically a 20 per cent increase; in 1984, 551, which was a 13 per cent increase; in 1985, 508, which was a 7.8 per cent decrease; and in 1986, 440, which was a 13 per cent decrease.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I did not interrupt the Hon. Member. Is he not prepared to listen to my speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I wonder whether the Minister could explain why he is taking off the moratorium and starting foreclosures-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, you dealt with that point of order with the kind of certainty which I admire in a Speaker of your eminence. It was mischief. This man is twisting and turning in his seat, unable to hear the truth spoken to him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why are you taking off the moratorium if you don't want more foreclosures?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much your support.
I want to bring forward some facts, particularly to the attention of the agricultural critic of the Liberal Party. What has been the record? In the time we have been in Government, which has been something over two years, the rate for five-year Farm Credit Corporation mortgages dropped from 14 per cent in September, 1984, to 10.75 per cent in March, 1987.


Maurice Brydon Foster: They are 11 per cent, Ray, be honest.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why are the Liberals so intolerant? Why is the Opposition so intolerant? Why is it that Hon. Members opposite do not want to allow Hon. Members to speak their mind? I believe that is a principle of democracy.

April 30, 1987


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: What is your point of order?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I thought the debate was getting longer and longer, and I just wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the chair is being occupied now by a very fine gentleman.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was on a roll and he actually managed to put me off by pointing out that you are very distinguished. He interrupted my discussion.
Let us look at the Special Canadian Grains Program of which 1 am particularly proud. Members of the Opposition ask what the Government is doing for the Province of Saskatchewan as if it were doing nothing, not taking its responsibility. Let me just tell the House what the Government is doing, what kind of cash is now being placed in the hands of Saskatchewan farmers alone. As a result of that $1 billion payment under the Special Canadian Grains Program, we in Saskatchewan will realize $415.6 million. Without that payment the farm income would have been desperate. By virtue of that payment alone, there has been an increase in the income of Saskatchewan farmers of 82.5 per cent. 1 think that increase is not insignificant.
The Saskatchewan portion of the Western Grain Stabilization Act payment will be $382 million. Rounding that off, $800 million in total that will go to Saskatchewan. That is not an insignificant amount of money that will be received by farmers within five weeks.
An announcement was made today on western grain transportation. While we are having this debate, the Government is routinely facing a very serious question brought on by Liberal legislation which forced the freight rate up substantially and dramatically by something in the vicinity of 39 per cent. Over the course of the last weeks and days, the Government was addressing this problem in the anticipation of a substantial increase in the cost of transporting grain. Today the Government responded to the increase brought on by the Liberal legislation which was passed with the support of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We felt that the increase was not acceptable so we decided to make a payment in anticipation of the increase to ensure that no increase of any consequence is borne by the western farmer.
I do not see opposition Members congratulating us on taking this position. They are silent and they should be ashamed of themselves. If we are to have fair debates, I expect the Opposition to be critical at the proper times but when an action is taken by the Government which does bring relief, I would simply ask for fair play on the part of opposition Members. I would ask them to acknowledge such action.
The Hon. Member for Papineau spoke of representatives of big business and asked who represents it. I think he forgets the
fact that his leader was on the boards of directors of many corporations including the Bank of Montreal and Canadian Pacific. I do not know who represents big business in the House, but I do not think the Minister of Agriculture does. I do not think the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the Hon. Member from Sarnia, the Hon. Member from Sept. Isles or the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) represent big business. Do these look like big-time bankers to you, Mr. Speaker? These are honest-to-God common people representing their constituents in a way of which I am very proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, has been there in times of adversity when we really needed expanded sales. I think a vote of thanks should go out to the Minister. He was educated in Saskatchewan. He went to the same school and the same university as I though he is a little smarter and a little brighter. We admire the way the Minister of State for the Wheat Board has, with the assistance of the staff of the Canadian Wheat Board, sold our grain in an unprecedented manner. This is a man with whom I am proud to be associated.
I can tell the House that the people of Saskatchewan understand what is going on. They are not taken in by silly games played by the Opposition. They are here to ensure that the Government is sensitive to their real needs. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I and this Party are concerned, we are determined to help farmers across Canada.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, they talk about out of the mouths of babes. What I just heard from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) makes babes sound as though they are speaking sense.
What we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is bafflegab. I was not even supposed to be here. I am supposed to be away on a short maternity leave enjoying my family. However, when I saw this nonsense going on on the government side, I could not take it any longer. I had to come here to start calling a spade a spade and to speak for the record.
The Hon. Member invoked in solemn tones the memory of John Diefenbaker. At the same time, his own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has appointed at the expense of the public purse Dalton Camp, the very man who did in the former eminent Prime Minister, the man who stabbed him again and again. Dalton Camp is now being paid to be chief adviser to the Prime Minister. I cannot believe that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West would be able to talk about Diefenbaker while Dalton Camp is sitting in his cabinet room advising his colleagues. Dalton Camp is the kind of adviser who makes speeches like the one made by the Hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mrs. McDougall). We heard her describe herself as an urban Member and she admitted that although she had some rural roots, she was not that familiar with the current situation in farming. We also heard her say that the reason the Government will end the moratorium on farm foreclosures as of midnight tonight is because it does not want a two-tier system.
April 30, 1987

I believe a number of government Members were present when the Eton. Member for St. Paul's said that she did not want to have a two-tier system. Fine, the Conservative Government will be implementing a one-tier system and driving more farmers into bankruptcy. It is driving more family farms to end a great history. Is that the kind of tier this Party promised the people of Canada when it went to the voters on September 4, 1984?
With the departure of Bill Fox, perhaps we will get some new script writers. I certainly hope so. We heard the litany of former Liberal sins and we heard about interest rates back in 1981. I would like to ask Members on the government side what those same farmers are now paying in the spread. As any Hon. Member knows, the real cost of borrowing to farmers is the cost of the spread, not necessarily the interest rate. The cost of the spread has not been reduced substantially.
We heard what the former Liberal Government did and did not do. Presumably, on September 4, 1984, the people of Canada made a judgment and they gave a mandate to the Conservative Government, the largest mandate in the history of Canada. Now, almost three years later, we are seeing the Government's inaction on agriculture.
The Minister in charge of privatization read off a check list of monies that had been given to farmers in the form of subsidies or other goodies. It took the Government only 48 hours to come up with $1 billion to bail out Canadian banks. Yet the same Government dragged its heels for months on end until it was on the edge of an election in Saskatchewan. It took a call from the Premier of Saskatchewan to force the Prime Minister to change his mind and come across with some much needed cash for western farmers.
We know that the Prime Minister himself has flown over the western provinces more times than he would care to admit. Even though he has promised to go to western Canada next week, I suspect that he may decide to fly over again when he receives the most recent piece of news which is that today, the United States signed a 4-million-ton deal to sell wheat to the U.S.S.R. That 4-million-ton deal represents one-half of the annual Canadian wheat sales to the Soviet Union.
Where is the benefit accruing to Canadians as a result of our great relationship with the United States? The United States is undercutting our markets with the European Economic Community and with the U.S.S.R. At the same time we host the President of the United States to come here to tell us how we should be moving toward a free trade system, a free trade system which will destroy whatever semblance is left of our agricultural community.
There are promises and more promises that have been broken. You have heard, Mr. Speaker, from some of my colleagues today who have outlined the hypocrisy of a Government that came into power with 338 promises and then leaves
all the work to the Opposition. It has left all the work to people such as the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who time and time again in this House has stood in his place and asked the Government to come across. He has asked the Government to come across with a deficiency payment which will be equal at least to what the farmers received in the last fiscal year. He has asked the Government, because no firm restructuring program has been introduced for debt refinancing, to waive the decision to end the moratorium on FCC farm foreclosures.
The Hon. Member for Algoma, along with the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the Official Opposition, have travelled the country on a Liberal task force asking farmers what they think. So too we in the Liberal Party can be justly proud of another one of our members who has carried a one-man, one-woman fight across the Prairies in the person of our Senator Hazen Argue and his wife, Jean. Many of us know that he has taken to his trailer to go out to the small communities in Saskatchewan and Alberta to find out from the farmers and the farm wives themselves just what the Government can do to assist them. He has taken his fight even to the point of demonstrating before the American Embassy to ensure that the American Government starts instituting some fair trading practices so that we Canadians can compete on an equal basis.
I heard the Hon. Member for St. Paul's talk about the efficiency of Canadian farms and the efficiency of Canadian farmers. Nobody doubts that we have some of the most efficient farmers and most efficient farm production in the world. But when we are competing with subsidies in the United States and in other countries which are so great that our farmers cannot even recoup the cost of planting, then we know that this Government has to get in there and fight toe-to-toe to establish the principle of fair trading practices among nations. We talk about Canada being at the leading edge of the GATT negotiations. Yet we have seen what that has yielded for the Canadian farmer-a big fat zero.
Today, we know that the Prime Minister is meeting with his provincial colleagues. If I were a western Premier I would say to the Prime Minister: "Don't bother visiting us. Send cash. Don't bother, Mr. Prime Minister, showering us with more flowery promises, we have seen the 338 promises that went along with your election brochure and we simply do not believe you".
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture in a brochure which was given to all members at the end of January, 1985, cite chapter and verse the promises made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Official Opposition. Times have changed and his tune has changed. We have heard the Government talk about the woes of past Liberal administrations. We have heard it again and again and again. It sounds like a broken record.

What the farmers want to know, and what the people of Canada want to know, is once given the largest mandate in the history of Canada when is this Government going to start to deliver for the little people? When is this Government going to start to deliver or is it simply going to chop off those farms that are now teetering on the brink? We heard the figures-it is only 50 a month, said the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for Privatization. Some 50 farms a month will be going down the tubes as a result of an action which will be consummated at midnight tonight, and this Government has a chance to stop it now. It has a chance to follow through on its promise to develop a restructured debt capacity through the Farm Credit Corporation, until that restructuring has been carried out to place a moratorium on all FCC farm foreclosures.
I know that I could go on at length, but there are many other members of my Party who would like to call on the Government-


Charles James Mayer: Why don't you tell us what your policy is?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) asks me to tell the House what our policy is. I would like to tell the Minister that his policy should be an immediate move to assist those farmers-and he knows the situation because he is a farmer himself-who are not even recouping the cost of planting in the commodities that they are selling this year on the wheat market. That is the situation and he knows it. Yet he and his colleagues are prepared to move at midnight tonight with Draconian measures to force farms across the country into receivership and into foreclosure. So he does not have to shout across the House to members of the Opposition who were the only ones to force the Government into an emergency debate. What we would like to see is some action, a decision to end farm foreclosures, and also a decision with respect to a deficiency program. We have been asking him for weeks in the House-for months-to introduce a deficiency program at least equal to what was in place last year. To date we have heard a resounding silence from the government benches.
Where are the western Members tonight on the government side of the House? Where are they? Do they not care about their farmers? I see one Member over there who was recently occupying the chair, and a fine Member he is too. But we have to consider that here we are in an emergency debate in the House tonight considering a situation which could mean devastation for farmers across the country and with the exception of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) there is not a single Conservative western Member here in the House to speak for the farmers. I would like to challenge those-and the Minister of Agriculture looks around to check me up on my figures. Do I see a Member from western Canada?
April 30, 1987


John Wise: You are wrong.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With the exception of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, whom I already mentioned in my remarks, where are the back-benchers from western Canada?


Charles James Mayer: Where are your western Members?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Those Members on the government side of the House have not spoken. Believe me, when we look at those Members in Alberta who were sent here in the grand wave of 1984 we know that they will be waving the next time, but it will be in the opposite direction.
Even though I would love to go on at length, I would like to yield the floor to other Members whom I am sure would like to add to this debate and who would like to prevail upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board to cease and desist in their decision to end the moratorium on farm foreclosures. The Government does not have a system in place to assist those farms that are now teetering on the edge. We cannot afford to lose 50 farms a month. We cannot afford 600 farms a year. If the Minister has other comments, I prevail upon him to extend the debate and we will be happy to participate.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Hon. Members extend to me the courtesy to speak again by giving their unanimous consent I would very much like to take an opportunity to address some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sorry, we have too many speakers.


Charles James Mayer: I would be more than happy, with unanimous consent, to comply with the Hon. Member's very gracious offer to allow me to expand on some of the things we have been doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We have a long line-up. I want to hear people who make some sense.


Mr. Girard:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has suggested that Conservative Members are not interested in this debate. I think she ought to realize that 28 Conservative Members have already taken the floor, including 10 Ministers. No .. .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I do not believe this is a point of order. It is a matter for debate which undoubtedly might be very interesting.
Debate. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
April 30, 1987


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the nature of the debate is becoming quite interesting. It is intriguing that we would sit and spend a great deal of time hurling invective back and forth across the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Invective!


Raymond John Skelly: Pardon me, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) corrects my pronunciation, and that is very helpful. Her contributions are well known and respected in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you.


Raymond John Skelly: What we probably could do as much as anything else is begin to look for solutions to a massive problem. Without becoming overly hostile, I must say that I listened to the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) make some comments about what a fine job the Conservatives have done throughout history. I am sure she mentioned that in order to give the House some direction in terms of coming to a resolution to this problem. As I recall, she talked about the Conservative Government putting in place, because of its great concern for agriculture, institutions such as the Wheat Board. She talked about attempts to obtain price stabilization, prairie farm rehabilitation programs and a number of things that rose out of the Great Depression.
Up to 1929-30, the Liberal Government had been in power. It brought us up to and beyond the bank of the abyss, and tore Canada apart from one end to the other. It created enormous circumstances complicating and making the Depression worse.
Unfortunately-and this is something the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) forgot to mention- between 1930 and 1935 we had a Conservative Government in power. In the first four years of the R.B. Bennett Government, the problems that had been inherited from the previous Liberal Government worsened. Under R.B. Bennett, we saw one of the greatest wreckages of the Canadian economy and Canadian agriculture in the history of this country.
In the last year of the term of that Government, the Prime Minister, R.B. Bennett, a Conservative's Conservative, suddenly said: "We have done all things wrong. Things have to be changed 180 degrees". And they came up with some of the most far-sighted solutions that this country has ever seen.
I believe R.B. Bennett suffered a heart attack early in that year and was unable to give his energy and direction to seeing those programs through to completion or to debate them during the following election campaign, and when the Liberals were returned to power, they cut many of them, with the result that it was many years before many of them saw their potential realized.
The point of the exercise, Mr. Speaker, is that the Progressive Conservatives, after four years of damaging activity, did come to recognize that their course of action was completely wrong. In 1935, the final year of their term, they made some of the most dramatic and important changes-changes that
were designed to help agriculture, help alleviate unemployment, and generally improve the economy.
That is what was forgotten in the speech of the Minister of State for Privatization. Hopefully this Government will see the error of its ways and change its course, in much the same way as the R. B. Bennett Government changed its course in the final year of its term, and try to get something in place that will help this country and help agriculture.
The Comox Valley has some of the small amount of Class 1 agricultural land in the entire Province of British Columbia. There are some very hardworking and committed farmers in that valley, people who work their guts out in order to keep the family farm going, in order to keep agriculture an important part of the economy of that valley.
The Province of British Columbia, in a move to protect farmland, passed a land reserve program under which farmland would be protected. That measure was supported by the majority of the British Columbia population. But what it did for farmers was to remove other economic options for them. They had to farm.
Under the previous Government, as has been mentioned many times during this debate, we had great fluctuations in farm product prices, with always rising costs, the result being that farmers went into debt. We also had a period of extremely high interest rates.
I was quite interested in the remarks of the Member for Hamilton East (Mrs. Copps) when she said: "It doesn't really matter what the rate is; they are concerned about the spread".
Well, if a farmer is paying between 22 and 25 cents interest on every dollar that he owes and not 10 cents, or 10 per cent, certainly there is a great difference. While the interest rates are better now, for a period of time earlier in the 1980s they were so bad that the existing debt accumulated at an enormous rate, and the largest percentage of debt, in many cases, was the accumulated interest payments.
The Canadian Bankers' Association, an organization known as the true friend of the farmer and as the absolute supporter of the principle of maintaining the family farm in Canada, had some interesting insights when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1986. They in fact advocated throwing farmers off the farm, throwing families out. They recommended a transition program for the purpose of relocating farmers, retraining them, and getting them off the farm-I assume to turn the farms over to corporate agriculture, something we have seen in the United States and in eastern Canada.
They also recommended that farm financial review boards be established. This is something about which the Government made a serious error. Had the Government, in legislation, provided a solid basis for those financial review boards, they would be an effective agency today. They could bring together the farmer and his creditors for the purpose of making a financial arrangement that was realistic, that was viable, that would preserve the family farm-everything that has been talked about during the course of this debate.

April 30, 1987
Had the Government given those review boards the teeth to make binding arrangements between the farmer and his creditors, it would have a better platform now on which to induce further financial assistance for farmers. It is absolutely critical to bring about a stabilizing agreement between the farmer and his creditors. That is absolutely crucial to any farm reconstruction effort that we embark upon.
What does the Canadian Bankers' Association say about that? "Absolutely not". It wants the financial review boards to have the power to give advice only. Well, I do not know of any banker in this country who takes anything by way of advice. He simply looks at his accounts and collects his money.
Review boards with the power to compel reasonable arrangements for repayment, payments that would permit the farmer to survive and allow him an income, are what is needed. Such boards would allow this Government the opportunity to make meaningful additions in terms of assistance programs.
There are the old promises that this Government made prior to coming to power. It talked about agri-bonds as a source of funding for farm loans. Those election promises have never materialized.
Another recommendation of the Canadian Bankers' Association: No debt moratorium. The Canadian Bankers' Association, a true friend of the farmer, has put together a prescription to destroy family farming, to put farmers off the land and replace them with large corporations, thus breaking one of the strongest foundations of Canadian society. We in this Party are not prepared to stand by and see that happen. That is why this debate is under way. Hopefully the Government, when this debate ends, will declare that this moratorium will continue until an effective policy is put in place.
Mr. Speaker, as it happens, before coming into the House, I was speaking to a farmer from my constituency. It would perhaps be interesting to review what happened in his particular circumstance. He will be one of the statistics when the Farm Credit Corporation lowers the boom. He meets a lot of the criteria.
Those on the other side of the House have said that only 50 farms a month will be affected by the lifting of this moratorium. When the Minister was asked how that could be, he said: "Well, the Farm Credit Corporation has sufficient staff to handle that number only".
Well, it strikes me that, just taking the criterion of the Farm Credit Corporation that anyone who is two years or more in arrears will be foreclosed, we are talking about thousands upon thousands of Canadian farms that will go down the drain. And one would assume that, the minute this moratorium is lifted, the other creditors, in order to protect their position, will push the button-


Charles James Mayer: That is not true, and you know it. You know better than that.


Raymond John Skelly: Does the Minister wish to speak? If he has good news for our farmers, I would be more than pleased to take my seat.
I take it there is no good news, Mr. Speaker-and I feel very sad that he doesn't have some good news for our farmers.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer).


Charles James Mayer: As the Hon. Member is being so gracious, perhaps he would seek the unanimous consent of the House so that I could give some good news.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Raymond John Skelly: That is truly unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, would be more than prepared to hear what the Minister has to offer to assist farmers.
If it is not true that the Farm Credit Corporation can handle only 50 cases a month, then I would ask the Minister to put on the record what in fact the number is. I should like to know how many will be pushed over the edge each month.
It strikes me that once other creditors see the Farm Credit Corporation moving on a farm, and there are assets on that farm, other creditors, such as the bank-and the banks still have an enormous amount of outstanding debt on farms in this country-will push them over the edge in order to claim assets that they have nailed down. Other creditors would push them over the edge. Removing this moratorium tonight would put farmers in real jeopardy from their other creditors. The Farm Credit Corporation may not have sufficient staff at this time, but other creditors may start the entire process rolling and push them into bankruptcy before the Farm Credit Corporation gets around to exercising its options.
I believe this is one of the most ill-conceived and regrettable situations that we have seen in the House of Commons for a long time. Thousands of people will be affected by this. Other agencies will wish to begin the process of recovering assets from insolvent operations.
There was discussion earlier about policy which the Government should follow. First, it must not allow the moratorium to be lifted. Second, there must be some work with free trade. Farmers and the Canadian agricultural industry cannot be exposed to the direction in which the Government is travelling. Marketing boards and other such agencies have protected farmers for years. They have allowed them to manage supply, market demand, and keep prices at least somewhat ahead of production costs. If that is destroyed by free trade there will be no more Canadian farmers.
April 30, 1987

If Americans are allowed to ship milk into Canada below the price of Canadian produce, we can kiss Canadian dairy farmers goodbye. The same proposition applies to vegetable producers and orchardists. I think we are in for some very serious trouble across the board if a free trade agreement allows Americans to push their products into Canada and ties the hands of our marketing boards. There will be serious consequences. If financial institutions thought the Canadian Government was going to do that they would begin to grab the assets of farms before all was lost with the advent of free trade. This is a very serious matter indeed.
The first step must be the cancellation of the lifting of this moratorium. A debt review board must be created which would have the power to make binding agreements with creditors so that the farmers can continue to exist and earn sufficient income to feed their families while debt repayment is ongoing. That would ensure the existence of the farmer and is absolutely imperative. The Canadian Government must guarantee that free trade will not kill Canadian marketing boards and thereby the Canadian farmer. I do not think any reasoning Member of Parliament would want that situation to occur. Yet the Government has not said that it will protect the marketing board system and supply control system in the Canadian economy.
We all recognize that the Government, to its credit, has placed $1 billion at the disposal of Canadian farmers. It has made efforts to reduce freight rates. There is a certain amount of cynicism about the coinciding of the $1 billion program with the Saskatchewan election, but nevertheless, it was SI billion which moved in the right direction. There is a multimillion dollar program on freight rates which is another move in the right direction. Unfortunately it is not enough. If we are to save the family farm and agriculture there must be a continuing injection of cash to relieve the debt burden of Canadian farmers. That is an absolute must.
Another item of importance is encouraging a rational approach to marketing areas which are not now covered so that farmers can have a price support system which will allow them to produce food for Canadians at prices above the cost of production. As an example, the potato industry in eastern Canada has an extremely important market in the United States. At the same time, potatoes are shipped from the United States to British Columbia and Alberta in almost unregulated amounts at unregulated prices which forces the price of Canadian products below the cost of production.
The anti-dumping tribunal in British Columbia imposed a tariff to stop that importation. The imports have now shifted to Alberta and the Alberta surpluses are now being pushed into British Columbia. Farmers are continually handicapped by the lack of control of potato marketing in Canada. There are many other such areas of concern. A national marketing board which is encouraged to develop the rational marketing of products in Canada would certainly be very useful.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this moratorium must not be removed. The results would be absolutely chaotic. We must give teeth to the debt management review boards and allow them to make binding agreements between the creditor and the farmer which will keep the farmer on the land. More cash must be put into debt relief by both provincial and federal Governments. We must guarantee Canadians that free trade will not kill Canadian agriculture. Marketing boards must be left intact and given a free hand to manage the Canadian market. Where marketing boards do not exist to provide price and supply stability in the Canadian market they must be encouraged and developed.
Federal and provincial Governments must participate together in this and we must succeed if we want to keep in place something which we all support, namely, the family farm in Canada.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate. However I am somewhat disappointed by some of the reactions of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who fled like a mouse a moment ago after stating in this House that times are hard when Conservatives are in office. Well, I must say I have an impassioned recollection of the time when the Constitution was brought home, when he was there, and when he proved to be one of the participants responsible for the exclusion of Quebec from the agreement. Today, at Meech Lake, they have been trying to redress these past mistakes.
That being so, I think the important thing now is to concern ourselves with western farmers. Earlier this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in the House: I rather doubt that the major newspapers of this country will give front-page treatment to this question. Sad to say, he was right.
Again today, after so many hours of debate by Members here in the House and given the fact that the three Party leaders want to help western farmers, I was disappointed and surprised that the vital question of western Canada farm community problems was covered in a few short seconds on English TV and not even mentioned on the French network. I must say this really does something to me. 1 cannot understand that our major newspapers and the media would choose to ignore the urgent problems of the residents of a large part of this country. Still, today's La Presse did carry a very interesting article by Pierre Gingras. Mr. Gingras acknowledges, as we do, that there are problems in the agricultural industry. The important thing is, however, that he also acknowledges in his article the work done by the Conservatives, by my Party, by my Prime Minister, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and by my colleagues during the 30 months we have been in power, to help farm producers.

I remember that when I first came here, and I come from a rural riding, I was not an expert on agriculture. However, just about everything is produced in my riding. Some of my best friends are farmers, and I am in touch with them regularly. I have learned a lot about agriculture. Since this Government came to power, and my colleagues will agree, we have tried to correct the mistakes made by the previous Government with the support of the New Democrats. For two and a half days we have heard the Opposition criticize here in the House every procedure and measure introduced by the Government. They have criticized but they have failed to propose any new approaches to solve the problems of western farmers.
This afternoon, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) announced that the Government would spend $64 million on the transportation of western grain, I saw opposition Members smile.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not true.


Marc Ferland: It is true. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but that is what the Government did. It spent $64 million: $2 a tonne. That is what we have done.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's not true. We'll talk about it later.


Marc Ferland: Well, I never saw a Liberal who understood anything about agriculture in this House. We have had ample proof of that. For years, when you were in power, the agricultural industry was in the worst possible shape. You let rates rise-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The seventies were the best years. We sold-


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals had the floor and were talking their heads off, we suffered in silence. So I would ask opposition Members to return the favour, even if my comments fall somewhat harshly on their ears. How could they be expected to address the problems of the west when they only have a single Member from that area? And let's not forget that the Liberal Leader went out west 32 times in 18 days during the past three weeks. It is unbelievable. Maybe the Party bought him an airplane, but he sure is doing a lot of travelling out west. Thirty-two times in 18 days. That is really something. But maybe that is only media talk. I read that today in the papers.
The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that I find unacceptable that those people there in Opposition are bent on destroying and will not recognize all the help this Government has been providing to farm producers. Just the day before yesterday, we were working with the Minister of Transport to try and find a way to reduce costs. It was unacceptable, of course, for the rates to go up 39 per cent while the price of wheat declined 18 per cent. It was unacceptable, and a solution had to be found. We found one: we are proposing to inject $2 per tonne in assistance, so that the increase will only be 5 per cent rather than 39 per cent. And they are scoffing at that. They suggest we do not want to help farm producers.
April 30, 1987
Mr. Speaker, since we were elected, in 30 months, we have taken more than 400 initiatives in agriculture alone. This is one area where we did not cut. Quite the opposite, we have been constantly adding funds for the farm industry. We invested nearly $7 000 million in agriculture, mostly in western Canada of course. There was the dairy policy that benefitted of course Quebec dairy producers. But those are tools that had to be provided to our farm producers, and we did so with very great pleasure.
There is also another aspect the Opposition does not seem to understand. As a Government, we have been working in constant consultation with producers, whether from eastern, central or western Canada. We always consulted them, and the proof is the farmers are pleased with the work we as a Government have been doing in this House. As far as I am concerned, I can state that I am very proud of the work done by my Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and so on. All my colleagues did a tremendous job on agriculture, this is something that has to be told.
The New Democratic Member earlier referred to concerns over free trade, I must again remind him that a commitment was made here on March 16 that marketing boards are not on the table. And I personally remember seeing Liberals and New Democrats oppose that motion. This is really something. People may have a short memory, but I can tell you we will remind you of that. You voted against that motion. But we have stated on a number of occasions that marketing boards were not on the table. Do you think otherwise we would have introduced the kind of long-term dairy policy that had been requested for years by farm producers? Since 1981 we were calling for a long-term dairy policy, and we came up with it.


An Hon. Member:: That had been promised by the Liberals.


Marc Ferland: It had been promised by the Liberals with the support of the NDP, but it never came. We kept our promise and delivered the goods. That dairy policy would never have been provided had we had to negotiate a few months later. The dairy policy is not negotiable. The Canadian culture is not negotiable either. That was clearly stated. That is clear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: With the Tories the entire country is sold to the United States.


Marc Ferland: Let me finish, you will speak when your turn comes. You will all have an opportunity to speak. The debate has not yet ended my friend. Take your time.
I have taken the liberty, Mr. Speaker, of reading over some speeches made by my colleagues opposite. We now have some 150 pages; or rather, yesterday afternoon at four o'clock, we already had reached 150 pages. Needless to say, I did not find the best speeches among the Liberals or the New-Democrats. I did not find in them any food for thought or any new idea. The Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) said at the beginning of his speech:
April 30, 1987

-I should like to take this opportunity to state the policies of the NDP-
I could perhaps say that "N" stands for narrow-minded, "D" stands for demagogues and "P" for professional, and this is the New Democratic Party. I did not find anything in that speech. He spoke 20 minutes but said nothing.
If I turn to another agricultural expert, the NDP member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), she said that in order to help western producers, we had to provide them with daycare centres. I do not think that western people need daycare centres this evening. What they needed to know was the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Transport, that is they will be given financial assistance of $64 million to help them move their wheat. That is the kind of assistance needed by farmers and it will be provided to them.
We have been carrying out negotiations throughout the world for the first time. There is a detail that is often ignored, Mr. Speaker, because the Opposition does not mention it. There was never a Canadian Prime Minister before the present Prime Minister who demanded that priority be given to agriculture in the GATT negotiations. And that was done at the Tokyo Round. But who asked for it and who did it? A Liberal Government would never have had the nerve to consider such a step. And they are the same people who went out west and laughed at western producers. We told the people in western Canada: We are going to work hard to sell your grain. We told eastern producers: We are going to try and help you sell your products throughout the world. We are going to try and end the world trade war. There is not a single farm producer in this country, Mr. Speaker, who would claim that Canada can sustain a trade war against the United States or against the EEC on grain shipments. I think everybody in Canada realizes, and farm producers certainly do, that if we really want to deal with the problems in the agricultural industry, we will first have to negotiate at the GATT level.
Meanwhile, we have to take action on a day-to-day basis. And as I said earlier, we have taken hundreds of measures in the past 30 months to help the agricultural industry, and I am thinking of apple growers in Quebec and British Columbia, of the new marketing boards that will be set up for potato producers, and so on. Hatchery egg programs have been set up at the request of farm producers. These are some of the things we have done and will go on doing, but listening to the empty speeches of opposition Members here in the House is not going to help the cause of agriculture in this country.
Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker, it is by trying, and I would very much like, by the end of this debate, to hear the concrete proposals you will be coming up with and to hear also, when you tell us your concrete proposals, how much money is involved and where that money will be coming from. Because there are facts opposition Members seem to forget. You say: "Spend, spend, spend!" but you do not ask where the money will be coming from. This we found out when we came here in
1984, that little surprise of the $240 billion deficit. Except that now the debts have to be repaid. I appreciate that to a New Democrat paying one's debts is not important. Even if we were to mortgage the forty-second generation in this country, that is of no matter to them, because they will be dead. No problem. They will have had their way and let the others pay. But something else is required to manage the country soundly, to show that we are a responsible nation. And the proof we are a responsible nation is that interest rates came down. Why? Because we kept sinking the country lower into debt, or because we had realistic policies?
Mir. Robinson: What about the unemployment rate?


Marc Ferland: The unemployment rate came down, my dear colleague.


Mr. Robinson:: Only in Toronto.


Marc Ferland: It is incredible how short your memory is, you New Democrats. Your kind of memory is nothing to boast about. Go back a few months, you will see what kind of unemployment rate and interest rates we had. What did you do on that side when people were paying 23 per cent or 24 per cent, when the price of oil was going up, when you established Petro-Canada on the other side. Throw billions at it. What we have today, this debate and the problems that the west experiences, result from all the stupid things you have done for years, from policies which had no sense whatsoever and were only designed to make you look good and make people dream. But you cannot sell dreams to Canadians. No one is more down to earth than a farmer, because when he gets up in the morning he looks at his field and thinks about ploughing it and working it. He does not have time to dream, he is a doer, while you, with your free-flowing phrases and your awe-inspiring dreams, you ruined completely the economy of western Canada. That is what happened.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: "Tighten your belt!" they were saying, but they were wearing suspenders.


Marc Ferland: Of course. Trudeau could say: "Tighten your belt!", he was wearing small white suspenders underneath, to look good. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I think that what is important for western farmers and all farmers is to know that Conservative Members from eastern Canada support them in their work. I can tell you that as late as yesterday, MPs from Quebec were working with the Transport Ministers to find a solution to avoid loading even further western producers. I can say that our colleagues from the west were delighted to have our co-operation to solve their problem. We are confident that we will have similar help from the west should a problem develop in the east. In the meantime, they are the ones who need help, and we are delighted to be able to do something for them.

April 30, 1987


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, why has this country become so aroused? Why is it that the House of Commons has now been involved in an emergency debate for three days? It seems that the Government struck a nerve in a way it has so far failed to do in any other thing it has done. The action it has taken has touched hearts and minds and has affected us deeply.
Tonight, the Government is to lift the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures. The lifting of the moratorium has touched the hearts and minds of Members of Parliament and it has certainly aroused the media. The media has reported this debate very fully, despite the comments made by some of my colleagues. The country is aroused because the issue comes down to a simple image which comes to mind, an image which all too many older Canadians hold in their minds from the Great Depression. It is the thought of farms being foreclosed on.
We recall the stereotype of a person dressed in a black suit with a long moustache and a black hat who went from farm to farm with writs of foreclosure in his hands. That image is still in the memories of people who lived during the last Depression and remember the stereotype of the heartless person who would come to the farm to throw the people out after all their lives, hearts and savings had been put into that farm.
We are not simply dealing with vast figures, we are dealing with the thought of a farmer waiting for someone to come and close down his farm at a time when other parts of the country are enjoying great prosperity. It so happens that I represent such a part of the country, the area called the Golden Horseshoe, though we certainly do have problems. It has touched the minds and hearts of people in every part of Canada to realize that, at what is supposed to be the end of the recession, we are seeing situations that remind us grossly of the terrible and bleak days of the worst part of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The image we have in our minds is that there are people who are down and now we are kicking them. We heard that the Wheat Board announced that prices for 1987 would be 18 per cent lower than they were in 1986, but we knew that in 1986 the prices for wheat were 20 per cent lower than they were in 1985.
As if these blows to people who are trying to stay on the land and have committed themselves to improvements were not hard enough, within a day after the announcement of the reduction in prices the Government made the incredibly insensitive and unfeeling announcement that the moratorium on foreclosures would be lifted. That announcement means an open season on Canadian farmers, some of whom fought in wars, the heart of our country, the pioneers. That they will now suffer this kind of treatment is something that has touched the heartstrings of all Canadians.
What has brought on this debate? It was not another discussion about interest rates, it was this image in our minds. This image is what is hurting our consciences. We cannot go to
bed at night without thinking that things like this could happen to us, and knowing that western Canadians will experience this kind of suffering.
Today the Government announced a reduction in the impact of the blow to farmers caused by new freight rates. Nonetheless, this announcement is still more bad news for farmers, because it amounts to an increase of about 6 per cent in grain freight rates. That is the net result of the so-called good news. The announcement still means that the cost of shipping grain is going up, not down. While the price of wheat goes down, freight rates are still going up and that is another bad piece of news. How could the Government, knowing that this bad news about freight rates was on the docket, then have proceeded to announce the lifting of the moratorium on foreclosures?
Canadians have been aroused by this heartless approach to human situations. It brings back to our minds the worst images of the Great Depression. It brings back to our minds the thought that the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), who spoke to us a while ago, was able on an emergency basis to rush to the banks with $1 billion-worth of aid. She has not found in her heart a strong enough motive to rush to the Cabinet and call for an end to this attempt to lift the moratorium. Why has she not fought for those people who will suffer now? She was so anxious to save western banks that she found $1 billion. How about throwing $1 billion at western farmers?
We know that the Government did throw $1 billion at farmers in general. We also know that that was linked to an election in Saskatchewan-a very cynical kind of gift. Indeed, members of the Opposition, people from the west and western farmers have been begging and pleading for months, in fact, for years, for that type of assistance. It only came in time to help the Conservatives win a provincial election. That is hardly what people regard as being a responsive, compassionate reaction.
We find that what we are asking for at this moment, what we are calling upon the Government to do, is to stop the cancellation tonight of the moratorium on farm foreclosures. We are asking the Government to have some kind of compassion today and to go to the aid of those who are the weakest among us. That is what we are asking.
I do not think that my colleagues pretend that they have all the answers. Nor do I expect the Government to have all the answers. But the answers that the Government is giving are absolutely unacceptable. What the Opposition can say is that this step is heartless. When the Minister of State for Privatization talked about the fact that her family had been on the farm during the Great Depression and that they almost went under, but the thing that saved them was hard work, was she perhaps implying that it was hard work that was needed on the part of western farmers and maybe if they worked a little harder they too could save their farms? That is not acceptable. We know that many of the people who are facing foreclosure have certainly worked hard enough on their farms.
April 30, 1987

The problem is not that they are not willing to work. It is that the price of wheat has gone down, that the Government has taken away their protection which would give them a further chance to continue their businesses. This is what we are concerned about. This is the type of advice we can give the Government. A five-year old could give that advice to the Government, but it is lacking in compassion and concern for the people who are on the farms and who are facing the possible loss of their way of life, the possible loss of all the work that they have put in and that their parents have put into their family farms.
This is a very cruel moment in the life of the country, which is why this debate has been going on for so many hours. It has struck a nerve. It touches us personally to our hearts that we are living in a country of reasonable affluence and yet we are watching our fellow Canadians face such an unacceptable fate. For what? They do not deserve it.
This is a Government that apparently cannot get its act together. It is unpopular because it apparently cannot show that it has compassion for the people. I ask Elon. Members to consider the various steps that it has taken, whether it be with respect to patent drugs, which shows a lack of concern for senior citizens, or whether it is about the provinces which will have to provide more money for the cost of drugs. The Government has shown no compassion when it talks about cutting rural post office deliveries and eliminating rural post offices. Nor has it shown compassion when we consider the tax system which has, in effect, provided the most terrible blows to people who earn in the area of $15,000 per year.
When we look at the tax increases that have been thrown at these people since this Government has come to power we see that they have increased by 75 per cent while on the other side of the coin those who earn $100,000 find that their taxes have risen by only 4 per cent. That is not compassionate.
Peter Cook, who writes as financial critic for The Globe and Mail, when speaking about the action of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that he has gotten away with raising personal income taxes by 19 per cent, sales taxes by 33 per cent, excise taxes by 18 per cent, and gasoline taxes by 120 per cent. These are enormous increases in taxes. Yet we have a quotation from the same Minister of Finance who has done this to the people of Canada made on August 28, 1984. He said:
We have no intention of raising income taxes to Canadians. What we have to
do is get down government-
He has got down Government. He has got it down on the people. He has certainly raised the taxes and completely broken his promise.
On March 1, 1985, the Minister of Finance said this:
I don't want to increase taxes ... A tax increase, certainly a general tax
increase, puts a dampening effect on the economy and I don't want to see us do
that.
When we look at the way he has structured the taxes he certainly has put a dampening effect on the poor. They are the ones who are paying the taxes while the Government has provided a capital gains relief of $500,000 in a lifetime for those who make much more money.
Yes, this is a Government which lacks compassion in some amazing ways. It seems to be able to come up at the most amazing times with destructive types of decisions that hurt the poor, that make the poor poorer and the rich richer. The small businessman sees higher postal rates. Independent oil companies see their businesses threatened and, in some cases, they have been driven out of business. We saw that sales taxes were imposed when the Government came into power at a rate of 9 per cent. They are now at 12 per cent. In addition, the Government has slapped some brand new taxes on items which relate to hygiene, drugs used by senior citizens and some children's foods. This tax of 12 per cent which the Government has slapped on is a sales tax which is put on to the backs of the poor.
The Minister of Finance has said that such sales taxes are regressive, yet he has resorted to imposing more taxes which hurt the poor because they cannot afford the same taxes that the rich can afford. In other words, if a tax of 10 per cent is placed on a product then a poor person has to pay the same amount of increase as does a rich person. That is why such a tax is regressive. In other words, the impression the Government continues to give, whether in the tax field, the business field or in the area of the Post Office-whatever it seems to touch-seems to hit the chord of hurting the poor, the beaten, the down-trodden. The Government seems to pick on them.
In the case before us the Government has taken the most obscene type of action we have ever seen. We see a situation in which it will foreclose or allow foreclosures on the family farms of hundreds and hundreds of Canadians. I have risen to speak on this matter because I know what is at stake. It is whether or not we have compassion. It is whether or not we will see from the Government a realization that, unless it changes its ways, it will not be at the rate of 24 per cent or 25 per cent support in the polls, but will drop even further, if that is possible, because people everywhere in the country, not just in the centre but even those in the west, will now come to the conclusion that the Government has no ability to show compassion. It seems absolutely unable to get its act together, especially in terms of the west. Even westerners are now losing confidence in the Government. That is too bad.
This situation is threatening our unity. We have always felt a sense that Canada was a whole country, a totality, and that when one part of the country was in need we came forward with equalization payments to try to balance out the situation. We followed the motto "bear ye one another's burdens". That is a compassionate concept. It seems in this particular situation that we are not willing as Canadians to bear one another's burdens at all. We see the Government letting everyone loose, and whatever happens to them the weak ones will fall behind and be eaten up. That is a policy of laissez faire, a policy which they literally are carrying out. In so doing, they conjure up in our minds an image from the Great Depression, the image of a Government that allows its farmers to be put to the wall.

April 30, 1987
A Government that permits foreclosures to take place conjures up the worst images we could possibly have. It is a Government that shows a lack of concern and compassion.
This Government, by its activity and its actions, is threatening Canadian unity. It causes people in the west to think that we in the east do not care. Well, we do. We in the east and in the centre of this country care about what is happening in the west. In this particular case, let it be understood that we do care. We do not want the west to think that there is no future with us; that we don't care, that we have no sensitivity. That is why this Government is indeed in a sense threatening our sense of unity. We must bear one another's burdens; we must care about one another.
Hon. Members opposite can smirk and laugh as much as they wish. They are going down further in the polls. The Hon. Members opposite are laughing at what I am saying. They are free to do that. The people in the west are not laughing, Mr. Speaker; we are not laughing. This is a matter of Canadian unity, Mr. Speaker; it is not a laughing matter.
We have to show concern for our western provinces, because the people in the west really do wonder about us. They wonder whether we easterners do care-and we do.
I conclude my comments with one last plea to the Government, to continue the moratorium on farm foreclosures. The lifting of that moratorium will take effect tonight at midnight, and I plead with the Government to respond to the Opposition, to respond to its own Members, to respond to the people of Canada and in fact continue the moratorium until it has found a better way to find some reasonable protection for our farmers.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this landmark debate on the crisis facing Canadian farmers today.
I should like to start by paying tribute to my colleague, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who initiated this emergency debate a couple of days ago. He is himself a farmer, and he has done a great deal to sensitize those of us in the NDP caucus who haven't been as aware in the past as we should have been of some of the problems and concerns facing Canadian farmers. I am pleased that he has shown this kind of leadership in the House, along with my colleague from, the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), our spokesperson on agriculture. These two individuals have played a real leadership role, not just within our caucus, but in this House, in bringing to the attention of the Government the concerns facing the farmers across this land.
The crisis facing us relates to the decision announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to lift the moratorium declared on September 17, 1985, on Farm Credit Corporation
foreclosures. It is of some significance that the Government has announced that this moratorium will in fact be lifted on May 1, tomorrow. And what is the significance of May 1? May 1 is May Day.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Canada are being hit with the lifting of the moratorium on May Day! May Day is the traditional symbol of distress. I think it is of considerable symbolic significance that this Government, on May Day, should be once again attacking the farmers of Canada by lifting the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures.
We heard earlier from the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), "Well, you know, it is only a small number of farmers who will be affected; it is only one quarter of 1 per cent of the farmers who will be affected." We heard that from the Minister of State for Privatization, the same Minister who was heard some time ago to say that the motivating factor in our economy is greed. Well, it is not surprising that that Minister should exhibit such a heartless attitude toward those farmers who will be driven off the land as a result of this Government's decision.
I wish to put some figures to the statistic that the Minister so blithely dismissed. My colleagues have already spoken to the breakdown in the various provinces. I wish to speak for a moment about the national implications of the lifting of this moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures.
As of April 1 this year there was a total of 14,597 FCC loans outstanding, 6,000 of which were two years or more in arrears. Of the 6,000 that were two years or more in arrears, some 1,300 are affected by this moratorium. That means that 1,300 families may be driven off the land with the lifting of this moratorium. In some cases, their farms have been handed down from generation to generation, and as a result of this Government's heartless decision these people will now be driven off the land.
The Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) laughs. He laughs at the farmers who are being driven off the land. Well, he will have to answer to the farmers in his constituency for his laughter, and his contempt for their plight.
Even though this Government says that it is only one quarter of 1 per cent who will be affected, the reality is that it amounts to some 1,300 families.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine continues to laugh at the farmers of western Canada from behind the curtain. He hasn't even had the courage to speak out in this debate on behalf of the farmers in his constituency. He has been silent, Mr. Speaker. He has been totally silent on the plight of the farmers in Winnipeg-Assiniboine and he will pay the price for that at the next election.
April 30, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit more about these figures. We have heard from government Members that it will be "only 50 farmers every month who will lose their farms". My colleague from Prince Albert has actually made some inquiries of the Farm Credit Corporation, as a result of which he has learned that the FCC does not have the staff to send out the foreclosure teams to shut down the farms at a rate faster than that. What a disgraceful commentary on this Government's farm policies!
The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the lifting of this moratorium is going to have devastating consequences on the farmers of western Canada.
It is not just the lifting of moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures that is going to have devastating consequences; it is also the fact that other financial institutions will take this action as a signal that it is open season on those who have defaulted on their loans.
Canadian farmers have accumulated debt in the order of $24 billion. Once the Farm Credit Corporation foreclosure moratorium is lifted, the banks and the other financial institutions will take it as a signal to move in, and yes, Mr. Speaker, it will be open season on farmers.
Last summer I travelled to my constituency by train, and 1 will never forget a family that boarded the train in Moose Jaw. They had lived on a farm that had been in their family for three generations, and they could no longer stay on that farm. They had been driven off their land and were travelling by train to British Columbia to try to make a new life for themselves. That destructive erosion of the family farm in Canada will be repeated in increasing numbers as a result of the Government's heartless decision to lift the moratorium on foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation.
Women on the farm have traditionally been among the hardest hit in times of adversity. Not only have women been forced to work off the farm to supplement inadequate incomes, they are increasingly being called upon to do work on the farm without pay. The work which was formerly done by hired hands is now done by women because farmers cannot afford to pay for hired hands. In addition, they continue to perform their traditional roles on the farm, which includes raising children. They are obviously working in partnership with their husbands in many cases, but the reality is that in too many cases it is women who are bearing the brunt of the burden.
As I said, women are being particularly hard hit. They lack retirement security, child care facilities, crisis shelters and women's centres. They are often faced with discrimination from lending institutions.
It is also important to note the harsh personal impact of the financial crisis facing the farming community. In terms of stress, for example, in Saskatchewan farm accidents account for 40 per cent of the fatalities despite the fact that farmers make up only approximately 20 per cent of the labour force. The suicide rate of farmers in Alberta in 1984 was 40 per
100,000 compared to a rate of 15.5 per cent per 100,000 in 1981 and compared to a rate of 18.1 per 100,000 for the rest of the population in 1984. The suicide rate was almost three times greater for farmers than it was for the rest of the population.
The Canadian Mental Health Association learned through a study in Saskatchewan that 88 per cent of the farmers surveyed had experienced stress-related symptoms including health problems such as headaches, mental fatigue, insomnia, depression, anger and frustration which sometimes led to communications problems and alcohol abuse. In Ontario suicide is the number two cause of death on farms following only machinery accidents. We can see that the personal toll of the crisis in the Canadian farming community is very great indeed.
I do not often make reference in the House to a publication called Western Report. Recently in its cover story Western Report dealt with what it called the death of the grain men. Inside it speaks of a requiem for the family farm, of why the small producer is being threatened with extinction. They talk about the attack on one of the country's most revered institutions, the family farm.
I would like to say a word about the family farm. I had the honour of serving as a member of the special joint committee which drafted the Constitution of Canada. I remember that during the course of that debate there was considerable controversy, which has continued to this day, on the question of the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution of Canada. The Conservative Members of Parliament who suggested that we should entrench property rights in the Constitution of Canada are now members of the Government which is driving farmers off their property.
I suggest that the Conservatives should show a little more respect for the property of farmers and for the families who are struggling to maintain their farms after generations. After all, 95 per cent of the farms in Canada are still family farms. I suggest that we show a little more respect for those farmers and their attempts to protect and preserve what is important to them, their property.
I suggest as well that we heed the cry of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) who said that the west is being ignored by his Government. That Tory MP from Alberta has thrown up his hands in despair. He said recently that unless the Government gets serious about the problems of western Canada, he will leave that Party.
It is a rather sad commentary that in response to the Conservative Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) fired him as a Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues from Alberta slammed the door and excluded him from the Tory caucus. We have not heard from that Member during this debate. He said as well that the Tory Government is creating jobs all right but is only creating them in downtown Toronto.

April 30, 1987
The plea of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona is being echoed across this land by farmers who are saying to the Government, "For God's sake don't hit us when we're already down". After grain prices dropped 18 per cent last year and 20 per cent the year before, and costs are going up, the Government kicks farmers in the gut on May Day. That is a tragic commentary on the Government's lack of concern for the farmers of our country.
I want to take a moment to speak about what New Democrats believe to be the two key priorities for protecting and strengthening the farm in Canada. First, it is essential that we continue the moratorium on foreclosures which was imposed on the Farm Credit Corporation in September, 1985, until a comprehensive debt reduction program has been put in place. It is important to recognize that many other farmers are not protected by this moratorium. They are at the mercy of private financial institutions, the banks. It seems as though the Canadian Bankers Association is writing the Government's agricultural policy. That association put forward five key points, each and every one of which was accepted by the Government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has suggested that farm organizations wanted this moratorium lifted. That is an astonishing suggestion. The National Farmers' Union, the three prairie Wheat Pools, and many other farm organizations have said no such thing. Indeed, they have said the opposite. For example, Keystone Agricultural Producers based in Manitoba has said that the termination of this moratorium will make it much more difficult for farmers to get loans from banks and other lenders.
This is a particularly critical time for farmers because they are now planting their crops and at planting time they must borrow money to purchase fuel, seed, fertilizer and chemicals for the coming crop season. At this particular time of year farmers need even more cash. Keystone Agricultural Producers have said that the Government should not lift this moratorium.
The President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Garfield Stevenson, said that the termination of the moratorium "is completely irresponsible and just not acceptable". Mr. Stevenson went on to say:
I thought the Minister had more on the ball than this.
Those were the comments of the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The President of the National Farmers' Union, Wayne Easter, said the following:
1 just can't understand why he would announce it now ... Normally farmers
feel a sense of optimism at this time of year.. . But this tears the heart out of
thousands of farmers.
When the Minister of Agriculture states, as he did on The Journal last night, that farmers want the moratorium lifted, I must ask: Who is he talking about? He is not talking about Keystone in Manitoba. He is not talking about the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. He is not talking about the National Farmers' Union. He is not speaking for the thousands and
thousands of farmers who are desperate and want to survive, not be driven off the land.
This brings me to my Final comment in respect of the importance of a guarantee that the income of farmers will be at least at the same level next year as it was this past year. It is essential that farmers who are planting now have confidence that they will get a recovery from what is planted this spring and harvested next fall which is enough to cover their costs and enough, I would add, to ensure a decent standard of living.
This Government which has bailed out banks should surely recognize its responsibility to the farmers of Canada. I point out as well that other countries, including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the EEC, have recognized the importance of ensuring an adequate income for farmers.
In conclusion, I remind the House and those who are watching the debate that my Party was founded at the depths of the Depression in the 1930s. My Party formed the first Government in 1944 in the Province of Saskatchewan. One of the first acts which that Government under Tommy Douglas brought forward was a moratorium on debt for farmers. I am proud of that record of my party in defending farmers in Canada.
I am also proud that myself and my colleagues, led by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), are continuing in that tradition to defend farmers by calling upon the Government not to lift the moratorium and to ensure adequate income for Canadian farmers.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the temptation is too great for me to let pass the suggestion that I can think of no more appropriate Member than the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to be speaking in the House about May Day.
Let me also note an irony, if I might, as I begin this debate. We have just heard the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby giving their views on farm matters. Let me perhaps introduce some balance to the debate by quoting the President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, a western organization with a western based president, when he said: "The Canadian Cattlemen's Association supports the decision of Agriculture Minister John Wise to end the temporary debt moratorium on debts to the Farm Credit Corporation". CCA President Stan Wilson also emphasized: "Our concern is that the distortions caused by debt moratoria do more damage to the farm credit system than any possible benefit to individual farmers".
That is the voice of agriculture. They do not want damage to the farm credit system. They want the farm credit system strengthened, and they want the farm situation across the country strengthened, as do we. One characteristic about the farm situation in Canada, which is known to any of us familiar with agriculture, is that it is in a state of crisis now. That is known. That is recognized by every honest Member in the House.
April 30, 1987

Elowever, another characteristic of the Canadian farm community is that it is made up, to a singular degree, of individuals who are honest, who are realistic, and who know that there are no magic solutions. They will have noted, as we did, that in this week alone in the Canadian House of Commons the New Democratic Party has proposed spending new billions of dollars on Dome Petroleum, has proposed spending new billions of dollars on the Post Office, and has proposed spending new billions of dollars on agriculture. Those are the three items proposed by that Party in one week.
Ladies and gentlemen-excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have been away from the House of Commons too long-there may be disagreements here about how some of these problems can be resolved. However, there is no illusion among the agricultural community in Canada about the fact that the long-term solutions to the problems with which we are dealing will not come easily.
I had the good fortune-and I will not pretend to be a farmer-to grow up in an agricultural community in western Canada. One thing which is evident to all of us who had that experience is that when the farm community is in crisis, it is not a local or isolated crisis. It speaks of a region in crisis; indeed, to some degree, a whole economy in crisis. When there are problems in agriculture, they extend to every other part of the large rural community.
That is not something we read about. That is something that if one grew up in Viking in Vegreville, as did the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), or in Provencher, Manitoba; or in wartime Saskatchewan; in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; or in Drumheller, Alberta, or in High River, Alberta, as did Members of the Cabinet, one grew up knowing the realities. Because the Cabinet of Canada is composed today of men and women who grew up directly with the cyclical and deep problems agriculture faces, we understand that the problems will not be resolved suddenly. We understand that there must be a very serious effort on the part of the Government of Canada, domestically and internationally, to solve some of the problems.
It is not a matter of getting up and saying, as a former Prime Minister unhappily did, that he is not going to sell your wheat. We have an obligation to try to sell the wheat of the farmers of Canada. We have an obligation to try to achieve a better international trading system. We have an obligation, when there is a crisis in farm income, to inject money into the western Canadian economy and the whole Canadian economy.
The Government has accepted that obligation. We will continue to do that. Indeed, the record of the Government in terms of action on agriculture is unsurpassed in the last two decades or three decades in Canada. Most farmers understand that and respect that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 take part in this debate as both a western Canadian and as the foreign Minister of the country. I
have been back in my constituency speaking, among others, to people operating centres for women in small towns like Whitecourt. There is a crisis there. There is the implication for farm families, as has been indicated by the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women and others in the House. That is part of the reality.
The sense of crisis in Canadian agriculture is deep and is growing. In Barrhead and in Fort Assiniboine in my constituency, the price of barley today is in real terms about what it was in the 1930s. Some 50 farmers in Manitoba declared bankruptcy in the last year. In Saskatchewan there were 45. In Alberta there were 93. In Ontario there were 102.
Costs of production continue to climb as prices drop. A growing number of farmers have to work out to keep their operations going. Many individual farm families face the prospect of having to get out of agriculture. The problems are complex. Nobody, least of all farmers, pretends that there are easy solutions either at home or internationally.
The Government has acted on a wide range of agricultural issues. We have delivered relief from capital gains tax. We have frozen freight rate and elevator handling charges on grain handling and on grain transportation. We twice amended the Western Grain Stabilization Act so that it is now a true instrument for stabilization. We have established a farm debt review board. We have removed federal sales and excise taxes from farm fuels.
Last year, in the face of grave crisis, we committed $1 billion to grain producers under the Special Canadian Grains Program. Not counting that $1 billion expenditure, the budget for the federal Department of Agriculture last year was 60 per cent higher than it was the year before the Government took office. With all of that spending on agriculture, our over-all fiscal management has been so successful that the interest rates farmers pay are from 4 per cent to 5 per cent lower than they were three years ago.
Our calculations are that every 1 per cent drop in interest rates results in approximately $240 million for Canadian farmers. These actions are important. They are only part of the program for agriculture of the Government. The priority of agriculture in the Government is high and is growing.
There was a comment made by one of the Hon. Members opposite who talked about the need for Canadian farmers to have confidence about money which will be coming in next year. The projections for federal Government spending next year for support for western Canadian agriculture suggests that there will be more than $3 billion going from the Government, that is, in 1987 and to western Canadian agriculture. That means that western Canadian farmers can have confidence that in calendar 1987, there will be more money coming to them from this Government than there was in calendar 1986. That is simply a projection of reality and one that should be understood across Canada.

April 30, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will speak tonight particularly about farm policy and foreign policy because if they were once separate, they now come together. There is a constant and a clear interlinking between what happens in foreign capitals and what happens in every farm across Canada. Every day, political decisions in Paris, in Washington, in Moscow and in other capitals affect the markets and prices for Canadian farmers. Mikhail Gorbachev is a very important man to the farmers in Fort Assiniboine and Barrhead in my constituency.
The common agricultural program of the European Community has done as much damage to the farmers of Alberta as the National Energy Program did to our oil workers. Let me talk for a moment about the European Community and the problems that have been built into the whole system of agriculture as a result of the policies of that Community.
The European Community has changed from a net importer to a major exporter of farm commodities. For example, in the crop year ending 1966, the European Community imported nearly 11 million tonnes of cereal crops. Sixteen years later in the crop year ending in 1982, the European Community exported well over 6 million tonnes. That trend has continued and it has continued because of a growing program of subsidy that has become a pattern in Europe and has been responded to by subsidies in the United States. It is catching the farmers of Canada, the farmers of Thailand and the farmers of other countries that are efficient in production but do not have giant treasuries to subsidize agriculture in a very serious domestic and international problem.
In 1958, the European Community exported only 23 per cent as much food as it imported. By 1985, the Community exported 60 per cent as much food as it imported. Even considering the fact that the Community had expanded its membership significantly over that period, increasing population by 60 per cent, that is a dramatic turnaround in food production and it has to do with subsidy.
European farmers receive prices for commodities which are as much as four or five times the world market price. For example, European farmers get the equivalent of $450 Canadian per tonne for Durum wheat when world markets indicate that is worth something just over $100 Canadian. Canadian farmers receive $130 Canadian for that. Another example is barley for which prices in my constituency are down to Depression year levels. European farmers get the equivalent of $400 per tonne of barley while the European Community sells that same barley for $80 per tonne or less on world markets. That means that the export subsidy alone on barley is five times the current world market price. That is the problem facing agriculture in this country and in others. The question is, what do we do about it.
That is a serious question. It is too serious a question for mere partisan division and debate. It is a very basic and serious problem. Let me tell the House about some of the things we are doing about it. We are acting on a number of fronts internationally.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeking new markets for Canadian products. This of course includes traditional activities such as negotiating an agreement with the Soviet Union for the purchase of 25 million tonnes of Canadian grain over the next five years. Actually, despite a massively subsidized and fiercely competitive world grain market, we managed to increase our market share by nearly 2 per cent last year. It is true that prices were low, but we are better off increasing our market share even if prices are low, than losing on both counts.
This trade initiative also includes new sales to Egypt and Brazil and more possibilities in the Pacific Rim. We have food aid programs in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Peru, Senegal, Mozambique and Ghana. These programs have resulted in the purchase of $163 million worth of Canadian wheat, $47 million worth of Canadian flour, $61 million worth of canola and $51.8 million worth of other products.
Some of these development programs have modified the consumer and production habits of other countries, thus creating new markets for Canadian products.
We also promote agriculture related trade as often as possible, and we do so in two ways. One example is a recent visit to the Soviet Union by the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian business people. That country is our biggest wheat buyer. If the Soviet Union would rather deal with Canada it is partly due to our reputation as a reliable supplier. The interest of the Soviets can also be attributed to the fact that we actively seek Canadian markets for their products so as to achieve a better trade balance. Progress comes slowly, but this initiative on the part of Canada is essential if we expect to continue to have access to the major market which the Soviet Union represents.
In another vein, we encourage Canadian agricultural service industries to expand their activities at the international level. Last September in Venezuela and Argentina I headed a delegation including representatives of Canadian agricultural companies. This enabled companies like Regina's Prairie Microtech and Calgary's Agriteam to explore new possibilities of trade and business markets in joint ventures in South America. This way, Canada's contacts in the agricultural sector are increasing in countries where new markets might open up for commodity harvests, technology or Canadian know-how.


Marcel Prud'homme: And in the Middle East.
April 30, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: There are possibilities in the Middle East.


Marcel Prud'homme: They are enormous.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are possibilities in the Pacific, and this is a part of what we have to do as a country and a part of what we are now doing.

Most important, we are tackling head-on the fundamental international agricultural problem and that is the problem of international subsidy. It is as threatening to agriculture in the 1980s and 1990s as the drought was in the Depression. The agricultural trading system is in deep trouble with artificially depressed international prices, subsidized export competition and a growing proliferation of non-tariff import barriers.
We have two complementary goals. The first is to break the cycle of subsidy which has led to the trade war between Europe and the United States, a war whose casualties grow in Canada, in Australia, in Thailand and in a dozen other countries whose treasuries are too small to compete with the European Community or the United States. The second is to establish fair, firm international rules of trade in agriculture, rules that will increase the role of efficient producers and reduce the role of direct and indirect subsidies and protection.
Let me recount to the House briefly some of our experiences in the last year. Almost a year ago exactly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and I were at the meeting of the OECD in Paris and we heard to our great surprise Ministers speaking for European Governments beginning to criticize the common agricultural program. That had not happened before. I must tell the House that the Ministers who uttered those criticisms were Ministers of Finance, not of Agriculture, the people who have to pay for the subsidy programs. However, that was an indication that there might be a possibility of change in European attitudes toward subsidy in the Community. We did not simply note that as a phenomenon. We came back to Canada, we sat down with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and we developed together the opportunity that existed for a country like ours to take advantage of these changes that were developing in the Community, to take advantage of the possibility of some self-questioning, to begin to break this terrible, crippling cycle of subsidy.
The Prime Minister of Canada took to the economic summit in Tokyo as Canada's principal emphasis in that summit the need to give priority to breaking the cycle of international subsidy in agriculture.
I have been to three economic summits. I know that not before-at least not before my experience-has there been a situation in which the President of the United States, the President of France, the Chancellor of West Germany and other leaders have been forced to defend practices which they themselves found difficult to defend in the summit context about agricultural subsidy. One of the European leaders who was there, and I will not identify the country, made a very significant comment. During a discussion that would not have occurred without the initiative of the Prime Minister of
Canada he said that everyone recognized that this was a problem that everyone shared but that no one could solve on their own. Recognizing that, Canada proposed at the summit that we should try to solve it together.
We came away from the summit and tried to put in place a very special experiment in international relations. We tried to put together a special group of leading international experts who might in preparation for the Venice Summit coming up in June be able to identify subsidy practices in each of the summit countries on which action could be taken at Venice. We were making progress on that proposal. We had funding from foundations in Canada and the United States. We had agreement from several countries, including the United States. We had the enthusiastic interest of countries such as Thailand, Argentina and others. For a while we had the agreement of some European countries. Then one European country said that, no, they would not agree. The proposal then came apart. We were not able to proceed with what may have been-what had the promise of being-a Canadian breakthrough in this cycle of subsidy. That did not work. But it was very much worth trying, as it is very much worth trying for this country to find other means by which we can break the cycle of agricultural subsidy that is at the root of the problem being discussed in this House and the problem being felt on farms across the country.
We have acted on other fronts. I led the Canadian delegation to the GATT talks in Punta del Este, Uruguay, last year. In the past, agriculture has been a casualty of the GATT. It has been something that has been shunted aside when nations gathered together to deal with international trading rules. Well, this year that was changed. While there were many countries which took part in the change, one of the leaders in achieving that change was this country and this Government. We do not believe that the world can long afford to put agriculture to the sidelines. We do not believe that when new trading rules are put together they can treat agriculture as though it were unimportant.
Agriculture is essential. Fair trade in agriculture is essential. If we are going to achieve that then we have to have trading rules that are acceptable to and guide the practices of countries around the world. We have made a start on that. We have made a start on that in the GATT. But, again, there is much more that needs to be done. Again, this Government is exerting our leadership to try to ensure that we are able to make that type of progress.
There was a group established, as a result of an Australian initiative, with our active help. It is the so-called Cairns Group, a group of a number of countries such as Canada, in conditions such as ours, victims of the subsidy practices of the Community and of the United States, which gathered together in Australia to prepare for the GATT negotiations in Uruguay. Within three weeks that group will meet again in Ottawa at the invitation and under the chairmanship of the Government of Canada. We think that that type of pressure has to be maintained.

April 30, 1987
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling that my time is up.


Marcel Prud'homme: No, no, please go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I hear correctly that there is unanimous consent to allow the Minister more time?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, I do not believe there is. However, I am sure the House will allow the Hon. Minister a minute or so to complete his speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the generosity of the House. I appreciate the fact that there is real interest in what we are trying to do internationally. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress in the meeting that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), along with my colleagues, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), will be convening in Ottawa.
There are two other important meetings coming up in the immediate future. One is the next meeting of the OECD in Paris in two weeks' time. The other is the summit in Venice. It is the intention of the Government to continue at Venice the initiative which the Prime Minister of Canada began in Tokyo, and to continue in the context of the economic summit to try to reach agreement on some progress against the practice of subsidy. We are not sure we will succeed. We know we are asking fundamental changes in practices and traditions that have grown up, particularly in Europe, but the size of the challenge should not turn us away. The size of the damage has to drive us to try to achieve some change. As we did in Tokyo, and as we did in Cairns and Uruguay, and as we will do in Paris, we intend at the economic summit meeting in Venice to try to get some progress.
The Prime Minister raised the matter at the meeting earlier this month when the President of the United States was here. He has raised it in a number of other direct conversations with other summit countries. We hope to make progress.
Finally, and not to abuse the time of the House, we have in the context of the OECD the grouping together of modern economies. We have suggested that there might be agreement on some basic principles regarding international trade in agriculture. We have been in touch with all of the Governments of the OECD and we have set forth some principles that we hope might be the basis of the approach we all can follow together as an alternative to the subsidy cycle that has been so devastating to our economy.
Those principles are, first, that agricultural policies must become more price-responsive. Second, support for agriculture should avoid production incentives. In other words, support should be for farmers and not for farming. Third, countries should freeze and seek to reduce governmental assistance measures that artificially depress world prices. Four, countries should not introduce new import barriers that are not already mandated by existing legislation. Finally, and this is essential to it all, these basic principles must be implemented by us all, together. As was set out at the Tokyo Summit, this is a problem we all face. None of us can solve it alone. But if we cannot solve it alone then a country such as Canada can at least exercise leadership in trying to get it solved. That is what we are doing and that is what we intend to do.
In the last year alone the Prime Minister has held three formal meetings with leaders of Canadian agriculture organizations. I do not believe that that has ever happened before in Canada. It will happen again prior to his departure for the economic summit in Venice because we have found before that in terms of the effectiveness of our case internationally and in terms of consensus at home it is very valuable to draw in the leaders of agriculture in this country.
So what the Government is doing in agriculture is continuing action at home that is unprecedented in recent decades. We are carrying out extensive and continuing consultation with farm leaders. We are maintaining a very vigorous pressure internationally to change the cycle of subsidy that is at the basis of our international agricultural problems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this very important debate on a crucial matter to the economy of Canada and, in particular, to the western economy. I want to begin by congratulating all of those Members who have participated in the debate because the subject matter is of great national importance and it ought to be debated in that way.
It was my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) would have availed himself of the opportunity-and perhaps he would have had the time available to him-to talk about the recently announced sale by the United States of 4 million tonnes of wheat to the Soviet Union and what that sale will do to the price of grain in Canada and what it will do to the economy Canada.
It was my hope, too, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have responded, in some measure, to the letter forwarded to him today by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
April 30, 1987

As that letter is now a public document, I should like to take a moment to read it into the record. It is as follows:
It has come to my attention that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has today prepared a new set of agricultural trade subsidy initiatives that include measures of great damage to Canada.
Specifically they are proposing to include under the Export Enhancement Program an offer of 1.25 million metric tons of barley to Saudi Arabia, a traditional Canadian buyer.
If this measure is approved by the Trade Review Committee of the U.S. administration in the next week, it will mean a loss of 75 to 85 million dollars to Canadian farmers.
This initiative certainly flies in the face of assurances apparently gained from President Reagan that he would be considerate of Canadian agricultural concerns, and I would ask you to immediately demand that this damaging measure by the U.S. administration be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, those are just two initiatives with regard to the foreign policy aspect of this subject that I would have hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have touched upon during the course of his remarks, and perhaps at another time, or indeed later in this debate, he may want to expound upon them.
Government Members have stood in this place and talked about some programs and some initiatives that have taken place over the last two and a half years. I have listened to their speeches quite attentively, both from my place here in the Chamber and through the Oasis system that is available in our offices.
Mr. Speaker, it is their job to talk about government programs and initiatives. The issue before the House in this debate is the present crisis and what the Government is prepared to do about it. I do not believe that on any side of this House any Member is questioning what the problem is.
No Member-and I may have missed the speeches of a few of the speakers in this debate; a great many have spoken-no Member has disagreed with the fact that there is a crisis situation in the western economy as it relates to grain producers. The question is: Does this Government have the political will to address the situation? But to cite the benefits, chapter and verse, is not going to help the farmers who are in a crisis situation today. And no doubt there are some benefits arising from such programs as the Rural Transition Program. The establishment of the farm debt review boards is another initiative that they hauled out.
The problem is that the Government, up until now, has been refusing to address the very serious crisis situation existing in the western Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, I know something about crises. I know something about setbacks. I know about property foreclosures. I have seen entire families and subdivisions of families move out of communities. We in Atlantic Canada know something about that.
What is required, Mr. Speaker, is not only goodwill, good intentions, or even a meaningful and dynamic record, but the political will on the part of the Government of the day to exercise its authority, both legally and monetarily, in order to address the situation.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has some 225,000 farms, of which 175,000 are commercial farms. The Farm Credit Corporation estimates that 8 per cent, or 13,000 farms are insolvent. Of those 13,000, 6,000 have not made any payments on their loans for at least two years. Some 52,000, or approximately 30 per cent of Canadian commercial farms are facing moderate to serious financial stress. Real interest rates paid to farmers are as high or higher than they were at their peak in the early 1980s. An example: The current real farm interest rate is about 6.57 per cent, while it was 8 per cent to 8.5 per cent in 1981.
Members opposite have said that only 600 farmers a year are going to be affected, or 50 a month. Mr. Speaker, do you realize the consequential effects of that? And I am thinking not only of the symbolism of the Government of Canada foreclosing on 600 farmers a year, but the consequential effects on the Canadian banking community, on unsecured creditors, on secured creditors. The trustees in bankruptcy will be the real winners when it comes to the moratorium on foreclosures.
Surely the people of western Canada and those individuals who have their loans with the Farm Credit Corporation are entitled to some sense of fairness. Mr. Speaker, I was part of a Government that was stupid enough to implement an audit program for fishermen of Atlantic Canada. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the lifting of this moratorium is just as stupid if not more stupid than what we did some years back.
It is really not appropriate to be partisan in this debate, but I can tell you that we paid dearly for that mistake, and I suggest that this Government will pay just as dearly as a result of this action against the farmers of western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said and much has been omitted in the debate which has taken place in the Chamber over the last two days. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was quite correct when he stood in his place and said that two amendments were made to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. But what Party in this House of Commons fought tooth and nail every step of the way for the implementation of the Western Grain Stabilization Program?


An Hon. Member:: The Liberals.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it was Jean-Luc Pepin, a former Minister of Transport, who initiated that legislation, legislation which was proclaimed into law under a Liberal Government.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs gripped his heart with his hand and said: "We can't be partisan". Yet he refuses to acknowledge fact, unequivocal fact, Mr. Speaker, in terms of who it was who proclaimed that law, the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
It is also intellectually dishonest and unfair, and, yes, not appropriate for parliamentarians even to debate this issue. On the one hand, we have government Members saying: "When you were in Government, you were the ones who caused the

April 30, 1987
high interest rates. It wasn't the international situation. It wasn't the economies of the superpowers or of the European Community that had to do with interest rates; it was you, the terrible Government". Now that the tables have turned and the western grain producer is in this situation they look to the heavens, they look behind them, they look to the media, to the Opposition and, when they are really desperate, they look to the NDP. You cannot have it both ways. Parliament is a place to which men and women of good faith come to tell it like it is. We are here for one reason. Some may interpret it differently, but there is one unequivocal reason why all Members of Parliament are in this Chamber and serving in public life, and that is to serve.
The question is not one of what the problem is and not one of what the solutions are, but simply of where the political will is to exercise the authority which the national Government has on this issue. 1 can say proudly that yes, I have travelled to western Canada and no, I am not a farmer, but I have listened to their plea, I have heard their argument, and I sympathize with them greatly. They do not want any handouts from Government. They do not want to be on their knees. They only want an equal chance which the Constitution has guaranteed them. Instead we have heard rebuttals, deferment, and that they are considering it.
The latest gimic is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He is going to take two planes, four cameras, a couple of bearers in Gucci shoes and go to western Canada to make a whistle-stop tour. Does anyone want to make any wagers that the Prime Minister will be announcing a few cheques along the way? He is a political opportunist. Members may laugh, but if I am wrong they can come back into the Chamber and raise it. This is shameful.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has said clearly time and time again in the House, outside the House, in western Canada, in Atlantic Canada, in Toronto and in Montreal that the Government must announce deficiency programs so that farmers can make their plans for this and subsequent crop years. He has said that the Government must reinstate the FCC moratorium on farm foreclosures and that it must put a proper debt restructuring program in place. Those are three things that we do not have to ask the United States or the European Economic Community for. Canada can do those things today.
In concluding my brief remarks on this most important subject matter I say sincerely that I have listened to what Members from western Canada have been saying and I will continue to listen. I believe the way in which to solve this particular crisis is to show some real leadership domestically. You cannot go on the international stage and say one thing then do the opposite domestically. Canada must be consistent. That is why I raised in my initial remarks the conduct of our neighbours to the south who have continuously, since entering
preliminary negotiations with regard to a free trade agreement, been giving it to us in the neck.
Let it be clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not anti-American. I may be anti-United States administration, but I find the people of the United States to be a great people. I do not like it when a sovereign nation such as Canada is continuously and repeatedly confronted by the administration to the south which, for its own reasons, selfish as they may or may not be, singles out Canada and the sectors of our economy which are suffering as a result of the lack of leadership of the present administration. Much can be said and much more ought to be said. The Government will pay the price.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member who just finished speaking will not mind me pointing out a grave error which he made in his submission which again demonstrates the fact that the folks across the way are uninformed. He said that Jean-Luc Pepin brought in the Western Grain Stabilization Program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not a point of order, that's debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he checked the facts he would find that he was in error.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was Otto Lang, so he made a mistake.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At least you know. Why didn't you correct him then?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Once in a while you make mistakes, too. I don't rub it in to you. I should, but I don't.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was one great Liberal Minister or another.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I had visions of not being able to participate in it because I was up in northern Saskatchewan when I heard about it and was afraid it would be all over by the time I got back. When I arrived yesterday afternoon the debate appeared to be over and I was afraid I had missed out. I am pleased to be here and participating now.
I was in Lac La Ronge in northern Saskatchewan participating in an agricultural meeting of the native population of northern Saskatchewan. It was a meeting of SIAP, the Saskatchewan Indian Agricultural Program, which is intending to expand the agricultural base.
My background is as a seedgrower and farmer from the northeast corner of Saskatchewan about 20 miles from where the trees start, north of which there is no farming. We grow a tremendous variety of crops and while we are certainly affected by the fight between the European community and the United States we have a bigger variety of markets. The crops of wheat, oats, barley, canola and flax seed have been affected very seriously as have other crops which may not be considered very important in the larger scheme of things in the prairie provinces.
April 30, 1987

However, dehydrated alfalfa, dried pea, lentils, fava beans, canary seed, some mustard and such, have been very seriously affected and did not qualify for subsidy under the special Canadian grains program, much to the disappointment of some of those growers. They grew many of these crops to relieve the over-production problem and were hoping to find a market for these lesser grown crops which cannot be grown in areas farther south.
Last year we had some good crops of grass seed and alfalfa. The prices were very good. There was a bright spot in that particular area. However, the biggest bulk of our acreage is in common crops. Certainly our farmers are hurting simply because input costs are very much higher than they are farther south.
Fortunately the Conservative Government has been able to help my constituents ever since it came into power in September, 1984. The very first time it helped was in an area in my constituency which suffered from a lot of rain and severe flooding. The Conservative Government subsidized these people to the tune of $7.5 million. Perhaps that does not sound like a great deal of money, but that particular area had been without crops for a good many years and the provincial Government also put up $7.5 million. This helped to save some of those farmers. They certainly appreciated it. I am sure some of them would not be there today had it not been for that particular help. Of course, they have participated in all the rest of the programs which most of the previous speakers have covered. I am sure you are quite familiar with them, Mr. Speaker.
There has been much rhetoric on the part of the Opposition about the lifting of the moratorium on FCC mortgages. I checked what some opposition Members have been saying about this particular matter. So far in my study of the "blues" I have found nothing that made much sense in terms of a solution on the part of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I am here is because I became kind of angry sitting on a tractor one day and said: "I guess I'll have to do something about it". I got involved in politics simply because of some of the policies which were in place.
I know that members of the NDP have supported the Liberals. I heard much rhetoric from them about money going out of the country for various reasons. In 1982 when they changed the Farm Credit Act from being an assistance to farmers to a banking institution, the situation was made much tougher on farmers, simply because they were borrowing money on long-term agreements and at long-term interest rates which are very difficult for farmers to get out of. The New Democrats supported the Liberals on that particular one.
Since 1982 I believe $1.3 billion has been borrowed in the way of long-term money by FCC and over 50 per cent of the interest on that money goes to countries other than Canada. I
wonder how the NDP can say that it supports farmers when all this money is going out of the country and not recirculating back to farmers. It is very interesting that they come to these conclusions when it suits them to be critical, forgetting some of the mistakes they have made themselves.
We must have a little optimism in the farm area. I know there are some sections in agriculture, particularly in western Canada, and in livestock in eastern Canada, which have improved the outlook of farmers. In western Canada the livestock industry is doing well. The cattle and hog industries are doing well. Grass seeds and other products such as lentils are doing well. It is not a complete bust in the over-all farm economy picture. Those who are prudent are able to survive. They are not able to make money but they are able to survive.
The hope of the recovery of farm prices is always there. There is only a slight difference between surplus and shortage. Not long ago in the House we worried about hog producers. There was much talk about supply-management and various short-term solutions. However, the United States came out with a 7 per cent decrease in the farrowing of hogs some three months to six months ago, and the prices have certainly increased considerably. The same could happen to the price of some grains, perhaps all of them. Who knows?
It is a pretty good thing that some of the previous speakers in the Opposition are not the farmers out there. It is probably a good thing that farmers are all busy in the fields these days and not watching this particular performance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What happened to all your socialist friends?


Jack Scowen: I don't know. I should like to refer to some misquotes which I saw. For instance, I noticed that the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), from that hardrock country, told us how he was looking at a machine where they were baling grain to inject anhydrous ammonia into it. I think it was probably hay. I will not go into the mining business if he does not go into the farming business, and I think we will probably survive a lot better.
Another one I noticed was, somebody said that the price paid to grain farmers was down by 18 per cent. The truth of the matter is that the initial price is down by 18 per cent, and we do not know what the price will be.
I also saw in The Globe and Mail, and I guess that is where opposition Members get some of their information, a picture of a farmer and a big bird in the background, the Farm Credit Corporation. Over to one side was another little bird and a bag of seed. On that bag of seed, it said, "18 per cent decrease in subsidies". The truth of the matter is that there will not be an 18 per cent decrease in subsidies. In fact, if these prices do not improve, it will probably amount to about a 40 per cent increase in subsidies. It is an 18 per cent decrease in the initial price.

April 30, 1987
As the convict said to the judge, "No, noose is good news". I do have some good news. I have the pleasure of announcing today, for the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), that the cheques for the initial payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act were mailed today. I have some figures here that will help put a little smile on some western farmers' faces. To Saskatchewan, my home province, 57,713 cheques were mailed out, to the tune of $382 million. That will be a big help to the economy of that particular province. To Alberta, 34,950 cheques were sent, to the tune of $184 million. To Manitoba, 20,589 cheques were sent, to the tune of $134,100,000. To British Columbia, 1,063 cheques were sent out, to the tune of $4.7 million making a total of 114,314 cheques being sent to the total tune of $705 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Scowen: That is some good news for the Canadian farmer. That, along with the final payment, will help farmers in western Canada stay in business.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this emergency debate, although I must confess that, contrary to the Minister, 1 am not a first-class expert in the area of agriculture. But there is no need to be an expert in that area to realize that the actions taken by this Government are typical of a Government which unfortunately does not care about the future of hundreds and even thousands of farm producers who are affected by them. And even if my friend who has just concluded his remarks could mention a few measures taken by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I do not believe they are adequate and will really solve the problem which has made this emergency debate necessary.
This emergency debate was initiated following the insensitive announcement by the Government Monday morning that it was ending the moratorium in effect since February 17, 1985, on the loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation. It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and it is not without reason that it was described as a historic event. With this decision, the Government is destroying the way of life of the family farm. It is attacking farmers at a time when they are already in a position of weakness, losing their self-reliance and have realizing that the Government is not going to help them at all. That is why they are calling on their elected representatives to emphasize their very severe economic plight and that of their families. They are asking for programs to be implemented right away. They are asking the Prime Minister to set up without delay federal-provincial programs which might allow them to remain on their farms, and more specifically to provide them right away with significant deficiency payments for the 1987-88 crop year.
In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, the Government dares tell farmers and Members of this House that its last gesture will only have a slight effect on farmers generally. It dares say so when it knows quite well that in fact, its action could be
disastrous for all farmers affected. However, there will not be any disaster, because as a result of pressures made by farmers in the three Prairie provinces, the Government will have no option but to make specific commitments on the matter. It will have no option, if it wants to continue to boast about everything it does for farmers.
In the first place, with respect to declining prices for various grains, farmers want to know what will happen during the 1987-88 crop year and whether the Government will maintain the level of agricultural assistance, and they want to be informed right now. The Government should tell them under what circumstances a deficiency payment will be made under a special grain program and what the amount of such payment will be.
As I said, the Government should clearly and unequivocally announce what assistance it will grant farmers during the current crop year. As a result of the measure hastily taken by the Minister when he removed the moratorium on foreclosures made by the Farm Credit Corporation, that decision has raised to an intolerable level the stress experienced by thousands of farmers.
The initiative taken by the Minister will allow foreclosures against farmers who are in arrears in the reimbursement of loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation, loans which represent 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the long-term debt in the agricultural sector. There are arrears of over two years on some 6,000 of the 75,000 loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation and in such a case the organization almost always decide to proceed with the foreclosure.
It is not 25 per cent, as suggested by the Minister responsible, but approximately 8 per cent of farmers who obtained a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation who are threatened with foreclosure. The Minister said that we should not worry, that there will be only some 50 foreclosures a month, that the staff of the Farm Credit Corporationm cannot do more and consequently, the number of farmers who have some reasons to fear foreclosure is restricted to 600. What a joke, Mr. Speaker. How can we know, as the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) asked, what are, among the 6,000 loans which could lead to a foreclosure, the 600 cases which will actually be foreclosed? That is what the bank manager will ask the farmer who is seeking a loan to continue his operation. If the manager tells him that the Farm Credit Corporation is carrying out foreclosures, the farmer will be able to reply that he should not be concerned about that, the Minister having indicated that there will not be more than 600 foreclosures a year out of 6,000. He may add that if he is the last one, his property will not be foreclosed before 10 years from now.
This moratorium has been in effect for the past 19 months. The Government should have used this time to devise a debt restructuring mechanism to help farmers. If it had acted then, there would have been no need for a moratorium, but the Government has failed to act and the moratorium was useful in gaining time.
April 30, 1987

In the meantime, however, no debt restructuring mechanism was set into place. In my opinion, we should continue the moratorium and take this opportunity to devise better programs.
Mr. Speaker, so much for the actions taken by the Government which are causing farm families to go bankrupt, filling them with anxiety and spreading distress as well as financial, economic and social destruction in the agricultural community.
Only a Minister of Agriculture perfectly insensitive to the reality of the situation could make such decisions. The Government did not consult the interested parties to try and find a solution. It has even failed to meet with the farm producers, as well as the representatives of both the federal and provincial governments, the farm organizations and the banking institutions.
When we asked in the House whether it would be useful to meet with the banking institutions which are holding 69 per cent of the loans to discuss this issue, the Minister in turn asked: Why should we do so? Why should we discuss the situation with the banks? We know why the Government should talk to banks. It is because all bankers today are telling themselves, when reading the statement made last Monday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise): If the Government can foreclose, why can't we? They will start looking at their overdue loans.
When farmers start canvassing, looking for loans in order to produce, looking for credit for the coming crop year, how do you suppose those banks will react, Mr. Speaker, after the Government of Canada made that shameful and despicable announcement that it is lifting the moratorium and will let the FCC's mechanism shatter farm communities? This is an open invitation to banks and other financial institutions to follow suit. What is now preventing them from doing so? How could they feel obligated when the federal Government, which normally has a duty to look after farmers, when a public institution or at least what used to be one behaves in such a way?
We are faced with a crisis that requires immediate action to save family farms in western and eastern Canada. It is not good enough for Conservatives to refer to what they have done-they must solve the present crisis. They cannot rest on their laurels. This is not good enough, it will not help people through the current crisis.
Our Party urges the Government to do something. It must recognize that farmers are now in a very tight situation. It must recognize the emergency situation. Now is the time to act, not six months down the road. Farmers must be given a chance, they must be allowed to adequately plan their crops. Our Party urges an extension of the moratorium, to avoid unnecessary stress to farmers. Our Party also urges the announcement now of a price support program for this year's crop, in order that western and other Canadian farmers know where they stand. It is my hope that the Government will act before midnight, so that the odd hundred farm producers in
Quebec who are facing foreclosure will not be penalized and hit by those foreclosures.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this emergency debate on the crisis our Canadian farmers are going through. Since I represent a city riding, one might wonder what kind of an impact my opinion can have, but as a Canadian woman I am concerned about the well-being of all our farmers.
The crisis our farmers are in right now will affect all of us at a certain point in time. We are all consumers and we all need a strong and healthy agricultural sector. I am glad that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) mentioned figures in his remarks. Otherwise, the Government might have eluded the problem once again. The Hon. Member for Algoma suggested Tuesday night that the Government had to take a clear position and make a commitment to assist our farmers before it is too late.
On Canada AM this morning, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board clearly demonstrated that the Government, by dropping the moratorium, really does not want to help farmers. Yesterday afternoon, the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) blamed the Opposition for its refusal to congratulate the Government on its initiatives on behalf of this sector of our economy. There really is not much reason to congratulate the Government. Canadian voters will keep in mind the horrible nightmare our farmers are going through because of this Government.
It is hard to imagine that a technologically advanced country like Canada can show such indifference to our farmers. Our farmers have always been proud to contribute to our economy, but now we penalize them by forcing them to abandon their way of life, their farm, and their means of subsistance.
That economic sector affects our daily life the most. Dairy products, vegetables and grain products are always present on our tables. It is high time we give back some dignity to our farmers.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made the electoral commitment to assist this sector of our economy.
They try to sweeten the pill in each Speech from the Throne through tax initiatives that are beneficial to farmers. Yet today, they blatantly turn around in order to better stab them in the back. Our farmers are discouraged.
Let us face the problem. Many farmers throughout the country and especially those in the west have financial problems for various reasons. According to the figures reported by Ralph Ashmead, Research and Development manager of the Canada Farm Credit Corporation, 68.8 per cent of our farmers have a stable financial situation; 23.2 per cent have cash flow problems whereas 8 per cent are insolvent. In Saskatchewan, 11.4 per cent of farmers are insolvent and in Alberta 9.9 per cent of them are. Those are, I believe, the two most deeply affected provinces. According to an article published in The Ottawa Citizen dated April 28, 1987, and I quote:

April 30, 1987

The average FCC loan is about $120,000. An average of 22 per cent of loans to western producers are in arrears, compared to 17 per cent in Ontario and 9.6 per cent in Quebec. In the Atlantic provinces, the percentage of loans in arrears ranges from 17 per cent in Nova Scotia to 33 per cent in Newfoundland.

Mr. Jules Modderman, of the FCC, said:

Only 2 to 3 per cent are in danger of losing their farms.

Only 2 per cent to 3 per cent is not serious for our friends in the Government. For the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, it is far too much. It is easy for us, Members of Parliament, sitting comfortably in Ottawa with our generous salary, to say as that public servant did that only 2 per cent to 3 per cent of our farmers may lose their farms. It is easy to speak heartlessly about a bankruptcy when we are not personally affected. For our farmers, things are different. It is often a family farm handed down from generation to generation. Our farmers have developed that land with their hands like a sculptor has a work of art.
The Liberal Party is asking today that the moratorium that has existed for over a year and a half be maintained. This is the basis of all our social programs. In the past, we thought it right to assist the unemployed until they could find work. Today, when the price of grain is at the same level as in the thirties, the Government decides to end the moratorium. Why did the Government decide to do it now? Why did they say no to farmers? They did not say no to the two western banks that went bankrupt last year. Mr. Speaker, they have double standards.
When ordinary farmers are concerned, the Government has nothing to offer. This is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Only the polls and the rich are important to the Conservative Government, it does not care about ordinary people. Canadian farmers are facing the lowest wheat prices since 1933 and this is the time the Government chooses to end the moratorium.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced his decision one week only after wheat prices went down by 18 per cent. Wayne Easter, Chairman of the National Farmers Union had this to say to The Globe and Mail last Tuesday:

"I just can't understand why he (the Minister) would announce it now".

And he added:

"To lose your farm is the same as capital punishment. When they lose their land, farmers feel that the life has gone out of them."

I heard a Conservative Member say this morning that the Liberals were at the root of the problem. They keep repeating that same story since 1984. However, in this case as in most other cases, the responsibility rests with the Government which decided to end the moratorium one week after the fall in the price of wheat. This decision has all the trappings of a conspiracy, given that it comes from a Government with a majority large enough to do as it sees fit.
Since 1984, the Conservatives have afforded again an unwarranted level of protection to drug firms which are already billionaires. They managed to shore up two banks which had gone under while at the same time attempting to deindex Old Age Security pensions. And today, they are putting a large number of farmers out of business. All of this teaches us that the Government cares a lot about the haves but considerably less about the have-nots.
Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that the Liberal Party has always attempted to narrow the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich in order that all Canadian men and women might benefit from the collective wealth of Canada. We in the Liberal Party are of the opinion that it is only natural that those who are well off should help those who are less well off. Our unemployment insurance program is a case in point. It has often been said that the Liberal Party has an acute sense of political timing. The same cannot be said of the Conservatives. We would never have dared to do what the Minister of Agriculture has done. When things are looking bad is not the time to make them worse. When the price of grain is so low is not the time to lift the moratorium. The Government has a moral obligation to postpone the termination of this moratorium. The Government should show leadership and come up with a debt restructuring program to help our farmers.
History is bound to repeat itself, it would seem. Indeed, in 1930, a Conservative Government was brought to power with a comfortable majority by a disgruntled electorate. Five years later, that same Government fell. The Conservative Government ignored repeated requests by the unemployed for an employment policy, preferring to cause that famous Winnipeg riot. That was a Tory Government listening to the people in the 30's. This modern version of a Tory Government listening to the needs of the people decided to end the moratorium on farm foreclosures at a time when grain prices are at their lowest.
The signal the Government is sending, Mr. Speaker, is this: If your industry has a problem, do not expect the Conservatives to help you.
April 30, 1987

That is why 1 am now turning to the maple syrup industry. Mr. Speaker, the maple products industry also is on the verge of facing major financial difficulty. What is the Government doing? It is reviewing the situation with its friends down South.
Sugar-bush owners have been trying to get the message across for a long time. When will we decide to listen to them? When are we going to take their concerns seriously? Are we going to wait till an emergency arises? The emergency already is here, Mr. Speaker.
The Government is not interested in farm problems. This is what I tell maple producers: Do not wait, act now. Show your concerns. Make a lot of noise, because this Government is hard of hearing.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave Elon. Members and Canadians with a thought that was expressed by Mr. Gerard Fillion, that famous journalist who came from the Lower St. Lawrence, and I quote: "What is urgently needed is to ensure that farmers, who are both highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs, enjoy a standard of living similar to that of city dwellers with equivalent skills."
That Mr. Fillion wrote on May 12, 1943. And like the Union des producteurs agricoles, I say: Forty-four years after that statement was made, the challenge is still relevant.


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. Having been involved in the dairy business all of my life, I can fairly well say that I have some knowledge of agricultural issues.
I have followed closely the Government's program of agriculture initiatives. I spent the first 25 years of my life on the family farm, and during the latter part of that period, was directly involved in its operation. I have also held office in local and area agricultural organizations in the County of Welland and in the region of Niagara. While Ontario does make a sizeable contribution to Canada's wheat and grain production, the Niagara Peninsula, where my riding of Welland is located, is best known in the agricultural industry because of its productive fruit and vegetable growing areas.
For instance, 90 per cent of all the grapes grown in Canada is produced in the Niagara Peninsula. The farming areas of Thorold and West St. Catharines in my riding of Welland have some of the finest and most productive vineyards in the country.
The Welland riding is also very dependent upon the agriculture industry and the western grain producers in particular, because of the presence of the Welland Canal which runs through the entire centre of the riding and, of course, is an integral part of Canada's grain shipping route to the East.
The canal is central to the western grain industry and the western grain industry is central to the economy of the Niagara Peninsula. The growth of the Cities of Welland, Thorold, and St. Catharines are due to the Welland Canal which was built primarily to provide efficient transportation for the western grain being exported to Russia and other parts of Europe.
In 1829 when the canal was first built it was called the grain lane to Europe. It provided the means to bring grain cheaply and quickly from the interior of the country to the St. Lawrence River and on to Europe. The canal made it possible for grain carrying ships to conquer Niagara Falls, making it possible to link the Canadian West with 2,200 miles of continued inland waterways to the Atlantic Ocean.
Since 1829, the canal had been rebuilt four times. It has gone from a 20-lock system to an 80-lock system, making it progressively easier to ship western grain in ever greater amounts in even larger ships across the Niagara Peninsula and up the St. Lawrence Seaway to their destination.
The Seaway's corporate plan indicates that the Welland Canal, without improvement, would not be able to handle increased demand that will be placed on it in the future, a demand placed on it primarily because of the increased need for shipments of Canadian agricultural products.
As part of the Government's commitment to the growth and prosperity of Canadian agriculture, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) announced last November the allocation of $175 million for the rehabilitation of the Welland Canal.
Again and again, in so many areas of government policy, agriculture appears as a primary consideration. Agriculture means jobs. It means a considerable number of jobs in my riding of Welland because agriculture has a domino effect on so many other industries.
When a strike recently left grain shipments sitting for weeks in silos in Thunder Bay, every available ship, including ships that had been out of service for over a year, was called into service to meet the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board. One hundred and fifty to 200 ships were needed to move the grain and even with such a volume no bottlenecks appeared along the Seaway. The wheat was delivered on time. The co-operation of the shipping industry and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority was crucial to meeting the needs of the western grain farmers.
The $175 million improvement to the locks on the Welland Canal is proceeding at the present time. Between the closing of the shipping season last November and the opening of the season this spring, major reconstruction has taken place on Lock 7 in the City of Thorold, where a $7.5 million contract has been let. These locks are more than 50 years old. Over the next five to seven years, all the eight locks will be rebuilt and refurbished. The producers of this country, therefore, will be able to look with confidence to the canal and the Seaway as a continuing dependable and capable shipping route.

April 30, 1987
I am proud of this Government's record in agriculture issues. I am proud of the direction we are going in ensuring that agriculture is front and centre in the GATT negotiations and in our trade talks with the United States.
Canadian farmers can be sure that these trade talks with the United States will bring a good deal for Canadian agriculture or no deal will be made. With the importance that has been placed on agriculture by this Government, I am confident that the current economic slump in world grain prices will be weathered and our agricultural industry will emerge stronger with the persistent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
When our Government took office, many thousands of Canadian farmers were suffering from the devastation of high interest rates that characterized the last years of the former administration.
In an effort to assist many of these farmers, the present Minister of Agriculture introduced a moratorium so that no Farm Credit Corporation clients would be forced to leave farms while programs to assist them were being developed, and programs were developed. For instance, an $80 million interest rates conversion program administered by the Farm Credit Corporation assisted over 5,000 farmers. Rates have been locked in at 16 per cent and this program reduced these rates by some 4 per cent. The federal Government, therefore, subsidized the corporation loss resulting from the conversion program.
Our Government has given agriculture a priority that is unprecedented. Our record is second to none. Agriculture means jobs. About 1.6 million jobs. We promised in the recent Throne Speech to spare no effort in seeking to protect the interest of Canada's farming community in the face of unfair pricing and subsidy practice conducted beyond our borders. We are providing the largest farm assistance package ever. The billion dollar special Canada Grains Program is putting a billion dollars of new money into the pockets of our farmers.
This Government, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) successfully pushed for agriculture to be included in negotiations under GATT. For the first time, agriculture will be on the table. Bilaterally, we are continuing to push for a better mechanism for settling agricultural trade disputes with the United States. We are seeking secure, reliable access for our farm products.
A motion passed in the House of Commons on March 16, 1987, supports the negotiation of a trading arrangement with the United States while protecting our agricultural marketing systems. Since we took office in 1984 we have introduced over 400 agricultural initiatives at a cost of nearly $6 billion. That is over one new initiative every other working day. I will enumerate some of those initiatives.
First, we provided $200 million in drought assistance for the western provinces. Second, we abolished capital gains tax on the sale of farm land up to $500,000. Third, we effectively eliminated all excise and sales taxes on farm fuels, saving
farmers $185 million per year. Fourth, we established farm debt review boards now operating in every province and assisting financially troubled farmers to come to agreements with their creditors. Nationally, arrangements to save the farm have been made in over 50 per cent of the cases. Fifth, a new long-term dairy policy has been established. Sixth, we have new Farm Credit Corporation lending programs with the lowest agricultural credit interest rates since 1979. Seventh, lower interest rates are helping our farmers. Every 1 per cent decline represents a saving to Canadian farmers of $130 million a year.
Our Government has delivered, Mr. Speaker. The promises made during the 1984 election have materialized and more. They have been outlined over and over again by my colleagues on the government benches. They include, as I said before, 400 separate initiatives which will benefit Canadian agriculture by over $5.76 billion. Despite this, more help is needed. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) are continuing to consult with farm leaders to devise new ways to assist farmers in need, not only to assist them at home, but the Government is providing assistance in opening up new markets for Canadian wheat and other agricultural commodities.
The announcement today by the President of the Wheat Board of a $64 million assistance program to protect farmers from a statutory increase in the 1987-88 western grain freights and the allotment last fall of $175 million by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to rehabilitate the Welland Canal will assure grain producers of the continuing dependability of this historic shipping route are further and continuing indicators of the Government's commitment to Canadian agriculture.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in a debate on the crisis situation facing our grain producers. In my riding, agriculture plays a very important role, but the industry certainly has its problems. If we are to understand the situation of our grain producers and the context in which they operate, I think we have to try and put ourselves in their shoes. Farmers have to get up in the morning, prepare their equipment, work all day, seed their fields and spend the whole summer working on their land, and at the end of the year, after the harvest, they are not even sure of recovering their production costs. And why not? There are a number of reasons.
First of all, we heard not long ago that this year, the price of grain will drop 18 per cent, and this comes right after last year's drop of 20 per cent. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the feelings of a farmer who has to cope with this kind of situation. Or perhaps, try to imagine, in the very same situation, the professional or even Member of Parliament. We have to ask
April 30, 1987

ourselves how many of us, how many workers would be willing to function in that kind of situation? EIow many workers would be able to work for a whole season and finally earn the kind of pay that has no relation to all the work and effort expended throughout the season? Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of situation facing our farmers. They can look forward to a season of seeding, working the land, harvesting and then, no money in the till because they will not be getting any return on the work they have done.
Mr. Speaker, all this work will be done in a climate of uncertainty. Why the uncertainty? Whose fault is it? Certainly not the fault of the Canadian farmer.
The farmer in this situation is an innocent victim of circumstances, because there is a crisis ... In fact, during the few days we have been discussing this problem, everyone has agreed that farmers are in a crisis situation. It is a crisis created by foreign governments' intervention in grain production. There is a subsidy war going on between the Common Market countries and the United States. Both parties subsidize grain production without any consideration for the world situation and without any consideration for the harm they are doing to Canadian producers. These governments want to grab the whole market, and they are pouring more and more money into their subsidy programs. And what is our Government doing? Well, nothing for the time being. The Government does not even want to ensure some kind of return. It does not want to provide payments to farmers who are about to seed their fields, payments that would at least cover production costs.
In Canada we already had a situation where some farm operations were experiencing serious difficulties. A number of them were on the brink of bankruptcy. This is why, in a move designed to relieve the stress felt by farmers, a moratorium was imposed on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures of farming operations. But now that we have just learned that wheat prices are going down, the Minister is telling agricultural producers that the moratorium will be lifted. From now on the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada will foreclose farming operations, those which are in financial trouble, of course. In an attempt to allay our fears, they say the FCC will be allowed to foreclose at the rate of only 50 a month, or almost 600 a year. Really, Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to let these farmers go bankrupt. A whole way of life is threatened.
Efforts have been made over the past two days to find a villain, to find somebody who might be blamed, to find somebody at whom we might point a finger. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what is the use of all this. Would the agricultural producer feel any better if he knew they have found someone to blame, that he can point his finger at somebody? This would not change anything at all in the present situation. These past few days, Mr. Speaker, they have tried to boast about what certain people did, including the Prime Minister, they bragged about the merits of certain programs, of course. If everything that has been said is any indication, it would seem that we should not even be going through this crisis. But the crisis is
there, it is a fact. Every month we will see 50-odd farmers go under. We will see a way of life disappear gradually. And in all this tragedy, Mr. Speaker, there is the human tragedy.
Much has been said about statistics, about subsidies, about interest rates. Much has been said about a lot of things. There were only a few references to the human tragedy, men and women and children who will have to witness in sadness the seizure and sale of everything they own, their home, their house. Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with all these farmers who will find themselves on a labour market where the unemployment rate is already rather high, too high for them to expect to find work and be able to earn a decent living? And all those families will experience conflicts because, in such situations, people's nerves are all on edge. People no longer have time to listen to one another. They no longer understand one another. They function in a serious state that leads to conflict. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in such an atmosphere, the Canadian family, the farm family will suffer and pay dearly for the crisis it is going through.
What about the communities that will be affected, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you about that because right now, in New Brunswick we are experiencing massive layoffs that could be called disastrous. You know all about it. We have lost, in the southeast area of New Brunswick, particularly in Moncton, some 800 jobs. Young families are without jobs. They must find another place to live, sell their possessions, because the area cannot absorb all those jobless.
It is as if a storm or a cloud brought over the community a sense of failure, of despair that is very difficult to shake off.
The same thing will happen in farming, Mr. Speaker. What will become of those who will stay, who will try to scratch a living? Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the lifting of the moratorium will weaken the confidence of those people in the Government.
The timing is bad. It is very bad. The moratorium should have been maintained a little longer to allow the farming sector to get back on its feet. For some of them, even many of them, when things are back to normal it will be too late, they will no longer be there. They will be gone.
In my riding, Mr. Speaker, I have tobacco farmers and you know the situation they are in. The Government is asking them to diversify. They are being asked to go into new crops. I know they are watching what is going on here. Imagine their feeling, now that they realize that the Government is abandoning them at a time when they are most in need of help and assistance. They feel alone and they will not have the heart to go into new crops or even diversify their operations.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy. There is no magical solution, because if there were it would already be in place. The fact remains that we have a crisis situation. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is to restore farmers' confidence. We need to help them. They have to be supported for a little longer.

April 30, 1987
In closing, I plead with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to reinstate the moratorium on farm foreclosures for a while to try to regain the confidence of the Canadian farmer. I also plead with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to announce a deficiency program for this year's crop at least equal to what was given last year.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, for farmers it will be a summer of uncertainty and even despair. Mr. Speaker, I beg the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to act in order to restore the confidence of our farm community in the Government, by taking some action which will reassure this industry.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate which is now in its thirty-second hour. I believe I am the forty-third Member to speak from this side of the House.
This has been a historic debate and it is appropriate that this day, April 30, will, I believe, also go down in history because of news we have just heard that tonight the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the 10 provincial Premiers have come to an agreement on the basis of which Quebec can enter into the Canadian Constitution. They will meet again in five weeks to ratify those arrangements. I think that is an issue we all care very deeply about in this country. I think it shows, with good will and willingness to accommodate different interests, how we can make some very significant progress. We are deeply heartened by what we have heard tonight of that progress.
I think in a sense the same thing applies to agriculture. The problems we are facing in Canada, particularly those affecting our grain farmers, will not be remedied by any one single solution, any one initiative, but only by a wide range of responses which people across this country and around the world must deal with.
Having had the honour just over two and a half years ago to be elected to this House by the residents of Capilano I must admit that I had very little background in agriculture. 1 have never been a farmer and my riding does not include farmers. I thought when I came to this august House that probably agriculture was one issue that I would not have to be too concerned about. There were many other issues of particular interest to my constituents on which I thought I would probably spend my time. How wrong I was. I became aware, perhaps for the first time in my life, just how fundamental agriculture is to the way in which the Canadian economy works and the way in which Canadian society works.
I think what I have found moving over the last 32 hours is the fact that Members from right across the country, on all sides of the House, from both urban and rural ridings, have taken part in this most important debate. It is an issue that we
all feel very deeply about: the future of the farmers and farming communities of this country.
Perhaps those of us who are city dwellers take for granted the contribution of farmers. It is easy for us to go into a store and buy a loaf of bread, buy a cake, and not really think about the blood, sweat and tears that have gone into growing the grain used to create the product that we so quickly take off the shelf. We also perhaps grumble if it has gone up a cent or two in price. However, if we are to work as a society we know we have to understand the problems facing the farm community.
Over these last 32 hours I have heard some very moving speeches about the farm families and their situation today. Most important, I think it is very evident that this Government does not take for granted the contribution and importance of the Canadian farmer. We have heard time and time again over the last few days about the efforts this Government has made to provide assistance to the farmer and deal with the fundamental problems facing Canadian agriculture. I thought I would just try to summarize some of the points and the issues I have heard about over these last several days.
The problem facing the Canadian grain farmer is a two-part problem. One part has to do with the cost of production. We responded in a number of ways to that over the last few years. However, the major problem is obviously the price that the farmer receives for his commodity, a price which, as a result of international agricultural subsidies, has been dropping lower and lower. We all know that. Whatever kind of work we do, whether we are shipbuilders, small businessmen or anything else, if our costs are greater than the price we receive for our goods, we have a problem. So our efforts as a Government to deal with both sides of that equation have been multi-faceted.
We have also looked at the problem from the point of view of time, recognizing there are some short-term initiatives that we can take, have taken and will continue to take to address that facet of the problem. There are other facets of the problem which can only be addressed by middle to long-term approaches which will take some time to accomplish. It is well known that the agricultural industry contributes to the economy of this country, over $20 billion at the farm gate. As well, the agri-food industry in this country employs about one in every four workers and contributes about 18 per cent of our GNP.
Let us consider what approaches the Government has taken to deal with the problem facing farmers, particularly western grain farmers, with respect to short-term responses to meet immediate concerns. First, the House has heard repeatedly in the past few days that we have dealt with the issue of the removal of capital gains tax on the family farm. It introduced the special Canadian grains payment.
We have dealt with the fuel tax rebate to reduce the fuel input costs to the farmer.
April 30, 1987

The Government's over-all economic initiatives in dealing with government expenditures and sound fiscal management have meant a decrease in interest rates by over 4 per cent. We know that for each 1 per cent reduction in interest rates there is a saving to the Canadian farmers of some $140 million. This means there is $600 million less that Canadian farmers must pay to banks or financial institutions to support their operations than was the case a few years before the Government took office.
Other measures include the $64 million assistance program announced this morning by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) jointly with the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) to protect farms from the statutory rate increase in the 1987-88 western grain freight rates. Increased subsidies have been provided in this area because farmers would not be able to cope with those increases.
In 1983 the federal Government provided some $350 million in subsidies to Canadian farmers. That has increased in 1987 to $3 billion; made up of $1 billion in the special Canadian grains payment, approximately $1 billion in Western Grain Stabilization payments, and another billion dollars between the Western Grain transportation assistance crop insurance and other agricultural Stabilization programs.
The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) stated a few minutes ago that the cheques worth some $705 million for the Western Grain Stabilization Program are going in the mail today to farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. That money will mean a great deal to the farmers as they begin their season's work.
The Government has consulted farm groups on a continuing basis. We have come forward with measures that have helped farmers considerably and certainly helped to create a much better environment than previously existed. In fact, it is expected that net revenues for western farmers will actually be up from $2.2 billion last year to $2.5 billion this year. That general improvement for western farmers is a result of the Government's assistance.
Let me deal with the middle and long-term solutions we must consider for other problems. This week, the Minister announced that there would be a change with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation, with the controlled phase-out of the moratorium, effective from May 1. Hon. Members will know that there are approximately 225,000 commercial farms in Canada, 75,000 of which do business with the FCC. About 20 per cent of the FCC clients are in arrears, including some 6,000 who have made no payments for the last two years.
The plan is that the FCC can deal with about 50 cases per month on a national basis. Therefore, about 600 to 800 farmers will be affected annually by the lifting of the moratorium, which represents about one-quarter of 1 per cent of Canada's farming community.
Let me emphasize that the lifting of the moratorium was only done after a range of other measures were put into place to assist troubled farmers. These include the $80 million
interest rate conversion program, the shared risk mortgage program, the commodity based mortgage, and 10 year $700 million program of which about $100 million has already been taken up.
Farm debt review boards have been put in place to give farmers in financial difficulty access to an impartial review of their situation. Of course, there is the Canadian Rural Transition Program.
Earlier this evening the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) mentioned the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, a highly respected organization involved in the farming community which issued a press release this week supporting this decision by the Agriculture Ministers. In fact, Mr. Stan Wilson, the President, indicated:
The decision by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to reduce the initial prices for prairie grain, and this week's end to debt moratorium, were tough, responsible, but realistic. We cannot pretend that world grain prices are higher than they really are and certainly no one benefits from the extension of debt moratoria while farmers sink deeper into debt.
He went on to say:
As responsible farm leaders, we must do more than continually criticize the actions and decisions of our Ministers. We need to take more responsibility for contributing to farm policy formation in Canada.
It took great courage for both Mr. Wise and Mr. Mayer to make these decisions. As producers, we recognize that courage, and support the measures taken.
I also support and applaud my colleagues for taking a difficult but realistic and correct decision.
Another important area with respect to the costs facing farmers is that of soil conservation. Recently, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a special research facility of $6 million in a special program in Vegreville. We are familiar with the work of the Canadian Soil Conservation Council, the SWEEP program, and the $62.3 million in the PFRA. All of these initiatives and perhaps more will be needed in the future to ensure that Canadian soils remain productive and of high quality so that our farmers can be as efficient and productive as possible while reducing their costs and becoming more financially viable.
1 want to conclude by briefly dealing with the issue of price. We have heard very often over these last 32 hours that the real problem with price is in the international sphere. We know that we must work to break the cycle of international agricultural subsidies. This cycle which is creating international havoc in the agricultural community must be stopped.
I am proud of the leadership that our Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) are showing in leading this issue at the international scene.
Last year at the Tokyo Summit, the Prime Minister took a leadership role in bringing this issue to the fore and working in an attempt to get a response from his colleagues.
I had the opportunity to attend with the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting in Manila. Again, we brought this issue to the fore.

April 30, 1987
Thailand, Indonesia and Australia have the same concerns. Out of that meeting the response that came was the development of the Cairns Group. Canada, through our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, attended that first meeting last summer in Australia to work together with these 14 countries to try to come forward with effective ways to influence the international community to get rid of international agricultural subsidies. That work is going on at an increased pace.
We know that at the next meeting of GATT for the first time agriculture will be on the table and will be recognized as one of the most important items to be discussed at GATT.
Our trade Minister was recently in New Zealand for trade talks with colleagues from other countries. Again the issue of agriculture was at the top on the agenda, and from that meeting Canada will now be hosting a meeting of the Cairns Group at the end of May, bringing together representatives of those countries to continue our discussions and initiatives.
Just this past week our Minister for International Trade in Tokyo was lauded for her work, again at the quad round, of raising agriculture to a level of importance and getting international recognition for that. Our Prime Minister at the Venice Summit will be going back again to work with his colleagues. It will not be an easy process. It will not happen overnight, but by increasing international pressure, particularly, as we know, in the EEC and the common agricultural market which has created a lot of these problems for us, we hope and we will be working hard to continue to ask for fundamental changes in the international community because it is only in that way that we will ultimately be able to solve the problem that our Canadian grain farmers are facing.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned in his speech, there are certain principles that must be followed in dealing with the international issues. Policies must be price-responsive and we must reduce activities which reduce world prices. First, the basic principles that can be agreed upon must be implemented by all because it will not work if only a few countries do it. This is an effort where all countries will have to work together if it is going to work for all of us.
When I think tonight of what has happened here in Canada where we have 10 provincial Premiers with widely differing points of view under the leadership of our Prime Minister who, after 15 years, have now come to an agreement about a vital national issue, the inclusion of Quebec in our Constitution, I guess I am heartened and optimistic that that same leadership of our Prime Minister and my cabinet colleagues will be lent and that we will see the kinds of changes occur in the international scene that will assist our Canadian farmers as well.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening patiently to the Members opposite during this debate telling us in the House just what great guys and gals the farmers are, telling us how they have worked hard and how they deserve such excellent treatment
from their Government, also knowing what poor treatment they are getting from the Government. Not only are they getting poor treatment but it seems the Government is kicking them while they are down. The Government has brought an end to a 19 month moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures only one week after giving farmers the news that grain prices will drop by 18 per cent.
As one farmer has said, why give us the news that you are going to stop the moratorium on foreclosures now? Spring is the hopeful time of year. It is the time of year when we are planting and when we feel that things can change around. To tell farmers that they are going to have their prices reduced by 18 per cent after their prices were reduced by a tremendous amount last year, only to tell them that they are open to foreclosures again, is absolutely callous.
What we are going to have is many, many farmers losing their farms. This year alone there will be 6,000 farms eligible for foreclosure. Of these, 10 per cent will actually be foreclosed. There will be 600 farms closed this year. We have heard about the concern of this Government and how it wants to help the farmers. Yet, during this 19 month period of the moratorium on foreclosures, the Government did not arrive at a decision that would come to grips with this very serious problem. If the Government is so serious about helping the farmers, why during this period could the Government not arrive at a long-term solution? The Government went through a 19 month period sitting on the problem doing nothing about it, hoping it would go away, only to realize that the problem will not go away by itself. Instead of doing something, the Government just abandoned the farmers. That is treachery.
What is the situation in Canada? In western Canada of those with loans, 22 per cent are in arrears, in Ontario, of those with loans, 17 per cent are in arrears, in Quebec, of those with loans, 9.6 per cent are in arrears, in Nova Scotia, of those with loans, 17 per cent are in arrears, and in Newfoundland, of those with loans, 33 per cent are in arrears. The average loan of the Farm Credit Corporation is $120,000. It is absolutely mind-boggling how the Government feels that this problem is going to correct itself. This is a crushing debt. These are people who have actually followed the Government's programs, who have had faith in the Government, in what it has said, only to be led down the garden path.
Where is this friendship which the Government has with the United States and the European Economic Community? These two jurisdictions are stabbing Canadian farmers in the back, yet we are ploughing along merrily as if nothing happened. The Government is tra-la-laaing down the road as if there were no cares in the world. Does our Government feel it can jettison the farming community? What is it that the Government has planned for the farming community? It just cannot let a situation like this go on and on without winding up in a catastrophic state, but that is exactly what is happening. We need a debt restructuring program. We need some kind of solution.
April 30, 1987

We need a dialogue with the banking community. The banking community is owed almost $9 billion from farm loans and the FCC is owed almost $5 billion. This is not going to go away. What are we doing? We are driving people off the farms. Farms are being closed down. Now there will be more closings because of the Farm Credit Corporation's foreclosures. There are suicides and marriage breakups in the farming community. There is a tremendous concern among people in all walks of life for the farming community.
It is ludicrous to think that this will go away by itself. Do we want to keep people on the farms? If the Government does not, why does it not have the courage and the decency to say that this is not a concern of the Government, that it does not want to keep families on the farm?
If we are going to keep families on the farm, we cannot deceive them. We cannot turn on them. We cannot tell them one thing and build up their hopes only to bring their hopes crashing down at a time when they are most vulnerable. Farmers want the same prices as last year and they are entitled to that. What they are going to get for their crops is going to be less than their cost of production. How can the Government expect farmers to carry on like that?
Farmers want to know when they plant and harvest their crops that they will be able to survive. Can the Government actually tell them that? It has not told them that yet. Oh, sure, there are cheques going out from the arrangement which was made for the farmers last year. What about the situation in which farmers find themselves in this year? What is the Government going to do?
What is wrong with giving the farmers an undertaking? It is not fair to leave them dangling by their fingertips over a cliff the way the Government is doing. It is not enough to say that these problems are caused by the trade war, and the subsidies which are given by the European Economic Community and the United States to their farmers. It is of no use to say that this is too bad and we are working to fix it. This has been going on for months and what has happened? Certainly it is not going to have any long-term value.
It is of short term political value for the European Economic Community and the United States, but why can the Government not convince them of that? Where is the respect the Government likes to think it has in foreign circles? It is not being listened to. Can the Government not make the case that Canadian farmers are being decimated by the policies of the United States, the Government's very good friend which it is trusting implicitly in trade negotiations, that it is playing up to with the future of the wheat farmers and the future of our oil and gas reserves in western Canada?
The Government remains silent when people like Bruce Smart, the Under-secretary of Commerce of the United States, makes ridiculous statements about meeting to negotiate away Investment Canada because it may not agree with the position of the United States? He more or less said, "If we get
rid of Canadian wheat farmers, that is less world competition for us". It is callous.
The farmers are referring to May 1 as black Friday. Why not? They have nothing to look forward to as far as the future of their loans which are in arrears are concerned. Those who have had their loans in arrears for two years are really fair game tomorrow for the Government's agency. Black Friday is less than an hour away. Do you not think that they realize that on the farm, Mr. Speaker? Do you not think that is something that is very well known to farmers?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that the controlled phase-out of the moratorium and removal of the ban will not precipitate an immediate flood of foreclosures. That is like saying that when one lets loose a plague we know it will be a while before we get it, but it is going to be just as devastating whenever we get it. How can anyone predict who is going to get it and when? Someone is going to get it immediately and that is the case with the farmers who are in arrears who will be subject to review and possible foreclosure.
I really fear for the east and the west of this country. I fear the Government is quite set in thinking that the prosperity of southern Ontario and certain pockets in Quebec is all that it wants to achieve. I do not really think it has any feeling for western Canada or even for Atlantic Canada. They certainly were great places to get seats in the last federal election but, of course, things are going to be different next time.
More important is the Government's attitude towards the people. If we abandon the people in rural communities and in our farming communities, this country is going to suffer greatly. We are going to lose a very valuable supplier of food, particularly grain, who will not be replaced. When farmers leave the farm they will not go back. It is just too expensive for them to begin again.
This is a Canadian tragedy. I really feel badly. I have a sense of hopelessness and helplessness that the Government is not heeding the warnings the farming community is giving. I can only hope that the Government will listen before it is too late.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this debate which may well become historic. I must say it has been an interesting debate for the last number of hours. We have heard concern expressed by both sides of the House. I think people realize that agricultural hardship is not a partisan issue, it hits everyone. I do not believe opposition Members can claim they have the market on hardship and knowledge of the people who are facing these problems.
I was rather taken aback by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) who has absolutely no idea of how the Western Grain Stabilization Program works in western Canada. The Government did not lower the price of grain. It set the initial price at 80 per

April 30, 1987
cent of what it thought the market was going to be by fall. The price for grain could very well go up by fall. Therefore, the Government did not lower the price of grain. It set the initial price lower. It can only do that by law. The Government cannot go higher than 80 per cent of what it was told. I think the Hon. Member should take a lesson from his colleague from the New Democratic Party who is sitting with him now. Perhaps he could straighten him out on the Western Grain Stabilization Program and how it works.
I believe I am about the forty-eighth speaker for this side of the House. We have pretty well heard the whole gamut of problems in agriculture. I think both sides agree that there are no easy answers to these problems. There are those who feel we could throw another $1 billion and the problems will all go away. It is not that simple.
We heard the Secretary of State outlining our problems on the international market. We are being beaten into the ground by subsidy wars between the United States and the EEC which is having an affect on our prices here in Canada. I think it is grossly unfair for Members of the Opposition Parties to say this Government has not done anything, and is not going to do anything.
A number of Members who have spoken tonight have indicated the type of action the Government has taken and will be taking in the future. The Government has spared no effort, and will spare no effort on behalf of the agriculture community of Canada. The farm debt review boards are working. We have heard a great deal of discussion that they are not working and not going to work on behalf of the farmers. Each farmer in Canada has the right to appear before the farm debt review board. As has been pointed out, the review boards will be able to hear the cases of about 60 farmers each month. Therefore, approximately 600 to 700 farmers will have their cases reviewed this year. The rest will have to wait until the next year.
I think it is very unfair to say that the Government, because of the moratorium coming off, is going to drive tens of thousands of farmers off their land. That simply is not true. Those people who criticize the farm debt review boards are also criticizing the people who are serving on those farm debt review boards. There are outstanding ladies and gentlemen who are taking the time to serve on those boards and they deserve all the praise we can give them. Many of them are probably out right now, at eleven o'clock on a Thursday night, working with farmers, trying to solve their problems. I think we do a great disservice to those people who are working diligently in trying to solve the farm problems for the farmers.
We have had solutions from the farm debt review boards. Some have been accepted by the farmers and the farming community. They are going the last mile to try and keep farmers on the land. It is not a matter of them going in with the attitude that they are going to get this guy and kick him off the land and Government is going to take the property.
That simply is not true. If you are going to be a member of the farm debt review board you have to show compassion towards agriculture and the farm community. That is the type of people we have on those boards. I do not think we are doing a service to those people when opposition Members get up and criticize the boards and the people who serve there when they are taking their time on behalf of Canadian agriculture.
I am sure that you realize, having listened to these hours of debate, that this is a very emotional issue. Agriculture today has serious problems. No one is denying that. One of the most disappointing things I think as far as farmers are concerned is that when they get on their tractors to plant their crops they think that things will be better by fall. They have done that in the past. Now they know that the market-place is not going to improve a great deal by the fall. When there is a U.S. corn crop in storage that is as big as a normal year's production, you cannot be optimistic. Market forces simply will not let prices rise. We have to give all the support we possibly can to the farmers this year and you can be assured that this Government will do that, as much as it possibly can. Federal Government spending on agriculture over the past two years has increased by 68 per cent.
We have heard a great deal about the western farmer and the problems they are having. Yes, the problems are very serious. Those of us from eastern Canada recognize that. However, we have farmers in Ontario who are having very serious problems. Our corn, soybean and wheat producers are facing the same kind of problems facing western grain farmers. It is not often recognized that these farmers have also received assistance from the Canadian grains program. Some $100 million came to Ontario last year through that program. Eastern grain corn, soybeans and barley were also covered under a stabilization program. Last year payments under that program totalled $55.8 million. Last year corn farmers in Ontario received 105 per cent of stabilization. That was unheard of. It has never been done before. We have gone the extra mile with people like corn farmers to make sure they have enough money to maintain viable operations.
I am sure that you, along with many other Members of this House, have had many visits from your constituents regarding farm problems. It is a gut-wrenching business. It is not a pleasant situation. Yet I have asked them how they got themselves into this problem. They said, because a few years ago things looked good. I am not going to stand in this House and blame the other Government. Everyone can make mistakes at one time or another. However, that is where the problem began. Many farmers became over-extended. They were told to expand, remodel, buy farms, because agriculture is going to be a good business. Even during the days of the PIK program in the U.S., payment in kind, when Americans were taking land out of production, what did our Government of the day do? It told farmers to plant more. Does that make any sense? That is where our problems began and we are still living with those problems today.
April 30, 1987

Some farmers today still have to live with interest rates set by the previous Government when it kept those rates at a very high level. They simply cannot maintain a viable operation on those interest rates. That is where the problem is. That is where most farmers got themselves into difficulty.
I am not going to prolong this debate! I know other Members want to give their views on the agricultural situation. This Government has been concerned. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has shown leadership. He has gone the extra mile for farmers. He will go another extra mile. We have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and a Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) who work hard day after day on this problem. They are still here tonight discussing the situation and listening to views from both sides.
This problem is not going to be solved by partisan rhetoric. It will have to be solved by everyone working together. This Government is prepared to work with anyone, at any time, in any place. The Minister of Agriculture meets daily with members of the agricultural community. We are trying to solve the problems but it is not going to be easy and the last thing we need is people in this House giving us partisan rhetoric without any solutions.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the crisis in the Canadian grain industry from the point of view of one representing an urban constituency in central Ontario. Very often the interests of producers and those of consumers have more in common than is generally considered to be the case. Furthermore, as a Member of the Canadian Parliament, each one of us has a constituency much broader than the electoral district in which we are elected. When a Canadian citizen anywhere is hurting, that is a concern to me. Our lives are linked economically and socially. As Members of Parliament we have a duty to legislate in the best interests of all Canadians, as far as we can.
As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I have been involved in hearings for the last few days on the Auditor General's report concerning Agriculture Canada. The last report certainly stressed the importance of the agri-food sector. That sector as defined by Agriculture Canada includes not only agricultural equipment and supplies, farming, processing, wholesaling, retailing, restaurants and institutional food service activities, but also important associated industries such as transportation, finance, packaging and construction. It employs about 1.5 million people, 15 per cent of total employment in Canada. It contributes about one-sixth of our Gross National Product.
Consumers in Canada spend $40 billion annually on food. That expenditure represents some 16 per cent of their disposable income. Agricultural exports exceed $10 billion annually compared with imports of about $5 billion. Agriculture makes a major contribution to Canada's balance of payments and relies heavily for as much as half of total farm cash receipts on export markets.
Food processing is the largest processing sector in Canada with sales exceeding $40 billion and a workforce of 250,000. The food service sector employs around 360,000 people, while food retailers employ about 220,000. Decisions taken about agriculture impact on the lives of many, many Canadians over and above those living on the farms.
While the motion which brought on this emergency debate was called with respect to Canadian grain farmers, there are Ontario farmers, Newfoundland farmers, indeed farmers all across the country, who are also facing foreclosure. There have been changes in the farm sector in recent years which have presented serious challenges to farmers. On the whole, farms have become more capital intensive, more reliant on borrowed capital and therefore more exposed to the risk of adverse market forces.
Farmers have also become more reliant on the non-farm sector for fuel, fertilizers, chemicals and other production inputs. Fluctuations in international prices, as well as in interest and foreign exchange rates, subject farmers to further financial stress.
A recent survey indicates that 23 per cent of Canadian farms with $20,000 in farm sales faced severe financial stress in 1984, while a further 11 per cent faced moderate stress.
As the Auditor General pointed out in his report last October:
Current market prospects suggest little or no growth in net farm income-in some commodity sectors there could well be a decline. As a result, a continued decline is expected in farmers' net worth in the immediate future requiring that very difficult adjustments be made.
That prophesy was certainly borne out. Last week we saw the price of grain drop a further 18 per cent, which followed a drop in price last year.
The Auditor General went on to say:
Another important challenge facing the sector is the degradation of Canada's agricultural land which, as announced in a speech by the Minister of Agriculture, will cost about $1 billion annually. Most of this cost directly affects farmers in the form of increased chemical costs, lower yields and reduced international competitiveness.
He goes on:
Domestically, the agri-food sector's two most critical and widespread problems are the farming community's financial difficulties and the sustainability of the land resource base. This stress is compounded by changing world markets. Internationally, the markets on which Canada is becoming increasingly dependent are at risk, with competition increasing and prices falling.
Those are some of the issues that were pointed out in the Auditor General's report last October.
Since then we have seen further deterioration in the international situation. The trade war between the United States and the European Common Market produced an artificial surplus and lower prices of agricultural products. There are the U.S. Farm Bill and the U.S. Export Enhancement Program which give export subsidies to American wheat and create more competition for Canadian Wheat Board sales.

April 30, 1987
As the United States attempts to protect itself from perceived European Common Market competition, there are times when Canada becomes caught in the crossfire. There are other times when our American friends shoot directly at our house. We do not see any great effort on the part of the Government to protect Canadian industries. The Government seems to be paralyzed as it waits for its trade agreement and fails to stand up for the interests of Canadian citizens.
There are serious problems facing our farming community and it is difficult to be clear about what the Government proposes. The Conservatives made a number of election promises in 1984. They have promised agri-bonds but we have not seen them. They promised to expand the agricultural sector research and development but the 1985 Estimates show $263 million allotted to agricultural research while the 1987 Estimates show a drop to $221 million.
At the GATT meeting in Uruguay last fall there was an agreement as a result of which, last February, the GATT organizers asked participating countries to develop some proposals concerning agriculture. Canada has not responded. Did the Government take any action at all?
A moratorium was imposed on foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation 19 months ago. There have been 19 months of inaction, with no attempt in that time to assist farmers to restructure their debts. It seems as though the Government sat for 19 months and hoped that the problem would disappear. Now, the moratorium will be lifted on May 1, in just one-half hour in most of Canada and in a few minutes in Newfoundland.
An article in The Ottawa Citizen on April 28 carries the headline: "Black Friday Looms For Farming Families". The article states that as many as 2,200 farmers are facing eviction. We are told that the Farm Credit Corporation can only process 500 to 600 actions in a year. What kind of cruel lottery will this be? Who decides which families will be foreclosed first?
We are told that if the corporation decides to go ahead with a foreclosure, the farm debt review board in that province will be notified and there can be a hearing. The farm debt review boards which were established last August have not exactly had rave reviews. In fact, most farmers consider them useless.
Comments being made by farmers now emphasize how cruelly betrayed they feel by a Government that has done nothing for 19 months and does not seem to have any intention of doing anything. One farmer said, "Normally farmers feel a sense of optimism at this time of year, spring. But this tears the heart out of thousands of farmers". The President of the Manitoba-based Keystone Agricultural Producers pointed out:
At this time of year, many farmers are trying to borrow money to purchase
fuel, seed, fertilizer and chemicals for the coming crop season.
A farmer needs a lot more cash at this time of year than at any other time of
year.
He pointed out that the termination of the Farm Credit moratorium will make it more difficult for farmers to get loans from banks and other lenders.
Grain farmers are generally considered to be suffering more than other farmers, but let us make no mistake that farmers generally in our country are in very difficult times. Lifting the moratorium with no plan, and just one week after the announcement that grain prices were dropping again by 18 per cent, seems both cruel and lamentably incompetent. The recommendations on what needs to be done are very clear. Surely the moratorium needs to be continued while, on an urgent basis, some method is found of restructuring debt and allowing farmers to continue. Surely even to this Government it must be obvious that it is in nobody's interest to have farmers forced off the land.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at this late hour, although the subject is not a happy one. It is almost midnight, and parliamentarians continue to show their concern for the unhappy lot of our Canadian farmers. Mr. Speaker, this debate should not only make us reflect on the situation of our grain producers. I believe that anyone who is at ail concerned about the future of our country should start asking some basic questions about the kind of country we want to build, the kind of life we want Canadians to have, and look back to the history of this country and consider the important role agriculture has always played in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the situation facing farmers in this country and consider that thousands of Canadian families will go to bed tonight, wondering whether tomorrow will bring them a notice of foreclosure in the mail. Will the bailiff be at the door to take away their land? Will they still be able to send their children to the same school or will they have to move? If they do not want anyone to know what they went through, they will have to move way out, perhaps as far as the city.
Mr. Speaker, that is more or less what the situation is like, on top of all the technical considerations. It is a matter of survival, of pride and dignity for many families in Canada, and during the last 30 or 35 hours, the House of Commons has considered the situation of these people who, granted, are now a minority in Canada but a minority on whom all Canadians depend. I am therefore very disappointed to see the Government has failed to provide an appropriate response to the legitimate concerns of farmers across this country and their elected representatives.
Mr. Speaker, in a society as rich as ours, one starts to wonder about the priorities of this Government. During the past two years, we have seen a Government hoping that the problem would simply go away. There are people who owe money to the Farm Credit Corporation and who had gained some relief as a result of the moratorium on foreclosures. They thought that since the situation was not going to improve, they could at least try to refurbish their operations and try to survive, without the nagging fear that the Government would come and take their land away at the very last minute.
April 30, 1987

The decision made this week will have an impact on people who owe money to the Farm Credit Corporation, but in making this decision the Government is also sounding an alarm signal for all Canada's lending institutions. If the Government no longer has confidence in Canadian agriculture, bank managers across this country are going to be in a panic. Imagine all the calls from credit union managers wanting to withdraw lines of credit.
Mr. Speaker, this decision is like a symbol. It points to a complete lack of confidence in Canada's agriculture industry. And I know my colleagues will get calls from their constituents about the credit manager calling in the middle of the night or coming to their farms in a terrible panic, because it looks like Ottawa does not have much faith in the industry anymore. Mr. Speaker, we know this is going to happen and that it will have a domino effect.
I fail to understand why the Government, which had already announced a few days before that grain producers could expect an 18 per cent cut in prices, then chose to add insult to injury by announcing it would no longer guarantee loans that were in arrears. This is creating a terrible climate in the whole agricultural sector. Anyone who thinks only one region in this country will be affected is in for a big surprise, because the truth of the matter is that farmers across this country will be affected by this decision, and farms will be up for sale all over. There will be plenty of auction sale notices in La terre de chez nous. It will also have an impact, obviously, on the value of farm property. When you get a series of sales by the Farm Credit Corporation, automatically the adjoining land, and so forth . .. this is going to have a devastating effect on the value of farm land as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I feel embarrassed for Government Members who, after making their commitments as legitimate, elected representatives, especially those with western ridings, did not have the mental fortitude to object to the Cabinet's decisions. When Cabinet decided to lift the moratorium on foreclosures, there was not a single Conservative Member who had the courage to say it did not make sense that the timing was very poor.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) who was talking about the Constitution must be a little confused. We are talking about agriculture here tonight. It is a fact that in his riding as well as everywhere else, his Government's decision will have a disastrous impact on our farm economy as a whole. Instead of cracking corny jokes, I think he should show a little concern for what is happening to the farmers in his riding.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is some kind of woodpecker on the other side, if only you could keep him quiet-


Marc Ferland: They were starving when you were in office.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you heard the term used by the Hon. Member as well as I did. I realize this debate is all about agriculture, but still he ought to refrain from referring to wildlife animals and be more relevant. My colleague from Portneuf is certainly not a woodpecker, but I think the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) did refer to my colleague from Portneuf as being a woodpecker. Mr. Speaker, I suggest he ought to talk only about agriculture. We are listening carefully. I think he should stick to the topic of debate and watch his language, particularly at this hour when thousands and thousands of viewers are listening to him, as he said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Given his experience in this House, I am sure the Hon. Member for Shefford uses nothing but parliamentary language.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that "woodpecker" is not among the unacceptable words.
All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that some people are thinskinned. I can appreciate that. If I were the Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) or the Member for Portneuf I too would be touchy because I would feel guilty this evening. If I were in their shoes I would feel guilty about dropping a major sector of our economy like a hot potato. They are guilty of letting the Minister responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation behave like a heartless man. He does not lift a finger to prevent the seizure of farm lands where people have been living in dignity, yet in a few short months they will end up by the roadside. They know that, I trust they feel guilty, and I hope they will rise in a few minutes to apologize to their electors. The one thing I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that if we consider the measures which should be taken, the economic signals which ought to be sent to the whole farming community, it is definitely not by taking this kind of action that farmers will regain confidence, that we will ensure agricultural stability and proper land development-
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about agricultural stability, yet they are about to foreclose. Some stability! Not bad, Mr. Speaker, they want to foreclose. This will prove to be a bonanza for Conservative lawyers, but what a sickening performance for the poor stiff who is only trying to earn an honest living.
Mr. Speaker, I would feel quite ashamed listening to these comments because this is hardly the time to make jokes in the course of a debate which is so important to people who will have no idea which way to turn in the coming weeks and months. Besides, everything is left in limbo, including the very nature of Canada's development because this is just another way of conveying the signal that the Government has lost faith in the agricultural community. That is the message you are sending out.

April 30, 1987
What you are doing now is making sure that farmers will realize the Government has dropped them, so we will end up in a situation where it will be ever more difficult to find people willing to put all their energy and give the best of themselves to develop Canada's agriculture. We are all aware of the exodus towards urban areas in recent years, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot afford the luxury of endangering our independence and self-sufficiency with respect to food production.
This is just one more very alarming aspect of the kind of signal being sent out, the lack of respect for the agricultural profession. The signal means that we are prepared to compromise the very future of the Canadian agricultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand, and neither could any reasonable Canadian, how the Government can announce an 18 per cent decrease in prices when we know that the price of wheat has gone down by over 50 per cent in the last four or five years.
Mr. Speaker, how many Canadian would calmly accept a 50 per cent decrease in their income? Yet, this is what has happened to farmers in Western Canada. I have visited western Canada many times myself, more often than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), following the example of my leader. We, Liberals, want to be sensitive to the needs of western Canada. We want to make sure that we understand their problems. We want to make sure that their needs are expressed in the House of Commons, and this is why we have taken such an active part in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the guided tour which the Prime Minister will take during the next few days will incite him to reconsider the decision made by his government. I trust that his welcome throughout western Canada will make him understand the concerns and especially the feeling of frustration of western farmers. 1 find it unfortunate that we can not continue this debate for another three or four days until next week, at which time the Prime Minister could come back and report on his visit, if he's not too battered by then, because I believe that the situation is dramatic, as evidenced by the fact that this Parliament has spent 30 or 40 hours on this matter. The motion of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is very much to the point-


An Hon. Member:: It is not our motion.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -and I believe that any economic observer can certainly appreciate it.
The other element, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Is it a Liberal motion?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not even able to read his Hansard; he should try to learn. Oh! It is the Hon. Member from Portneuf or somewhere in that region. He has not realized that there are farmers among his constituents. If they saw him now, they would be pretty discouraged.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government is the least compassionate, it will realize that the decision to foreclose on farming operations is completely stupid at a time when the farmers will see their income decrease by 18 per cent. However, today before us, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) told these same people that their transport costs would increase by 5 per
cent or 7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the farmers will have to figure it out this evening and ask themselves how they will be able to begin seeding in coming weeks. Whatever the Government might say, their income will go down by 18 per cent, transport costs will increase by 5 per cent, and the threat of foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation is hanging over their heads. They are faced with an impossible situation.
The other aspect on which we should reflect is that the ones in difficulty today are the grain growers. However, what is going to happen tomorrow? As we have international prices for many products, as competition is fierce and as many countries subsidize their farming industry heavily, tomorrow it could be the Quebec pork producers who find themselves in difficulty, or else it could be our dairy producers, because with higher wheat prices, and so on, no one knows what will happen to Quebec farmers. Our colleagues who are now smiling at the problems of western producers should realize that Quebec producers might be the ones who will need the support of this House and this Government tomorrow. This is the essence of this country and this is why we sit in this Parliament. We have to ensure that the interests of the various regions are expressed in this House and we Liberals believe that there is now a serious inequity in Canada. We are convinced that the Government adds to this inequity by taking unreasonable action and we hope that it will finally come to its senses, because otherwise the situation will worsen and an increasing number farmers will leave the farm, which might threaten our independence and self-sufficiency. I therefore trust, Mr. Speaker, that my small contribution to this debate will raise the awareness of some of our colleagues and that, instead of laughing, they will rise in their caucus and say that such a situation is unacceptable and that our farmers deserve better. They should be able to rise and tell the minister responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation that he has lost his senses. They should be able to tell the Prime Minister: Go to western Canada and listen to the farmers; then propose new solutions because, if this goes on, it is obvious that an entire and very important sector of our economy will slowly disappear.
I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who have spoken on this matter have been able to make Government Members more aware of the daily tragedy we are witnessing in western Canada. We are asking one thing, that they at least go back on the decision these last few days as it will only make matters worse, not better.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise in this debate, or should I say this marathon. I would like to refer to the 1984 election. I listened very closely to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). To my knowledge, the Hon. Member, during the 1984 election, was with his colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and his former colleague for Saint-Maurice, who were travelling across Quebec saying all kinds of things, making all kinds of promises, except on agriculture.
April 30, 1987


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am certain, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) is making an error and I would like to tell him that I have in my constituency a large farm component and they elected me en masse. This certainly means I made commitments to them and I need not remind him of the commitments we made during the last election. What they should do, however, is remember their own commitments and implement them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the Lion. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has been running too much around the city, because if he had a look at what we are doing for agriculture, he would realize that our 16 points have been 80 per cent implemented. I think the Hon. Member for Shefford-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we should proceed with the debate. The Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) has the floor.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is in this House, you know very well he tries to give a show.
I was going to tell him this, and remind him of something the Hon. Jean Chretien said against farmers during the election campaign, and 1 would suggest Jean Chretien at that point was speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. That sentence hit the farming community very hard in Quebec and Canada as a whole, and I quote: "Farmers, farm producers are damned cry-babies. The more they get, the more they want." So that has been the philosophy of the Liberal Party over these last 20 years, before 1984. That is what the Liberal Party thought of our farm people, the most important in my view of small and medium businessmen in Canada. This is how those people were treated.
Today, the Hon. Member for Shefford rises and says he does not feel guilty of the errors made by his Government. We have been in office for two and a half years, Mr. Speaker. We have been trying for those two and a half years to correct the errors made over 20 years. I suggest that for two and a half years, or during the election campaign as my colleague stated earlier, we made 16, not election promises but 16 commitments to our farming industry, and those 16 commitments we have honoured.
He said earlier he was travelling across Alberta, in western Canada. 1 understand that for the Hon. Member for Shefford. We have not seen him in this House for a year, Mr. Speaker, he is travelling to prepare the next election campaign. You see the point?


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) is either blind or is not here himself. Besides, he does not know our Standing Orders, because while dealing with an issue, a Member of the House should never mention the presence or absence of any of his or her colleagues. On the other hand, I can tell him that we are prepared to compare his record any time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamouraska- Riviere-du-Loup has the floor.


André Plourde: In turn, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Hon. Member for Shefford that when dealing with an issue, he should tell the whole truth, and not only part of it. I heard him say a while ago that there had been an increase in the grain transportation cost. He was not quite sure whether it was 5 per cent or 7 per cent, but he should have read his document to know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has announced today a $64 million subsidy, which amounts to $2 a tonne. And that, my friend from Shefford should know, is less than the transportation costs which western wheat producers had to pay before 1984.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like just the same to mention that-I am ready for the Hon. Member for Shefford come election time-that in my Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup riding, there are 52 municipalities, including 49 rural ones with 898 farm producers altogether. I visit my riding regularly and I know these people. During that election campaign, we met a number of UPA organizations. You know that UPA stands for I'Union des producteurs agricoles. I know two such organizations in my own riding, namely the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Cote-Sud and the Union des producteurs agricoles du Bas-Saint-Laurent. You know what happens during an election campaign. These people invite political candidates to answer the following question: Suppose your political Party gets elected, what would be your commitments as a Government? Well, our Progressive Conservative Party had made 16 promises which we have fulfilled, and later on 1 will provide the House with concrete examples.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we went to the general assemblies of these UPA producers and what did they tell us? In my Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup riding, there are for instance hog, dairy, cattle, grain and potato producers. All these people who had had open and honest discussions with the then candidate of the Progressive Conservative Party who are now their elected representatives are satisfied with the farm policies which this Progressive Conservative Government has implemented to help them earn a decent living, which is quite different from being treated as second-class citizens by former Liberal administrations before 1984.

April 30, 1987
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House of some of the commitments of our Party. For instance, let us take the case of the special Canada grain program. Under this program, our Government will share equitably among the 10 provinces, not only western Canada, a billion dollars to increase the cash flow of grain producers. Without this program, the net farm income which would have decreased by 17.9 per cent in 1987 will increase by 1.8 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) will continue their discussions with the various farm organization leaders to get their input as to the best way the Government could meet the future needs of Canadian farmers.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Page, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, and the provincial UPA have congratulated our Ministers not only in personal letters, but also in newspaper articles and radio and television reports. What was the response first of the Liberal Opposition, then of the NDP? What did they do? They criticized this decision which had been universally accepted. I understand that it is the Opposition's role to criticize. However, what we have on the other side is a systematic attempt to destroy everything good we do. Yet, in their 20 years in power, the agricultural community was totally ignored throughout the country.
Let me quote another passage, Mr. Speaker. "Advance payments for crops. Amendments to the Advance Payments for Crops Act have made it possible to double the maximum level of advanced payments". In Quebec, in 1984, when the Liberals were still in power, what did they do when Canada was faced with the problems of drought, a condition which also affected Quebec? The Liberal Party did not solve anything. It was the Conservative Party, when we were elected, which provided former Minister Garon with some $20 million. You remember, he was the Minister who kept the cheque in his pocket for a week and a half. That is what the Conservative Party did.
Mr. Speaker, mortgages based on the prices of primary agricultural products are to bear interest at a prime rate of 6 per cent. Changes in the capital of the mortgage will be determined under a formula which takes into account the prices of primary agricultural products. Who set up the farm debt review boards? The Conservative Party. Legislation has been passed to set up farm debt review boards composed of people with knowledge and experience in farming and financial matters. They provide the agricultural community with an independent consultative third party review mechanism, and they assist in setting up voluntary arrangements between farmers and their creditors, in order to help ensure the survival of the farm business.
These boards have been welcomed in the agricultural community and constructive arrangements have been made in most cases, thus enabling farmers to remain in the business.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the Canadian Rural Transition Program. It was set up to help families who have to leave farming because of financial difficulties. As you know, those people did not receive any unemployment insurance benefits. If they went bankrupt, they only had welfare to turn to. The Conservative Government has now set up this Canadian Rural Transition Program to help farmers make the transition to a new career.
What about interest rates? Since we came in power, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has taken active steps to reduce interest rates, and not only in the agricultural sector. The drop in interest rates means that farmers have been able to save millions of dollars in interest payments through an interest rate which has dropped to a 13-year record low. The rate on guaranteed loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is the prime rate plus one percentage point, has been reduced from 16.75 per cent on election day to 11.25 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I think this is no small effort on the part of the Government, an effort that we can mention with pride especially if we bear in mind that the rate of the Farm Credit Corporation has also reached a record low since 1979. As far as I know, in 1979, the Liberals were in power. The FCC's interest rate has been lowered five times since we were elected, Mr. Speaker. Short-and long-term rates have dropped substantially, which translates into millions of dollars of savings for farmers; five-year mortgage rates have dropped from 3.75 to 10 per cent, which means that we now enjoy the lowest rates since 1979.
I could talk, Mr. Speaker, about the shared-risk mortgage plan or about the capital gains exemption. Yes, 1 will talk about the latter. We used to meet in our ridings farmers who had problems, and they would tell us: "What am I going to do with my farm? I cannot possibly sell it, I would pay too much taxes?" The Conservative Government solved that problem by granting farmers, in the 1985 Budget, a $500,000 capital gains exemption, effective immediately. It was a very efficient way of eliminating taxes on the sale of agricultural properties, most of which are sold with some capital gain.
Mr. Speaker, I will not go into international trade in farm commodities as this was brilliantly dealt with, this evening, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). However, I will talk about the fuel tax rebate. This is another initiative from the Conservatives. It is rumored that farmers will continue to benefit from that fuel tax rebate as it applies to all fuels for off-highway use.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is fast running out, but I would like to come back to something which is very dear to me and was mentioned briefly by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) a moment ago; it is the long-term dairy policy. I recall very well that during the 1984 electoral campaign, we were challenged by UPA members and dairy farmers who were asking us whether, if the Conservatives were elected, we would sign a long-term agreement regarding the dairy policy? It had expired in 1981 and the Liberals had been promising
April 30, 1987

from year to year to renew it, but they never did. The Conservative Party, with the agreement of the Agriculture Minister, helped us. We signed that dairy policy and it had been said that the Government's $1.5 billion commitment to the five-year program will garantee the dairy industry a stability that had been lacking since 1981. Mr. Speaker, you know that means $750 million over five years for the dairy producers of Quebec who are said to control about 49 per cent of the milk production, let us say 50 per cent. We have also heard that the policy is based on the extension of the supply management system and on changes aimed at profitting the producers and the consumers. The list of controlled import products will be revised to include bulk powder mixes. Milk producers meeting the national needs will remain eligible for the federal subsidy of $6.03 an hectolitre.
Mr. Speaker, I could also tell you about the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. 1 think my time has expired.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I just want to tell people in my riding of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup and to all farmers of the country that the Conservative Party is listening to them. You can rest assured we will be there to support them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I stand to participate in this debate that was commenced by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I want to thank him for giving us the opportunity to participate in a debate on what I think is one of the saddest and possibly most serious situations we have had in a long time.
Members will know that we are now into Friday, May 1, which many have called Black Friday for some farmers. It is black because, as of today, the moratorium that has existed for 18 months will be lifted. According to the statement by the Minister in the House the other day, there could possibly be some 6,000 farmers who will feel the economic consequences of this decision. Up to 50 a month, or 600 a year, are sure to be affected by the lifting of the moratorium on the foreclosures of FCC mortgages. I find that very difficult to accept.
I want to thank our critic for the Liberal Party, the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who helped to organize our side for the debate and assist our Members in participating in what I believe has been a very interesting debate. I have learned much from this debate, most of which I have attended.
Some may ask what an urban Member of Parliament from downtown Ottawa would know about farming.
[ Translation]
I am sure that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has learned something, as I did, because he too has been here almost all the time and even though we are both from the city, we have been able to follow the debate. We feel we have taken part in a general education process but also
in a very urgent debate on the difficult situation facing farmers in Canada.
All Members are aware of the serious problems of farmers, particularly grain growers. We know that for the past two weeks, given the announcement of the 18 per cent decrease in prices and the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures, western farmers particularly, since grain growing is very important in the west, are worried and upset and rightly so; they are certainly very upset because of that decision and they fear the impact it might have on their families, on their farms which in many cases, as we all know, have been inherited through generations and have been part of the family heritage for many years. It is a sad situation because we know that when we see a "For sale" sign, Mr. Speaker, it sometimes means more than that. It means perhaps that a sad story is unfolding because the farmer has not met his operational costs, his cash receipts are too small and he is forced to sell his farm and sometimes to go bankrupt.
For almost 33 hours, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in this House and myself have been discussing two major topics; the 18 per cent decrease in grain prices and the Government decision to lift the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loans, which will lead to the foreclosure of some farms.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am no expert in agriculture, but I worked on farms probably as much, if not more, as many Members in this House when I was a boy. The tradition was to send us to work on a farm, and like a number of youths during the 1940s and 1950s I went haying, stooking the grain-


Marc Ferland: That's a long time ago.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, that's a long time ago, but I think the expression is still in use today, the difference of course being that in those days it was done by hand. It is true that I was still wearing short pants, but I had strong arms and our labour was cheap since we ate mostly eggs, for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The only decision we had to make was whether we wanted our eggs boiled, fried or scrambled. That was the way of life of poor people in those days and we accepted it-


Marc Ferland: You were probably in good shape.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I certainly was. I was in good physical condition. I probably pitched as much manure, and milked as many cows as any one in this room, since I did that for at least 10 summers.
So I think I am one of those who can say: "I worked at it." I may not be an expert, but I worked at it and I know, Mr. Speaker, that is is hard work. I know the work can take a lot of time and can also be exhausting and that is why I am most saddened today, on this Friday, May 1, to take part in a debate which will cause dismay for some farmers, some farm families who, in 1987-88, will most likely be among the 600 who will be forced out of business through foreclosure by the Farm Credit Corporation.

April 30, 1987
Mr. Speaker, I would like to review what I have heard during this debate. I assure you it will not take too long. I will simply summarize if possible some points that have been made, because I have heard some good ones. I heard positive comments and other things which I think are instructive for us.
For instance, I heard the Prime Minister say yesterday morning: "We will answer every call from the west."
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was saying yesterday morning that he would answer every call from the west. The Prime Minister is going out West next week. I understand that he will be travelling to Red Deer, Lethbridge, North Batt-leford, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Winnipeg between Wednesday and Friday. Since he has invited Members and farmers to call him, perhaps his phone number would be helpful. It is area code 613-992-4211. If you live in Red Deer, North Battleford, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, please go out and tell him about your problem or call him, and I repeat the phone number, which is 613-992-4211.

He asked for it.
So, any problem should be looked after.
I have also heard the Agriculture Minister tell us in this House not to get excited, not to worry, that the matter is under consideration, that the Government will show sensitivity about possible foreclosures of farms of which there would be no more than 50 a month.

I want to repeat some of the main points made during the debate. The prices announced by the Canadian Wheat Board reflect the fifth straight decline, dropping 18 per cent from the 1986-87 prices. No. 1 wheat in 1984-85 was $170 a tonne; in 1986-87 it was $137 a tonne; and in 1987-88 it is $110 a tonne. No. 1 barley in 1984-85 was $125 a tonne; in 1986-87 it was $80 a tonne; and in 1987-88 it is $60 a tonne. These are the same figures given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) this afternoon. He was giving us his views. I appreciated the sincerity of them and I appreciate why international negotiations at this time were rather difficult because of the unfair competition given Canada by the United States and the European Economic Community in the trade war. These countries, we were told, protect their farmers with subsidies. We do not. Canada has kept its market share, but has done so on the backs of farmers who get much lower returns. U.S. farmers receive about $6 per bushel for wheat as opposed to $3 per bushel in Canada. Farm expenses continue to rise. For example, fertilizer costs, chemicals, machinery and fuel. Even the Tory House Leader, I see him rise, will want to contribute to this debate. Yes, he is in good spirits. Prices are lowest in real terms since the Depression, Mr. Speaker. I am just repeating some of the things that I have heard. The Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined them this
afternoon and I thought he made a very interesting and good speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I appreciated some of the things he said. I learned certain things that he brought to our attention.
In my view, there is no provision in the Budget right now for funds for a deficiency payment. The $1 billion allowed last year was only announced in desperation during the Saskatchewan election campaign. We heard repeatedly over the last 33 hours that farmers need to know now what their returns will be so that they will know what to seed, how much to seed, and so on. Many farmers are having trouble getting operating loans from the banks and cannot afford to seed. I could go on and read editorials, articles and press clippings in which it is quite evident that this situation is critical for many farmers. It is indeed a very serious situation.
The only guaranteed assistance the farmers have is the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, brought in by the Liberals, I remind the House, and fought-I repeat, fought-all the way by those Tories who are responsible for some of the difficulties these farmers are in. They opposed it systematically but now brag about it to all who will listen.
I want to read some of the correspondence which was received by the Government as of April 28, 1987. I have a letter signed by Mr. Garf Stevenson, President of the Saskatchewan Pool. Mr. Stevenson states in part:
The Pool asks that all Members of Parliament recognize the very critical economic situation confronting western Canadian families and communities. This crisis has far reaching social and economic implications for the national economy as well as for the west.
We specifically recommend:
1.	That programs be immediately developed through federal and provincial co-operation to keep families on their farms in productive capacities.
2.	That early consideration be given to the acute need for a substantial deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year.
3.	That government continue its efforts to restore sanity in the international grain market.
These three points are indeed essentially what we have been addressing in this debate of some 33 hours. I want to address the question of the $64 million announcement made today by the Government. We have not received the press release as yet. I understand it is in the mail. However, from what we have been told in the House and what I have heard on television, there will be a payment of $64 million given to the transporters, the railroads, under the Western Grain Transportation Act. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), in a speech on March 18, 1987, at page 4309, said:
-it would be most helpful if the Government would make a commitment to freeze the grain freight rates, the part the farmer pays himself. Last year the Minister of Transport ordered the Grain Transportation Agency to roll back its estimate of some 31.5 million tonnes to something in the 27 million to 29 million tonnes range. In fact, it did roll it back to 28.5 million tonnes which resulted in an effective freezing of the freight rates.
April 30, 1987

We know that the freight rates rise under the Western Grain Transportation Act as railway costs rise, depending upon volume shipped. The Tories last year kept the rate from rising by forcing the Grain Transportation Agency to bring forward an artificial and unrealistic low estimate of grain to be shipped. Therefore, there would have been a huge 39 per cent to 40 per cent increase in shipping costs this crop year. The Government brought forward a $2 per tonne subsidy today on grain shipped which will hold the increase to 5 per cent. However, that 5 per cent will still have to be paid by the producer, the farmer, to the transporter, the railroad.
Freight rates as a percentage of grain prices continue to increase dramatically. Holding cost increase to 5 per cent, while decreasing price by 18 per cent is no great gift. I submit that this Government has not done anything today but play a game of smoke and mirrors, and the $64 million subsidy will not in any way affect, and I say that sincerely, this year's production and help the farmers.
I want to end my remarks on what I hope is a note of some optimism. I see three Ministers here tonight. In fact, I see a lot of Members who should be Ministers but they cannot all be Ministers. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister who is in the House to look again at this question of the moratorium on the Farm Credit Corporation. I ask him to be serious and do something. All of us have acknowledged there should be a prolongation of the moratorium. For God's sake, let us be reasonable. Have some heart and understanding and give the farmers what they want, and that is a prolongation of the moratorium.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege this morning to follow the Hon. Whip of the Liberal Party. I am delighted to understand from what he has told us that he has learned so much from this debate. His Party tonight has done an extremely fine job of catching up. It is trying to catch up with the other Party, that is, the New Democratic Party, and I notice from the record that each Party has had 27 speakers, so he did catch up. I would also like to mention, while I am at it, that we are now on our forty-sixth speaker, 11 of whom were Ministers.
The Hon. Whip for the Liberal Party also mentioned throughout his speech his ability to shovel manure and the importance of fertilizer to the farm industry. I would say that he may be one of the best people in this House in that area. I would like to commend him on his experience and the benefit it has been to him now that he is here in the House of Commons. I too shared that experience in my youth and in most of my life. I still live on a farm. However, I do not think I will catch up with the Hon. Whip of the Liberal Party.
I listened with interest to this debate over the last few days. It was reminiscent of the time when, sitting in this House, I went to the then critic for transportation who was carrying on a very strong and important debate on the Crowsnest rate. I said to the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski):
"What is this all about?". He took me by the arm and said, "We are just about to have a meeting". The week-end before I had told my wife that I did not know what this Crowsnest rate was all about. By the time the Hon. Member for Vegreville had finished with me, I knew much more about the Crowsnest rate than I had ever intended to know, and it was a great experience for me. It gave me a real feeling of the importance of that debate in Canada's history.
It was the present Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues from western Canada who led this debate. I heard that because of the Western Grain Transportation Act which was brought in, we have been able to keep this rate down to $6. I recall saying how bad this increase was going to be for the farmers of western Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They did not care.


Thomas Scott Fennell: They did not listen to us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Foster was there. He did not care then and he does not care now.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I knew then how important it was. I had an opportunity to explain to this House the importance to my constituency which borders on Oshawa. I say a great deal more about my industry in Oshawa than the Hon. Member who represents Oshawa and happens to be my neighbour. It was a very important discussion because we were afraid that if this rate got out of hand it could have a serious effect on industry in Ontario which supplied goods and services to the West.
1 also remember other debates on the National Energy Program. I remember how one factory in Scarborough had to close down. It made nothing but half-ton trucks and it closed down for a year because of the NEP which imposed inequitable penalties on the West. I know it affected all of Ontario. It affected Kingston, the steel industry in Hamilton, and Algoma Steel in the Hon. Member's riding. It affected all of eastern Ontario.
I have heard the Opposition talk about what we have not done. I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tonight set forth in great detail all of the benefits we have brought to this country through-


Maurice Brydon Foster: How come everyone is going broke?


Thomas Scott Fennell: 1 will tell him the reason everyone is going broke. The Minister explained it and the Hon. Member should have been listening. When interest rates were 22 per cent the farmers were going belly-up by the dozen every day. 1 knew those people. Do not talk to me about farmers getting into trouble. My friends in my community were affected. Your damned interest rates got out of control. You had no control, no voice in your Government to bring them down. 1 hate to hear the Liberals telling me what they did for the farmers when they did not do a damn thing.

April 30, 1987
This Party represents all of Canada. It represents the farm community. We have put up 46 speakers and very few were from the City of Toronto or the City of Montreal. Many were from rural areas.


Maurice Brydon Foster: What about Whitby?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I come from a rural area so do not talk to me about Whitby. It is part of my constituency. I live in a rural area.
Talking about Whitby, I want to tell the Hon. Member what the Liberals did to the farmers in my riding. I want to tell him what they did to 18,000 acres of prime agricultural land in my riding. They drove farmers off that land because they decided they were going to build an airport in 1971.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Not only that, they went to Quebec and destroyed 98,000 of the most arable acres in the Province of Quebec. It was about 1 per cent of the total arable land. Yet it was our Party that took 80,000 of those acres and returned them to farming. It is our Party that will return most of the acreage involved in my riding. Do not tell me about my riding and what the Liberals did for farmers. You hurt the service industry, you hurt the co-ops, you hurt everyone. We will get the land back to its original owners.
We have a major problem in the industry because of the critical problem internationally. Today many farmers cannot afford to pay the rent for their land. It is not worth their while to seed that land. I even approached the manager of the airport property and said that possibly he should give it to farmers just to keep the weeds under control. He said that unfortunately, because of over-supply, farmers do not want to invest the money in planting. That is a tragic situation.
What happened? France is a prime example of what happened. TThey have done extremely well and produce abundant amounts of cereal grains. Right after World War II they were a net importer but now they are an exporter. Many other countries we have assisted to become self-sufficient are now net exporters of grain. We have to deal with that. We cannot afford to pay our farmers a subsidy of $320 a tonne. We are not rich enough. It is only those countries with a much larger tax base who can afford it. We have to make do with less. We are a very large country with a very small population.
Farmers have also been faced with a change in eating habits. Not as much grain is consumed today as there was 10 years ago. This is a serious problem and our Government is trying to deal with it and at the same time give some dignity back to the agricultural industry.
The announcement today that we have reduced the freight rate increase to 5 per cent was very important. Under the method set up by the Liberal Party that increase would have been about $11 this year as opposed to the $6 announced today. I was talking to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) before I came in here tonight. After I read a number of pages
of what we had done for agriculture I turned to him and asked, what else are you going to do for the farmer? I sort of smiled and looked at him and said I have never seen such a complete list of assistance for the agricultural community in the eight years I have been here.
I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative. I am proud to be working with this Government. I am proud to work directly with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of this country who, I have said many times, will go down in history as the greatest Prime Minister this country ever had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud particularly to be able to speak about western Canada with the same feeling that I speak about my own area. They have suffered. Go back to the dirty thirties, the dirty seventies and the early eighties. They have suffered. I do not know how much more we can do but we must rationalize on an equitable basis.
The Opposition has talked about our removing the moratorium on FCC loans. In 1982 and 1983 we pleaded with them to do something to save these farmers. We put a moratorium on foreclosures and we put a review board in place. Not only that, we provided advance payments for crops. We provided crop and livestock drug assistance. We made a record interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We have done more for the exports of this country than has been done in 20 years of Liberal Governments before us. We increased our sales to Russia, and have sold grain to Egypt and Brazil.
We have had to take numerous initiatives on behalf of the agricultural community because of the neglect of the Liberals while they were in government. The Liberals never cared about the farm community.
Unfortunately, the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is not here, because he is largely responsible for these initiatives. I want to congratulate him for his persistence in our caucus in expressing the concerns and views of western Canadians who are in agriculture. He is a western grain farmer and probably grows more grain than all the farmers in the Opposition combined.
Members opposite rose with a holier than thou attitude to talk about the dreadful things we are doing to farmers. The majority of the 46 Members from our Party who spoke in this debate are farmers or live on farms.
I want to say a few words about the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax exemption was a serious inequity. Someone from Toronto who owned a house worth $ 1 million and sold it for $2 million a year later would have to pay no capital gains tax. However, a farmer in my area who owned a $100,000 farm that became worth $200,000 had to pay capital gains tax. We rectified that terrible inequity.
April 30, 1987

The Opposition has spread fear throughout the country about what our free trade initiative will do to the agricultural community. I can tell the House that we will protect agriculture because we intend to maintain the good agricultural industry in this country.
When I met some 240 dairy farmers at a meeting I told them that while I cannot relieve their fears about what might happen, since they have suffered so much through different periods, I could promise that I would stand up for them and ensure that we would protect the marketing boards that had been put in place.


Marcel Prud'homme: Do you speak for your Party or for yourself?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am telling you what I have been told by the Minister of Agriculture. Supply management has been successful in this country and has even been adopted by many European countries. We cannot afford the subsidies that the Americans give their farmers because we do not have enough money. Therefore, we have developed another method and it is working. Those farmers left that meeting knowing that they have a Government that cares.
I had an opportunity to speak to 80 members of the feather industry. They included broiler chicken producers and egg producers. They were also very concerned, but I tried to allay their fears. I had a final meeting with a small group from the local durum agricultural association. I was somewhat complimented by the response I received when I asked why the meeting was so small. They told me that I had answered most of their questions already.
We have taken major steps on behalf of the agricultural industry and I am proud to be part of this Party and tell farmers in the rural communities in my riding that we have stood up for them and will continue to do so in order that they may become a healthy component of this economy.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate. There is absolutely no truth to the rumour that although I represent a rural community I was elected by the farm vote on a promise that I would not speak on agricultural issues. They sent me here to speak on those issues.
1 want to say a few words about the participation in this debate. First, we heard some very knowledgeable speeches from members of the New Democratic caucus who represent the farming community. However, those knowledgeable speeches got off track when we heard from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). He is a notable expert in rural items, who once told the House that his riding of Ottawa Centre was a microcosm of Canada. I do not know whether he is farming what he is throwing, but I point out that he is the Member who continually stands in the House to complain about the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption which the NDP has fought since we introduced it. There does not seem to be anyone in the NDP who realizes that the capital gains tax
exemption was implemented immediately for farms because the Conservative Party realizes that the farm represents the pension of farmers when they retire. Day after day, members of the NDP complain about the fact that we have exempted that pension.
We then heard from the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I was moved when I heard her speech. I realized why she is put on so many travelling committees. Then we heard from the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who went through a whole speech without moving an amendment. Subsequently the Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) made one of his few speeches, while he is still a New Democrat, before he becomes an independent. That is the only Party he has not represented.
Having been somewhat caustic, I want to compliment my good friend, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who commenced the debate. I have worked with him on the Public Accounts Committee and I commend him for his efforts in this debate, as well as the Members of his Party who represent rural communities. Had it not been for the NDP, this debate would certainly have collapsed because there was very little knowledgeable participation from the Liberals.
That brings me to the Liberal Party. I want to highlight some of the speeches made by their Members. We heard from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) whose knowledge of the rural community out west is basically from a 30,000 foot level as he flies back and forth between Vancouver and Ottawa. He stayed in Vancouver longer, before he sold his condo. Now that he has sold it, he does not take as many trips and is losing some of that knowledge of the rural community.
We then heard from the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He is one of the two members in the western caucus, and he did a good job.
The Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) spent 20 minutes denying that there were high interest rates during the Liberal depression. We listened to 20 minutes of explanations that simply did not wash.
Having said that, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who briefed his colleagues, and I am sure it was not easy. He hung here in the debate and 1 compliment him on his efforts.
There are two reasons this debate has been welcomed by the Government Party; because we had two things we wanted to get across. First, we have an excellent record to brag about as a Government in our efforts to assist Canadian farmers. We understand the problems. We do not have them all solved yet, not for a minute, but the effort and the steps have been there. Second, the west is finally fully represented on agricultural issues at the table, as a region and in the House. Members from all areas of Canada in our Party fully understand the

April 30, 1987
problems of the western grain producer. We break bread with our colleagues from the west. We sit on committees with them. We participate in the House of Commons and there is absolutely not one Member of Parliament from the Maritimes, Quebec or Ontario in the Progressive Conservative Party who does not have an empathy with our colleagues from the west. We understand fully.
If I had one message I would like the people from the west to take from what I say it is this. The Members of Parliament from the central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and they are here tonight, understand. There is no learning curve with us. We understand the problem and our Government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) down, has the full support of the Members of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative Party from Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces in the work they are doing on this problem.
The work is considerable. Because it has been referred to at length in this debate I will not walk the House through the details of the programs. There is however, a special grains program, there is crop and livestock drought assistance, there are interim pay-outs, the Western Grain Transportation Act amendments and the commodity based mortgages. All of these steps have been taken to help the west.
I would like to dwell on interest rates for a minute. We have worked as a Party to lower interest rates. We have saved farmers millions of dollars. Those steps have been taken. We have the Farm Credit Corporation rates at the lowest levels since 1979. Interest rates have been reduced five times.
With respect to farm debt review boards, legislation has been passed to set up these boards composed of people who have a knowledge of the agricultural community and have the experience in farming and financial matters to try to ease these tensions.
We have the Canadian Rural Transition Program. In my riding, this was referred to from time to time by my constituents, who are farmers. I got the best example a couple of weeks ago. On the seventh concession of Orillia Township in 1956 there were 21 farm families. Now, 31 years later, there are four farm families on that same concession farming the same amount of land. What has happened is that the ability of our farmers-and we should all be proud of this-to expand production and produce has increased faster than anyone's ability to find the markets and to be competitive in them. Being competitive in them is really the problem we are talking about today.
We have been at the forefront in calling for a new set of ground rules for international agricultural trade. The Prime Minister raised it in Tokyo as Canada's number one agenda item. We have been trying to get an informal international agreement on agricultural trade practices during the negotiations of the the new GATT rules. This may take years, but we have been there. We have made all this effort.
We know how our farmers are facing problems because our competitors are just out-subsidizing us. It is just not practical in this world where we have people who are hungry, not to get food to them. It is just not practical that we are competing with the European Economic Market and the United States which subsidize their producers. I do not think anybody in this House, no matter to which Party they belong, thinks that is a very effective way of doing things.
I went to the annual Simco County Federation of Agriculture meeting. Many Members of Parliament and Members of the provincial Legislature attended. A lot of briefs were presented at that meeting from the Cattlemen's Association, the corn producers, the egg marketing board, the maple syrup producers, the milk committee, the pork producers, the sheep producers and the wheat growers. We heard the briefs and we had a back and forth discussion. There was public participation. I was pleased to hear people tell us that they are in general agreement with the efforts of the Government, that they know what we are faced with and they are behind our efforts in trying to do something.
As I suggested earlier, we do not have all the answers and we have not won the battle. There is no question that our Government has made the effort to win the battle. We have a Prime Minister who time and time again is very, very vocal, and who has then followed his vocal comments with efforts to address the concerns of agriculture. We have a first class cabinet Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) from Ontario and his colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). They work in tandem.
It would be interesting if I were to tell the House just exactly how this ministry works. It works with complete cooperation between the two Ministers, along with the Parliamentary Secretary from the riding of Champlain, Quebec, to give it a Quebec focus. The Ministers have excellent staffs who always have time for Members of Parliament and their problems. They have a concerned Public Service staff backing them up.
The caucus is fully behind all of those people and the Prime Minister in their efforts on the issue. Let me say to the people who are suffering at this time that we do have an understanding of your problems no matter where you live in Canada. Speaking as an Ontario Member of Parliament, especially Ontario, we do have an understanding, and we intend to continue the good fight.
I want to finish my speech by complimenting everybody, the Speakers in the chair, Members at the Table, the pages, the staff, and especially the Hansard staff. With some exceptions, it has been Parliament at its best, and we have truly focused the concern of Canadians on this very important issue.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we have no further speakers. I would like to join in thanking you first, Mr. Speaker, for your extraordinary
April 30, 1987

good presence and patience. I thank very warmly the people from the Table, all the staff, the Pages and those devoted people who take notes of all of what has been said, including the last speaker. Unfortunately, they had to take his speech also. But that is all right.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it has been an important debate about a very basic and noble industry. We have talked about some of the concerns of agriculture and I think we have raised the level of awareness of all Canadians of the problems of agriculture. When one thinks about it, it is a very useful way to make use of the House of Commons, this very noble institution. It is almost an irony that we are here tonight talking about surpluses which are causing us problems when there are all kinds of people around the world who are hungry.
We have heard over 100 speakers representing all 10 provinces. We thank everyone who has had an opportunity to
participate. There has been some political rhetoric and some very good speeches. May I say in many ways one of the most thoughtful speeches we heard from the opposition benches was from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I think it is fair to say that we all enjoyed what the Hon. Member for Saint- Denis had to say.
The debate has lasted over parts of four days and in many ways it has been an historic debate. I just want to join in thanking everyone who stayed with us, the House of Commons staff and everyone who participated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.04 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that there have been consultations with the House Leaders, and it has been agreed that the House should resume consideration of the current crisis facing Canadian grain producers. The question now before the House is that of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House do now adjourn.
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King).


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly delighted to have this opportunity to join in this debate today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where were you yesterday?


Frederick John King: I was frustrated in my desire to speak yesterday by the inability of the Opposition, which raised the question in the first place, to provide a speaker to maintain the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: It is rather ironic that the New Democratic Party which introduced the debate could not have someone here to carry it on. I am delighted to have this opportunity and I appreciate the effort.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He is still not standing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members will want, after all the events of the recent day or so, to hear the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). I just want the House to know that I see the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the fog has cleared today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -and the view from the Chair is clearer.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Similkameen (Mr. King) that, in fact, I was standing in my place yesterday afternoon before we had that six second dash.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has raised an important matter, but I do not think it is a point of order. It is probably a matter for debate. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Frederick John King: It is not only irrelevant, it is untrue, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: I think it ironic that we are here today-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Similkameen really means to say that other Members, remembrance of events past is perhaps not as accurate as they might be. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the revised wording. It would be laughable, if the subject were not so difficult for many Canadians, to hear members of the Liberal caucus sitting opposite talking with such feigned concern about agriculture and about the west.
Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) got into the act, making a case for everything that he failed to do in the period in which he led a Government that totally failed agriculture and totally failed the West in so many critical areas of economic activity. His speech yesterday can only be treated with a degree of cynicism that it so richly deserves. We do not need to go back to former Prime Minister Trudeau's disparaging and insulting remarks to western farmers, remarks that defined his personal attitude and that of the Liberal Party toward exercising some of the responsibility that they had to the west and to farmers. That Government chose to turn its back on both the west and its farmers, just as it did when its

April 30, 1987
policies brought about interest rates of 22 per cent and higher, which really is the root cause of the difficulties plaguing agriculture and many other segments of our economic society.
Yesterday we heard the Leader of the Opposition complaining bitterly that Farm Credit Corporation rates are averaging 11 per cent. I would like to ask what action came from his Government to help farmers locked into contracts with 16.75 per cent interest. What did the Leader of the Opposition do when it was within his power as Prime Minister to do something to assist those farmers that he is now so zealous in defending? The answer is nothing. Neither he nor the Liberal Government he led did anything. It was the Government of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, together with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) looked at those terribly high interest rates that Liberal policy had brought about and who took the action to reduce the rate for all those farmers who were locked in at 16.75 per cent interest. That is only one of the many positive actions which the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has brought to bear on the critical pressures which threaten agriculture in Canada.
If time permits I will talk later about the many varied positive actions which the Mulroney Government has taken in support of agriculture and in support of farmers. The point which has to be made is that every one of these supportive actions by the Mulroney Government could have been taken months and years ago by the Liberal Government which preceded the Mulroney Government. The problems existed then. In fact, it was Liberal policy that produced the most damaging of these problems. The problems existed but the Liberals did not have the will to address them. They refused to accept responsibility when they were in office.
[DOT] (mo)
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said some things that I think should be noted. He said that when the former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, was asked when the Liberal Government would do something for farmers facing disaster as a result of interest rates that went up beyond 22 per cent, the Liberal Minister of Agriculture responded by saying: "soon, soon". The Liberal Government never did provide the relief that farmers sought.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Soon never came.


Frederick John King: The "soon, soon," of Mr. Whelan, the former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, was in reality: "never, never". There was no relief from the Liberal Government under Prime Minister Trudeau nor under the Prime Minister who succeeded him.
1 would like to add my voice to that of the Hon. Member for Bow River in evidence that will add to the growing body of cynicism which surrounds the statements made in this debate originating from Liberal benches. Yesterday the Liberal Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) said that "speaking is not good enough and that there is only one Party that can act,
and that is the Government". He said that "only the Government can do something".
The fruit growers in British Columbia shower apples upon the Members of the House of Commons annually. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you profit and benefit from them. Those fruit growers from British Columbia's Okanagan Valley would say that it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for York Centre could not yesterday have spoken with some retroactive effect. Where was the voice of York Centre when Okanagan farmers were asking the Liberal Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, to honour the obligations under the stabilization Act which the Act imposes for commodities designated in it?
When I repeatedly brought to Mr. Whelan's attention the matter of a deficiency payment for Okanagan orchardists, a deficiency payment which would be triggered by the disastrous 1983 prices for soft fruits including peaches, apricots and cherries, the answer I received was "no", even though Mr. Gerald Geen, the President of the fruit growers' association, and I raised it personally with Mr. Whelan. The Liberal Government would not make that payment even though disaster faced many farmers as a result of the disastrous prices that returned only 20 per cent of the cost of production to those farmers I represent. Mr. Whelan said in the House and to me: "We aren't going to pay".
Contrast that with the action taken by the present Minister of Agriculture when this Government took office. The Minister of Agriculture reversed that unworthy decision and made that very substantial payment after the people of Canada had the good sense to put the Progressive Conservative Government in place. By that single action, the people of Canada provided Canadian agriculture a benefit unequalled in the history of Canada. Never has agriculture received so much legislative, policy and Treasury attention from Ottawa.
Let me read from the March 1987 issue of the magazine entitled the British Columbia Orchardist. The President of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, Gerald Geen, who represents some 2,000 farmers concentrated in the Okanagan, Similkameen and Creston Valleys, wrote the following in response to the $4.5 million payment made recently to apple producers in the area:
The really good news is that the federal government has just announced that stabilization payments will be made to Canadian apple growers for their 1983 and 1984 apple crops.
He went on to say the following:
I can tell you that our industry has had very positive support on this matter from the Prime Minister and one of his senior policy advisors who last summer spent two days with me in the Okanagan; Right Hon. Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs who met with Fred King, Martin Linder and myself last August; Hon. Michael Wilson, Minister of Finance; Hon. Pat Carney, Minister for International Trade; Hon. John Crosbie, Minister of Transportation; Hon. Tom Siddon, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; Hon. Frank Oberle, Minister of State (Science and Technology), several other key Cabinet Ministers and the entire B.C. Conservative Caucus.
I especially want to recognize the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. John Wise, and his assistant Mr. John Donald, for vigorously supporting our request for stabilization during the last twelve months ... On behalf of our apple growers,
April 30, 1987

I want to thank everyone at the federal government level who has in any way
assisted our industry in getting this payment. Your efforts are very much
appreciated. The forthcoming funds are very much needed by our producers.
I read that into the record because I want to emphasize the fact that despite what is coming from the benches opposite, Canadian farmers know the facts and the facts are that they and their difficulties are receiving more attention from this Government under the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) than any other Government has provided to agriculture in Canada.
On Tuesday of this week, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture was in the riding I represent, Okanagan-Similkameen, to open officially the new $24 million Agriculture Canada Research Centre. More than 1,500 citizens of the area were there to demonstrate the popular support which the Summer-land Experimental Station as it was called in 1914 when it was established, has earned from farmers in all of British Columbia.
As I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I have often brought with me apples to distribute to Members of Parliament-
An Hon. Mlember: And cherries.


Frederick John King: And cherries, and apricots, and peaches-


An Hon. Member:: And wine?


Frederick John King: All of the tremendous produce that comes from the Okanagan Valley. One apple that gets great attention here is the Spartan apple, a strain that was developed at the Summerland Experimental Station. It is a beautiful red apple, a cross between a McIntosh and a Newton. I know that it is one of your favourites, Mr. Speaker.
As I say, the Spartan apple was developed at the Summer-land Research Station. You may consider it Agriculture Canada's contribution to your well-being, Mr. Speaker. But that facility is also involved in fruit processing techniques, in controlled atmosphere storage research, and other areas.
I heard the other day about a tremendous new facility that is going up in the Province of Ontario that will keep apples for a full year without deterioration. The Summerland Research Station has been involved in that type of work for 30 years, and such facilities have existed in the Okanagan Valley for 25 years at least. In fact, we have controlled atmosphere storage for something like two million bushels of apples in place in the Okanagan Valley.
The reason the Okanagan is at the forefront of horticultural technology is the Summerland Experimental Station and the efforts that the federal Government has put into research at that facility.
Low volume orchard spraying-something which every environmentalist in Canada should rise up and cheer-also
owes its development to the Summerland Experimental Station of Agriculture Canada, as do the new irrigation techniques that are in use.
The Okanagan area has average annual precipitation of only 10 inches. Without irrigation, nothing could be grown. Water for irrigation is a precious commodity and something which must be used judiciously, and toward that end, the Summer-land Experimental Station has assisted farmers in the Okanagan in developing water saving techniques.
It is important that we point out what Agriculture Canada is doing for farmers in this country, and particularly the degree of attention the Minister of Agriculture has devoted to research in agriculture.
Let me just take a moment to outline for you some of the programs and expenditures this Government, under the direction of the Minister, has been engaged in.
At Vegreville, Alberta, we had an expenditure of $4.57 million for construction and research into soil quality; in Quebec, an experimental farm complex at a cost of $6.1 million; in London, Ontario, $16 million for an office-laboratory complex; at L'Assomption, Quebec, $8.5 million for research facilities to find alternate crops for tobacco growers; at Big River, Saskatchewan, $1.5 million for expansion of the Provincial Forest Nursery; again in Saskatchewan, $577 million for the expansion of a livestock centre; at the Lacombe Research Station, Alberta, $210,000 for library facilities and a conference room; at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, $16 million for an office-laboratory complex; at Lethbridge, Alberta, $22.3 million on the Animal Disease Research Institute; at Guelph, Ontario, $2.7 million for a new animal pathology laboratory; at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, $17 million for a pathology laboratory; and in Nepean, Ontario, $33.6 million for an Animal Research Center office-laboratory complex.
When you add to those expenditures the $24 million that has been spent at the Summerland Experimental Station, total expenditures amount to some $150 million. The expenditures of Agriculture Canada on research funding are projected to be $240 million for 1986-87.
To my mind there has been a degree of confusion brought about by the Opposition as to the effect of the lifting of this moratorium. I think it needs to be made clear that the moratorium that was in place is one that applied only to contracts with the Farm Credit Corporation. It did not apply in respect of loans or mortgages held by private sector lending institutions.
The moratorium is unsustainable forever. There is probably no time at which it could be lifted without someone being affected. It is for that reason that it was put into place in the first place.
The Government has now put into place farm debt review boards and the Rural Transition Program, both of which will be effective in easing the problems associated with the lifting

April 30, 1987
of the moratorium. The moratorium itself was not designed to eliminate these problems; rather, it merely provided some breathing space.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is drawing to a close. I wanted to talk a little more about Spartan apples. Given the time constraints, I shall just have to bring you one and demonstrate in that way what it is I am talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am glad today to be able to join in the debate on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) concerning the crisis in the grain industry-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the rotation for this debate was to go from a government Member to the Official Opposition, and then back to the Government, and then back to the Official Opposition.
The NDP put up a speaker last, and then the House was adjourned. I should think today it would have been appropriate to have gone to a government speaker and then back to the Official Opposition. The Hon. Member who is standing now
is-


Some Hon. Members:: It would be appropriate for you to sit down. The Speaker is standing in his place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All 1 can say is that I call them as I see them. The Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River is now being called.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, a deepening crisis has been developing on Canadian farms over the past two years. Nowhere is this more evident or more serious that in the grain economy of western Canada.
We are, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, engaged in the world today in a form of trade war that is particularly vicious and one in which Canada is, in one sense, the main victim and, in another sense, has no alternative but to participate.
The export subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States has caused prices for Canadian grains to plummet. Prices dropped 20 per cent last year, and a further 18 per cent drop for the 1987-88 crop year was announced by the Canadian Wheat Board last week.
Who among us, Mr. Speaker, could face a cumulative reduction in our incomes over a two-year period of something in the order of 40 per cent? I say that, of course, in the context of a small business operation, which most Canadian grain farms are, and in the context of having fixed costs, many of which have risen dramatically over the years leading up to the
drop in revenues. We are all aware of the rising tide in interest rates that engulfed farms in western Canada in the early 1980s; we are all aware of the rising costs of energy, fertilization and labour for farming operations. Yet, while these costs were rising, farmers, for the last two crop years, have faced what can only be described as reductions on a disastrous scale.
On Monday last, with perhaps the worst timing possible, with farmers already under severe stress, the Government announced that on Tuesday, the very next day, the Farm Credit Corporation would once again be permitted to foreclose on family farms. The moratorium that had been in place for 18 months was being lifted.
I should point out that the Farm Credit Corporation is, after all, seen very much as the bellwether and leader in terms of farm lending. Everyone in this House knows what happens when one bank raises its mortgage rates. When this happens all the other banks follow suit. I think it can be anticipated, and the Government must surely expect no other consequence, that other lenders to farmers will take this as a signal that it is again open season on farm foreclosures.
The Government has refused to make a commitment to a deficiency payment program in the forthcoming crop year. It says that those sorts of announcements will come at the appropriate time. That time is now. Farmers are traditionally, and I believe never more than today, plain-spoken people who understand the facts and know what is going on. In plain talk, a deficiency payment program is a subsidy. Some people would call it a hand-out and farmers would much rather make their income on a market system which provides them with a price return for their commodities than accept a subsidy on the production of those crops.
What we are calling for, and not because this Party has any ideological commitment to subsidies, not because we believe that the farm economy and the grain war can be sustained indefinitely in the face of what has been happening, but simply because this Party understands that it is a case of survival for western grain farmers and the western grain industry, is a commitment to provide Canadian grain farmers with at least a guarantee that the total receipts for crops this year will equal those of the last crop year.
In doing so it is obvious, I think, that we ourselves and those others who support such a move are not taking this on as some sort of welfare commitment, but are very seriously addressing the short-term remedy for the Canadian grain farming situation, without which short-term remedy we will never have the opportunity to bring in the long-term solutions which, of course, can be the only solutions for the grain economy.
As Oscar Wilde observed, in the long run we are all dead, but Canadian farmers may not survive the short run. They are very willing to absorb the impact of inflation and the increase in other price factors if only they could have a guarantee from the Government on the revenue return to the farmers.
April 30, 1987

We are not bringing this motion forward in some spirit of partisan and unreserved condemnation of the Government's total approach to the farm economy because we do understand that there have been some worth-while initiatives introduced and some worthwhile accomplishments. We know that the Government is working hard on the international front. Any Canadian Government would, because the anarchy, the discounting and the marketing manoeuvres that are being carried on at the moment in the world grain market can only lead to further chaos if measures are not taken to restrain them.
We know that the Government understands also that the grain export economy is, if you like, to a large degree the mirror image of the agricultural situation in the Third World and in less developed parts of the Second World. We know, after all, that Canadian grain should never be sold or distributed in such a way as to affect the viability of the Third World farmer because, without the opportunity for the Third World farmer to produce her crop and sell her crop for a cash return, and also to use her crop to nourish her family, those who took that opportunity away would be guilty of a crime against humanity which would have the most profoundly sincere consequences in the Third World.
This Party does not say that the Government has totally failed to assist the farm sector in recent months. We question very much the Rural Transition Program. We know that something useful at least has been accomplished through the debt review boards and we know that the Government has consulted with farm organizations, although often the effects of having listened are more evident in the breach than in the materialization. I return again to the fact that government assistance has not been adequate and will not be adequate without new announcements to ensure the short-term survival of the western grain economy in order for it to be able to take advantage of the opportunities which still exist to be taken advantage of in western Canada.
The alternatives to a deficiency payment program, the alternatives to other adjustment measures, are indeed no alternatives. Without an announcement from the Government we will be looking at widespread bankruptcy. We would be looking not simply at economic dislocation, not simply at unemployment which, after all, is something which, regrettable though it is, many of us have some experience with and which we as a society have measures both to combat and to ease the short-term difficulties therein entailed, but at something as serious as bankruptcy and unemployment. The seriousness is doubled by the very fact that it means the end of a way of life for anyone in western Canada who is forced off his farm by the lack of assistance forthcoming from the Government.
We know that stress increases on individuals in direct proportion to the number and magnitude of changes that they have to undergo in their lives. If we allow the western grain farmer to be subjected to the stress of bankruptcy, unemployment and relocation all at once, we will see people who are stressed beyond belief, stressed beyond the comprehension of
you, me, or any of us, and perhaps stressed beyond their limits to sustain themselves in the face of that sort of trial.
We would be looking not only at the disappearance in the less prosperous parts of grain producing western Canada of the farms, but also at the disappearance of the entire rural community. That includes bank branches, lawyers, doctors and the co-ops and credit unions which built western Canada and enabled farmers to build up farm economies in the first place. Perhaps even more serious than those consequences, it would bring about, of course, the complete absence of soil stewardship.
Sometimes when I travel from the farm areas of my riding I travel through farming areas of Manitoba. I am often impressed by the scale of those operations and, in some way, a little envious for my own farmers who must contend with a much smaller market, who are generally much more diversified than farming only a single commodity, whether it be grain or potatoes, and who have themselves been facing many, many trials over the past few years which the provincial Government has been somewhat reluctant to assist them with and which, unfortunately, because they are not grain farmers, federal programs have also not touched on very much either. My farmers are in a serious condition but they understand that because the average western farmer does not have access to alternative employment opportunities, does not have access to the wood lots which are available to northwestern Ontario farmers. It is the western grain farmer who is in the worst situation.
In talking of soil stewardship, let me say that last week-end was a fairly windy one in western Canada. As I drove down the highway I could see topsoil blowing off at a time of the year when it would normally be nicely fixed in place even if it had been tilled. The fact is that when there is an agricultural depression, the future prospects of the agricultural economy are drastically diminished by the farmers' inability to conserve his soil.
The Government has provided some assistance, but on the other hand, it has allowed the input cost to farmers to rise. As a result of the announcement of the discontinuance of the moratorium perhaps during the worst time of the year, in spring, we face a very serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are saddled with a $25 billion debt. We know-and they know-that the interest rates set by the Liberal Government are too high and that farmers simply cannot survive.

Let me deal with the long run solutions for the farm economy, because without alternative markets for those crops there will be farmers who will go out of production. Some months ago I had the pleasure to participate in the Energy Committee's investigation of fuel alcohol. I was struck by the

April 30, 1987
strong desire of some sectors of Canadian agriculture to link their grain surplus problem with the country's energy situation, particularly in respect of gasoline supply.
There have been corporate announcements of imminent petrochemical solutions to gasoline lead octane problems, but I believe from the evidence I have seen that there are biochemical and biomechanical solutions available that could utilize grain production in western Canada as a feedstock. This could strengthen the price of grain that is sold for food and thus enable our farmers to dig themselves out of the hole in which they find themselves.
Will the Government let our mostly foreign-owned oil refining industry turn its back on Canadian farmers, or will the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), who has a grain ethanol plant producing in his riding, take some action to ensure that the octane requirements of Canada's future production streams are met in a way that provides an economic opportunity and future for Canadian farmers?
Fuel ethanol has been available in Canada for six years. It will be one year ago tomorrow that the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources produced a report that favoured a 5 per cent to 3 per cent blend of ethanol and methanol, not only in order to reduce Canada's reliance on imported additives, but also to help farmers of western Canada with a new crop market. Nothing has been done. We understand that some low-level studies have been conducted within the Canadian Wheat Board, but the fact is that the Government must take action because it knows a solution is available and that there are remedies to help the western farmers with another market for their grains.
The fact is that the Government has sold out the farm economy indirectly to the multinational oil interests. Everyone should realize that there is no free market in petroleum production within Canada. There is no free market in refined gasolines. By making the policy decision that the so-called free market would decide, the Government is on the verge of cutting off a major economic opportunity for Canadian farmers and giving it, instead, to the multinational oil companies. Furthermore, this is in a form that will create very few jobs and will essentially keep that centralized control so much favoured by the multinationals.
We are told that there are imminent investments in the MTBE plant of $275 million each for a plant in western Canada and a plant in eastern Canada, creating 100 jobs each. That is the sort of solution to Canada's octane shortage that this country simply cannot afford because when the remedies are technically available in a new and developing technology that still has its economy of scale and has its efficiency and effectiveness developments before it, we would be very poor Canadians if we were to sell such an opportunity to the already excessively dominated multinational oil industry.
Supply concerns of the 1970s in the United States prompted federal and state tax incentives, and a large independent
refining industry controlling half of U.S. capacity, which is something that does not exist here, co-operated with the move to introduce ethanol into the fuel stream. Canadian production today is the same as it was in 1981, unfortunately, when Mohawk Oil recommissioned a 7.2 million litre a year distillery in Minnedosa and began selling that 10 per cent blend. Why is that 10 per cent blend not available right across the country? Why are Canadian farmers being denied the possibility of $200 million, or $400 million or $500 million a year in additional revenue, even just in the short term, with the 5 per cent-3 per cent and 10 per cent ethanol blends that would be marketed and commercialized virtually immediately?
Recent bipartisan moves in the United States Congress and administration may soon mandate oxygenated fuels, ethanol and methanol to help meet the 1987 Clean Air Act standards. That policy is supported by 46 United States Senators, Republican and Democrat, and by Vice-President Bush, who of course has aspirations to the presidency himself.
Whether or not that happens, North American oil refiners have to fill an emerging octane gap, estimated at possibly over $10 billion a year, with lead replacers of their choice and not necessarily the public's choice.
Canadian Government and parliamentary support for proethanol forces in this country as well as world-wide could help tip the scales in favour of the biochemical option for lead removal and to reduce other emissions. Ethanol is a fuel that is well known and presents very few environmental risks. Of course, it has great economic potential.
You are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could have talked for much longer and I hope to have a further opportunity to talk on the possibilities and the potential that ethanol has for Canadian farmers, particularly Canadian grain farmers. More jobs will be created throughout Canada, more Canadian farmers will be able to keep farming and be profitable. International success in ethanol production could help strengthen world grain prices and we could keep the Canadian western grain economy going, if the Government had but the vision to use its legislative powers toward that end.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, although I acknowledge the vital import of the agricultural producers' great contribution towards feeding Canadians, as well as their right to earn a decent living and to get a fair price for their products, I must admit that the intricacies of agricultural production, particularly wheat, fall somewhat beyond the scope of my expertise. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, I feel more at home when dealing with communications and cultural matters. CBC listeners can often hear programs concerning farmers, and I can assure you that the day-to-day problems of the farm community are often explored not only on these programs but also in the course of educational and regional programs. A current topic has been the 18 per cent drop in the price of wheat and the definite
April 30, 1987

possibility that agricultural producers may very well lose both their farms and their homes.
Mr. Speaker, you also know that I used to be the critic on the status of women, and we were made vividly aware of the very serious situation of Mrs. Irene Murdoch and the discrimination she experienced when the court ruling did not give her any recognition for all the work she had done, day in and day out, seven days a week. Since then there has been some improvement in the situation of women who happen to be full-fledged partners in the agricultural community.
I believe that we should pay homage to couples, both men and women, and their children who work very hard on farms throughout Canada.
Until now, Mr. Speaker, as a woman living in urban surroundings I was hesitant to join in this emergency debate on the agricultural crisis in Western Canada. But after listening to my colleagues in the House, even though I am not all that familiar with agricultural affairs I can still readily appreciate the human drama being played in Canadian rural homes, their sentiments of fear, anxiety and frustration.
I have often travelled through the countryside with my family to admire the scenery and the wild flowers, to pick up daisies, blueberries, strawberries and raspberries, to buy fresh and tasty farm products, to marvel at the sight of wide expanses of wheat and corn fields. Particularly in the fall, I never get tired of looking at the fairy-tale colours of the trees.
However it never occurred to me that a house-for-sale sign might indeed hide a human drama due to this Government's inadequate farm support policy. Certainly this insensitive policy of the Conservative Government cannot be the result of laziness on the part of farmers, the lack of motivation, the long hours of work, a reduced budget. Quite the contrary, farmers are so anxious and so proud to preserve the heritage which in many cases was left to them by their ancestors that they do not think twice about toiling under very harsh conditions and making do with aid programs which fall far short and might even be described as being totally unacceptable.
Monday's announcement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada would lift the moratorium declared on September, 1985, with respect to foreclosures on bankrupt farms has created utter distress for hundreds of owners of small and medium-size farms, leading them to despair, family violence and, in some cases, suicide.
It has become quite evident through the course of this urgent debate that a long-term vision of society is absolutely critical in order to arrive at the short-term remedial steps required at this time. If we as Canadians value the family farm, its stability, its place in the grand design of our society, then the necessary fiscal measures must be taken to enable farmers to survive this crisis.
On the international stage the grain subsidy situation is being fully addressed and increased efforts are being made to restore sanity in international grain markets. However, my Leader and my colleagues have tried to make the Government understand that just citing figures and comparing them to those of last year or the year before, boasting about how much more the Government has invested in the West's economy than the Liberals did, are not answers to the family farm crisis. They bring no solace to the individual farmer and the crisis in his family life. The way to demonstrate leadership is not to say: You did not do it and we are doing something. The way to demonstrate leadership is to come up with a plan of action.
We acknowledge that $1 billion was pumped into the agricultural economy last year. I will not go into the way it was offered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as a sort of little lollipop dangled in front of the voters in the middle of a provincial election. It was a needed support. However, because that is true it does not mean other similar steps do not have an ongoing and important place in the plans and policies and political vision of the Government. Obviously it is a Government with no vision and certainly no heart. Farm families are paying a heavy price while the Government dallies and promises schemes for diversification of the economy.
Monday's announcement of lower initial grain prices for 1987-88 indicates that the price of wheat will be down by 18 per cent and that of barley by 25 per cent. When those announcements were made the Government should have given some indication of how it intends to react to this new crisis. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, has given this House the benefit of his wise counsel, deep commitment to and knowledge of this field. I do not pretend to have that knowledge but why can the Government not listen to our experts? It could take some direction given that it is completely lacking in any ideas of its own.
The Government has boasted of improved federal-provincial relations. If that is true, why does it not sit down with the provinces and co-operatively develop a plan to keep families on the farm in a productive capacity? Why does it not see them through this short-term crisis until it can bring forward that White Paper we have been waiting and waiting for, which obviously has no content, no concept and no political vision? Let the Government at least support the family farm which is such an important part of our heritage and our institutions. Rural family farms are revered institutions in our society. Rural communities and related industries are all in jeopardy. It is not just the farmer who is affected; it is the manufacturer of the equipment the farmer uses and the supplier of seeds and everything else needed in the ongoing operation of a farm.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is that the crisis has far-reaching social and economic implications, not just for the West but for the total economy. As I said, one cannot remain apart. We cannot live in glorious and ignorant isolation from the problems of all Canadians. We are a grand and widespread country. We have regional differences, but we are expected to

April 30, 1987
address them. That is our social contract and that is what the Government has failed to do.
I think it is important that all Canadians, Francophone and Anglophone in every part of this country, pay attention to this situation. Because you live in one of the metropolitan centres across this land does not mean you can be insensitive to this crisis. We know man cannot live by bread alone, but we also know that bread is the staff of life, and that is particularly true for the western farmer.
If you have listened to some of the root causes of the problem we are addressing, as I have over these last many hours of debate, they sound like the plagues which afflicted the Egyptians: drought, grasshoppers, dust, wind, and locusts. Then we have the heavy subsidization of the U.S. and EEC farmer. We have the astronomical drop in prices, the third straight year of decline, which could mean the total return to producers will be 40 per cent lower for wheat, 45 per cent lower for oats, and barley payments below the 1984 per tonne payment. Flax seed and canola prices are lower by 34 per cent and 32 per cent respectively. One can sense the tremendous tragedy taking place and it is easy to understand the frustration and fear for survival which is being echoed behind the doors of each one of our family farms. It becomes obvious that the responsible, dedicated producers, individual farmers carrying on a family tradition or fulfilling a private dream, watch helplessly as forces beyond their control choke life out of their land and choke and close their visions of the future.
What does this requiem for the family farm mean in human terms? Let us consider what one of the studies that was done and reported has to say about this matter. I am reading to you, Mr. Speaker, from the Western Report of January 12, 1987, in which there appears an article entitled: "Farmers Under Stress". There is an interesting quotation from Pliny the Elder who stated:
The agricultural population-produces the bravest men, the most valiant soldiers and a class of citizens the least given of all to evil designs.
I hope that that continues to be the motto of this sector of our society. I suggest, as the article states, that:
Blissful, wholesome farm life, replete with golden wheat fields and rosy-cheeked dairy maidens, is the stuff of prose and poetry. In reality, being a farmer has become so trying that two University of Brandon psychologists say it is now more stressful than being a police officer or a multinational corporate executive.
Last winter, Drs. James and Lilly Walker set out to ask 1,200 farmers what effect the poor economy was having on them. Last month the pair released the resultant report, Characteristics and Correlates of Stress Among Canadian Farm Families, at a University of Brandon conference called "Hungry for Answers-the Farm Community in Crisis." Growing food is one of Canada's most stressful occupations, they concluded. Declares the duo: "This stress is chronic and dangerous."
The study revealed that stress symptoms such as headaches, marriage problems and irritability were three or four times more prevalent in the average farmer than in an RCMP officer three days after being involved in a shooting. What's more, the stress on the policeman is "transitory," say the authors, a "one-time event." But for farmers, the stress just goes on and on.
The Walkers went on to give some additional notes of the methodology that they used in setting up the 79-question survey which included queries about the weather, social problems like spousal neglect, workload and general worry. The article continues:
Stress levels were partly measured by awarding points to such frequently troubling things as insufficient cash flow, debt load and rising expenses. Says Dr. James Walker: "Farmers create a lot of their own stress by being worried about the weather and prices."
That is enough for them to worry about without having to worry about poor government policy and inadequate government planning.
The great question which must be asked is the following. What should the Government do? We know that during the course of the last election campaign the Tories presented a series of 20 from-the-heart type promises. I would like to mention just three or four of them. One of the 20 was to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so that farmers will have access to reasonably-priced funds. Has anyone heard of the Government creating agri-bonds? I think not. Another promise was to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. There have certainly been no principles of equity mentioned in this situation. Another promise was to re-establish a long-term dairy policy. The Government cannot even bring about a shortterm policy of crisis intervention, how can it even think in terms of the long term? Another promise was to expand agricultural research and development by providing greater assistance for agricultural colleges, more funding for research and development, and amending tax policy to encourage private sector investment. What has the Government done in this respect? It has closed down research facilities.
One last point I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the Prime Minister's promise to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing rates. What the Government has really done is to send a message to the banks to foreclose, instead of having all the banks, as well as the Federal Business Development Bank and the Farm Credit Corporation, support the worker. I have not even mentioned the fact that the Government has abolished Canagrex, a fine Crown corporation created by Mr. Eugene Whelan to market Canadian agricultural products abroad.
The Prime Minister is on his way out west. If he is going to be visiting Red Deer and Lethbridge, Alberta, North Batt-leford, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg, Manitoba between Wednesday and Friday of next week, I would like to ask him to deliver the following message on his trip. I suggest he use his marvelous hyperbole in a constructive way at that time. First, let him reinstate the FCC moratorium on farm foreclosures and introduce a proper farm debt restructuring program. Second, let him announce a deficiency program for this year's crop. Third, let him announce the long-promised western economic diversification strategy.
April 30, 1987

During this debate four Ministers of the Crown have spoken, including the Prime Minister. But not one of them gave any commitment for specific assistance. I suggest the Prime Minister has a glorious opportunity, and we know how he loves photo opportunities, to announce at least those three constructive policies. If he does, I think that perhaps some of the stress, strain and family discomfort and dislocation which has been expressed in the debate over the last two days might well be alleviated. Let him show some leadership.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the issues and problems facing the agricultural industry in Canada. Many Members of the House may not be fully aware that we in Atlantic Canada have a very important agricultural industry, including an important agricultural industry in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia we have problems in our agricultural sector. In Atlantic Canada we have the same or similar problems to those about which other Members have spoken in respect of western Canada. I know from speaking to members of my caucus from Ontario and Quebec that farmers in both those provinces have serious problems as well. From time to time in caucus we have heard strong and aggressive voices concerning the agricultural industry. Members of our caucus from all provinces bring forward, in an aggressive way, the problems that are facing the agriculture industry in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick-all the Provinces of Canada. Of course, the motion before us deals specifically with western Canada.
We know what the problem is. However, that is not the issue. The issue is what is being done to address the problem. In this respect I am proud to stand here today to speak on just what our Government has done to address the problems facing the agriculture industry from the East Coast to the West Coast. The commitments that were made and honoured are well known by those in the agriculture industry.
Farmers are convinced that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the whole Progressive Conservative caucus are strong allies of their industry. For example, they know that 14 of 16 campaign promises in the Prince Albert statement have been addressed. Farmers know that 414 initiatives having a total value of $6 billion have been implemented by the Government. They know that this is a record after only two and a half years of this Government being in office. They know the mess that was left after 20 years of Government by the Liberal Party. They know that for every 1 per cent drop in interest rates there is a savings to the Canadian farmers of $120 million.
The Canadian farmer knows all about this. He has full confidence in the policies being pursued by our Government. It is ironic that food remains our best buy as consumers. It is ironic that we pay more for a litre of pop than we do for a litre of milk. That is typical of the situation that faces our farms.
.S'. O. 29
The farming community faces the situation of rising costs and decreasing revenue. It is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to outline through you, Mr. Speaker, to other Members of the House and to the Canadian public what has been done in two and a half short years to address some of these problems to rebuild the strength of the Canadian agricultural industry. I am going to start by referring to the Atlantic livestock feed initiative. This policy brought in by our Government and an agreement signed just two or three weeks ago between the federal and provincial Governments is an attempt by our Government to establish feed grain selfsufficiency in Nova Scotia and in all of Atlantic Canada. Under this policy, our Government has committed itself to maintaining for a period of time freight rate assistance on grain that moves into Nova Scotia, grain that is important to the beef industry and other livestock industries in Nova Scotia. We have done more than simply continue a subsidy in keeping with our philosophy of developing the regions. We have put in place a series of incentives that will help the Nova Scotia farmer grow his own grain so we will not have to import grain from outside our province. We will create jobs in the grain industry and we will keep money at home, money that until this point in time has been going to another part of our country. It is all relative, isn't it, Mr. Speaker?
Let us look at what was done on the same issue by the previous Government. I will tell you what that Government did. The Liberal Government did nothing over the last 10 or 15 years when the feed freight assistance rate was declining. There was no serious attempt to address this problem of the agricultural community of Nova Scotia. We have been in office but two and a half years and we have responded and put in place a program after consultation with the industry, a program which is welcomed and a program that is good for the economy of Nova Scotia, not just the agricultural sector of that economy.
What about the question of the financial plight of the farmers in this difficult time? What have we done to assist and put in place an equitable forum where their debt situation can be discussed? We have established farm debt review boards. Legislation has been passed to set up farm debt review boards composed of people with knowledge and experience in farming and financial matters. This process has enabled many farmers to remain on the land. It provides an opportunity for independent third party review to the farm community. It assists in setting up voluntary arrangements between a farmer and his creditors to help ensure the survival of the farm business. Surely that is a constructive response to the financial problems facing farmers, giving them an opportunity to have their case presented in an open and a fair way.
What else is there, Mr. Speaker? The reality is that there are farmers who, in the end, want to leave the farm. They want to undergo a transition to another kind of employment. We have responded to this reality and established the Canadian Rural Transition Program. It is designed to help families who have to leave farming because of financial difficulties to make

April 30, 1987
5514______________________________
the transition to new employment and another way of life. The federal Government will provide financial assistance for farmers' transition, relocation, job search and retraining. This is not a program that is encouraging these people to leave the farm. This is a program which has been implemented in response to representations from the people who say, "We are ineligible for many of these programs because we were farmers. We are being discriminated against". We have responded with a sensible program, one that is sensitive and addresses the social needs of these farmers.
What about the financial position of farmers? What happened to them? It was only three years ago that farmers were paying 18 per cent and 20 per cent interest rates when they bought a piece of machinery or farm property. And when they incurred debt, they had interest rates that sky-rocketed. We all remember that. We remember the foreclosures in the Canadian farming industry. You know, Mr. Speaker, and Members of this House know that we now are enjoying the lowest interest rates in almost 10 years. That is in no small measure a result of the economic policies followed by the Government. Since coming to office the interest rate has dropped from 14 per cent to about 11 per cent. That means savings of $150 on a $50,000 mortgage every month. As I said earlier, that is a saving of $120 million to the Canadian agricultural industry for every 1 per cent drop in interest rates. That is of benefit to farmers in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
These are policies of general application that have been of enormous benefit to the agricultural community. What we all remember is that the Liberals and New Democrats joined together during the 1970s to follow policies of fiscal irresponsibility that resulted in high interest rates. They just did not drop out of the air. Those high interest rates resulted from the irresponsible management practices of the previous Government, supported by the New Democrats.
What about the National Energy Program? What did the National Energy Program do for the energy costs of western and Atlantic Canadian farmers? Where were the Liberals and New Democrats? We all know where they were. They were closely bound together in support of a policy that not only destroyed a lot of economic activity in the petroleum industry in Canada but put billions of dollars of taxation on all Canadians, including the western Canadian farmer.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is the practice if not the requirement of the rules of the House that speakers tell the truth when they are presenting their arguments. I would caution the Hon. Member to check the voting records before he regurgitates material from PC headquarters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has the floor.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I guess the best test of whether or not I say is true is the fact that it is like salt on the wounds of the New Democrats to hear me bring forth the truth in this Chamber today-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You supported the Bank Act.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: -to remind the western Canadian farmers that the New Democrats were responsible along with the Liberal Party for the high interest rates-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: -and the National Energy Program which was a tax burden on Canadian farmers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is not true.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: The truth hurts. You hear them, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to hear it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Conservatives voted for the Bank Act.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: What can we do, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear the truth. The Canadian farmer knows it and the Canadian public is going to hear it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Don't get excited.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Look at the facts.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: The farm fuel tax relief program which we implemented was an attempt to reduce the tax burden.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Kiss and make up, guys.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I am very pleased that the New Democrats are so sensitive because it tells me that it is very much a political issue in western Canada. What is very much a political issue is their support for the policies of the previous Government.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is a matter of the truth.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: We have responded. We brought in policies that are aimed at reducing the financial burden on these farmers. The farm fuel tax relief program which is a saving of hundreds of dollars to the western Canadian farmer was brought in to address this very severe financial and social problem.
We have responded in a sensitive way to the economic and social problems of the farmer. The previous speaker asked where the long-term dairy policy is. It is obvious that she does not read press releases or newspapers. The federal Government's commitment of $1.5 billion over a five-year period is well known. There is a five-year dairy policy designed to ensure the long-term health of the dairy industry in Canada. We know that a dairy industry exists in all parts of the country and my riding is no exception. In my riding, there is a strong
April 30, 1987

and viable dairy industry and the dairy farmers that I represent are very supportive of that initiative, as they are of the other initiatives-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Cut by $15 million a year, too.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I hear the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) chirping today, but there was no chirp from him when farmers were paying 20 per cent interest rates, when there was no dairy policy, and when the National Energy Program was sinking the Canadian farmer with high interest rates. He should moo like a cow rather than chirp like a bird. The reality is getting through to the Liberals. It is their record about which we are speaking and which we are showing to be as weak as it was.
What about the capital gains tax exemption? That is something that was long sought by the agricultural industry. Where was it? The Liberals had 20 or 30 years to respond to this need of the Canadian farmer who spent his life building up equity in a business as his pension and who did not want to get penalized when he sold his equity which was built up over 30 or 40 years. Where was the capital gains tax exemption when the previous Government was in power? It could have implemented it but it did not.
Was that tax exemption high on the agenda of the New Democrats? I do not know, but the Canadian farmer knows how much of a priority it was for the two opposition Parties, and he knows also how much of a priority it was for the PC Government when it took over in September, 1984. Farmers know that we implemented a program that responded to their long sought goal.
What about the international situation in the agricultural community? What about the fall of prices which has resulted in some of the uncertainty in the international community? Has this Government responded to that situation in two and a half years? Indeed it has. Canada has been at the forefront of those nations calling for a new set of ground rules for international agricultural trade. We would have had trouble even getting the leadership of the previous Government to talk about farmers, but our Prime Minister at the annual Economic Summit of industrialized nations held in Tokyo last year chose to raise agriculture as Canada's number one agenda item. That was the first time agriculture was raised at such a summit. All leaders agreed that a solution must be found to the international subsidy wars.
Finally, we are trying to get an informal international agreement on agriculture trade practices during the period of negotiation of new GATT rules. This may well take years, but Canada has proposed a number of principles that we hope will result in greater international stability and security in the trade of important agricultural commodities.
Surely it is clear that in two and a half years, our Government has responded in an unprecedented manner to the problems of the agricultural industry. The Government has followed through on a total of 14 out of 16 promises and has
provided 414 initiatives valued at $6 billion. The people who must answer today for the problems in the agricultural industry are in large measure sitting on the benches of the two opposition Parties.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you know, those who come from Cape Breton are renowned across Canada and in the House for the eloquence of their rhetoric and the honesty with which they present their points of view. No matter from what side of the House we come, we are often impressed with the clear and compelling way in which they present their cases.
Just moments ago, we heard from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil), the last of the speakers on the government side. It was unfortunate that we heard from him last and I would hope that the character of that speech would encourage others to present themselves because it has left an awful taste in all of our mouths. This is so because someone who represents Cape Breton has presented a case which is based on such utter and complete falsehood as was the allegation that it was the New Democrats who supported the Bank Act when in fact it was the New Democrats with one lone Tory, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who opposed that Bank Act. I rise now to say that if we are to defend a particular point of view, we must do so truthfully or we do harm to the argument we are trying to present.
I am very, very proud of the fact that the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) initiated this very significant debate in the House of Commons. I know that he is a fit representative of the New Democratic Party because this Party is a Party that has its roots on the farm and in the west. However, it also has its roots among the labourers of the city. Because of the initiative of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert and my Party, the concerns of the farm will be clearly dramatized to those of us who live in the city.
I have heard speaker after speaker during the course of this debate suggest that those of us who come from the city should not be involved in this debate because our ignorance would contribute nothing to the expansion of knowledge or information or the solution of the problem that exists in our agricultural sphere. Among that category of Members of Parliament, I may be regarded as an example of urban rot, but I stand here proud to participate in this debate because I think it is about time the people of the city had dramatized for them the situation on the farm. I am sure they share with members of my Party the absolutely compelling point of view that just as we must seek justice and economic security for the people of the city, we must make those people understand that their security, prosperity and justice depends upon economic security on the farm.
When I, as others in the city, eat my shredded wheat, my corn flakes or my meat and drink my milk, I must recognize that all of those commodities are produced as a result of blood, sweat and tears. There is no one who does not understand that

April 30, 1987
the commitment to the land is something that can only be maintained with a great deal of hard work. I do not think there is anyone who does not know that those who work on the farm rise early and work late. They develop callouses upon their hands in an effort to produce from the land.
There are not too many among us who understand, however, that when we talk about blood, that blood truly exists. There is a higher rate of accidental death on the farm than there is in other areas of labour. As well, of the unnatural causes of death on the farm, one-third are suicides, so great is the stress. When we recognize that in that which we eat there are tears as well, it is another assertion that the stress on the farm has become overwhelming. Why should it not be overwhelming? We realize that in the last crop year, prices were cut by 21 per cent, and this year they will be cut by 19 per cent. I think it is incumbent upon every worker, every business person, every professional in this country to look at their own situation and imagine taking a 40 per cent cut in their salaries or wages. They would then begin to understand the situation in which the farmer finds himself.
When one reflects upon the fact that the dire circumstances in the farming community are made worse by the announcement that effective tomorrow the moratorium on FCC loans will end, we begin to gain a comprehension of the existing situation. How many Canadians recognize that the price of grain, as a result of cuts last year and this decision, is no different from what it was in 1976 and 1977? Yet the cost of doing business has tripled. We then expect the farmer to survive.
I understand, but perhaps others here do not, that there exists in the international market-place a severe set of circumstances which make competition extremely difficult. The EEC is subsidizing its farmers to the tune of about $70 billion a year. The U.S. is subsidizing its farmers to the tune of around $22 billion a year. World prices are thereby reduced. This is something which is not under the ready control of the Government, but we encourage it to persist in its efforts to reach international agreements under GATT which would provide a solution to the problem. However, it is no contribution to the plight of the farmer for the Government to decide that the moratorium on FCC loans will end tomorrow.
I know the Government is claiming that there are only a small number of farmers affected. I have heard both the number 6,000 and the number 600. 1 have heard that it only involves 50 farmers a month. However, if one opens up The Toronto Star this morning-I will readily admit as a microbiologist and biochemist that I do not have the information readily available to me so I must depend upon information supplied by a number of sources-he will find that the assistant manager of the FCC office in Edmonton points out that 10,000 prairie farmers are $227 million in arrears on FCC loans. He says that technically they are open to foreclosure. If one looks at the individual provinces, one finds that 21 per cent
of FCC accounts in Alberta and 24 per cent of FCC accounts in Saskatchewan are in arrears. The situation is so severe that one should not be surprised that there are 8 per cent or 25,000 fewer farmers this year than last.
When the Government blithely terminates the moratorium, one must look around to see to whom the Government looks for advice. I watched television last night and saw the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) claim that all significant farm organizations said the moratorium should be removed. When one examines that statement, as the NDP readily does on all occasions, and checks the facts, we find that the National Farmers Union, the three prairie Wheat Pools, and other farm organizations flatly deny that any such statements were made on their behalf. That they would support the lifting of the moratorium as claimed by the Minister of Agriculture is flatly untrue.
What kind of advice is the Minister of Agriculture following when he chooses to lift the moratorium in the hasty fashion in which he did and without putting in place the necessary steps to ensure the survival of our farm community? If one examines the submission of The Canadian Bankers' Association to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and looks at its recommendations, one finds that its fifth recommendation was that there should be no consideration given to debt moratorium or compromise. It is not to the farmers in trouble that the Government is listening. It is listening to the bankers. That of course is in line with a long, long tradition.
If one examines the other recommendations of the bankers, one confirms the source of the advice and direction the Government receives and according to which it acts. The banks recommended that government transition programs involving relocation, retraining and support be implemented. Get them off the farms. The second recommendation was that farm financial review boards should be restricted to an advisory capacity with consideration to be given to the powers of direct lending or provision of loan guarantees to existing lenders or future lending operations as deemed possible. That is certainly being implemented because in Ontario we find that of 425 cases before the review board, 193 have been completed and only two have signed agreements.
Whose advice is the Government following? Whose pleas is it listening to? It said there should be a great deal of circumspection about the introduction of such programs as agribonds. When one considers that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government promised the implementation of an agri-bond program and it is yet to be heard from, one confirms the source of advice for the Government and its approach to the problems of farmers.
We understand that the problems in agriculture are complicated. However, it is a sorry state of affairs when we can ensure that arms suppliers are well paid and profits are high, when trillions of dollars are spent on arms which are often given away, yet in Canada the farmers are going to food-banks and thousands starve across the seas. It must be evident that it does not need a great genius to find a solution that
April 30, 1987

would feed the world and make sure our farmers are fed. However, that is not going to be done by a Government that announces so much negative action, as it has over the last two weeks, while refusing to commit itself to the minimum contribution to an improvement of the lot of the farmer, that being an announcement for the next crop year of deficiency payments at least as high as they were last year.
I hope this debate initiated by the NDP will lead not to continuing partisan conflict in the House but to a creative culmination of an effort to ensure that in Canada we will maintain our farms and our farmland.
It must be clear to those of us in the city that if the farmers suffer and farms disappear, the city person will not be very far behind. That should be the message to all Canadians insisting that justice be accorded to the farmer.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it is seldom we have debates like the one we are having now in the House of Commons. Canadians who are watching the proceedings, especially those who live in our major cities and urban areas and are not terribly familiar with the problems of the agricultural industry, are problably wondering what is going on.
The main reason why the Official Opposition is firmly resolved to make every effort to focus the attention of the Government and the public in general on this issue is that we have today a crisis situation, a serious and tragic one, which affects all grain producers in Canada, and especially our western farmers.
Why do we have this crisis? The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. Last year, as a result of decisions made by this Government, the price paid to farmers for their grain went down 20 per cent. And as if that were not enough to jeopardize the viability of farming operations, a few days ago the Government and the Canadian Wheat Board announced that prices for the 1987 crop year would go down another 18 per cent. Last year it was 20 per cent and this year 18 per cent. While prices paid to farm producers went down 20 per cent and 18 per cent in two years, input costs have continued to rise, including the costs of various kinds of energy and the cost of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Production costs are going up while prices are going down, so that grain producers across the country-in fact most grain producers happen to be in western Canada-are facing bankruptcy.
To give some indication of what the drop in prices paid to producers represents, the Leader of our Party, when he spoke in this debate yesterday morning, pointed out that in 1984-85, No. 1 wheat was $170 a tonne. In 1986-87, the price was down to $130 a tonne and this year, the Wheat Board announced that the price for No. 1 wheat would go down further to $110 a tonne. The producer who sees the price per tonne drop from
$170 to $110 over such a short period is under considerable financial pressure.
The price of other grains such as barley, for instance, has gone down as well. Mr. Turner told the House about these major price variations. In 1984-85, producers were getting $125 a tonne for No. 1 barley. In 1986-87, the price was down to $80 a tonne.
We heard a few days ago that the price for this year's crop is down to $60 a tonne, which means that in two years, the price of No. 1 barley has dropped from $125 to $60, less than half, so that our grain producers are facing a major crisis. The lower prices they get for their crops this year will make it increasingly difficult for farmers to finance their long- and short-term loans. It puts families, in an industry where most operations are still based on the family farm, under severe financial pressure and physical and moral stress. These farmers do not know how long they will be able to survive, to operate their farms and not only that, to stay in their homes. As though it were not enough to have to worry about the price of grain, farm producers have now been informed that the Government has decided to let the Farm Credit Corporation lift the moratorium on foreclosures.
In 1985, the Government had decided to put a moratorium on the foreclosures that would otherwise have resulted from decisions by the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. Last week, the Minister responsible announced the moratorium would be lifted, so that we have a situation where in a short period of time, farmers first heard that the Canadian Wheat Board, obviously with the Government's blessing, had reduced prices for their crops, and then that the Government had lifted this moratorium. Less income will make a bad financial situation even worse and, since the Farm Credit Corporation will now be able to seize farms and farm equipment, it only adds to the pressure and puts farmers and grain producers in a practically untenable situation.
Mr. Speaker, the decision to end the moratorium affects not only western producers but also producers in Quebec and other regions. This morning, in La Presse, there was a long article by reporter Pierre Gingras describing how a number of Quebec producers might be affected by the Government's decision to end the moratorium on foreclosures on farms whose owners are in arrears on loan payments to the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. Here is what he wrote: "Over the next few months, once the moratorium has been lifted, about one hundred Quebec farm producers will be getting Farm Credit Corporation of Canada foreclosure notices preventing them from declaring bankruptcy with respect to farms financed through FCC". He indicates as well that the FCC has 74,000 customers, including 7,500 in Quebec.
This decision obviously affects all producers, and this question does not concern only western producers, but Quebec farmers as well.
As a matter of fact, if we look at the overall agricultural situation we can see that western producers have to cope with

April 30, 1987
falling commodity prices, but eastern producers in general- including those of Quebec since we are part of the eastern region-are hard hit by other economic factors, more especially by the decisions of this Government or its lack of political courage to seek solutions to the extremely serious problems facing our producers.
We have just gone through a spring period and once again all sugar bush owners were able to see for themselves the ravages caused by acid rain. I should think that in recent weeks most parliamentarians have received letters from Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles indicating losses incurred by farmers who run maple sugar operations, losses which can be directly traced back to acid rains playing havoc with our maple forests. As can be expected, they want the Government to take a tougher and more direct approach in its discussions with the United States in an attempt to find a solution to the acid rain problem.
The second stressing situation for both eastern and western producers is that, in view of the free trade negotiations with the United States, they wonder what is going to happen to the marketing boards which regulate production. Of course this concerns our industrial and whole milk producers, our poultry producers and our egg producers because all these commodities now fall under marketing board regulations. These marketing boards may be put on the table in the negotiations with the United States. Several of my colleagues and I had an opportunity to tour the western provinces, and we also met with Maritime, Ontario and Quebec agricultural producers. We got the same message from coast to coast: Ask this Government not to put marketing boards on the negotiation table. Everywhere people told us that giving up the marketing boards would mean a large number of farm producers would disappear, and with them, a rural way of life that has been a part of our society for so many years. Farmers are in a very good position to compare the situation we have now under the marketing boards with the way things were handled previously, when milk, egg and poultry producers were subject to broad market swings, to dumping by the United States and other countries, all of which put them under extreme financial pressure. They do not want to go back to those times.
In this debate, the Liberals are asking for three things. Our Party Leader, Mr. Turner, made this very clear in his excellent speech yesterday, it was repeated by our Party's agriculture critic, and perhaps it would be appropriate for me to repeat our Party's demands at this point. The Liberals are asking for reinstatement of the moratorium on farm foreclosures by the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. The Liberals want the Government to continue the moratorium so as to avoid putting additional pressure on producers already faced with two consecutive reductions, 20 per cent and 18 per cent, in the price of grain.
Second, we are asking the Government, now that farmers are about to seed their 1987 crop, to let grain producers know what kind of price they can expect for their grain at the end of the 1987 crop year, in other words, to announce immediately a
deficiency payment program for this year's production, not last year's but the production for 1987 which farmers are seeding at this very moment.
Third, we ask the Government to deliver on the promises it has been making for the past two and a half years, and I am referring to the promised Western Economic Diversification Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, this debate may seem inordinately long. I know this has exasperated some people, but it is the only way we in the Opposition can show grain producers, both western grain producers and those in the rest of the country, that we are doing our duty, that we are concerned about their situation and that we are acting responsibly by pressuring the Government to take action. We are not only talking about farm foreclosures but about a whole way of life that is being destroyed as a result of this Government's failure to act.
For three days the House has been debating an issue of fundamental importance to every Canadian. It is the survival of our family farms.
No matter where one lives, whether it be in the Cities of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, or St. John's, every Canadian must be seriously concerned about the crisis facing rural Canada today.
To be objective, part of the problem facing rural Canada is caused by international forces such as the U.S. Farm Bill, with its huge subsidies, that was enacted by the United States to counteract the farm subsidies of the European Common Market. These subsidies must be vigorously opposed by the Canadian Government at every available opportunity. However, many of the problems facing our farmers are made in Canada and are directly the result of the Government's action or inaction.
Surely the Government realizes that one of the greatest crises in Canadian farm history is not going to be resolved by the Canadian Wheat Board cutting not only last year's price of wheat by some 20 per cent, but also cutting this year's price of wheat by 18 per cent.
As if this situation was not bad enough, the Government announced this week that it is lifting the ban on farm foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation. At the very time when farmers desperately require stability in their industry, and at the crucial seeding time of the year, the Government decides to choose this time to undermine further the confidence of the farming community by reintroducing foreclosures of our family farms. Moreover, the Government has compounded this deplorable situation by refusing to give a commitment of a deficiency payment for the new crop year this year to our farmers, at the very time when they have to make a decision on whether or not to seed. Surely, even the Government realizes that farmers have a right to know today what return they may reasonably plan to expect on their investment.
April 30, 1987

Not only has the price of wheat been going down but also decisions by competitors have been creating more problems. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to read a letter sent by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) concerning the American Government's decision on the sale of barley to Saudi Arabia. That will create additional problems for our farmers.
There are other problems in western Canada, one of which concerns the sugar-beet industry, particularly in Manitoba. In 1985, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) indicated that he would announce a sugar beet policy and that the federal Government would cover debts going beyond 1987. Neither of these commitments have been met. Instead, the Conservative Government in Ottawa continues to haggle with the NDP Government in Manitoba over developing a support program for the sugar-beet farmers of Manitoba. Meanwhile, a whole industry is on the verge of collapse.
If agreement is not reached shortly on this important matter, the Manitoba Sugar Company will be forced to close down, which will put a $90 million industry out of business, wipe out 300 to 400 farmers, and cost up to 500 jobs.


Charles James Mayer: The Liberal Government in Quebec sold out the whole sugar-beet industry.


Raymond Garneau: If the Government of Quebec did that, it is because of the Tory Government that refused to take action. I had the opportunity to meet with the sugar-beet producers in Quebec. The Tory Government refused to give the annual payment beet producers normally receive. That is why the Quebec Government is fed up with the Tory Government. It never happened the year before. The Government refused to make the payment to the Quebec farmers, the beet producers.


Charles James Mayer: Shame on the Liberals in Quebec.


Raymond Garneau: The Tories refused to make the payment. That is why they closed not only in Quebec but also possibly in Manitoba, in your own province.


Charles James Mayer: Shame on the Liberals in Quebec who sold out the sugar-beet industry in Quebec.


Raymond Garneau: When I visited the producers in Manitoba a year ago they were well aware of the fact that the Tory Government refused-


Charles James Mayer: What a windbag.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the sugar-beet industry is in jeopardy because of the Government.


Charles James Mayer: What a windbag.


Raymond Garneau: The Quebec Government had to make a very important decision which has affected many producers because
this Government refused to make the payment that was due to the farmers, not only the Quebec producers but many of the other producers. I met, I don't know how many times, with the Alberta producers here in Ottawa. I also met with them in Alberta.


Charles James Mayer: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Raymond Garneau: I also met with the producers in the Province of Manitoba and they gave us the same message. It is the same message in Quebec, in Alberta and in Manitoba. This Government has refused to make the payment. That is why the Quebec Government had to shut down an industry which had been created in 1945 by a Liberal Government. When I was Minister of Finance in Quebec, we were making those payments. We had to support and we did support this industry. It was done by the Liberal Government. As soon as the Tories came to power we had to shut down an industry which was very viable and created jobs for farmers and other workers.


Charles James Mayer: As soon as the Liberal Government took over in Quebec the first they did was shut it down. You know that.


Raymond Garneau: I just want to say that not only the wheat producers but the sugar-beet producers in Manitoba are in great difficulty. I cannot press the point strongly enough. I would like to urge the Government to make a decision as soon as possible to try to solve a problem which could create additional difficulty for Canadian farmers, particularly western farmers living in Manitoba.
The farmers are also preoccupied by some other policies of the Government, mainly, the tax reform. We met with the Farmers Association whose members come from all parts of the country. They raised very important questions about the business transfer tax. When the price of wheat is going down and we hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that the business transfer tax will be applied to their products that is another area of concern.
In summary I would like to repeat the three requests the Liberals are making during this debate; first, to reinstate the moratorium on farm foreclosures; second, announcement of a deficiency program for this year's crop and, third, announce the long-time promised Western Economic Diversification Strategy. Those are the three points we want to stress during this debate.
We hope that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) goes to western Canada next week he will not bring with him empty promises, but concrete promises. What the farmers in western Canada want to see is cash, not just the Prime Minister of the country.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get involved in the debate and to make a couple of points with respect to the debate. I think

April 30, 1987
people who know western agriculture such as the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and many of my colleagues on this side of the House who come from western Canada, realize there are a number of facts we have to get back on the table and see where we go from there.
The first point which has to be made is that western Canadian farmers understand the root causes of the pricing situation in the world today with respect to grains. We know the reductions which have taken place. I think it is important for all of us to know what we are competing with. The Liberal Party said previously, for instance, and the spokesman for the Party with respect to financial matters made the same point again with respect to the barley sale to Saudi Arabia by the United States, that Canada's share of international grain sales is going down. That is not the case. It is quite the opposite. In fact, it appears very clearly today that the sales through the Canadian Wheat Board, Canada's portion of international grain sales, is going up. That is the first point to be made.
The second point we have to make is the pricing policy. I want to note very clearly that we are competing very well in terms of sales. We are competing very well in terms of quality, and we are competing very well in terms of traditional and new markets. What we, as Canadians, are competing against is national treasuries. We are competing, for example, against the treasuries of the European Community. The European Community has made a decision, post-war, that Europe would become self-sufficient in food regardless of the cost to the treasury. That is the first point which has to be made. No one in this House is to blame and no one in Canada is to blame.
I would suggest that no one who understands the international grain market in Canada wants that situation to continue, least of all the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the first point to be made.
The second point is that we are competing with the United States Farm Bill which was a response by the United States primarily, not totally, against the action of the EEC. The point now is that the United States is spending about $25 billion U.S. in support of grains. That is projected to go to $30 billion U.S. next year, at least that is the estimate. So the question for us then clearly becomes what can the Canadian Government, the Canadian people, do not only to maintain markets, which we have been doing, but also to sustain the efforts of our Canadian grain producers?
I think it is best if we take a look at what some farm leaders are saying. I have been hearing a lot of rhetoric around the House today. I think if we look at what was said by the former Chairman of the United Grain Growers, Mac Runciman, who is a respected person in the grains business, he really describes the contribution of a number of Members on this issue. He said that he used to say when he was Chairman that the grain business was 14 per cent protein, and those of us from the grain belt know what that means, and 86 percent politics, "And the bad news is that over the past number of years-", and I would add during this debate, "-that the protein
content of our business is falling fast and the political content is going up", and that is not helping our grain producers. I say that with respect because I think we have to get to some first principles.
The first point the Liberal Party now makes is that we have not done anything. Then when they are challenged in the debate they say: "Well, maybe you have done something but you haven't done enough". That is the point they make. When I take a look at graphs, and this source is Agriculture Canada, and I take a look at federal support of agriculture in western Canada, I see that in 1983 it looks like approximately $250 million. In 1984 it had gone to about $1.2 billion, and I can go to 1987 to the forecast of over $3 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: At least I have their attention now. They do not want to speak about that. Then we take a look at interest rates because they ask what about the moratorium on the FCC. In 1981 the prime rate in Canada stood at 22.75 per cent. That was devastating to grain farmers. It was an incredible figure. This year the interest rate is 9.25 per cent on prime.
Let us look at the Farm Credit Corporation, because the Farm Credit Corporation, as we know, has to pay the average price of the TB Bills. In 1981 it was 16.75 per cent. This year, now today, it is 10 per cent.
Of course, all of us would like to have it even below that but I think it is important to get some of these facts on the table. What I am pleased about is that when I speak to my grain farmers in my riding, they understand. They are reasonable and understand. They do not like the situation but they understand it and want to see where some of the solutions lie. But then we listen to the New Democratic Party.
I come from Manitoba and we have an NDP Government. The last time I looked at the Constitution, agriculture is a shared responsibility, a responsibility shared by the federal Government and the provincial Governments. Members of the Opposition say that there is no money for seeding now.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, we did not. We did not state that in our motion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Do Members of the House, do Canadians, understand that in the next five weeks, that is, between today and roughly the end of May, $240 million will go to grain producers in Manitoba alone under the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Special Canadian Grains Program? That money for Manitoba to be given in the next five weeks is equal to the total given to Canadian grain farmers in the whole of 1983. If that is not enough evidence for Members opposite, and maybe it is not, then let us take a look at Manitoba's contribution. I said that this is a shared responsibility.
April 30, 1987

Do Hon. Members know what the total budget of the Manitoba Government is for agriculture for next year? It is $84 million. Yet Members opposite have the gall, the audacity to come in here and say that we are not doing enough. If we are not doing enough then where is Mr. Uruski? Where is Mr. Pawley?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It's 30 per cent higher than the previous Tory Government gave.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member likes to interject. Let us talk about Saskatchewan. I could talk about the Hon. Member's province too. Let us compare these figures to the figures of Premier Biakeney. Hon. Members will see that they pale by comparison. The point is that members of the NDP like to make great pronouncements but they hate facts. They do not like facts.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Saskatchewan is all loans.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They say that they are in favour of the farmer. Let us look at that situation. Let us look at what the Government has done in this regard. I cannot go through the whole list but I will give Hon. Members a few examples of what the Government has done. Canadian farmers have been begging for and wanting an exemption on capital gains. Why? Because they say that the proceeds from the sale of their farms is their only contribution to their retirement funds. They say that when they retire that is all they will have. What is the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to capital gains?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Look at Saskatchewan. It was the first place to give an exemption.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Members of the New Democratic Party want to abolish it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Saskatchewan gave an exemption 10 years before you guys.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They do not want farmers to have capital gains.


John R. Rodriguez: That is not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Even as they see farms going down in price members of the NDP want to tax the Canadian farmer on that. That is the position of the NDP.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is not!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They hate it when they get it, but they love to dish it out.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It's too bad you don't know the policy. You should check your facts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about other issues? What about the federal sales tax on farm fuels? Measures were
taken in that regard. What about the establishment of the agri-bond program? It was done.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was not done.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about the assistance to farmers by the FCC? That was done.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Get your list straight. We know you don't know anything about it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I could go on and on and on. The point is this. Members opposite like to talk both ways.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tell us about those agri-bonds, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They like to say, yes, reduce the deficit, reduce the interest rates, reduce that liability and at the same time raise prices beyond anything that taxpayers have the ability to meet.
I want to talk about sugar-beets today because I know what is happening in sugar-beets. We have a tripartite agreement with Alberta. The Quebec Government decided to get out. There was no tripartite agreement. It was the Liberal Government in Quebec that did it. Now let us talk about Manitoba. In Manitoba we are negotiating, trying again one more time to negotiate a tripartite agreement. But Manitoba does not want to be part of it. How can there be a tripartite agreement in that case? What is happening in Manitoba, and we know it very clearly, is that Members of that Government ask why they should support sugar-beets when they are not grown in areas they represent in the Legislature. That is how political it has become in Manitoba.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: They said you did not keep your word in the 1984 agreement. Why should they sign another one when you did not keep your word on the last one?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I enjoy the Hon. Member's rhetoric. I am glad I finally got his attention.
What it really boils down to in terms of the grain industry is this. Is there a possibility, if the pressures are international, to get what I think of as subsidy programs by the EEC and as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill turned around? What have we done? What we have done is this. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has taken the lead, both nationally and internationally. That work has been very closely co-ordinated with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. What have they done? They have visited countries that are involved in grain production to try to discuss the issue and to try to come up with some modus operandi whereby we will not all drown in subsidies. That is what they have tried to do.
There is not only that. The Prime Minister in negotiations at the summit has been able to bring forward agriculture as Canada's number one issue. It is the first time that a Prime Minister, a leader, has made agriculture the number one issue on a country's agenda. Happily, it is being accepted by other

April 30, 1987
countries as being sufficiently important internationally to examine at the summit. I think almost all Governments know that we cannot continue to drive down prices artificially by subsidy and then somehow have a viable agricultural community.
Farmers do not want to have subsidies. They do not want to come cap-in-hand to the Parliament of Canada for money for a commodity which they are producing and for which they should receive a fair return every time there is a crisis. Those are the realities. The NDP can argue all it wants. Those are the facts.
Let us now consider the moratorium. It is interesting when we consider the moratorium and farm financing to consider also a Bill passed by the NDP Government of Manitoba which would remove, for example, chattels against any loans taken for farm purposes. The Government there wanted support for such a proposition. However, a great many farmers were against it. It is quite evident why they were against it. It is because farmers see very clearly that they need a consistent line of credit with banking institutions in order to keep their operations going. They are in the business of agriculture. So what they were saying in Manitoba is that it might be a well-intentioned Bill, it might even be a Bill which is seen to be "against the banks", which is popular from time to time on the Prairies, but upon closer analysis they were concerned because the last thing they want is the cutting off or a reduction of that credit or the ability to obtain credit.
That is why the federal Government came in with a farm debt review board to see if we could not work out a common position, not only on the Prairies, but a common position by which all farmers could continue to operate while not jeopardizing their ability to obtain credit and the loans of the banking institutions could be repaid.
I would now like to talk about a press release put out by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association yesterday in which it is agreed that the moratorium had to be lifted. It points out that there has to be caution taken, obviously, so that people are not put into a situation whereby they will lose their farms. The Ministers have very clearly stated that that will not be the case.
What was involved was two types of payments. There were payments to financial institutions, including banks, credit unions and the FCC on the one hand, while on the other hand there were those who had the ability to pay at least something who chose not to pay in the hope that, perhaps, there would be an amnesty or whatever. It was not fair. It was not making the credit situation any better. Those are the situations, and I do not think we should put it any other way.
I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this Government's support for agriculture is very sound. I have already given examples of that, such as the FCC, the capital gains tax
exemption, the fuels tax credit, the Special Grains Program, the Western Grain Stabilization Act amendments, and others.
The Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board announced just a week ago that there would be another S705 million allocated for payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
I was in Manitoba during that period of time and had occasion to speak to the grain farmers. They knew what the situation was, and they also knew about the payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. They were pleased that the two announcements came in and around the same time. It provided them with some form of assurance in respect of their crops.
I am pleased with the way in which our farmers have been reacting to the situation. Quite frankly, trying to create an even larger crisis than all of us recognize already exists because of world pressures is not doing anything at all to help the farming community.
I remain convinced that we must come to an international agreement, an international consensus, an international recognition that the kinds of subsidy programs now in place internationally are going to continue hurting our farmers, our economies, our international relations. It is for that reason that it is critical that the Prime Minister and others take this issue to the summit table. It is absolutely critical.
I am not using that argument to deflect what the Government should do, what the Government is doing, what farmers are doing; but, we all recognize that that is the absolute requirement.
I do not know whether or not Hon. Members recognize it, but 80 per cent of Manitoba's agricultural production must find a market outside Manitoba. Without access to the American markets, all of the subsidies in the world, all of the agreements in the world will be of absolutely no value. If we do not have access to international markets, the agricultural industry will suffer.
Of course there has to be protection in terms of supply-management and commodity prices-and we all recognize that. Everyone understands that. No one is blind to that. But, I wish, once and for all, that the Opposition, who can be as critical as they wish, would at least base their criticisms on fact. They can be as critical as they wish, but their criticism should be based on a recognition of the world situation. They should at least on occasion tip their hats to the reality that exists on the Prairies.
We hear a lot about western alienation. I think this debate on the western grain situation should demonstrate for all of us exactly how much Canadians of one region need Canadians of other regions.
Today it is the west. With the dairy policy, it was primarily Quebec. Both policies were right.
It is time that Canadians, no matter what the pressures, no matter where their region, recognized that we are one country,
April 30, 1987

and they do. While we will fight for our regional positions, there is an over-riding larger consideration, that being the ability of Canadians from one region, as the tugs and pulls and pressures come, to help Canadians in trouble in another region. That is how this country has been built.
If this debate teaches us anything, it is that we are only strong when we recognize the need to work together.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues in government from other than the prairie region have gained an appreciation of what is happening on the Prairies, and I am particularly pleased that they have shown a willingness to approve costly measures to assist in the situation.
All we on the government side ask is that there be a recognition of those facts and that there be a critical analysis of what else could be done, rather than making politics more important than the health of the grain business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it has been roughly thirty-seven and one half hours since I entered the Chamber to participate in this debate. With a short break that allowed some of us to catch a reasonable night's sleep, we now have the opportunity to continue the debate.
It is a very important debate. Quite frankly, it is a debate about the future of the Canadian farmer; it is a debate about the Canadian grain situation, about the family farm. It is not a debate, as some in this House would have us believe, particularly those on the government side, solely about the western Canada situation. There are farmers in Atlantic Canada; there are farmers in Quebec and Ontario; there are farmers on the Prairies; and there are farmers in British Columbia-and all are impacted by the decision of this Government to lift the moratorium on foreclosures.
It reaches out to those who are not directly tied in with the Farm Credit Corporation, that institution being the key element in this debate because of the decision to lift the moratorium on any foreclosures by it. But, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, in this market-place environment, if there are restrictions on one element, then, ipso facto, there are restrictions on the other sectors as well, the banks and the credit unions.
I wish to commence my contribution to this debate by reminding the House and those who have followed it of the steps taken to trigger the debate.
The first step was taken by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), that step coming in the form of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, dated April 27 last.
I should like to take a few moments to read that letter into the record. Over the course of the debate, it has become apparent that there is a misconception on the part of some as to what the intent in requesting this emergency debate was.
The letter reads:
April 27, 1987
The Hon. John Fraser P.C., M.P.
Speaker of the House of Commons Room 222-N House of Commons Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am writing this letter to notify you that tomorrow I intend to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of considering a question of urgent and pressing necessity. That issue is the current crisis facing Canadian grain producers.
At the moment there does not appear to be any opportunity in the immediate future to have these issues brought before Parliament for a full and open discussion. Recent developments have however brought an urgency to this issue that might not have existed before. These include the following;
(1)	Last week the Canadian Wheat Board announced that the initial price for Number 1 Canadian wheat would be 18 per cent lower than last year's price. This follows on last year's price which was about 20 per cent less than the year before. Taken together this is a very substantial drop in the price that grain farmers will be guaranteed for their crop and it will mean hardship for many farm families across Canada.
(2)	It was announced today that the Farm Credit Corporation moratorium on farm foreclosures was being brought to an end as a result of a decision of the Minister of Agriculture. This will mean that for those families who cannot absorb the fall in the price of grain announced last week, bankruptcy will be the only option left open to them. This is indeed a sad situation and a direct attack on the viability of the family farm, particularly in Western Canada.
(3)	At this time of year when prairie grain farmers are engaged in planting this year's crop it is extremely important that they have an idea as to whether or not they can expect a deficiency payment this year. So far the government has refused to give them its assurance.
Mr. Speaker I believe that these are sufficient reasons for granting a request for an emergency debate. The problems in the economy of Western Canada are severe and growing worse. The situation facing the prairie grain farmer needs immediate attention and I believe that granting an emergency debate so that Members of Parliament have an opportunity to discuss these issues would be wholly appropriate at this time.
And the letter is signed by Mr. Hovdebo, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, and as others in this country will be aware, the Speaker did deem the issue to be of an emergency nature and granted the request to hold an emergency debate on it. That debate started at 8 p.m. on April 27 last and went around the clock some 21 hours, to a point yesterday afternoon. This morning, the debate was resumed.
We feel very strongly that this is not just an opportunity to get up in the House to talk about farm issues, the survival of the family farm and various crops. It is not just a reason so we can have something to mail out to our farm constituents. We believe the fundamental purpose of this debate is to focus public attention and, therefore, government attention on the very serious situation that exists in rural Canada.
The moratorium is supposed to come off tomorrow, Friday, May 1, and we are hoping through this combined pressure, through the Members of the House of Commons and through farm groups and citizens across Canada that the Government will reconsider its decision. We hope it will announce some

April 30, 1987
time today during the debate that, in fact, taking the moratorium off is wrong, and that it will stay in place for a period necessary to ensure that the appropriate mechanism is put in place for debt review and to allow farmers to get rid of their debts. They will not then be under the gun of the Farm Credit Corporation, the bank or the credit union. We are getting that support, Mr. Speaker.
I have two letters here, one which actually came before the debate. It is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). It is from a very important agricultural group in Manitoba, namely the Keystone Agricultural Producers. Mr. Jack Penner, President, wrote the letter with copies to the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). I have had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Penner on a couple of occasions at grain related conferences or Seaway conferences which he and I have attended. I have grown to respect the man. I also know that he has a direct involvement in the politics in western Canada. He has worked from time to time for the Minister of State for the Wheat Board in terms of his own political career. I want to read into the record the plea from the Keystone Agricultural Producers of last week:
On behalf of grain producers in Manitoba, we call on your Government to announce, as soon as possible, intention to introduce a similar program for the 1987-88 crop year, with support levels at least equivalent to those under the 1986 program.
We feel strongly that any such additional program should be based simply on acreages to keep it production neutral. The farm financial crisis is so serious that we feel action must be taken prior to the end of April to ensure grain farmers and the business community that the Federal Government is supportive.
What did the Government do? It pulled out the rug from underneath those who were able to keep the FCC at bay because of foreclosure. Mr. Penner's letter continues:
A second important step should be a bold new initiative through the Farm Credit Corporation to save thousands of commercial farms from insolvency. In addition to new loan funds at affordable rates, the FCC should become a full service lender to the farm community. This we feel would provide the assurances required now by the farm community, in times when other lending institutions are threatening to withdraw services.
What does the Government do, Mr. Speaker? It joins in with the threats and pulls the plug. The letter continues:
The CAP supports the initiative of your government in attempting to persuade the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan to discontinue the current trade war, which is seriously affecting the economies of other grain producing countries. Unfortunately, even positive results from these efforts will be too late to save many thousands of young farmers, with serious detrimental effects for rural towns.
Your immediate and urgent attention to this matter is sought by the farmers of Manitoba.
As history will show, they did not get that support. In fact the opposite occurred.
I have another letter from the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool dated April 28, 1987. It is again written to the Prime Minister. It concerns the emergency debate on the farm economic crisis. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the largest pool elevator groups in western Canada, one that has major holdings in Thunder Bay where a lot of the grains it
handles are moved through my community. Mr. Stevenson writes:
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool believes that the rural way of life and related service industries are in jeopardy.
The Pool asks that all Members of Parliament recognize the very critical economic situation confronting Western Canadian families and communities. This crisis has far-reaching social and economic implications for the national economy, as well as for the West.
We specifically recommend:
1.	That programs be immediately developed through federal and provincial co-operation to keep families on their farms in productive capacities.
2.	That early consideration be given to the acute need for a substantial deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year.
3.	That government continue its efforts to restore sanity in the international grain market.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool continues to be prepared to work with government to achieve short and long-term solutions in the interests of the farmers and communities of Saskatchewan and Western Canada.
Those are two comments from two diverse farm groups in western Canada. Both clearly plead to this Parliament, and to the Government of Canada, to do something positive to protect their existence.
What are we talking about in terms of numbers when we talk about farm foreclosures? We have had a number of them quoted in this House. During the Standing Committee on Agriculture meeting on March 24 of this year the following information was given. Eight per cent of our farmers are insolvent. Based on 171,000 farmers that means over 13,500 farmers are considered insolvent. Some 23 per cent have major cash flow problems; that is in the magnitude of 53,000 farmers. Of the Farm Credit Corporation borrowers, 6,000 are more than two years in arrears. Can you imagine if that were one of us and it was a car or a house? It would be gone a long time ago.
There has been some compassion. The powers that have said no, that we should not be pulling the rug out from under these people. Give them a chance to continue to survive. The family farm is part of Canada. Farming is part of Canada. It is part of the reason we exist as a country.
As we developed the CPR west of Thunder Bay we were opening up more and more acres of farmland encouraging people to move out there to develop a sound economic basis to feed our country, to feed North America and finally to feed the world.
It is not just the western producer. It is not just the grain producer. First, in terms of the moratorium it is any farmer in Canada whether in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, northern Ontario, New Liskeard, the Sault Ste. Marie area, the Thunder Bay area, the Slate River Valley, in Rainy River, or in British Columbia. All farmers are affected and all farmers are nervous. It is creating a lot of stress in the family, and I will come back to that.
I want to mention that it is not just grain per se or wheat per se, it is the corn producer, the soybean producer, the small grain producers in central and Atlantic Canada. They are
April 30, 1987

affected by the deficiency payments. They need to know that when they put their seeds in the ground over the next couple of weeks that they will get enough money for the produce when they harvest it so they can pay the bills for planting and maintaining that crop. They would even like it if there was a little left over to put food on the table. They are not asking for the moon. They are asking for a decent opportunity to make a living in farming. They know the world markets are working against us. They know, whether we have the biggest crop in our history, that because of the international price that that price alone will not allow them to recover the cost of producing that grain.
We know it is a world situation and we have seen the response of the other countries. The European Economic Community is one of the biggest supporters of its agricultural sector in the world. In 1985, it provided support of $2.60 per bushel. That support jumped to $3.13 per bushel in 1986, an increase of 53 cents per bushel. The United States, in its effort to catch up with the EEC, has gone from support of $1.49 per bushel to $3.13 per bushel in 1986, an increase of $1.14. What was Canada's response? Two nickels a bushel is all we upped the ante. How can we help keep our producers producing if that is the kind of nickel and dime commitment we give to them? We are not asking that those figures be matched. We are just asking for sufficient funds for the producers to have confidence enough to survive.
I am not a farmer. I am not much good at even growing a garden other than to do the digging but my roots are in farming. My grandfather and his brothers homesteaded in rural Manitoba in a community now called Angusville which, I am proud to say, is named after them. My father was a farmer until he went off to war.
Many of the people in the community of Thunder Bay and the surrounding area moved to Thunder Bay from western Canada. They followed the grain to the Lakehead. There are literally thousands who work and live in Thunder Bay whose livelihoods depend on the viability of the western Canadian farmer. The fewer farmers there are, ultimately the less grain there is to move through the Port of Thunder Bay. The less grain that moves through the Port of Thunder Bay, the less grain that moves through the St. Lawrence and all the communities along it.
I would like to give the House an idea of the number of communities in eastern Canada that are touched directly by the resourcefulness and skills of producers in western Canada. In Thunder Bay, 2,000 people are involved in the grainhandling sector. Up to 2,000 people work on the lakers taking the grain from Thunder Bay to points along the Seaway. In Montreal, 175 people work in the elevators and their livelihoods depend on western grain. In Sorel, there are 43 people who depend on grain. In Trois-Rivieres, there are 50. In Quebec City, there are 105 and in Saint John there are 50. In Halifax, there are 60 people who depend on grain. Here is the
rub. In the riding of Manicouagan, there are 194 people, some in Port Cartier, some in Baie Comeau, whose livelihoods depend on grain being produced and sold at a decent price or at the very least sold somewhere in the world.
Yesterday morning at approximately 8 a.m., the Prime Minister spoke in the House. A number of us were quite surprised to see him here. However, we felt good that he was here because it meant the message was getting out. The Government was feeling the pressure and it had to have the Prime Minister respond. He reminded us that he is only a phone call away. Mind you, that was a phone call during an election in which there was a chance there would be a change in Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister wanted to do his best to help out his friends.
Today, yesterday and the day before we have been asking for some very specific assistance for Canadian farmers and the Prime Minister seems to be ignoring those pleas. Perhaps he will get an earful this afternoon when he meets with the premiers. We know that they too have been feeling the pressure. Although their meeting is not to deal with agriculture but with the Constitution, we would be very shocked to learn that they did not raise this extremely important matter with the Prime Minister.
We should not have to rely on phone calls. We should have a Government that is prepared to examine a sector like agriculture in the context of the world market and in terms of the Canadian need and say: "We have to do something, here is our plan. Let us protect those farmers who have loans with the Farm Credit Corporation and by doing so send a signal to the banks". Can you imagine what signal the banks are receiving today, Mr. Speaker? As soon as the foreclosure moratorium stops tomorrow, it will be open season on farmers. There are a lot of them who are in jeopardy.
Once again, it seems that the banks will get their way. Not so long ago, this broke Government that is so concerned about the deficit found $ 1 billion over a week-end. Now it cannot even say to the Canadian farmers who are under pressure from those very same banks that it will keep the wolf away from their doors and put in place a program that will allow them to get rid of their debt in a realistic way. The Government will not say that it will provide the supports that would ensure at the very least that farmers could get as much out of their products as they put into them.
I appreciate having the opportunity finally to speak in this debate. I had hoped to be the wrap-up speaker, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you will be disappointed to know that I am not and that there are many more to come.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I was able to return from western Canada this morning to offer a few comments on this critical situation. I was in Winnipeg last night and at the meeting 1 attended there were many members of the farming community.

April 30, 1987
1 notice a few of my Tory friends across the way snickering at the fact that the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount would rise to speak on a farming issue. I would like to register for the record as probably many people in the House can that I in fact grew up on a farm only a few miles from this city. I spent all the formative years of my life on a small family farm in the Ottawa Valley between Cumberland and Orleans. I do not say that to add credibility to the remarks I will make because they will stand on their own merits. I simply say that many of us in Canada come either from farming backgrounds or have roots in farming backgrounds. I believe that fact reminds all of us of the importance of the Canadian farming sector, the backbone of every nation.
Often we tend to be somewhat complacent about farmers. Over the years, Canadians have grown rather accustomed to having good quality food at reasonable prices with little thought given to where that food comes from. The trials and tribulations of the farming sector, when it encounters them, are often forgotten. I hope that if this debate accomplishes anything, and I am not sure it will accomplish much to change the obdurate attitude of the Government, it will raise the consciousness of Canadians as they sit in their living rooms and at their dinner tables across the country reflecting somewhat upon the critical situation currently faced by western grain farmers and likely to be faced by farmers in other sectors as well.
Not many of us know a lot of rich and wealthy farmers. We know a lot of hard-working, dedicated people who love both the land and their occupation. In many cases farms have been in their families for generations. Others had dreams to be farmers and now find those dreams in jeopardy.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) spoke some weeks ago in this House he said: "We will spare no effort". He was referring of course to the resolution of the farming crisis in western Canada. You will find at page 5450 of Hansard where our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in response to his own question of whether the Government of Canada would help the farmers of western Canada, that being the content of telephone calls he was allegedly receiving, said firmly: "Yes, we will help the farmers of western Canada". I ask him: What is the help? Where is the help?
We have grown rather accustomed, as has the Canadian public since the Prime Minister assumed office, to great noble declarations, but we have seen little action to give concrete expression to those declarations. At the risk of sounding cynical, it almost looks as though the way the Government and Prime Minister intend to provide that help is to drive many farmers from their farms. It is rather like the Spanish Inquisition where heretics were burned at the stake so they could move on to a better afterlife. More recently you will recall in the Vietnam War that famous declaration of an Army commander who said that he had to destroy a village in order to save it. Is what we are seeing today the destroying of the
western farming sector in order to save it? That effectively is all we have seen so far.
It is not fair, and I am the first to acknowledge it, simply to criticize a very difficult situation.

It is not fair to criticize without offering alternative and concrete policies to remedy a situation that I, Mr. Speaker, can only describe as disastrous.

What are the problems in the farming sector in western Canada? In fact many of the problems are the same in the rest of the farming community. However, what are the problems that the Government can and should correct? Personally I believe the Government can do a great deal more. The Minister says that no effort will be spared. Let him live up to his word. I have a few suggestions to make.
First, the fundamental problem in the farming sector is the unhappy fact of falling revenue. Revenue has been in a disastrous downward curve. It is falling because of declining grain prices. We then have the convergence of those declining prices on the one hand with increasing input costs on the other. We know that the costs of fertilizer, fuel and labour have increased. An infinite number of costs have increased so as to make that convergence a reality. Most importantly, perhaps, in this current situation, are the financing costs. One of the questions the Government must immediately ask itself if it intends to spare no effort is simply this: How does the Government cushion those input costs, especially financing costs?
I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) today, a Minister for whom I have considerable respect. He comes out of Manitoba and should know the situation well. I heard him making some declarations about the uninformed rhetoric in this Chamber. He then went on to make some of the most uninformed and stupid comments I have heard in this House from someone who should know better. He focused, for example, on the question of interest rates and went back to 1982.


Philip Derek Lewis: Those were sad years.


Donald James Johnston: I invite the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) to listen carefully. He went back and spoke about how high interest rates were then.


Philip Derek Lewis: Under your Government.


Donald James Johnston: He referred to the prime rate being something like 22 per cent. I do not recall whether it hit that or not but according to the data I have in front of me from The Bank of Canada, StatsCan, the FCC and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the prime rate in 1981 averaged 19.29 per cent, and in 1982 some 15.81 per cent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Averaged?
April 30, 1987


Donald James Johnston: If the Hon. Member would listen for a change he will be educated on the question of interest rates. To take a prime interest rate in isolation, as the Minister did, is really the height of demagoguery in this Chamber when we are dealing with a serious issue. In 1980 the bank prime rate averaged 14.25 percent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Averaged?


Donald James Johnston: If my hon. friend will listen-


Philip Derek Lewis: Do you have a mortgage at the average rate or the highest rate, Don?


Donald James Johnston: -the FCC loan rate, 15 to 20 years, in 1980 was 13 per cent, or 1.25 per cent below the prime.


Philip Derek Lewis: Come on, Don.


Donald James Johnston: In 1981, as inflation increased and interest rates went up, the bank prime rate was at 19.29 per cent


Philip Derek Lewis: You did commercial law just like I did, so, come on.


Donald James Johnston: The FCC rate was at 14 per cent, or more than five percentage points lower than the prime rate. What is the prime rate today? As of last week it was in the neighbourhood of 8.25 per cent. Listen to this. The last Canada Savings Bond rate at which the Government goes out and borrows from the public, the Series 38 through 41, was 7.75 per cent last November. Yet here we have members of the Government bragging about the fact that the FCC rate is now something in the order of 10 per cent, and it was 11 per cent in the first quarter.


Philip Derek Lewis: Right, we are bragging about it.


Donald James Johnston: The Minister of Agriculture says he will spare no effort. I think one effort he should not spare is to walk over and have a word with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is not too difficult. There is no reason why the Government should be profiting in its loans to grain farmers during a period when grain prices were slashed 15 per cent to 25 per cent this year after an incredible 19 per cent to 26 per cent drop last year.
Exceptional and critical circumstances require an exceptional response from a Government that accepts its responsibilities. Yet we have had no response. We have had people bragging about the level of the FCC rate, which is absolutely outrageous.
I want to pick up the Minister of National Health and Welfare on another point he made. When we talk about costs and interest rates the real issue is the real interest rate. What is the real interest rate? What is the difference between the Consumer Price Index and the interest rate that anyone is obliged to pay? If we look at the situation in Canada we will find that when the FCC was lending at 11 per cent, the CPI annual rate was 3.9 per cent. That means the real interest rate for farmers was 7.1 per cent. The spread was never that high
during the most critical periods of the recession in the early 1980s.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Liberal recession.


Donald James Johnston: I think the Government should absorb some lessons of history and go back and practise some of the policies that the Liberal Government not only preached but followed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
OO)


Donald James Johnston: It is absolutely outrageous that when input costs are so high and there is one thing about which the Government can do something, namely, interest rates, it does not step in and cushion the impact of those interest rates on the farming community.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Like you did during the early eighties when they were 22 per cent?


Donald James Johnston: Don't tell me I have to repeat it all again. This is like a lesson in-


Thomas Scott Fennell: Spare us. You've embarrassed yourself anyway, Don.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would you please be quiet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Donald James Johnston: Let me ask a question which I hope the next Tory speaker, if the Government has the courage to put one up, will respond to. Is it an outrageous proposition to suggest that the Farm Credit Corporation, during this critical period, should lend to farmers at the same rate as it borrowed from the Canadian public on Canada Savings Bonds? Is that an outrageous suggestion? I do not think it is.


J. Michael Forrestall: Did you ever do that?


Donald James Johnston: I am quite prepared to answer those questions in due course, but I ask the next Tory speaker who has the courage to stand to tell me whether that is an outrageous proposition. We are not impotent.
I referred a moment ago to the circumstances of grain farmers in western Canada who have seen their guaranteed prices fall 15 per cent to 20 per cent in the current year, 19 per cent to 26 per cent last year, and who are faced with interest rates at the level about which we are talking. Not one Member on the other side of this House would have to pay such interest rates on a five-year home mortgage yet our farmers are being obliged by the Farm Credit Corporation to pay interest at this level.
You know a lot about business, Mr. Speaker. Do you know any business which does not have an incredible equity base that could survive a 15 per cent to 20 per cent cut in its prices this year and a 19 per cent to 26 per cent cut in its prices last year? Farms which have a very substantial equity base and those which were inherited through generations and have had

April 30, 1987
their capital costs amortized may be able to stagger through this period, but they will not get rich. All of the others that have any loans which they have been encouraged to take over the years by the credit corporation will find themselves faced with foreclosures.
That brings me to another question. Why in the name of God would the Government, given the circumstances which the farming community faces, lift the moratorium on foreclosures at this time? Only a Conservative could answer that question and I hope some of them will if they dare to stand.
This issue does not affect only Canadian wheat farmers. This is our great Canadian heritage, our great Canadian asset. Even the farms which survive this crisis are going to watch their assets erode because they have no available funding to do the important things which are necessary to preserve the quality of the farmland in western Canada.
You are familiar with the salinization problems which are taking place, Mr. Speaker. You know of the soil erosion problems. You are from the Edmonton area and you see it. You know how much of our western soil is blown away each year, and know of the expense of introducing the farm technology necessary to prevent that from happening and to prevent the saline conditions from increasing. These all cost money. The people who lose their farms are in one situation, but the people who stay on their farms do no have adequate resources to do the things necessary to preserve our great natural heritage, our great natural resource, for generations to come.
On the input cost side the Government can act, should act, must act. It can act quickly on the issue of interest payments and by getting rid of the ridiculous notion of introducing foreclosures at this time. It is admittedly more difficult on the revenue side because of the international situation. No efforts should be spared.
I realize I only have a brief moment left to speak, but I am sure I will get unanimous consent to continue because the Members are learning something which they obviously have not known before.
There is an opportunity here to do something concrete. The United States and the European Economic Community can be associated with our major problems. This crisis is effectively being driven by a price war. We know from this month's releases by the Embassy in Washington that the U.S. Trade Bill is once again introducing more measures that will be damaging to Canadian agriculture. For example, the Export Enhancement Program is being amended to expand the number of countries which will be offered U.S. agricultural products at subsidized prices. This has a direct impact on the health and welfare of Canada.
I know I have little time left and I want to make reference to a letter which my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), today sent to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He said that it has been brought to his attention that the Department of
Agriculture has a new agricultural trade subsidy initiative which will include measures damaging to Canada. They are proposing to include, under the Export Enhancement Program, an offer of 1.25 million metric tonnes of barley to Saudi Arabia. As you know, Saudi Arabia is a traditional Canadian buyer. If this is approved by the trade review committee of the U.S. administration it will mean a loss of $75 million to $85 million to Canadian farmers.
Where will this end? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has said that this is a battle of national Treasuries but the Government has said it cannot afford this fight between Treasuries. What ground will we fight it on? The ground is surely at the negotiating table between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Reisman. Why is this issue not up front? Why is this not the primary item of concern in those negotiations? This is a critical period and we are not told how-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has more than expired. Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to carry on?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians who are accustomed to tuning in just about now, especially the good people of Hamilton-Wentworth, may wonder what an MP from southern Ontario is doing participating in a debate on the grains crisis and the lifting of the moratorium on the FCC. It is a monumentally important debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who preceded me talked about the courage of Tory MPs in getting up to speak. Since this debate began yesterday seven cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), and 25 Members of Parliament on this side, I being the twenty-sixth Conservative MP, have entered this debate. The Liberals have put up 12 speakers. That is courage. That shows the commitment we have to Canadian agriculture and to the importance of this debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have 210 MPs. We have 40. That is proportionately higher. Stick around, we're not finished yet.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) would stifle himself, I could continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to listen to what the Hon. Member is saying. I will listen to all other Hon. Members when it comes their time to debate.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: This is a monumentally important debate on a national issue. It is not just a western Canadian problem, it affects all of Canada's farmers.
I am delighted to be receiving so much attention from the Opposition because it gives me and other Hon. Members an opportunity to put on the record the importance of this debate.
April 30, 1987

1 repeat that it is not just a western Canadian problem, it affects all of Canada's farmers. There are many small family farms in the 650 square miles of my Hamilton-Wentworth area. That is why Members of Parliament from across Canada feel it is important to participate in this debate so that we can put on the record the Government's commitment to agriculture and to all farmers across Canada.
I cannot help but repeat the reference that the Right Hon. Prime Minister made to one of his predecessors, former Prime Minister Trudeau. We were given an example of his attitude from his famous statement that he made when confronted with not dissimilar circumstances. He said, "Well, why should I sell your wheat?" After the former Prime Minister said that, apparently he was confronted by a number of farm leaders who said his statement was giving them a real headache. Mr. Trudeau then said, "What the hell, it may be a headache for you guys but it is not migraine". That was the attitude that the Prime Minister of the day and the Liberal Government of the day took toward the problems of Canadian farmers.
During the 1984 election campaign we promised a 16-point commitment to the farmers of this country. We have delivered on 14 of them. Since 1984 we have pumped $6 billion in initiatives into Canadian agriculture. The Government has given agriculture a priority that is unprecedented. I believe that our record is second to none. Of course, agriculture means about 1.6 million Canadian jobs.
In the recent Throne Speech we promised to spare no effort in seeking to protect the interests of Canada's farming communities in the face of unfair pricing and subsidy practices conducted beyond our borders. I will return to that question because those pricing practices beyond our borders are instrumental to the whole thrust of this debate.
We are providing the largest farm assistance package ever, with the billion-dollar Special Canadian Grains Program which is putting a billion dollars of new money into the pockets of our farmers. I am delighted that almost without exception every member of the Opposition who has spoken in this debate has recognized the importance of that much needed money to western Canadian farmers.
Our Government, led by the Prime Minister, successfully pushed for agriculture to be included in the negotiations under GATT. For the first time agriculture will be on the table. We are continuing to push for a better mechanism for settling agricultural trade disputes with the United States. Those negotiations are continuing as we speak.
We are seeking secure, reliable access for our farm products. The motion passed in the House of Commons on March 16 supports the negotiation of a trading agreement with the United States which will protect our agricultural marketing systems.
Since we came into office in 1984, we have introduced over 400 agricultural initiatives at a cost of nearly $6 billion. That is over one new initiative for every other working day. I think it is worth putting those initiatives on the record so that the
people of Canada understand our commitment to agriculture in general.
We provided $200 billion in drought assistance for the western provinces. We abolished capital gains taxes on the sale of farm land up to $500,000. The House will remember the applause we received across the length and breadth of this country as a result of that move. The NDP voted against it. That iniquitous capital gains tax was imposed on farmers by the previous Liberal Government.
We established farm debt review boards, now operating in every province, assisting financially troubled farmers to come to agreements with their creditors to avoid foreclosure.
Mr. George McLaughlin, chairman of the farm debt review board in Ontario estimates that at least 55 per cent of the cases going to the board are being resolved. That is 55 per cent more cases being resolved, when there had been no hope before.
I think it is important to point out in respect of lifting the moratorium on the FCC that the FCC cannot simply move in and foreclose. The review board gives a stay of proceedings for at least 120 days, which provides some breathing space to farmers who are desperately worried, or worse, when one listens to some of the rhetoric coming from the other side during this debate.
We removed the federal sales tax on farm fuels and exempted farmers from the current excise tax. A rebate program reduced taxes on farm fuel.
A further initiative extended the program to effectively remove all federal sales and excise tax on diesel and gasoline farm fuel until January, 1988. When the excise tax was raised in the 1986 Budget, the exemption was also raised to keep farmers from being affected.
We established an agri-bond program to provide loans at reduced rates to farmers. There was an extension of the small business bond program for two years. Hearings were held on agri-bonds.
A moratorium was placed on FCC foreclosures until programs were operating to assist financially troubled farmers. The lifting of those moratoriums is the subject of this debate, and it is definitely the concern of the Canadian Government to make absolutely certain that through this crisis Canadian farmers are treated with the concern and compassion that any Canadian Government can muster under the circumstances.
An optional shared risk mortgage program through the FCC was announced. A commodity-based loan program was introduced in February, 1986. That rose to $300 million as of April, 1987. The FCC interest rate on five-year fixed term loans is at the lowest level since 1979.
We took action to assist farmers who were locked into high interest FCC loans. A five-year $80-million interest rate conversion program assisting 5,400 FCC borrowers was implemented.

April 30, 1987
Interest rates are at their lowest level in nine years. Every 1 per cent decline saves Canadian farmers $130 million a year.
We moved to expand the PFRA to national farm and forest rehabilitation legislation, to bring new technology into the hands of farmers and rural residents. A Private Members' Motion on the PFRA was referred to a Standing Committee.
National Soil Conservation Week was proclaimed in 1985, 1986, and 1987. Federal-provincial discussions on the PFRA and soil conservation are occurring on a priority basis.
In June last year we established the farm finance boards and the farm debt review boards were functioning by September 1. Many Members have referred to the Canadian Rural Transition Program which was established to assist farmers who choose to leave the farm to seek other vocations. Every eligible applicant has been assisted since September, 1986, and $46.6 million has been spent in the interest of assisting farmers who want to move to other vocations under the CRTP.
Section 31 of the Income Tax Act will be changed to reflect the principles of equity, neutrality, simplicity and certainty.
In applying Section 31, Revenue Canada officials were directed not to limit declared farm losses when farmers, for economic reasons, are forced to take temporary part-time work off the farm. Interpretation and enforcement of the Act has been relaxed to benefit Canadian farmers. We moved to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act to double cash advance levels. The Act was amended, doubling the size of loans for advance payments back in June of 1985. Legislation was introduced to the PGAPA to enact emergency provisions more quickly and to ensure more equitable treatment.
We moved to amend the WGSA to make it more responsive to the immediate needs of producers. Amendments to the WGSA triggered a spring interim payment of $450 million in 1985, another interim payment of $580 million in 1986 and an even larger payment is expected for 1987.
We moved to establish a National Income Stabilization Program for the red meat sector. Here is where we get to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association news release. It supports tough decisions by agricultural Ministers, and I quote:
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association supports the decision of Agricultural Minister John Wise to end the temporary debt moratorium on debts to the Farm Credit Corporation.
The CCA views debt moratoria as a temporary measure and has never supported its use.
CCA President Stan Wilson emphasized, "Our concern is that the distortions caused by debt moratoria do more damage to the farm credit system than any possible benefit to individual farmers".
Mr. Wilson concluded, "As responsible farm leaders, we must do more than continually criticize these actions and decisions of our Ministers".
I hope members of the Opposition are listening. This fellow makes sense. Mr. Wilson continues:
We need to take more responsibility for contributing to farm policy formation in Canada. It took great courage for both Mr. Wise and Mr. Mayer to make these decisions.
He concludes:
As producers, we recognize that courage, and support the measures taken.
I can point out to my Liberal friends that that is another kind of courage which the Ministers have and which we as a Government are demonstrating.
In the very few moments that I have left let me point out that in establishing the Income Stabilization Program for the red meat sector, we asked that participating provinces engage in tripartite stabilization and produce between two thirds and the three quarters of Canada's hogs, fed beef and lambs. We are working with producers to establish the marketing system they desire. Tobacco producers asked for, and received, enabling legislation paving the way for a national supply management system. A broiler hatching egg agency was proclaimed in December of 1986.
Potato producers are working with the Government on a proposal for the Potato Marketing Agency. Public hearings are being held. A Government motion was passed in March of 1986 that:
This House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with
the United States-while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs,
agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry and our unique cultural
identity.
There it is. The fact is that the Government is on record as protecting Canada's agricultural marketing system.
We are re-establishing a long term dairy policy. A new five-year dairy policy was announced endorsing supply management. That involves $1.5 billion in just over five years. We are protecting producers against injury caused by highly subsidized imports. The Government, as I said earlier, at the initiative of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, has made agriculture its top priority for the upcoming GATT talks. The Prime Minister successfully fought to have agriculture put on the table. The Meat Import Act was invoked in 1985 to halt imports of subsidized EEC beef. Legislative action to ensure the Act can be invoked will be taken if necessary.
Corn countervailing duties were made permanent. Grain corn imported from the United States will have a duty of 84.9 cents U.S. per bushel assessed against it.
Let me conclude by saying I have been around this House, either on the third floor in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, or on the second floor of the House of Commons, since 1959. Unless one goes back to the days of the distinguished former Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) back in 1959, when I came here and watched the Hon. Member in action as the Minister of Agriculture under the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker I do not think one has ever seen Government which has been more committed to Canada's agricultural sector than this Progressive Conservative Government. There is no Ministerial expertise anyone can name in any Government which I have watched since 1959 that can match the concern and confidence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr Mayer). There is no
April 30, 1987

Prime Minister who has demonstrated as much compassion toward farmers or is more dedicated to helping preserve the family farm than the present Prime Minister and the Leader of this country.
This crucial agricultural sector, this sector of the economy, does face difficulties from time to time, just as the energy sector faces bumps as a result of world prices, just as every other sector of the Canadian economy every once in awhile has to ride the roller-coaster of international pricing. However, these crises ride themselves out and I have the utmost faith in the efforts of Canada's farmers, their traditional dedication to the preservation of the family farm, and utmost faith in the realization of this Government that we must be determined to see the family farm through this crisis. We are proud of our record and we intend to build on it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Conservatives speaking, I think of the movie "Back to the Future". All they ever do is refer to the golden years of 1959, the Diefenbaker era and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who was Minister of Agriculture. I think they should get Michael J. Fox to be their Minister of Agriculture then they could really go back to the future.
We have been told by the previous speaker that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is dedicated to agriculture. All I know is that he does pay for his own groceries, although perhaps not for his expenses for renovations to his house or his Gucci shoes. He does pay for his own food and I suppose that is a step forward.
I suppose Hon. Members are wondering why a Member of Parliament from a working class riding in central Vancouver is rising to speak on an agricultural debate. I pose that question before some Conservative Members start heckling me about it. The answer is that my constituents do have to eat so they are concerned about what is happening on the family farm. Second, my constituents consider farmers as fellow working Canadians, and when one kind of working Canadian is in trouble, all kinds of working Canadians are in trouble.
I suppose our audience today and those people watching us here and on television, must be wondering what is going on? Where is Question Period? Where is the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent)? Where is all the action? What is this debate on farming? I was hoping that before he leaves the House the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), who is the most skilled Member of this House-perhaps not when it comes to debating farm issues but when it comes to imitating politicians-he would entertain us a little with some of his imitations. He is well known for it. He did a good imitation of Mr. Trudeau when he said "Why should I sell your wheat?" Actually, it was a rhetorical question asked by Mr. Trudeau. He said "Why should I sell your wheat?" He then responded "The reason why I should sell your wheat is because ..." I say that to be
fair to Mr. Trudeau, not that we have been in the past or have any intention to be in the future.
I thought that the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth might have entertained us. He mentioned that his Government had done a great deal in the area of farming, and I followed his remarks closely. He mentioned different agencies, red meat agencies and so on. I got lost, I must admit, although I am sure other people were able to follow. I did write down that a broiler hatching egg agency was set up. I give credit for that being done. I thought that the present Prime Minister just laid eggs. However, 1 understand this agency was more sophisticated, it was a broiler hatching egg agency.
I would like to return to the present to indicate why we are having this debate today and why there is not a Question Period taking place. I am a neophyte farmer, although I did have a farm once on Mount Lehman Road, in the Fraser Valley. I see the Hon. Member who represents that region is in his place across the way. It was a 20-acre farm on which we had some-


John V. Nunziata: Marijuana plants.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend suggests we farmed marijuana plants, which is not true, although I understand that crop is booming where the Hon. Member comes from. We farmed cows and eggs, if one can farm cows. We also had some experience with the tax system as well, which is why we know where it should be reformed.
I want to say where we are at here. As I understand it, and I will try to make this simple so that even a thick-headed person like myself can understand, we have a deepening crisis developing on the Canadian farm, especially over the last two years. There is a grain export subsidy war going on. In other words, the European Common Market, with a market of 312 million people, is subsidizing like mad by giving grants to its farmers. The United States has also started that up. The Reagan administration gave a great many grants to American farmers. Of course, philosophically, the Americans would like the market to handle everything, they being conservatives, but when push came to shove they gave their farmers a heck of a lot of money.
That has caused the price of Canadian grain to drop dramatically. In fact, it dropped 20 per cent in price last year and will drop a further 18 per cent in the 1987-88 crop year. Those figures were announced by the Canadian Wheat Board last week. This is part of the reason we have an emergency debate here in the House of Commons today.
Yesterday, the Government announced that on May 1 the Farm Credit Corporation will begin to foreclose on family farms. The Farm Credit Corporation lends money to farmers. As we all know, farmers in Canada are constantly in debt, borrowing to buy machinery and seed in order to plant their crops. They receive money later when they sell their crops. A

April 30, 1987
moratorium was placed on the corporation by the Government some 18 months ago which prevented the corporation from foreclosing on farmers; that is to say, that the corporation would not go around grabbing family farms. So what does the Government do at a time when grain prices will drop another 18 per cent? True to form, the Government hatches another egg. It got rid of the moratorium on the Farm Credit Corporation thus putting many farmers in a panic.
We in the NDP are calling for, at the very least, an immediate commitment by the Government to provide Canadian grain farmers with a guarantee that total grain receipts for crops being planted now in the 1987-88 crop year will equal those of the 1986-87 crop year. That commitment will cost in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
Members opposite say that the Government is working hard on the international front to bring about peace. Hon. Members will recall that I talked about the European Economic Community and the United States subsidizing their farmers, thus forcing down the price of grain. That creates a problem for our farmers. However, I say this to the Government. Be careful. You may be working hard in this area, but it would be wrong to assume that you are really going to get somewhere by trying to wait out the Reagan administration, which will be gone in 1988, or to wait out the European Economic Community. That is a fallacy because measures have to be taken now.
The view of members of the New Democratic Party, unlike the view of members of the Government who think that it is all a problem with the international community, is that as Canadians we can take measures to do things here in Canada.
I remember well Tommy Douglas, whom I had the pleasure of knowing. He once told me here in the House, where he was a Member of Parliament since 1935, that he stood up in the House day after day and said, "Look, we can put people back to work on the Prairies during the Great Depression. We can do things. We can help the farmers and the workers". Day after day the Government would get up and respond, "Sorry, we cannot do anything". Then Tommy Douglas told me that within 18 hours of war being declared Parliament sat all night and into the next day and enacted a series of measures that helped farmers and the workers to get back to work and so on.
We are not in a war today. That was an extraordinary situation then. The fact is something can be done if one has the will. We in the NDP believe that we can do things here in Canada. We do not have to rely on Ronnie Reagan or on the European Community. We acknowledge that we live in a global village, but we should still try to do some things here at home.
The Government has provided some assistance to prairie farmers. It gave them $1 billion, but look at the way it was done. This is the problem the Prime Minister has. A previous Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, looked smug for saying, "Why should I sell your wheat?" But the present Prime Minister looks smarmy and opportunistic. He gave $1 billion to farmers. Why did he give it? Because the Premier of Saskatchewan
phoned and said, "I have an election going on in which the Conservative Government will be defeated. Please send the money right away". How did he give money to oil producers? By getting rid of the petroleum gas revenue tax. He did not do it right away, as promised. He waited until there was a byelection in Pembina when it looked as if the NDP would win the by-election and, bang, the grant came. Such actions catch up to those who take them. People see this as an opportunistic Government, which is why the Prime Minister's Party is at 24 per cent in the Gallup polls.
The Government has consulted farm organizations. Members opposite have said that. But it does not seem to listen to them. The Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth mentioned the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Everyone knows that those cattlemen are big ranchers. What about the little guy who owns a small mixed farm and a few head of cattle? He is not represented by that big organization. He does not want to see the end of the moratorium.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Cattle people are all in good shape.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are getting money, but not some of the smaller ones. I used to be a cattleman, my friend, as I said, in a minor way, and we used to always complain. Government assistance, though significant, was inadequate. It also came at an opportunistic and awkward time.
We know that the Government says it is fighting the deficit, but there are other ways of dealing with it. It could put in place a fair system of taxation so that it could collect more money, therefore having more to redistribute to save the family farm. Even while the Government provides some assistance with one hand it seems to take away money from farmers with the other through the imposition of increased taxes, service fees, freight rates and a whole host of other direct and indirect costs which must be borne by farmers.
The Government should not lift the moratorium until, first, it announces a deficiency program for the upcoming crop year and, second, until it addresses the broad question of the farm debt, which is about $25 billion, most of which is still held at the high interest rates that came in at the time the Liberal Government was in power.
I have heard members of the Conservative Party criticize the previous Liberal Government. We all agree that it had its faults. But why do we not get on and deal with the present? It seems to me that the Government can do something.
On April 1, 1985, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs tabled in this House a unanimous all-Party report, a report that contained several recommendations that could have been put in place to assist the agricultural community.
The first of those recommendations was that the Farm Credit Corporation be encouraged to write down loans. Nothing happened.
April 30, 1987

The second recommendation was that the Minister consider the issue of agri-bonds. Again, nothing happened.
I believe I heard the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp) speak in the House about the Government implementing agri-bonds. But, when and how have they done that? It simply has not taken place. Certainly agri-bonds would be of assistance. It is something that the Government promised at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan during the 1984 election campaign.
Either or both of those suggestions, had they been implemented, would have alleviated the situation somewhat.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am trying to be positive. I am merely trying to suggest some action that could be taken.
This morning we listened to the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) speak in this debate. He was the lead-off speaker this morning. However, he stayed in his seat yesterday afternoon, leading to the adjournment of the debate. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen took the traditional position of the Government side in this debate, that of defending the Government's record.
I managed to search out some material about what was happening in the Okanagan, and according to that material, he takes a different position when in the Okanagan. On one occasion while in the Okanagan he described the situation as being of crisis proportion, and he went on to say, and I quote: "It is the same story on the Prairies. They have the product, but they cannot get the money for it."
This same article goes on to talk about the Jones family. The Jones family bought a farm for $385,000 in my Province of British Columbia, the beautiful Okanagan. That breaks down to a value of $19,000 an acre. Today, that farm is worth $10,000 an acre.
The article points out that there was a federal Government moratorium on farm foreclosures for a year and a half; but that, even with that moratorium, 44 farmers found it impossible, finally giving up their lands to the Farm Credit Corporation.
I listened to my colleagues from the Prairies talking about suicides and depression among members of the farming community. I had not realized how really bad the situation in that regard was.
One of the articles I have here has to do with how the apple growers of the Okanagan were squeezed out of their markets by imports from Great Britain, the Granny Smith apples. We were even serving these apples here in the Parliamentary Dining Room.
When I first became aware of that program through British Columbia television, I made fun of it. It was almost like Mr. Trudeau saying, "Why should we sell your apples?" But in fact I now realize how serious that situation was. The fact is, the British Columbia apple growers had their product
squeezed out of the market. We in Canada could have consumed Okanagan-grown apples rather than importing Granny Smith apples from the United States.
In this article, Mr. Jones, the farmer of whom I spoke earlier, says that while he may be walking away from his land, he refuses to stop farming. He says that he will lease his property from the Farm Credit Corporation if it cannot be sold, or find some other leased land on which to work. He goes on to say:
We have a few options, but we don't know exactly what we will do. The situation will steer the course. If I were to pick up some property, on lease, I would stay farming. I don't have a lot of control over the situation with our debt, so there is not much point in worrying about it. Anyway, if you are a farmer, you get used to disaster.
One can get some glimpse of what it is like for the farmers to have to face these terrible problems, and the determination that they show.
The question I ask, Mr. Speaker, is, why would the Government at this time end the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loan foreclosures? That, it seems to me, is the worst kind of action to take at this time. It is indicative of the worst kind of logic, and it is typical of the Mulroney Government to be so insensitive and inconsistent.
According to my information, FCC loans in British Columbia number 448, of which 249 are more than two years in arrears, with a total value of $12.6 million. Does that mean that 249 farms are going to be seized? Again according to my information, 60 farms will be immediately affected by the lifting of this moratorium.
My concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, will be on quite a partisan note. As I go through this 1 invite you to guess who wrote this policy. I am about to read the Executive Summary of a report published in May of 1986. This is something that has become the policy of the Government.
It reads as follows:
The (blank) would recommend:-
And I will fill in the blank once I conclude this portion of my remarks. Once again:
The (blank) would recommend:
-government transition programs involving relocation, retraining, and support;
-farm financial review boards be restricted to an advisory capacity with consideration to be given to borrowers of direct lending or provision guarantees to existing lenders where future turnaround of the operations is deemed possible;
-continued improvement in farm management and financial information be promoted by creditors and government;
-proposals involving income supports, target prices, agri-bonds, subsidized loans and interest rebate subsidies should only be adopted where long term benefits clearly outweigh the costs and where the application of such assistance is clearly targeted to specific objectives and a designated user group;
-no consideration should be given to debt moratoriums or compromises.
This is the policy of the Government. And who wrote it, Mr. Speaker? The Canadian Bankers' Association has written the

April 30, 1987
Introduction of Bills
policy of this Progressive Conservative Government, and they are following it. This Government is in bed with the big banks, as it is in bed with the big oil companies in allowing Amoco to take over Dome Petroleum. It ignores the small Canadian oil companies; it ignores the farmers; it ignores ordinary Canadians.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that a government that does that does so at its jeopardy. It is a Government that will be tossed out by the people at the next election. Unfortunately, that is two years away.
I urge this Government to come up with a real farm policy to assist those who are suffering so much. The Government will find support for such a policy in the cities of this country, on the part of those who consume the food and on the part of the working people who sympathize with the farmers.


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House Leaders, and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to interrupt the emergency debate on agriculture to deal with four items, as follows: number one, the introduction and first reading of a Bill sponsored by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) relating to tobacco products; number two, the tabling of the Standing Committee report on International Banking Centres; number three, the tabling of the legislative committee report dealing with Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges' Act, the Federal Court Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act; and number four, the tabling of a report by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) dealing with Public Service lay-offs.
Once those items have been dealt with, we will immediately return to the emergency debate on agriculture that is now before the House.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been discussions and we are agreeable to dealing with the four items as outlined.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The New Democratic Party also agrees to that, Mr. Speaker.




Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Moved that Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and
promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be now read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, dealing with international banking centres, in both official languages.
It is the unanimous view of the committee that the real problem in developing international banking centres, as this country could well do, is in relation to the withholding tax, and thus the report makes extensive recommendations in respect of work to be done by the Ministry of Finance in connection with treaties dealing with the payment of money from one country to another through the banks of each country tax free and free of withholding tax. These would be treaties of the same nature as those currently in place in such places as Great Britain, the United States and Germany. We feel there is a real future for Canada, and the report makes those recommendations.


JUDGES ACT, FEDERAL COURT ACT AND TAX COURT OF CANADA ACT PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Anthony (Tony) Roman: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, I have the honour to report the Bill to the House, with amendments.


ADMINISTRATION
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, on August 21, 1986, I promised the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I would report regularly to the Members of this House on the impact of person-year reduction in the Public Service. Considering this commitment and the statement I made before the House on
April 30, 1987

March 2, 1987, when tabling the Government's Main Estimates for fiscal 1987-88, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, a report to Parliament on the impact of person-year reduction in 1986-87 on Public Service employees.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29   AGRICULTURE CANADIAN GRAINS CRISIS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House do now adjourn.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the reason Members in increasing numbers are participating in this debate, whether from rural or urban communities, is simply that we cannot understand why two days ago the Government would announce this rather cruel and insensitive measure to lift the moratorium on farm debt by the Farm Credit Corporation. Many Members got upset because one week after initial grain prices were lowered by 18 per cent, by almost one-fifth, 6,000 farmers who were at risk were put into immediate jeopardy as a result of these two announcements.
We cannot understand these developments. As the Leader of our Party put it in this House yesterday, we want a rationalization of them and we want to have a number of questions answered. As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) put it yesterday, we on this side of the House believe that we need an announcement now of a deficiency payment sufficient to restore this year's prices to last year's prices and so guarantee to Canadian farmers the same returns as they received last year. That was the first point of our Leader.
Second, we on this side believe that not only must cash flow be maintained so that farmers when they seed, know what to seed and whether to seed, we also believe that the growing credit crunch and the avalanche of debt punishing Canadian farmers should be resolved soon in a meaningful way. We do not find it difficult to imagine that if the Farm Credit Corporation begins to go after certain farmers that that phenomenon will also be adopted as a measure by banks from which farmers have received loans. Therefore it is a measure that is not limited to some 50 farmers a month, which the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) made reference to two days ago in Question Period, it is a measure that could snowball and become a real threat at this time to the farming community.
The situation is one that has distressed us in the Opposition to the extent that I have just described. I submit that the roots of this decision can be traced back to November 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr.Wilson) made his statement at that time. Since then, systematically, one after the other, the
Government has managed to alienate, irritate and damage a number of sectors in the Canadian society.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the laughing Progressive Conservative Member who just entered the Chamber, when the Government attempted to deindex the pensions of our senior citizens. That was one of the many measures tried by this Government since November, 1984. That measure was stopped, but there were others that could not be stopped and have been implemented. For instance, the imposition of the federal sales tax, that hidden tax which has been increased three times since the Government was elected.
It is not just a matter of deindexation of pensions or the imposition of federal sales tax; what about the restrictions imposed on workers who are unemployed and whose benefits will not be paid until certain severance pay and certain pension payments are exhausted? It is not only the unemployment insurance measures or the federal sales tax, you will also recall the constant and systematic increases in another tax, namely, the gasoline tax. Or, if you like, a measure that was just announced a few minutes ago by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the systematic reduction in person-years in the federal Civil Service. This is another form of penalizing the public by way of reduced services to people who need federal services, in any daily aspect of life, from the applicants of Canadian citizenship to those who seek guidance and counselling in our employment centres, to those who apply for immigration, landed immigrant status, reunification, or sponsorship of a family member abroad, those who have to wait for weeks and months before they can be given an appointment.
It is these delays and the slowness of the federal machinery in implementing programs that exist and are approved by this Parliament that are the long-term, slow but inevitable result of measures introduced by the Government. We must see this measure that we are debating now for the second day with understandable outrage within the context of a general policy that the Government announced and somehow forewarned us and the public about way back in November, 1984.
In the case of the farming community, having suffered the reduction of 18 per cent in prices and, while attempting to survive despite that, being given this additional kick with the suspension of the moratorium, we see the farming community in a form of crisis that has been exacerbated by these measures we are debating today.
In essence what is emerging in the farming community, east and west, is a crisis that also includes a phenomenon that has been examined and identified in the last five years twice by Ottawa in a variety of ways. I am referring here to a problem which the farming community has to face and would like to resolve, if given the assistance that it requires by Ottawa, namely, soil erosion.

April 30, 1987
The House will recall that five years ago the Senate Committee on soil erosion produced a report entitled Soil at Risk. That was the first indication of awareness at the federal level of an issue that needs attention in order to facilitate a rather difficult transition problem in the farm community. Chaired by Senator Sparrow, the 1984 report brought up a number of interesting facts. One was that lost income to farmers as a result of soil erosion amounted at that time to $1 billion across the nation. That is an amount that has a staggering impact when heard for the first time.
Two years later, the Science Council of Canada followed up on this study and became preoccupied with the same issue. The Council felt that the farming community needed attention from the Government in Ottawa, in a variety of ways, never anticipating that the kind of measures we are debating today would be in store.
In 1986 when the Science Council reported, it estimated that the loss per year to the farming community by way of soil erosion had risen to the staggering figure of $1.3 billion annually. The Council also attempted to estimate the losses associated with soil degradation per hectare and even to define it in terms of net farm income. The figure the Science Council produced is worth tabling. Its conclusion was that the loss to the farmer per acre in 1986 was anywhere between $20 and $25 and the impact of soil erosion on net farm income amounted to some 38 per cent.
An additional refinement of these studies on soil erosion was conducted in southwestern Ontario. Here it turned out that soil erosion caused a 30 per cent to 40 per cent decrease in corn crop yields. We were told that the loss of one inch of soil could reduce wheat yields by 1.5 to 3.4 bushels per acre. We are dealing with a situation-the roots and causes of which would take some time to define-that, if anything, should demand the intervention of the federal Government in order to reverse a trend and help the economy and the income of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on soil and its tillage.
The studies to which I have referred have pointed strongly to the necessity of soil conservation. Last April, the need for a national strategy on soil conservation was defined at a meeting which included farmers, agricultural scientists, business men, policy makers and environmentalists from all provinces and regions of Canada. They met in Saskatoon to develop a so-called framework for a national action plan for soil conservation.
The most pressing issues limiting the effectiveness of current soil conservation efforts were identified at the meeting. One was production or the lack of environmentally sound and economically viable production systems supporting soil conservation. The second was technology transfer or the lack of co-ordination and the negative perception of conservation as an added cost rather than a long-term benefit. The third was marketing or the lack of strategies to decrease uncertainty of product prices and increase efficiency consistent with sound
conservation practices. The fourth was research or the requirement for increased co-ordination and collaboration among federal and provincial Governments, universities, agricultural colleges, industries and farmers, a role that could be played very strongly and centrally by the federal Government. The fifth was education or the need to create an awareness of conservation among the general public and particularly the young and an increased emphasis on conservation practices for students of agriculture. Finally, there were the environmental effects, or the deteriorating quality of surface and ground water by sediments, nutrients and pesticides that are transported from agricultural land because of poor soil conservation. This must be understood, quantified and become the object of alternative policies as early as possible.
I would like to refer the House to a study conducted by Dr. D. A. Rennie which in 1985 estimated the cost of erosion to farmers in western Canada alone. He came to the conclusion that this amount would be some $440 million. To that he added the loss of organic matter amounting to some $326 million per year, and the cost of salinity amounting to some $212 million, for a total loss to western Canada alone of $978 million per year. This has been translated into 16.7 per cent of operating costs or to some 79 per cent of farmers' net income.
When we approach the question of the economic cost of soil degradation on a province-by-province basis, we come up with interesting figures which add up to a different total but, nevertheless, to a figure that has been worked out with great care, I am told. In British Columbia, the estimated annual economic cost of soil degradation amounts to some $45 million, in Alberta to some $429 million, in Saskatchewan to some $560 million, in Manitoba to some $21 million, in Ontario to some $90 million, in Quebec to some $114 million and in Atlantic Canada to some $23 million, for a total of $1,283 billion per year. As I mentioned earlier, this kind of degradation includes erosion, organic matter loss, acidification, salinity, drainage and compaction.
This over-all picture must be defined within the framework of this debate because it is an added economic crisis faced by farmers at the present time. One would have thought that a Government worth its salt would try to come to the aid of the farmer by realizing that when revenue is declining and there are gluts on the market, this could be the appropriate time for Government to provide certain incentives and economic shock absorbers to facilitate the initiatives required to bring the viability of soil back to where it was decades ago before intensive cultivation took place.
I want to reiterate what the Leader of my Party said in this House concerning the Liberal position in this debate. We want the Government to announce a deficiency payment sufficient to raise the return this year to farmers equal to last year's return. We want the Government to do it now so that farmers have some assurance that when they seed they will receive a
April 30, 1987

return that will cover at least the cost of production. That is a very reasonable position.
In addition, we call for a rationalization of farm debt and revocation of the decision by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to lift the FCC moratorium.
Having said that, I would like to conclude by saying that if this debate is proceeding at the rate it is, with interventions from the most unexpected quarters, and I can assure you that there are not many farmers in the riding of Davenport, it is because we are profoundly upset. We do not understand the logic or politics of this decision. That is why we are rising in increasing numbers on this motion. We feel a strong message has to be sent to the Government on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to western Canada. We hope that this debate will have some effect and register some messages with him so that next week he will have something to say to the farmers, east and west, which is sensible, humane, and takes into account their incredible economic plight.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on agriculture. The NDP referred to the urgency of this debate. I think it is high time we gave some recognition to the progress this Government has made in two and half years, compared with what the previous Government was able to do in 20. I also think it is high time we reminded opposition Members and the Canadian public that in two and a half years, this Government has fulfilled more than three quarters of its election promises. Earlier, I heard the previous speaker for the Liberal Party talking about the moratorium that was being lifted. Did it ever occur to them that a moratorium was necessary because of the poor administration of the previous Government, when interest rates for farmers went as high as 16 per cent?
When we came to power we had to deal with this problem. The previous Government never had the courage to face up to the banks and deal with the situation, and say they were going to introduce a moratorium until interest rates got back to levels that were reasonable and acceptable to farmers. During the election campaign, we talked about getting back to an average rate of around 10 per cent.
Well, we did it in two and a half years. We got back to an acceptable interest rate, and it is entirely normal we should consider lifting the moratorium. The Government, however, is not abandoning farmers in the process. On the contrary, it has taken steps to ensure that regional panels will examine, on a case by case basis, the situation of farmers who are in difficulty despite a return to normal interest levels. I am surprised that Members of the previous Government should be demanding reinstatement of a moratorium they never had the courage to introduce.
I am also surprised at the comments of the Member of the New Democratic Party who spoke earlier. In concluding his speech, he said that he could see nothing positive in the Government's actions. Since they are so blind to the obvious, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity
I have been given today to speak to this honourable House, and remind the Hon. Member and his colleagues of what the Government has achieved in the past two and a half years. It has been two and a half years since we came to power, after an election campaign in which we produced a document where our objectives were clearly defined. Nearly 75 per cent of those objectives have been met. I may therefore remind him that if he is looking for positive signs, there are plenty among the achievements I am about to mention.
At the same time, I take great pleasure in greeting our farmers in the riding of Richelieu. During the last election campaign, when I was canvassing door to door and at riding meetings, I found they were desperate and depressed because of the crushing pressures of interest rates and also because of the lack of a long-term dairy policy.
There are 800 dairy farmers in my riding who were looking for this kind of stability. There are also pork producers who were absolutely debt-ridden, and who today are all smiles. There are also sheep farmers and grain producers who were suffering again as a result of falling prices, and who were saved by the billion-dollar subsidy. Once again, this Government has acted responsibly.
The farmers I met last week at a meeting to discuss free trade, among other things, told me how pleased they were with everything the Government had been able to do for them in the past few years because, in 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation rate was 16 per cent.
I may also recall the problems farmers were having as a result of oil prices. In fact, it was the previous Liberal Government which brought down the previous Conservative Government during an historic vote in December, leading to an election that cost taxpayers $105 million, and all because of a promise that the 18 cent increase would be scrapped. And lo and behold, less than six months later, we had an increase of over 65 cents. In fact, our Party admitted during the election campaign that the price of oil was having a serious impact on Canadian farmers. Today, thanks to our Government's action, farmers have had some respite as a result of price controls, a drop in the price of oil and fuel tax rebates, either in the form of income tax rebates or direct refunds.
In 1984, Quebec farm producers were hoping to receive compensation for the 1983 drought. The previous Government had flatly refused to make any compensation payments or even listen to these farmers explain the problems they had in 1983 because of the drought. However, thanks to the new Government's awareness of these problems, millions of dollars were set aside for this purpose. In my riding alone, $1,200,000 in compensation payments were paid in connection with the 1983 drought. I think that can be seen as a very positive measure benefitting Canadian farmers, and especially those in Quebec.
Farmers had been waiting five years for a permanent dairy policy. They got one in less than a year with the Conservative Government elected in 1984.

April 30, 1987
The Liberals set up a Crown corporation, Canagrex, which, instead of helping farmers, has been a constant drag on their budget. Our Government has done a great deal for Canadian agriculture, directly contributing to the survival of many farmers.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say what the Opposition is afraid to mention, and I am referring to all the help we have received.
Signing the five-year policy cost the Government $1.5 billion. It was a commitment that was difficult to meet, in the knowledge that we were embarking on free trade discussions, but we nevertheless wanted to provide guarantees for our dairy producers.
The $500,000 capital gains exemption. This program has made it possible for farmers to sell to their sons or neighbours without having most of their profits taxed away. This program has made it possible for farmers to pass on the family farm to the next generation, something they wanted for many years. The capital gains tax exemption has had an extremely positive impact on the number of young farmers which has increased to twice or three times the number noted in the five or six years previous.
The Opposition was against this measure even before it was introduced, but nevertheless, it has been very successful. The Opposition talks a lot about morality. I suggest we call it political morality, and I think that political morality is reflected in acceptable interest rates. It means helping young people who want to take over the family farm. It also means a drop in the unemployment rate and investors who are investing in Canada as never before. Political morality is not the morality of the individual but the morality of a Party that takes charge and defends the interests of all Canadians by increasing their well-being.
For instance, FCC interest rates which were at 16.75 are now below 10 per cent. And we have all the case-by-case studies to help individual farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) introduced 6 per cent programs for farmers in financial difficulty. Is that not an example of the positive factors the previous NDP speaker was looking for?
We introduced a shared-risk mortgage plan at a rate of 9.75 per cent. These measures had been called for by the Opposition, both by the NDP and the Liberal Party. We implemented these measures and today, they tell us we have done nothing positive. We set up a farm debt review board, and in my riding, a dozen cases have already been dealt with successfully, thanks to this board.
Mr. Speaker, we also introduced a diesel fuel tax rebate. Our farmers had been asking for this for years. It means that now they can get a refund, which will help them cope with their debt load and expand their operations. That was another concept people had been talking about for years, but the previous Government never had the courage to put it into practice.
We have compensated Quebec producers for crop losses, as I said earlier. In my riding alone, producers received $1,200,000. We have signed federal-provincial agreements with several provinces, including agreements worth $35 million with Quebec. Under the previous Government, misunderstandings and petty quarrels about protocol and precedence were the order of the day, and while constitutional debates and those same petty quarrels made the headlines, farmers were left to their own devices. All that changed when this Government came to power, and today, farmers are delighted with programs that are bringing in $35 million more for Quebec. I meet these people every week-end and talk to them in my riding. In fact, my riding has the largest number of dairy producers in Canada: 800 farms. These people say they are satisfied and, in fact, delighted with the attention they are getting from the present Government, which listens to them and consults and lives up to their expectations.
We have given $1 billion to help grain producers, and for the first time, the money has not been funnelled into one specific region. Funds have been spread across Canada, so that for the first time, Quebec's grain producers have received $37 million. This is a first, and it is very gratifying. I met with the mayor of Saint-David on the weekend, and he said that for him and his children, $55,000 meant he would be able to save some of his year's production, and he was very pleased.
Yet this man is not a fanatic nor does he support any particular Party. His objective remark to me: the agricultural producers of the Saint-David region are quite satisfied with the wheat output and the deficiency payments they will be getting.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on like this for a long time since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) have successfully debated the implementation of 414 agricultural initiatives worth in excess of $7 billion. These are concrete achievements which attest to our sense of responsibility towards the Canadian agricultural community and the fact that we believe that agriculture is one of the key sectors of our economy. It goes to show that we intend to continue working along those lines.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever agriculture will top the agenda of the GATT negotiations. Thanks to the intervention of our Prime Minister, for once we will be able to give priority to the agricultural sector at the next GATT summit, proof positive that one of our first concerns over the past two and a half years has been agriculture and the farm community because we wanted to help them get out of the slump into which they had been driven by the previous Government.
Yet the Opposition still finds something to criticize. But what exactly is the agricultural program of the Liberal Party of Canada? What specific solutions do they have to propose? What are the solutions of the NDP-and I am talking about realistic solutions, not dream-like solutions which do not even take into account the Canadian Government's ability to pay?
April 30, 1987

Being more realistic, our Government is controlling the state's budget and expenditures and co-ordinating departmental activities to provide the best services possible at the lowest cost to invest billions of dollars in our agriculture to save our western grain producers, to help our Quebec producers and support our potato producers in eastern Canada. Each farm industry has been scrutinized by our Government, a true national Government, and we are proud indeed of its accomplishments and very positive actions. I do not share the opinion of the NDP Member who spoke before me, nor that of the Liberal Party Member who was eager to have the moratorium continued, something his own Government had not had the courage to initiate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me so much time. 1 hope the Government will continue its good work in the area of agriculture.
[DOT]	(1520)


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate, not because I represent a dominant farm sector of the country-


John Napier Turner: And not because you know anything about it.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, that has never stopped me in the past. I have never known Members of this House to be hesitant about making a speech on a subject of which they have extremely limited knowledge. It is almost accepted that the less you know about many things, the better Member of Parliament you are.


Don Boudria: We're generalists.


John R. Rodriguez: Everyone thinks that the only thing we farm in Nickel Belt is nickel. However, for the erudition and enlightenment of Hon. Members, there is one valley in Nickel Belt called the Chelmsford area which was the greatest and best potato-producing section of this country. Indeed, with all due respect to my colleagues from Prince Edward Island, the potatoes from Nickel Belt, and Chelmsford particularly, won many awards for being the best potatoes in the country. I know that Members opposite are scoffing at that, but it is a fact. That was some 30 or 40 years ago before Inco got at the soil, but I knew I would be able to bring that information into the debate. If we are not in that position any more, it is due to the other single industry that has grown up in the Sudbury area.
[DOT]	(1530)
Some may ask, since I do not know much about agriculture why am I speaking? This crisis facing the farm community is not just a farm issue or a western issue, it is one that affects every Canadian man, woman and child. We have a moral responsibility to stand up and air the issue thoroughly.
I do not want to cast stones at the Government continuously. I am a reasonable person and I think they have done some good things. There is no doubt, as I read and listen to those who are knowledgeable on the subject, that there is a crisis. The Ottawa Citizen on April 28 contained a large headline: "Black Friday Looms For Farming Families". In The Windsor Star there is a large headline stating: "An Industry Gone Wrong". In the Business Day of The Toronto Star the headline reads: "One In Five Farmers Seen Leaving The Land". In the same newspaper there is the headline: "Thousands of Prairie Farmers behind $227 Million in Loans". Another article states: "Census finds farms falling in number".
Every time that one acre of farmland goes out of production in this country a little bit of Canada dies. I recall when I first began teaching in the St. Catharines area in the Niagara district I used to spend my summers going to the peach farms to pick peaches and subsidize my wages as a teacher. When I return there today I see highway. There are many small businesses along that stretch between Hamilton and St. Catharines where there used to be all sorts of canneries that primarily employed immigrant women to can peaches and pears. That has all disappeared. If the present trend of disappearing farmland continues, we will be a net importer of food in this country. That has very serious implications for future generations of Canadians.
Members on the government side who stand up to say there is no crisis are taking the ostrich approach.


An Hon. Member:: Nobody is saying that. You are way off base.


John R. Rodriguez: The Member says that no one is saying that. I am holding the debates from April 28. In a speech by the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), which appears at page 5405 of Hansard, he says:
Mr. Speaker, it takes incredible nerve to ask for an emergency debate on the
situation of Western grain producers.
He said that the NDP has an awful nerve to suggest that we should have an emergency debate on this question. I have listened to other Members opposite, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He said that everything was fine. There are those who prefer to put their heads in the sand and say that there is no problem because the matter has been rectified. They suggest that the debt moratorium program which was introduced 19 months ago can be taken off.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When things are worse.


John R. Rodriguez: We will get to that a little later.
We also see the Pontius Pilate approach, in which they wash their hands and say there is nothing more that can be done. They say that after all, they gave a billion dollars to save the "diviner" and cannot find any more money. Perhaps one solution is to give the farmers access to the PC Canada Fund. I

April 30, 1987
hear Members say that the Government does not have any money for them and it has done as much as it can do.
Excellent speeches have been made on both sides of the House I have learned a lot from listening to Conservative Members who represent western ridings. It appears to me that the crisis hinges on three specific issues. One concerns the fact that the United States and the European Economic Community are subsidizing their grain producers to such an extent that the Canadian grain producers cannot compete. The second issue seems to be a problem with respect to removing the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation mortgages as of May 1, which is tomorrow. The third contributing factor to the crisis would appear to be that the Government has refused to make a commitment to a deficiency program for the upcoming year. Those three facts indicate to me that there is a crisis.
Let us consider the first matter. Can we blame the Government for that situation? To be fair, we cannot blame the Government because it is an international situation. I think the Prime Minister was correct when he said that he will take this matter to the appropriate international authority to discuss it. I think that is fair. The Government cannot do anything about that.
However, let us consider the Government's step to lift the moratorium on Friday. 1 suggest that the Government has to learn that timing is of the essence in politics. On Monday, when the press release was issued from the Department of Agriculture that the moratorium would be lifted as of May 1, the Government scheduled a debate on capital punishment. That debate continued for two days. Meanwhile, farmers who are experiencing these problems and living on the edge were getting notice that the moratorium would be lifted on May 1. I could just see them watching what Parliament was debating on television and asking what Members of Parliament were doing. What is really important, is it the noose or their livelihoods and their farmlands? It was absolutely incredible that when people are faced with these serious problems Parliament engages in a debate on something that had been decided in 1976. I think that the priorities ought to be rethought in this House and by the Government.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Why have you been stalling for a month? You wouldn't let business go ahead.


John R. Rodriguez: There are issues which are extremely vital to Canadians. One issue was the drug crisis and the high price for drugs Canadians will have to pay as a result of Bill C-22. No self-respecting Opposition would avoid doing all in its power to ensure that that matter was thoroughly examined. In this particular instance we took the opportunity, and the Chair agreed that this was an emergency situation. Therefore, we have launched this debate on the whole question of grain producers and agriculture.
We know, for example, the Farm Credit Corporation only covers about 30 per cent of all farm mortgages across the
country. Once the moratorium comes off on Friday, you can bet your bottom bippy, Mr. Speaker, that the private lenders- the banks and all the other private lenders-will move in like a bunch of buzzards.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: They were before. You are dreaming.


John R. Rodriguez: They took their lead from the fact that the Government clearly indicated that it wanted a moratorium on the debt.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: You are dreaming, John.


John R. Rodriguez: No banking institution is going to fly in the face of what is a clearly perceived intention of the Government. Once that moratorium comes off, they will be right there.
I think farmers, no matter where they are in the country, are listening to the Prime Minister, and I know he wanted to get up early so he could prove that he is like a farmer, working hard, knowing the early bird catches the worm, or whatever the saying is. He was up really early because he came down and joined in the debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Guccis and overalls.


Maurice Brydon Foster: At 8.30 in the morning.


John V. Nunziata: Farming in Gucci shoes.


John R. Rodriguez: Do not cast aspersions on the Prime Minister's dress. He said, "If they phone me up and ask for help, I will not let them down. Brian Mulroney will not let them down. I will be there". He said that.


John V. Nunziata: Hallelujah, brother!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: New carpets in the barn.


John R. Rodriguez: He said, and I quote from Page 5451 of Hansard:
It happened that we received telephone calls from western Canada for help- and I can tell you what the position of my Government was then, what it is today, and what it will always be: When western Canada asked for help, to the extent humanly possible, Brian Mulroney and the Government of Canada will say, "Yes". We are there to build a stronger western Canada and to build a stronger Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You should put your glasses further out on your nose, John, if you want to imitate him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You look just like Brian.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to say to all the leaders in western Canada, and wherever else in Canada, Ontario and the Atlantic, you heard what the Prime Minister said. Pick up the phone and call now, today, and he will make a contribution.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Watch the old ticker.


John R. Rodriguez: They have to phone. The Prime Minister said if they phone he will give help. A previous speaker asked
April 30, 1987

what concrete suggestions the New Democratic Party can make? Here is one. I am appealing to Hon. Members opposite to extend the moratorium. Extend the moratorium tomorrow.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: So the banks won't foreclose?


John R. Rodriguez: So that the FCC will not foreclose on the farmers. To make it crystal clear to the private sector lenders, the Government should send them a message directly and that message is to follow the lead which has been given to the FCC, a moratorium.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: No more loans for farmers after that.


John R. Rodriguez: That is one suggestion we were asked for. We are not the only ones saying that. The Keystone Agricultural Producers from Manitoba are saying the same thing. They are saying the moratorium should be continued. We are not the only ones.
The third factor in the crisis is that the Government refuses to make a commitment to a deficiency payment program for the upcoming year. It did so a year ago with $1 billion. There is no problem with that and we give the Government credit. But the situation now is that prices are going to drop another 18 per cent. The condition still exists. In fact, it is exacerbating. Now is not the time to leave the farmers in a quandary.
I want to make a second suggestion to my colleagues opposite on the Government side. Why does the Government not give the assurance that the farmers will receive the same price for their product this year as they received last year? Why does the Government not give them that assurance? That is reasonable.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Eminently reasonable.


John R. Rodriguez: I think that is what they have asked for. If we ran into some difficulty in our nickel industry in the Sudbury Basin, I would be the first one to argue with the Government to extend assistance, even though I have my biases about multinational mining corporations. Because it involves the economy of the community, I would be the first one on my feet. I urged the Government when nickel prices dropped, to stockpile nickel, in other words, to purchase the nickel the workers produced and guarantee the price so they could continue to work. I argued for the workers in the mining industry, so why would I not defend our brothers and sisters in the agricultural industry? It seems to me that that is the whole concept of solidarity. That is what it means. We are all brothers whether we work in the mines or in the fields. It seems to me that that is an investment which Canadians, and all opposition Members who have spoken, have urged the Government to make. It is politically wise and it seems to me it is one thing which would help the Government to raise its profile in the polls.
That brings me to my last argument. The bottom line is this. If the Government will not do it because it is eminently
reasonable, will it at least do it because it is politically expedient? I give a promise that I will not go out and criticize the Government if they did that. I would not say it is because of political expedience. I would not critize the Government for that. I am prepared to give it credit. I am really appealing to the sense of Canadianism on the part of the Government. I am urging the Government to in fact realize that all Canadians want the survival of their agricultural sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am appealing to the Hon. Member. Another 30 seconds. He is over by a minute and a half now.


John R. Rodriguez: If I could not convince Members opposite in 20 minutes, perhaps I could try once more in 30 seconds. I say to Members opposite, look, there is a crisis. If they watch the news and read the newspapers which are emanating from western Canada, and from other parts of the country where there are farming communities, they would recognize that there is indeed a crisis.
We on this side of the House have proposed two specific and, we recognize, short-term, proposals. At least they deal with the immediacy of the problem. After that we will have to go back to deal with the long-range and long-term problems. We would be right behind the Government in trying to reach a resolution to those long-term problems.
I make that appeal to the Government. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is in his place. He is busy talking to someone else at the moment, but I trust that he will convey this message all the way to the top. If he will not do that then I will have to go and use the telephone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Am I to understand that we are to continue with debate, or is the House business question to be asked?


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest that Your Honour continue with the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) as the next speaker.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, while I represent an urban riding in Winnipeg-St. James there are many people in my riding who are employed either directly or indirectly by the agricultural industry in Manitoba. I was born in the small country town of Morris, Manitoba, which existed primarily because of the agricultural industry around it. I have many relatives who are farmers. So I am quite aware of the importance of the agricultural industry in Manitoba and in Canada. I am very happy to be able to participate in this debate.

April 30, 1987
I am sure that Elon. Members recognize that the farming and agricultural industry is having difficult times at the moment. The Government of Canada is trying to do something about it, to the best of its financial and physical ability. I would like to comment on the importance of the agricultural industry to Manitoba since, according to Statistics Canada, there are some 39,000 Manitobans who are employed in this industry. It is the third largest industry in terms of employment in Manitoba. As well, it is the second largest industry in terms of dollar value in our gross provincial product. In actual fact, it is the fuel that powers the engine of the Manitoba economy.
Why do I raise these particular items with regard to the importance of agriculture to Manitoba in my comments? During my participation in this debate I will attempt to put before the House the record of the present Manitoba NDP Government, as well as its attitude toward agriculture. I will also put forward our Government's record to date since our election back in 1984.
As Hon. Members know, since our Government was elected in 1984, we have initiated 400 different grants and benefits to Canadian agriculture amounting to approximately $5.76 billion. In the two and a half years that the Government has been in power we have assisted agriculture to the tune of $5.76 billion. To me that shows a great deal of effort in terms of trying to preserve this very important industry.
I would like to remind Hon. Members of some of the programs that have been instituted by the Government. First, I would like to mention the special Canadian grains program, which has been mentioned before. Under that program $1 billion was needed to boost the cash flow of grain producers. Over 80 per cent of this money will go to western Canada. Then, there was the new grains deal that my colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), arranged with Russia. It is a five-year agreement that will see the purchase by Russia of at least 25 million tonnes of grain. We also entered into a new long-term agreement with Brazil which guarantees that that county will purchase between 750,000 tonnes and 1.5 million tonnes of wheat annually between 1986-87 and 1988. I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette for the efforts he is taking on behalf of our farmers to sell their grain in a very difficult world market-place.
There was also the crop and livestock drought assistance which amounted to some $210 million, $150 million of which went to grain farmers hit by last year's drought and grasshopper damage. Then there was $60 million in drought assistance to livestock producers in western Canada. There was also a record interim pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act of $705 million for the 1986-87 crop year. Last year's total pay-out in this regard was $859 million.
We amended the Western Grain Transportation Act. We rolled the rate back to an average of $6 per tonne while the rate projected by the Liberals was going to be $ 11 per tonne. Another very important program which we introduced was the
commodity-based mortgages program. Commodity-based mortgages will be available at a basic interest rate of 6 per cent with a limit of 13 per cent being placed on them should the price of commodities rise again, which we hope will happen. That limit would only be reached if the price of wheat went from $3 per bushel to $6 per bushel. This is a very progressive and forward-thinking program which was introduced by our Government.
We know also that because of our Government's approach to the finances of the country and its determination to bring the deficit under control, and as a result of our economic guidelines, interest rates have dropped. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act interest rates declined to 11.25 per cent from the level of 14 per cent on election day. In terms of the Farm Credit Corporation, five-year mortgages have fallen by 3.75 percentage points to 10.75 per cent.
What I would now like to comment on is what the Liberal Government did when it had the chance to try to assist agriculture, particularly with respect to interest rates. I direct these comments in particular to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who stated the other day what the Liberals would do and how. I ask the Hon. Member where he was when interest rates on farm improvement loans reached some 23.75 per cent. Where was the Hon. Member then? He was in the Cabinet of the Trudeau Government.
With respect to interest rates in 1987 the prime rate is 9.25 per cent, while the Farm Credit Corporation interest rate is 10 per cent. There is a difference of 0.75 per cent between the two. In 1981 the prime rate was 22.75 per cent while the rate at the Farm Credit Corporation was 16.75 per cent. There is a difference of 6 per cent between the two. Where was the Liberal Government in 1981?
With respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a very important Act for farmers, the interest rate is 10.25 per cent, which is just 1 per cent higher than the prime rate. What was the interest rate when the Liberals were in power? It was 23.75 per cent. There is a difference of 12.5 per cent between 1981 and 1987. Where were the Hon. Members from the Liberal Party who were members of the Trudeau Government then? Where were they when Prime Minister Trudeau said in Saskatchewan, "Why should I sell your wheat?"
We have seen what the Government has done through the Canadian Wheat Board. It has gone out and found new markets and increased markets in these very trying times. Who really believes the Liberals when they stand up today and say what they will do if they formed the Government? Nobody. I tell Hon. Members that nobody in western Canada would believe them because they proved when they were in government that they did not do anything.
I would like to talk about the present Government in Manitoba, the Government formed by the New Democratic Party, and its attitude toward agriculture. As Hon. Members are aware, I am a member of the finance committee. Today we
April 30, 1987

had representatives from the Economic Council of Canada before us who presented us with the Council's activities for the coming year, as well as the issues and reports with which they will be dealing.
One of the studies-and it is probably one of the key studies that we are going to deal with over the next year-is a study dealing with the future of the prairie grain economy.
This was a study requested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and it is one that is jointly funded by the provincial Governments and private sponsors and the council itself. Those provinces providing funding are eligible to appoint a representative to sit on an advisory committee to this special report and study.
The Government of Saskatchewan contributed $300,000 toward the study and the Government of Alberta contributed $50,000. What did the NDP Government of the Province of Manitoba contribute to the study? Zero dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


An Hon. Member:: So much for the socialists.


Clement George Minaker: The Province of Manitoba is not even represented on the advisory committee, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I asked Ms. Maxwell, the Chairman of the Council, why it is that the Province of Manitoba is not a party to the study, and the answer 1 got was that it wouldn't contribute $50,000.
That is indicative of what the NDP thinks about the agricultural industry in Manitoba. It will not even put up $50,000.


An Hon. Member:: So much for the NDP commitment.


Clement George Minaker: Why is it important that Manitoba should be represented? In addition to other things, this study will look at the diversification of the agricultural industry in western Canada, the grain industry in western Canada. Manitoba is leading in the field in this respect. Certain lands in Manitoba that had been used for grain production are now being used for other crops. To give some examples, on these lands there is now grown black beans, pinto beans, and peas. In addition, we have two potato plants in Manitoba, Carnation and McCain's, and McCain's wants us to grow peas and carrots. We are growers of grain for ethyl alcohol. We have an ethyl alcohol plant in Minnedosa. And, of course, we have our sugar-beet industry.
The Province of Manitoba should be represented on that advisory committee. It should be part of that study. Those conducting the study itself will be presenting their recommendations to the advisory committee, and that committee will thus have an input in terms of the direction the final report will take and its conclusions.
The Government of the Province of Manitoba has said that it has not got $50,000 to give to that study; that a seat on that advisory committee is not worth $50,000. That tells me that
while the NDP Government makes promises about assisting agriculture, it doesn't do anything about following up on them.
What about our sugar-beet industry in Manitoba? What does the NDP Government of Manitoba think about sugar-beets? There is the opportunity for the Government of the Province of Manitoba to enter into a jointly funded program with the sugar-beet producers that would cost the Government approximately $2 million over five years, or $400,000 per year. This annual funding of $400,000 a year would go a long way toward helping the sugar-beet growers in Manitoba, not to mention the sugar-beet plant that is located in the riding of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
And what is their answer? They refuse to enter into that agreement. If they were to enter into that agreement, thus keeping the sugar-beet industry going in Manitoba, that same Government would receive in taxes from the trucking industry alone $200,000 annually. That is the approximate revenue that would be returned to the Government through fuel taxes and income taxes. In addition, the Manitoba Sugar Company would be paying to the Government $550,000 in taxes. In other words, for an expenditure of $400,000 to save this industry, the Government would be receiving in revenue $750,000. And yet, it has refused to participate.
That attitude prompts me to ask where that Government's policies in support of agriculture are. It is for that reason that I say what we are seeing during the course of this debate is hypocrisy. Who is to say that the federal New Democratic Party would not have the same attitudes toward agriculture as is exhibited by the Manitoba NDP Government. The NDP Government of Manitoba in the last election promised to assist the agricultural industry in Manitoba. We have seen how it has assisted agriculture. It is not doing anything.
We cannot believe the federal New Democratic Party. We know how closely tied it is with its provincial counterparts. How can we believe that it would do anything different if it were to form a federal government-heaven forbid!-than the NDP Government of Manitoba is doing. That Government will not even pay $50,000 to help out the grain farmers of Manitoba or of western Canada. It will not put up $400,000 a year to assist the sugar-beet industry, notwithstanding that it would receive, in return, $750,000 in revenues. It is a Government, Mr. Speaker, that is obviously not interested in agriculture at all.
The Progressive Conservative Government recognizes the seriousness of the problems facing the agricultural sector. It recognizes the difficulties it is experiencing at the present time. As is indicated by the number of programs we have instituted since forming the Government, we want to see the agricultural industry thrive and grow. We have indicated, through action, that we do have concerns and that we are prepared to provide assistance, and we shall continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, for however long we form the Government of this country.

April 30, 1987
5544______________________________________
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader what business the Government intends to call tomorrow and for the beginning of next week.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, assuming the termination of this debate, we will be dealing tomorrow with Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act. We understand that there is a disposition to move through Routine Proceedings in a routine way, thus giving us the full day on the report stage of the Patent Act. We anticipate that there will be full debate on that. That will then constitute the allotted day on the Patent Act, as decided by the House earlier.
At the present time, the contemplation is that on Monday we will be dealing with the legislation on financial institutions.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29   AGRICULTURE CANADIAN GRAINS CRISIS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), on debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate with regard to the plight of the Canadian farmer. Needless to say, the farmer in Canada is in a desperate situation. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the very future of the Canadian farmer is in jeopardy, mainly due to the inaction of this particular Government.
Canadian farmers are in deep trouble, and the response of this Government, this Progressive Conservative Government, has been totally inadequate.
Over the last several weeks, the Government of Canada administered to the farm family in Canada a double whammy. First, the Government, through the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), announced that there would be an 18 per cent decrease in the price of wheat
over last year. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that comes on top of a 20 per cent decrease that occurred last year.
In 1984-85, the price per tonne for Canadian wheat was $170. In 1986-87, the price of that same tonne of Canadian wheat had been reduced to $130. Today, Mr. Speaker, the price is $110 per tonne. The price of barley in 1984-85 was $125 per tonne; in 1986-87, $80 per tonne. This year, Mr. Speaker, it is at $60 per tonne-less than half of what it was two years ago. We have had the price of wheat go from $170 a tonne in 1984-85 to $110 per tonne this year.
The Canadian farmer, the Canadian farm family, is in jeopardy. In effect, the very heart of our nation is being pierced by the inaction of this particular Government.
First it reduced the price of grain. If that isn't enough, on Monday of this week, the Government announced that it would be lifting the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation mortgage foreclosures. A double whammy, Mr. Speaker. The price of grain plummets because of the policies of this Government, and then it turns around and lifts the moratorium on farm foreclosures. As a result of the lifting of the moratorium on FCC mortgages, up to 6,000 farms are immediately subject to foreclosure by the Farm Credit Corporation, and another 10,000 farms are in jeopardy.
One might ask why the Government decided on Monday to lift the moratorium. What message is the Government of Canada, through the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), giving to the farmers of Canada? The message is clear and obvious. The Government of Canada does not care. Is it any wonder, given the inaction of the Prime Minister of Canada and given the inaction of the Government, that the Prime Minister is the Leader of the least popular Government in Canadian history? It is not surprising.
Is it any wonder that the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), a Conservative Member of Parliament from Edmonton in western Canada, found it necessary to criticize the Government of Canada? He found it necessary to criticize the integrity of the Prime Minister because of the inaction of the Government regarding the problems existing in western Canada. Notwithstanding the very serious difficulties being faced by farm families in Canada, this Government, for no explicable understandable reason, decided to lift the moratorium and basically drive off the land 6,000 more farm families, with a potential of driving off 16,000.
The Prime Minister, wearing his famous Gucci shoes, blessed the House of Commons with one of his very rare appearances during this debate. What did he say to the House and through the House to the farmers in western Canada? He said precious little, but he did say:
When western Canada asks for help, to the extent humanly possible-
And then his voice deepened:
April 30, 1987

-Brian Mulroney and the Government of Canada will say, "Yes". We are
there to build a stronger western Canada and to build a stronger Canada.
The farmers in western Canada are on their knees begging the Government of Canada to come to their assistance. The Prime Minister says all you have to do is pick up the phone and call.


Don Boudria: What is the phone number?


John V. Nunziata: I will tell the farmers of western Canada what the Prime Minister's phone number is. It is 992-4211. I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It is 992-4211.


Lynn McDonald: And the area code?


John V. Nunziata: The area code is 613. They can call collect because the Prime Minister of Canada is concerned, he says, about the plight of western farmers. So, pick up the phone, call 992-4211 and ask for Brian. Tell him, because he does not seem to understand exactly what is happening in western Canada to the family farm. He says that the Government of Canada is acting in the best interests of western Canada and in the best interests of farmers in western Canada. He invites the farmers to call and ask for help. The farmers do not have to call. If this Prime Minister was doing his job, he would understand what is happening on the family farm. How often has the Prime Minister, wearing his $700 silk suits and his Gucci shoes, visited western Canada?


Don Boudria: Eighty-four pairs of them.


John V. Nunziata: Yes, 84 pairs of Gucci shoes. How often has he gone to western Canada? Our Leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), has gone there at least 32 times over the last two and a half years to talk to western farmers to understand what the difficulties are. The Prime Minister says he is going out next week to see exactly what is happening.
One would have thought that the Prime Minister would understand and that his western Members of Parliament would explain the very serious difficulties for the western farmers. We know that the western Conservative Members of Parliament have done absolutely nothing. They sit in the House here as bench warmers. They applaud the Government. They applaud the Prime Minister when the situation back home is desperate. Why have the Conservative Members of Parliament not explained to the Prime Minister the very serious difficulties that exist in western Canada, the very serious difficulties facing farmers?
For example, have western Conservative Members of Parliament explained to the Prime Minister that 9.9 per cent of farmers in Alberta are insolvent as of January 1, 1987? Have they explained to the Prime Minister that 11.4 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan are insolvent, and that a further 28.3 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan are having cash flow difficulties? Have they explained to the Prime Minister that 18.3 per cent of the farmers in Manitoba are having cash flow difficulties? It is obvious, Mr. Speaker,
that they have not. It is obvious that western Canadian Conservative Members of Parliament, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, have done precious little.
We in the Liberal Party recognize the difficulties facing western Canada and, in particular, the western Canadian farmer. We in the Liberal Party are prepared to take the necessary action to ensure that the farmers in western Canada will be given the opportunity to continue a way of life that has existed since the very birth of our country. Our Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, has made some very basic requests of the Government. First, it is important and incumbent upon the Government of Canada to immediately announce that it will continue the moratorium with respect to FCC mortgages. Now is the time to do it.
I must say at this point that it is somewhat ironic that on Monday the Government should announce that the moratorium would be lifted. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Monday was the day that the Government decided to start debate on the death penalty. What this Government in effect is doing is condemning the Canadian farmer to death. This Government ought to be condemned for its inaction to the plight of western Canada. We have said continue the moratorium. Now is the wrong time to lift the moratorium. It is important that there be some stability, some assurance from the Government of Canada that it will assist the farmer through these difficult times and by lifting the moratorium, the Government is sending the wrong message.
We in the Liberal Party have said, as well that the Government ought to guarantee to farmers immediately, now, as they are about to seed for the upcoming crop year, at a bare minimum the same return that the Canadian farmer received last year in order to assist the farmer to know when to seed, what to seed or whether to seed at all.
The farmers in western Canada are in a state of flux. They do not know what to do with the price of grain as it is today and with ail of the other factors. They do not know whether they should plant a crop at all this year. We know, with the reduction in the price of grain by the Government, that a great number of farmers will be barely recovering the costs involved in carrying on with their farms. First, the Government should continue the moratorium. Number two, it should announce that farmers will be guaranteed the same returns they had last year.
As well, it is important that the Government announce that there will be a deficiency payment this year. We know that last year the Government announced a deficiency payment in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. One must ask, of course, what prompted the Government to provide that assistance to western Canadian farmers.


Don Boudria: A certain phone call.

April 30, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Yes, it was a phone call, and no doubt the person who called dialed 992-4211.


Don Boudria: At 5 a.m.


John V. Nunziata: And who was that individual who called?


Don Boudria: Oh, I think it was someone from Saskatchewan.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps it was the Leader of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan.


Don Boudria: Could be.


John V. Nunziata: He picked up the phone and said: "Brian, I need help". He did not say that the farmers of Saskatchewan need help, he said that he needs help.


Don Boudria: Political help.


John V. Nunziata: He said: "I need political help. We're in trouble here. We're in the midst of an election campaign and unless you deliver to us, we will lose the Government".
So what did the Prime Minister do? He put on his Guccis, he flexed his muscles, he called up a few of his friends and said: "Well, we can't afford to lose an election in Saskatchewan, we had better do something". So they delivered. They did not deliver to assist the farmers. They were not listening to the farmers in western Canada, they were listening to the Premier of that province who was in the midst of an election campaign. There is no election campaign going on in western Canada right now. Does that mean that the Government, through the Prime Minister, will not respond to the plight of the western farmer? It seems obvious, because of the lifting of the moratorium and the announcement of the decrease in grain prices, that the Government will not do anything.
During the last election campaign, Conservative Members made a number of promises, and you know them as well as I do, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has put together a list entitled "338 Tory Promises, the Tory Collection, 338 Commitments in the Election of 1984". Let us see what this book has to say about agriculture. The book lists promises made by Conservative Members during the last election campaign.
One promise made was to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so that farmers will have access to reasonably priced funds. Did they deliver on that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: No, we know they did not deliver. We know as well that an all-Party committee recommended that they in fact do that and instead the Government turned a blind eye. The Prime Minister said: "Well, it's just another broken promise and what do they know in western Canada, we have
broken so many promises". Another promise made by Conservative Members during the last election campaign in their thirst for power was to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. That had to do with part-time farmers. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: No, another promise that was broken. As well, they promised to expand agricultural research and development by providing greater assistance for agricultural colleges, more funding for research and development and amending the tax policy to encourage private-sector investment. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: I could go on and on. There was another promise to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing rates. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: Another promise was to work to increase exports and stimulate production to meet those export demands. Did they keep that promise?


Don Boudria: No.


John V. Nunziata: What did they do instead? They abolished Canagrex. Is it any wonder that the Conservative Government is in last place in popular support, not only nationally but in western Canada? Is it any wonder that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona said to the Prime Minister: "I don't trust you any more and I don't want to be a Conservative Member of Parliament any more because you lied to the people of Canada, you lied to western Canada. You don't care about western Canada. You gave the F-18 contract to Quebec when it should have gone to Manitoba. You have given all these lucrative contracts to your friends and relatives when you have neglected western Canada".
The people of western Canada will not forget-


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the "blues" will show quite clearly that the Hon. Member who is now speaking called the Prime Minister a liar, albeit indirectly through the words he ascribed wrongly to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). In that event, might it not be appropriate for you as Speaker to call upon the relevant Member of Parliament to withdraw that remark?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) knows if he did that or not and if he did, would he please say one way or the other? If he did say it, would he excuse himself? I want to know whether he did or did not.
April 30, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Far be it from me to offend the Hon. Minister and the Prime Minister by calling him a liar. It might have been construed as calling him a liar but I did not intend to do that. I did not intend to breach the rules of the House. However, if the Gucci shoes fit, wear them.
In closing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that basis, the Hon. Member's time has now expired.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, as a Toronto Member, I am very pleased to be taking part in this emergency debate. I think it is important for those of us who live in cities, do not grow our own food and depend on agriculture to show our support in this real crisis that is being experienced.
I happen to represent a riding in Toronto, Broadview-[DOT] Greenwood, which was in its origin as a European settlement an agricultural area. It was a farming area that supplied food to the City of Toronto, across the Don River. That, of course, was back in the old days when the Don River itself teamed with Atlantic salmon in the appropriate seasons. Now as an industrial and manufacturing centre, we largely depend on the agriculture of the west and the vitality of that agricultural sector is of course extremely important to us as consumers and of course to the entire Canadian economy.
I recently spent a week in western Canada. When I was in Edmonton and Calgary, I saw the plight of the people there who are particularly concerned about the petroleum industry. There is despair, confusion and anxiety as people contemplate their future with falling prices in that sector. From Alberta, I went on to Regina and Winnipeg where I found despair, anxiety and uncertainty about the future that was much more profound. There was a real desperation and a sense of crisis in Regina and Winnipeg over the matter we are debating today.
We know that grain prices are falling. In the case of wheat, there has been an 18 per cent drop on top of a 20 per cent drop, an absolutely staggering drop for farmers to have to face. The question one must ask is why this is and if this has been caused by some fault of the farmers. Are they not being productive? What has gone wrong? Why are farms failing? Of course, we know that it is not due to lack of hard work, effort, skills and productivity. It is simply a question of international markets which are entirely beyond the control of individual farmers.
We know how the political system works and we know that there are massive subsidies for agriculture in the United States and the European Community. The result has been, of course, expanded production there and falling prices on the world markets. This is occurring because those countries see agriculture as being very important and they have ensured that their own farmers will be able to compete and to continue in that way. It is absolutely important for their own economies. Those countries are very clear about the economic, social and political consequences of farm failures. They have massively
subsidized that sector because they want to keep production up. The result, of course, is this enormous instability which our own farmers face, so far without any concrete, adequate solution proposed by the Canadian Government.
Yesterday morning, I listened to the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Of course, it was a speech long on rhetoric. My goodness, I heard such free-flowing phrases of sympathy. The crocodile tears. The commitment in his heart to the west. However, the speech was totally bereft of any practical assistance, as was the Prime Minister's response and that of various Ministers when our Party raised these questions in the House.
One of two particular measures we have advocated, the moratorium on FCC foreclosures, was lifted on Monday. The response from the Government was that a moratorium has to come to an end some time or another. The question is when and why at this time of acute crisis? The moratorium was introduced for a very good reason and the situation remains the same. If you introduce a measure because of need, you should not withdraw the measure until the need has been met. We know that is not yet the case.
The other most pertinent issue is the question of deficiency payments. We have had an important deficiency payment, but we do not have any guarantees concerning what farmers will be given for this crop year. They are seeding without any expectation that they will be able to recover their investment. We call for at the very least an immediate government commitment to provide Canadian grain farmers with a guarantee that total grain receipts for crops being planted now will equal those of the 1986-87 crop year. That is, $1.5 to $2 billion.
Unfortunately, the Government response has been simply to cloud the issue and to suggest that farmers are now getting cheques in the mail. Those cheques are for last year's crop and it was a very poor payment, thanks to falling international prices. One of the purposes of this debate is to put the heat on the Government, remind it of the urgency of the situation, and see if we can get a firm commitment for practical measures.
The Government has not totally ignored this question. It has made some gestures. It seems to be aware up to a point. It is working on the international front to try and bring some stability to grain market prices. It has provided assistance to the farm sector through these payments which have only recently gone out. It has consulted farm organizations. Yet government policy on consultation seems to be, yes, Government listens, Ministers listen, meetings are held and organizations are called in for consultations, but what the organizations say is not translated into action. It is not implemented. So we have a pseudo-consultation, a process of listening, but it does not lead to respect for the proposals or their implementation.
Even while Government has provided some assistance on the one hand, it has been taking it away with the other. The

April 30, 1987
Conservative Government has increased taxes that farmers, as do other Canadians, have to pay. It has increased service charges, freight rates, and of course a host of other direct and indirect taxes. The Government should not lift the moratorium on FCC foreclosures until it announces a deficiency payment program for the upcoming crop year and until it addresses the broad question of farm debt. Of course that is an enormous amount, something in the order of $25 billion across Canada. Much of that debt is still subject to very high interest rates. The Government must let farmers know where they stand now.
The crisis is growing. It has been developing over the last couple of years. Its effect on farmers has been devastating. We are beginning to get a lot of information about what it means for farm families and farm communities. Doctors are telling us that their farmer patients are coming in with more troubles than they have ever had before. We know more are going to psychiatrists. We know there have been more suicides as a result of despair. People are unable to sleep or even relax. They are constantly worried. They have no relief from those worries. The economic burden they bear is tough on the entire family. We as Canadians have to be extremely sensitive to this. We are one family together and when one region of the country is hurting as badly as this, we have to be extremely concerned.
I note that a professor at Brandon University reported to a committee on this issue with some absolutely dire statistics concerning stress. One in two farmers in the sample studied reported feeling chronic fatigue, frequent trouble in relaxing, forgetting things, and losing their tempers. One in three farmers experienced serious disruptions in sleep patterns, increases in family arguments, back pain, trouble in making decisions, frequent headaches, and deteriorating health. They also noticed increasing behavioural problems in their children.
These are the absolutely devastating effects of this situation on the people who have to face it. The suicide rate for farmers in Alberta is going up. A Canadian Mental Health Association study in Saskatchewan found 88 per cent of those surveyed said they experienced stress-related symptoms, including health problems, headaches, fatigue, insomnia, depression, anger and frustration. In some cases there was alcohol abuse. Suicide is the number one cause of death on farms in Ontario after machinery accidents. Suicides are one-third higher for farmers than the rest of the population. We are dealing with a group which has traditionally been considered the most problem-free, the one with a better, healthier life-style without the so-called stresses of urban life. Now we see the situation reversed. People who live on farms and who have to face these enormous financial burdens are under far more stress than city people. I think we should be much more sensitive to that problem and I wish the Government would take this as a real sign of crisis and begin to respond.
We have had communications, representations, proposals and recommendations from numerous people working in the agricultural community. Let me just refer to a couple which I think are particularly significant.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool believes that the rural way of life and related service industries is in jeopardy. They ask Members of Parliament to recognize the critical economic situation confronting western Canadian families and communities. This crisis has far-reaching social and economic implications for the whole national economy as well as for the west. They recommend that programs be immediately developed through federal and provincial co-operation to keep families on their farms in a productive capacity, and that early consideration be given to the acute need for a substantial deficiency payment for this crop year. Government should continue its efforts to restore sanity in the international grain market. Those are obviously very eminently reasonable proposals to be making. I am sorry that those proposals have not yet been acted on.
Keystone Agricultural Producers from Manitoba is another organization writing on behalf of the farmers of Manitoba with a number of similar very concrete proposals. They call upon the Government to announce, as soon as possible, its intention to introduce a program for this year's crop similar to the Special Canadian Grains Program of last year, with support levels at least equivalent to those under the 1986 program. I will not go into the details, but they are asking that they get at least the same kind of support they got last year in order to sustain them.
A second important step should be bold new initiatives through the Farm Credit Corporation to save thousands of commercial farms from insolvency. There should be new loan funds at affordable rates and the FCC should be a full service lender. I am sorry to say that instead of bold new initiatives, we see the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures.
I am extremely disappointed with the response of the Government which is big on rhetoric, talks about its sympathy, wants to blame other people, previous governments, other governments and markets in the world economy, and yet is not willing to do the things which are within its power to do. There is no doubt that there are long-term solutions to be developed. There must be a long-term solution suitable to the politics of what is happening in Europe and the United States. However, in the meantime there are short-term solutions within the power of the Government. I call upon the Government to act now to deal with the immediate crisis facing agriculture in the west.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I am called upon to speak in an agricultural debate, but I do not suppose I will be any more strange to this debate than the hon. lady who just took her seat. I am tempted to ask her how she and the tobacco farmers are getting on these days and whether her remarks apply to them as well as to the other farmers whom she is addressing.


Lynn McDonald: We are talking about wheat, John.
April 30, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: I wonder whether the hon. lady would agree with abolishing the CBC and devoting the proceeds saved to the grain farmer.
I want to address the transportation aspects of the current situation, primarily in western Canada. The Hon. Member wanted government action rather than rhetoric. The Government has acted again today. The Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and I have just announced a $64 million assistance program to help protect farmers from the statutory increase which was announced today by the Canadian Transport Commission in the 1987-88 western grain freight rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Under the legislation introduced by our predecessors and enacted here a few years ago, the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Canadian Transport Commission has to announce by April 30 each year what the freight rates will be for grain in the following crop year. The next crop year, as our western representatives here well know, will commence next August 1. The Canadian Transport Commission must announce the freight rates for the movement of grain in accordance with the formula and stipulations laid down in the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Unfortunately, it therefore announced this afternoon that the grain farmers' share of the rates to be received by the railways for the next crop year will increase from the $5.97 which they are paying in the current year to $8.32 per tonne in the next crop year. The mathematicians among us will realize that that is a 39 per cent increase, a very large increase in the producers' share of the cost.
In 1984-85, which of course was the last year in which our predecessors were in Government for the majority of the year, the total freight rate for the movement of grain was $25.32 of which the Government share was $17.62. At that time the shipper paid $7.70 as the producers' share of that rate. When we came into office three years ago, the producer had to pay $7.70 per tonne of grain moved. In 1985-86 the total freight rate was $28.03 of which the Government paid $22.03 and the shipper paid $6. That, of course, was the year after we came into office.
In the present crop year, 1986-87, the total freight charge is $30.94, of which the Government contributed $24.97 and the shippers contributed $5.97. That rate was calculated last year based on the estimated amount of grain to be moved in the then coming crop year. As it happens, there was an underestimation last year and a great deal more grain has been moved in the present crop year than was anticipated. Approximately 34 million or 35 million tonnes of grain will be moved through the system in the present crop year. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) points out that that is a record.
In June, 1985, the Government amended the original Western Grain Transportation Act to include a ceiling on the producers' share of the freight rate at $7.70 per tonne for the
crop year 1985-86 and the present crop year and replacement of the former rate-setting mechanism with a new tally system.
Action was taken by the Government to ensure that a ceiling of $7.70 would not be exceeded for the last crop year or the present crop year. However, we are now faced with the situation that under the formula in the legislation the producers' share in the forthcoming crop year will be $8.32 per tonne. The Government has acted immediately because the present circumstances of our grain farmers are extremely unfortunate. There has been a decline, as we all know, in the prices they are receiving. The Government has acted in order that this increase will not have to be absorbed by the farmers. We will contribute $2 per tonne in the crop year starting August 1 to that increased cost to the producer.
The over-all cost of that increase in the freight rate was estimated to be approximately $74 million. The government assistance of $2 per tonne based on the estimate of the movement next year of 31.8 million to 32 million tonnes will likely cost the Government $64 million. Therefore, rather than a 39 per cent increase in the producers' freight cost, the actual increase will be in the area of 5 per cent.
It is a disappointment that there are only two people left on the opposition benches, one NDP and one Liberal. I know I am not supposed to comment, but it is so shocking that I cannot forebear to comment on the intense interest being shown in this subject.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought it would only be fair for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), if he is going to talk about statistics, to at least remind the House that the opposition Members are outnumbered by about 20 to one. Also, he might care to comment on the quality of Members who are here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about statistics, I am talking about individuals. There are approximately 140,000 or 150,000 grain farmers in western Canada. That is what we are talking about and that is why the Government is contributing another $64 million to their assistance.
I do not know how many programs we have in effect now, but there are at least five programs of special assistance that come to mind for western grain producers, including the Special Canadian Grains Program of $1 billion that was introduced a few months ago. I believe that $840 million of that was for western grain producers. This is another step in our long battle to assist the western grain producers in the troubles they are currently experiencing.
The effect of what we are doing will mean that the majority of those grain producers will not have an increase in their freight rate for moving grain this year in excess of 5 per cent, while a number of them-those who belong to the Western

April 30, 1987
Grain Stabilization Fund-will have an increase that will be less than that. I believe the calculation of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board is in the area of 2 per cent.
It was bad news that under the formula in the legislation the Canadian Transport Commission had to make the announcement of this new rate for the crop year today, but the good news is that this Government, as always, is standing behind the primary producers of this country and is assisting them as much as it can.
I also want to point out to the House, in case anyone from the Liberal Party has the gall and audacity to participate in this debate, that when they were in office in 1984 the western grain producers to whom I am referring had to pay a rate of $7.70 per tonne for each tonne of grain they moved through the system. However, as a result of the action we are taking today, three years later, and despite the announcement of the Canadian Transport Commission of the increase they had to announce this afternoon, the western grain producers in the crop year that commences August 1 will have to pay not in excess of $6.32 per tonne to move their grain, or $1.38 less per tonne than they were paying in 1984-85. That is the essential point that Hon. Members of the Liberal Party opposite might keep fairly fixed in their minds in the event that any of them have the effrontery or temerity to speak further in this debate.


John Napier Turner: Speak in French, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 notice that my learned colleague from Ottawa-Carleton is here. He is not speaking because he is not in his own seat.
The result of this action that I am announcing today is that the cost of the freight rate to be met by the producer this year is an 18 per cent decrease from the rate that they paid in 198485, as we took office.
We will pay an average of $2 per tonne difference to the railways. The grain producer will deliver his product to the railway. The railway will show a freight rate of $8.32, but will also show a credit of approximately $2.00 per tonne on the invoice to the farmer so that the farmer will not have to pay $8.32 per tonne to have his product moved. He will have to pay a rate of $6.32 and the other $2 will be met by the Government of Canada.
If we had not taken this special step of implementing this new assistance program for these transportation costs, in the next crop year we would be paying about 75 per cent of the grain costs for the movement of grain on the basis of the projected volume of 32 million tonnes, which would have been $675 million in the next crop year for the Crow benefit paid by the Government.
With the additional $64 million that I have announced this afternoon with the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Government's share of the cost of moving the grain crop of western Canada next year will be in excess of 80 per cent.
The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and I certainly deplore the terrible fact that world grain prices are about half what they were five years ago. But certainly the program that we announced today will help the farmers with the cost of moving their grain.
We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board are doing all they can to initiate discussions among the nations of the world most involved in the export of grain to attempt to get some rational approach to the problems that are facing grain producers around the world.
Discussions are continuing with farmers and provinces about the economic situation facing our grain farmers. I have no doubt that this will not be the last of the measures that will be announced by the Government for the assistance of farmers and agriculture during our term in office.
I have not had the opportunity to listen to the whole of this debate, but I am certain it has been remarked that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has been very busy in Japan in recent days attempting on behalf of the Prime Minister to get the world grain exporters to deal with their problems. The Prime Minister himself has taken every initiative, together with the Ministers I have mentioned, to see that it tops the agenda at the world economic summit in Venice in June.
I suggest it must be admitted by anyone who is fair and makes any pretense to fairness or impartiality, that no group of people in the world could be doing more to assist the agricultural area and their own grain farmers than the Government of which I am happy to be a Member.


Don Boudria: Even if you do say so yourself.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not have many spare moments, as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, but when I do I love to rush into the House to hear Members speak, particularly Members of the Opposition because that serves to convince me that I did the right thing when I left them many years ago.
In conclusion, and continuing to be as non-partisan as I usually am, I want to refer to an article "Down and Out on the Farm" that I happened to read in Macleans magazine. I think it is the latest issue. I am not following agriculture closely because my own province is not a great grain growing province. In fact, I have never seen a report of any grain growing in our province. That is why I am looking to my hon. friend, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board to ensure that the Feed Freight Assistance Program is improved and that the plight of the livestock producers and the other producers in Newfoundland are recognized. In other words, I am scratching his back today. I hope he is going to tickle mine tomorrow.
This article is in an international magazine, and if you glance through it, Mr. Speaker, you will see various programs.
April 30, 1987

I recommend it to opposition Members. For example, I will give a quotation from the article, and I quote:
As a result, for the first time in Canadian history federal assistance to prairie
grain farmers will be almost as large as their total revenues from grain salesan estimated $4 billion.
The Government cannot do much about the world price of grain other than the extraordinary methods which are under way to try to get President Reagan and other world leaders to deal with it. We cannot control the world price for grain. We cannot control the world price for oil, nor could our predecessors nor will our successors. For the next 1,000 years our successors will not be able to control the world price of grain or the world price of oil. However, we can control what programs we can produce to assist the farmers. As a result, for the first time in Canadian history, federal assistance to grain farmers is just about as large as their total revenues from grain sales.
The article lists a number of these programs such as an interim payment of $705 million from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, which was announced last week by my colleague, the subsidies I have already mentioned today, almost $700 million for transporting grain to market, the picking up of the Canadian Wheat Board's loss for 1985-86 and the $1 billion Special Canadian Grains Program. I notice Mr. Kraft, who is an expert in the field, said:
As a source of income for prairie farmers, the Government now is almost as
important as all of their customers.
I think my announcement this afternoon is in line with those facts and that this Government is to be congratulated and supported in the many programs we have under way to help the afflicted grain farmers of this country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the Minister would permit one brief question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Faurier (Mr. Berger) has the floor. There are no questions permitted.


Maurice Brydon Foster: By unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that everyone wants to get information-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister did not just announce a 6 per cent increase in freight rates?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Laurier is on debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: What a sourpuss.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister announced was $64 million of aid to western grain farmers. That is what he just announced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laurier has the floor for debate.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat like a jack-in-the-box. I got up and down about six times on these points of order. Shall we try it a few more times?
1 was quite astonished to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) say we cannot control the world price of grain, but he went on to say that we can control the programs which are under our control. That makes a lot of sense, of course. He then listed a whole series of programs the Government has instituted presumably to assist farmers. However, he did not mention science and technology or research and development, which is one of the major failings of the Government. That is something for which the Government could do more for the long-term interests of Canadian agriculture and the Canadian farmer than any one of the other measures the Minister mentioned. I would like to refer to aspects of the question of research and development in my comments. Before I do so, I want to say a few words about the moratorium on farm foreclosures, the question of the Farm Debt Review Board and the possible debt restructuring program.
These measures, as 1 say, I regard in many cases to be temporary palliatives. I think what we have to spend a bit of time on in this House is addressing the long-term solutions, not the band-aids and not the half-baked measures taken by the Government in its two and and a half years in office.
What has precipitated the current debate, of course, is lifting the moratorium on farm foreclosures which has been in effect for the past 19 months. In this period, interest rates have come down, according to the Government, and that is the reason for lifting the moratorium on farm foreclosures. It has been pointed out to me by my colleague, our critic for agriculture, that real interest rates today are higher than they were in 1984. Of course the moratorium itself is nothing but a shortterm solution.
Another short-term solution is the Farm Debt Review Boards. If we look at the statistics and at the facts, we see this mechanism has not been functioning well. In Ontario, I understand there are some 400 cases which have been considered by the Farm Debt Review Board. Agreement was reached in some 195 cases but only two agreements were actually signed. I look with particular interest at the question of the Farm Debt Review Boards because I served on the committee on agriculture two or three years ago in the last Parliament which studied Bill C-653, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill was proposed by a former colleague of mine, the former Member of Parliament for Lambton Middlesex, Mr. Ralph Ferguson.

April 30, 1987
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act attempted to bring back a procedure that existed in the 1930s and which would allow a farmer to apply to a court for a restructuring of his debt. In the first instance, the farmer would be entitled to apply for a moratorium for a stay of proceedings, if you will, to stop his creditor from proceeding with a foreclosure. The court would be empowered to give the farmer a period of time in which to reorganize his affairs to seek alternative financing. In addition, I believe one of the features of that particular legislation was that the courts in certain extraordinary circumstances had the ability to write down debt.
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was an attempt to come up with a viable permanent solution of which a farmer could avail himself. He would not have to seek a privilege, if you will, or go before a Farm Debt Review Board and try to get the co-operation of the banks. He could actually have a legal recourse which would be binding, of course, if granted by the court.
We got no action from the Government with respect to setting up this type of legally-binding mechanism. Indeed, there has been no action through legislation, specific legislation such as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, or through amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. A procedure of this nature would introduce into Canadian law, or bring back into Canadian law, a procedure which exists in the United States. It is not something which is totally unknown or new in the United States.
Under the Bankruptcy Code of the Americans, I believe Chapter 11 of the Code, the owner of a business can ask for the protection of the court and be given a period of time to rearrange his activities, provided, of course, that there is some opportunity to continue a viable business and provided that the owner of the business convinces the court that his plans are viable or have some semblance or hope of success. That is a right under the law; it is not a voluntary arrangement.
1 am sure that most Members of Parliament who have had contacts with businesses which have experienced financial difficulty from time to time understand the importance of having this type of provision in law. I am familiar with a number of businesses which have experienced financial difficulties due to extraordinary circumstances such as market conditions, the 1982 recession, or, say, problems in the steel industry, for argument's sake.
In such cases the creditors, banks in most cases, acted hastily. Bankers panicked. They called the line of credit. They pulled the plug on the company. Very often the owner of the business does not have the opportunity under the law to fight back. I am aware of circumstances in which owners of businesses have had to come up with extraordinary means in order to get the trustees out and in order to maintain a viable business. So it is absolutely crucial that this type of a mechanism be introduced into law, a mechanism which would apply to all businesses and not just to farmers. Of course, the
situation of farmers requires some further assistance, further programs, and I would like to refer to the idea of debt restructuring in particular.
In that respect I am sure that Members of the House are now familiar with the ideas of the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Mr. Garf Stevenson, who in a memo of March 13, 1987, which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on April 28, suggested that the Government consider a program of debt restructuring. In his memo Mr. Stevenson states that what he has been suggesting is the:
-need to join in developing a method by which farmers with significant debt could temporarily relinquish title to some of their land while perhaps retaining title to the home quarter. The farmer would continue to operate the land under some lease arrangement. The producer hopefully would have the right to retain title at a later date by repurchasing the land or paying out the accumulated debt.
This type of solution obviously merits the immediate consideration of the Government so that some form of debt restructuring program can be introduced in short order.
At this point in my comments I would like to deal with the question of research and development which I do not think has figured too prominently in the debate up to now. In my comments I will try to be positive and appropriately critical. I know that Members of the Government say that opposition Members have nothing to say other than to criticize and, indeed, that we engage in debate for purely dilatory purposes. I would like to inject somewhat of a different tone and respond to those comments by making some remarks which I believe can be taken in a positive light.
As I said earlier, the Minister of Transport threw up his hands and said: "We cannot control the world price of grain". But he did not comment on the promises that were made by the Government prior to the last election in terms of research, promises which have been abandoned by the Government since taking office. We are all familiar with Canada's poor record when it comes to research and development. As the recent round table report of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association reminded us, we do things by halves in Canada. We do half the research and development. We have half the number of scientists and engineers, and I think that is being somewhat generous. We have half the investment and half the jobs. Prior to the last election the Tories promised to double spending on research and development. However, since taking office they have cut practically every form of assistance to research and development.
On a trip to western Canada last November, and I was back again in Manitoba for the high school science symposium in February, I visited a company in Winnipeg by the name of Hi-Qual Manufacturing which has developed a process to treat feed grains with anhydrous ammonia. The company has developed a machine-and I am reluctant to call it a machine, perhaps it might be better to refer to it as a contraption although that would not be doing justice to it either-which will automatically pick up a bale of hay, wrap it in plastic and treat it with anhydrous ammonia. This ammonia treatment swells and breaks down the outer lining or husk of the grain
April 30, 1987

and adds protein to the feed. The purpose of the treatment is to produce a better feed, which in turn produces a healthier animal.
It is calculated that this can lead to a 20 per cent to 40 per cent savings in feedstock costs in an average year. In addition, it increases the digestability of the grain, thus permitting better finishing or fattening, with the result that the cow-calf operator will be able to raise the cattle himself rather than shipping them elsewhere.
This particular procedure costs $250,000 to develop, and its development came with remarkably little assistance from Government. Under the Industrial Research Assistance Program of the National Research Council, the developing company received some $14,000, enabling it to improve its communications and understanding of the technologies in other parts of the world.
It is forecast that this treatment will enable this company to obtain 5 per cent of the total forages market. Just to obtain a 5 per cent market share would require some 3,600 units operating at full capacity. That represents an investment of $60 million-and that is just the cost of manufacturing the equipment.
This kind of development in agriculture only results from an investment at the front end in research and development. There are many other examples I could refer to, such as Export Packers in Winnipeg, a company in the egg processing industry. That is a company that has developed a technology to extract enzyme from eggs, dramatically increasing the value of the ordinary chicken egg.
A study by the Food Sciences Department of the University of Manitoba observes that the potential for similar products is enormous. The problem, of course, is that we are not doing enough research and development in Canada. We are not doing nearly enough. We are only doing half of what our competitors are doing. We will not solve some of the desperate problems facing the agricultural industry, and our other industries, if we do not get more serious about research and development. We have to understand that in research and in science lie the beginnings, if you will, of the answers to some of the economic problems that we face.
I would hope that the Government, in considering the solutions to this crisis, would begin to address the question of research and development, and in doing so I urge it to remember the promises that it made during the 1984 election campaign.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are addressing does indeed reflect a serious situation, not just for Canadian agriculture, and especially the growers of grain and oilseeds, but also for the suppliers of farm equipment, agricultural chemicals, as well as for the transportation sector and even the energy sector. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this debate involves not just one sector of our society
but indeed every Canadian in virtually all areas of this great country. It is a social as well as an economic debate. The future of the Canadian family farm is not something that can be decided solely on economic terms.
Our farm families have come to mean much more to us, and to most Canadians, than simply being the providers of various commodities. These families also represent a way of life which is desirable for many Canadians, and is indeed a way of life which many of our young people aspire to for themselves and for their children.
I am not saying that farming is an easy undertaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, like many of the Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, it was my privilege, and my responsibility, to farm in southern Ontario, along with my husband and our two children. And, Mr. Speaker, I can personally assure you that, compared to my experience in the business world, farming is far tougher in its demands. Farming makes it easy to go broke.
I do not know of any other area in small business where one must try to survive by buying retail and selling wholesale. I do not know of many other businesses where the determination of the price of the product is so totally out of the producer's hands, or where the rate of return on equity can fluctuate so dramatically from season to season.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, these incredible Canadian families persevere. They continue against these substantial odds. I say that these families deserve our admiration and our respect, for these families represent the values that we most respect in our society-values that include hard work; values that include determination; values that demonstrate a love for, and respect of, our environment; values that find their reward in benefits that could never be appreciated by those who measure success solely in monetary terms.
In dealing with the farm families of Canada, we are not dealing with people who wish to become rich, with people who wish to make a killing at the expense of the taxpayer; rather, we are dealing with people who want to perpetuate a way of life-and the survival of that way of life may ultimately mean more to those of us who inhabit the urban sprawl than to these farm families themselves.
I have heard statements from all Parties in this House about the need to protect and preserve our Canadian cultural identity. That identity comes from our backgrounds, from our roots, and is reflected by our great Canadian poets, authors, and painters. It is a cultural identity which is forever tied to our land and to the present and former generations who have tamed it and nurtured it. So, when we speak of a crisis in Canadian agriculture, we speak of a crisis which is all-encompassing, one which is manifested in not just financial terms, but also social and cultural terms.
But, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the comments of many of the members of the Opposition, one would believe that this crisis has only suddenly come upon us; that perhaps it crept through the barn door-and who knows when; that it has only just

April 30, 1987
decided that now is its moment to hurl its plague and the pestilence upon the farm families of Canada.
Well, I can assure the Elouse, Mr. Speaker, that that just isn't so. This crisis, as it may in fact be rightly called, has been with us for a long, long time. This crisis was visiting our agricultural communities in various forms long before Confederation, and this crisis will be back on our doorsteps again, awakened by such factors as weather, market prices, world surpluses and interest rates, and by those two indomitable characteristics of the human spirit, greed and fear.
In listening to some of the comments made during this debate, one could easily be deluded into thinking that the problems facing our farm families are the direct result of either government action or government inaction, that is, depending upon your political persuasion. If that were in fact the case, we could cut off foreign aid substantially by offering the services of our colleague in the other place, specifically Senator Davey, to provide rain to those drought stricken areas of our planet that so desperately need the surplus grains that our world has but cannot supply. To all but the most idealistic among us, there are limits to what Governments can do. Our farm families know this. They know that problems created by the European Economic Community cannot be solved through unilateral action in Ottawa. They know that product prices must be affected by a world-wide surplus. They know also that many of the problems they face today could have been avoided by proper planning, by effective marketing and by good management.
Two and a half years is not a long time to spend on the land, but it is the time that so far has been allotted to our Government for proper planning, effective marketing and to implement good management practices.
Our government policies are addressing the challenges of Canadian farm families in effective and substantive ways, ways which offer long-term solutions, ways which meet with the approval of our agricultural community. First, Canada is taking the lead in seeking international solutions to an international problem. Canada played a lead role at the GATT meetings in Uruguay, and agriculture is now part of the main agenda of present and future GATT discussions.
Second, our Government has not been content to sit back and wait for these international negotiations to produce results. Our Government has provided tremendous financial support, support that is unprecedented to Canadian agriculture. This support to the Canadian farming community has been so well articulated by many of my colleagues that there is no need for me to simply duplicate their rhetoric. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program and the billion dollars it will provide to the cash flow of grain producers. There is no need for me to mention the special Canadian grains program. Everyone knows about the $705 million just announced under the Western Grain Stabilization Act to put money into the hands of farmers when they need it
in time for spring seeding. No one should have to remind this House about the cash advances for unharvested grain that kept many farmers from going under in the fall of 1985 when their fields were wet and snow covered.
Our farm families know about this Government's record in amending the Western Grain Transportation Act and the announcement made by our Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) this afternoon. They know about the new commodity-based mortgages designed to take the heat off when commodity prices plunge around the globe. They know about interest rates and they know the interest rate coin too well. They still remember the other side of that coin, the side where they had to pay 20 per cent or more as a result of the policies and programs of the previous Government.
This debate may be important in emphasizing the problems of the Canadian farm community, but our farm families do not need to be educated about the value of our Government's policies. They recognize the benefits of what we have done and of what we are continuing to do.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our Government has adopted a policy of marketing and is aggressively pursuing that policy on behalf of the farm families of Canada. This Government believes that it is its responsibility to sell Canadian grain. Through the distinguished efforts of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), Canada is positioning itself to take advantage of global marketing opportunities as the cycle changes and these markets turn around.
Negotiations have been completed on a new five-year deal with the U.S.S.R., a deal that will see 25 million tonnes of Canadian grains being sold and shipped to that country during the same period. Another 4.5 tonnes will be shipped to Brazil between now and 1988 as part of a new, long-term agreement. In terms of commodities, our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board may go short on rhetoric but he sure goes long on sales. The agricultural management policies of this Government are clear, clear to anyone who cares to look.
First, the Government is dealing with the causes, not the symptoms. It is demonstrating leadership on an international basis. It is resolving a global problem at its very roots.
Second, this Government is providing interim support, support that is practical, support that is substantive, support that far exceeds that offered by any previous Government.
Finally, this Government is out there in the global marketplace hustling on behalf of the Canadian farmer and hustling successfully, bringing in the orders that are the only thing that will restore our Canadian farm families to vibrancy and economic health.
Our farmers will not be put off by political rhetoric. They will not be satisfied with interventionist programs designed by Government. Our farmers want action, action in dealing with offshore subsidies, action in helping them ride out the current market, action through aggressive marketing. In terms of action, our farmers are giving overwhelming approval to the
April 30, 1987

initiatives and the results that this Government has achieved for them and will continue to achieve in the future.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I agree with the Hon. Member who has just spoken that the Canadian farmer does want action rather than just words from the Government of the day. Indeed, this is the whole purpose of the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party that we have been debating now for a great many hours. The two specific actions that seem to us in all fairness that should be taken, if we do not want to see the Canadian farm family destroyed are, first, the action of not removing the moratorium on farm foreclosures tomorrow, of keeping the moratorium in place and, second, of giving grain growers of the West some assurance that the 1987 deficiency payments will at least equal those of last year.
The Hon. Member who has just spoken somehow leaves me with the thought, and I guess I get left with it every time 1 listen to a Conservative, that there has never been any Government involvement in the grain business in Canada, that somehow or other all that is needed is protection against subsidies that other countries are providing and, of course, we all would like to see that, but that no assistance be given to the grain growers themselves.
There have always been prairie farm stabilization Acts. There have always been deficiency payments. There was the Crow rate. There has been a very substantial amount of government involvement in agriculture in Canada's history. 1 do not suppose the Tories want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Therefore, I really do not understand the plea that is made from time to time to have no government involvement when the Canadian economy itself is, as we well know, built on a good deal of government assistance and involvement.
The motion which covers two main points, keeping the moratorium on foreclosures in place and providing deficiency payments at least equal to those received in the previous crop year, describes the kind of action we were hoping the Government would take. Indeed, practically all if not all farm leaders in the country were hoping the Government would take that action. Instead, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who was present a moment ago, announced that the freight rate increase triggered by the Act would in effect and in part at least be transferred to the farmers.
I should remind the House that last year, none of the freight rate increases were transferred to the farmers but this year they will be. On top of all the other increases in costs grain producers have to face, they will now be faced with the increase in freight rates announced by the Minister today.
I would like to remind the House of the price cost squeeze about which we are speaking. The House will recall that a year ago, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) announced a 19 per cent cut in wheat prices, a 28 per cent cut in barley prices and a 28 per cent cut in oat prices.
This crop year, 1987-88, there was an announcement of further cuts. Wheat prices will be cut by 18 per cent, barley by 25 per cent and oats by 28 per cent. This will put prices for these products at levels similar to those of 1976-77, over 10 years ago. However, costs are about three times as high as they were that year.
To put it in specific dollar terms, prairie farm operating expenses and depreciation charges in 1976-77 were about $3.5 billion. The projected expenses and charges for 1987 are over $8 billion, yet prices are back to where they were in 1976-77. The Minister of Transport announced an addition to this today.
Speaking of the Minister, he comes from Newfoundland and was saying there were no grain growers there. He sort of implied that because of that, this was not a particular problem. This reminded me that one of the real problems is that the Government is not listening. This is a national problem, not just a western problem about which the Government really has not been listening. It consults but it does not pay much attention to what is being said.
One of the things for which farm leaders have been asking and waiting is a meeting with the Government to discuss possible deficiency payments for the 1987-88 year. In fact, that is the basis of the debate that has been going on for the last two days. Why will the Government not hold that meeting? Why will it not even set a date for it? The Government says it wants to consult but it does not even hold a meeting with farm leaders to discuss possible deficiency payments for the current crop year.
The lifting of the moratorium affects farmers in all parts of Canada including Newfoundland, though the Minister of Transport made no reference to that. Apparently he did not realize that that was part of the motion that is being debated. The lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures will obviously affect Saskatchewan most of all as well as Alberta and Ontario, but it will also affect the Atlantic Provinces and my own Province of British Columbia. Farmers will be going down the tubes after tomorrow when the FCC foreclosure moratorium is lifted.
I was astounded when I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) say on The Journal last night that most farm organizations want the Farm Credit Corporation moratorium lifted. I consulted with my colleagues who are in touch with the leaders of farm organizations and they informed me that all three prairie Wheat Pools with over 100,000 members as well as the National Farmers Union are absolutely opposed to the lifting of the moratorium. I really do not know where the Minister of Agriculture was coming from when he made that statement last night.
If I may turn for a moment to British Columbia, the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures will have an immediate serious effect on at least 60 farmers, many of whom are tree-fruit farmers. Ultimately, it may affect another 300 or more.

April 30, 1987
Let me put the statistics for British Columbia on the record. According to the Farm Credit Corporation, the number of British Columbia farmers in arrears is 488 and these farmers are in arrears to the tune of $15.7 million. Of those, the number of farmers who are two years or more in arrears is 249 with a total dollar value of $12.6 million in arrears, the bulk of the amount. Of those, the number affected by the lifting of the moratorium is 60. The reason I say the 60 will grow to more than 300 is because those farmers who are in arrears two years or longer are not likely to be able to survive as farmers in the Province of British Columbia.
I find rather incredible the implication of the Elon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) that everything the Government had been doing was fine and good and that British Columbia farmers were doing well. In fact, a good many of them are very seriously in debt. Indeed, that has become one of their major problems.
I would remind the House that according to the President of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, the problem with arrears is even more extreme than that shown by Farm Credit Corporation statistics. A few months ago President Geen said the accumulated debt tends to feed on itself. Those who have not been able to meet their annual commitment to the debt are getting into worse shape. -We are going to see more people leaving the land, including third generation farmers.
The other reason that the problem is more serious than the statistics suggest is that most of the debt in B.C. is owed to the banks. Only a small proportion, about 2.7 per cent, of the FCC loans is to B.C. farmers. Dropping the moratorium tomorrow will be a clear signal to the banks to think of further foreclosures themselves. I do not have the figures of all the loans owed to the banks, but it is obviously a very great deal more than those owed to the FCC. The problem for the farmers of British Columbia is indeed serious and not to be lightly touched upon as the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen seemed to do.
I was listening to the Minister of Transport, and both he and the Minister of Agriculture seem to be taking their orders from The Canadian Bankers' Association. Today I read the background paper submitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture about a year ago by The Canadian Bankers' Association. To summarize briefly, the association concludes that people are going to be forced out of farming. The family farm will not be able to continue and there is nothing much one can do about it. It is the way the market operates. They
have no intention of seeing anything more than a few transition programs undertaken by Government. They make some very specious arguments. For example, the industry, while continuing to support agriculture, must also meet its obligations to depositors and shareholders. As such, the banks are strongly opposed to any government credit legislation that disrupts the lender/borrower relationship and retroactively changes contractual powers and obligations. The banks question the effectiveness of government subsidy or income-support programs due to their discriminatory and costly nature and often untargeted thrusts.
What a lot of gobbledegook. What they are really saying is that they want a totally free hand and they have no interest whatsoever in the survival of the Canadian farm and farm family, apart from some transitional programs.
They end their brief by saying proposals involving income support, target prices, agri-bonds, subsidized loans and interest rebate subsidies should only be adopted where long-term benefits clearly outweigh the costs. No consideration should be given to debt moratoriums or compromises.
That is The Canadian Bankers' Association, and the Minister of Agriculture seems to be taking his orders from them, both in lifting the moratorium tomorrow and in absolutely refusing to make any deficiency payment commitment to farmers for the next crop year.
I have noted the effect not only on grain farmers but, in my case, as far as the moratorium is concerned, on the tree fruit farmers, dairy farmers, and mixed farmers generally in my province. This is having and will continue to have a Canadawide impact. Therefore, we urge the Government to set a meeting date now with the farm leaders of this country to discuss the grievous debt problem, revoke the lifting of the moratorium, and discuss the deficiency payment program for the 1987-88 crop year. Farmers must know now and the Government has said it will consult. If it does not want to see further deterioration of agriculture in Canada, it must meet immediately with the people concerned to discuss these problems.
This is not a new form of Government intervention. This is part of the Canadian practice of making sure that our agricultural economy is strong and that it will not simply go down the tubes as has happened to many individual farmers already. We are asking the Government to take these actions for the sake of all Canadians. We have a highly integrated economy in so many respects and what happens to farmers affects all of us.

Thursday, April 30, 1987


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this debate is really part of a cry for action on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians involved in the western grain industry, the western grain economy. I think it can be said quite accurately that there are three cornerstones to the foundation of our economy. One surely is the western grain economy and our agricultural sector generally. The others are automobiles and forest products.
The Government has gravely weakened if not sold out a major part of our forest sector through its foolish and weak-kneed deal with the U.S. on softwood lumber. In that deal it quite unnecessarily caved in and agreed with the U.S. to impose an export tax on our sales of softwood lumber to the U.S. In the free trade negotiations now under way the Government seems ready to sell out, to undermine, to weaken another cornerstone in the foundation of our economy, the Canadian automobile industry.
I say this because the Government has not denied reports that it is willing to give up, in these free trade negotiations, the tariffs which exist on imports of cars and parts into this country from the United States. If this happens there will no longer be any way to enforce on the North American automobile companies which are subject to the Auto Pact the Canadian content and product requirements, the safeguards which are so important for the preservation of the industry and the jobs in it.
If there are no tariffs which can be imposed on the North American automobile companies, if they do not meet the production, content and job requirements of the Auto Pact, we will in effect no longer have an Auto Pact and our Canadian auto industry, one of what I have called the three cornerstones of the Canadian economy, will be gravely weakened and seriously damaged.
The Government also seems ready to sell out or weaken the Canadian auto industry in another crucial way. It refuses to insist, by means of law if necessary, that the new Japanese and Korean manufacturers setting up plants in this country play by the same rules as the North American manufacturers with regard to meeting requirements for production, content and jobs. As the Government continues to allow these plants to be set up essentially to put together parts and components imported from offshore, these plants will likely-and I say this
with great regret-displace two or three Canadian jobs for every job they create.
This point was well made and confirmed in a speech made by Moe Closs, President of Chrysler Canada Limited, to the Canadian Club of Montreal yesterday as reported in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
He said Canada's industrial base could be seriously weakened by all the offshore automobile investments in Canada because the Japanese and South Koreans don't play by the same rules.
"I don't see anything fair about all these new auto companies being enticed to set up shop here without having to make the same kinds of commitments in jobs, purchases and investments the North American auto companies have always considered the price of admission".
This very important speech was also reported in La Presse of Thursday, April 30.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to quote a few paragraphs of this article which summarizes the views of a major Canadian automobile industry spokesman, Mr. Moe Closs, and I quote:
The automobile industry is concerned abut the possibility of 40,000 layoffs in Canada, which represent 30 per cent of its total work force of 130,000, and the possible closing of one or two plants because of unfair competition from foreign manufacturers with the support of Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec.
Moe Closs emphasized that each assembly plant of foreign manufacturers in Canada which does not meet the requirement of the Auto Pact (60 per cent of Canadian content) replaces three old jobs with one new job.

I pointed out how the Government, through its foolish policies, is weakening, undermining, selling out two key cornerstones in the foundation of the Canadian economy, our forest products industry and our auto industry. I believe Canadian farmers and Canadians generally can now well be afraid that the Conservative Government is getting ready to do the same thing with Canadian agriculture, especially the western grain economy. This puts at risk not only the foundation of the economy of the three prairie provinces, but a way of life, thousands of family farms and the survival of thousands of rural municipalities and small towns, the tax revenues of which depend on the ability of these farms and the families living on them to exist and pay taxes and to use their income to buy goods and services from businesses in these communities.
I think it could be said in light of recent events that western farmers, farmers generally, and Canadians generally could have a well grounded fear that the Conservative Government is abandoning Canadian agriculture, and especially the western grain economy.

April 30, 1987
When someone from an urban area of southwestern Ontario rises to speak on this kind of subject there are always those who ask why such a Member would rise to take part in the debate. It should be clear that Members of Parliament are here to work for the best interests of the entire country, not only for their own riding, community, or even their own region.
By virtue of being elected to serve in the House of Commons we are all compelled, in fact duty bound, not only to vote but to understand and give consideration to the needs and problems of our entire country; the needs and problems of the fishermen of Newfoundland, the forestry workers of northern Ontario and British Columbia-

-the needs and problems of workers employed in the Montreal East plants which are closing, those workers in the CN Moncton plants which, because of a lack of policy and support from this Conservative Government, are losing their jobs, on top of the several hundreds of jobs which have already been lost because of the unfair and inefficient behaviour of this Conservative Government.

We must understand that the purpose of a national Government and, therefore, of a national Parliament is to enable us all to work to help one another and provide, with a sense of sharing and compassion, a way of making the country work for all its people and all its parts to the mutual benefit of every one of its regions. Each Member in this House of Commons should be able to say that every part of Canada is part of his or her country. I hope that if and when the need arises, Members of Parliament from our prairie provinces or our Atlantic Coast will take an interest in the needs and concerns of my city and my region, just as I am anxious to do when it comes to the needs and concerns of their regions.
However, as the Member of Parliament for Windsor West I do have a concern about the needs of all of southwestern Ontario, especially the peninsula that makes up the County of Essex. I hope Members of this House are aware that the County of Essex is a very important agricultural area, as is the entire southwestern part of the Province of Ontario. In the County of Essex we have a tremendous industry growing cash crops for canning factories. We grow tomatoes, peas, corn and all sorts of fruits and vegetables. That is why major canning companies such as Green Giant and Heinz are located in my County of Essex.
In our region there is also a substantial dairy farming industry, and the growing of corn and wheat is very important in southwestern Ontario including the County of Essex. In fact, I was once told that southwestern Ontario is a major grain producer which grows more wheat than most of the Province of Manitoba,
Although I must say that the wheat growers in my area do not benefit from the support and protection of the Canadian
Wheat Board. Agriculture therefore is of importance to the economy of Essex County, wherein the City of Windsor is located, and the entire southwestern Ontario region. It is a source of employment, not only on farms, but also in food processing plants. The people of my area are very concerned about the crushing burdens of debt and low commodity prices which face all too many farm families in Essex County and southwestern Ontario.
Together these two burdens of debt and low commodity prices, especially in recent months, have been delivering an unfair and, as I said, a crushing blow to all too many farmers in Essex County and southwestern Ontario, for whom not only their immediate livelihood but an entire way of life is as stake.
We have had a crushing blow in terms of debt and low commodity prices in my area, but there has been an especially heavy blow when it comes to the way these twin burdens have been placed upon the shoulders of farmers in western Canada and the western grain economy.
Only last week the Conservative Government announced that initial prices for wheat would be 18 per cent lower than those of last year. Now, just a few days after this bad news, the Government delivered another serious blow to western grain farmers-in fact, to farmers in my area and across Canada- by saying that as of tomorrow it will lift the moratorium, which has been in place for some 19 months, on foreclosure action by its Farm Credit Corporation on farmers in arrears on mortgages that they had obtained from that federal government agency.
One of the Ministers speaking in this debate said that the lifting of the moratorium would involve only 50 farmers per month or some 600 per year. If that is correct, it is still 600 farmers too many. The evidence is that the numbers will be much, much higher.
As has already been pointed out in the debate, some 6,000 of the 75,000 accounts with the FCC have been in arrears for more than two years. The experience with the FCC is that if a loan is in arrears for more than two years it almost invariably leads to foreclosure.
The Government has never explained satisfactorily why it was so heartless, insensitive, and uncaring as to lift this moratorium only a few days after it announced that initial prices for grain would be 18 per cent lower this year than they were last year. As I said, the lifting of the moratorium not only affects western Canada. It affects many farmers in my area.
I should like to refer to what Janice Vansickle, the agriculture reporter for The Windsor Star, wrote about this in yesterday's edition of that newspaper. She said:
A day of reckoning is about to dawn for 110 farmers in Essex and Kent
counties covered by a moratorium on foreclosures by the Farm Credit
Corporation.
The article went on to say:
Local farm leaders generally lashed out at the federal Government for
removing the moratorium.
April 30, 1987

"It's a pretty ruthless step", said Claude Giroux, who stepped down last week as president of National Farmers' Union Local 309 ... The removal of the moratorium indicates the Government is backing down on its commitment to help farmers through a period of crisis in agriculture, said Giroux-
The article went on to say:
The locals' new president, Roger Rivest, questioned the ability of the federal farm debt review board in Ontario to deal with a flow of FCC clients.
As we know, "the boards were put in place last August to act as mediators in credit disputes between farmers and their creditors". However, The Windsor Star went on to report:
Most farm leaders-believe they are not yet functioning properly and lack the authority to obtain legal binding agreements between farmers and creditors. "The farm debt review board has no power," said Rivest.
In today's edition of The Toronto Star, George McLaughlin, Chairman of the Farm Debt Review Board for Ontario, said that "about one Ontario farmer in five will leave the land during the next five years". Mr. McLaughlin went on to say that he asked for "an 18-member board, up from the current 11, to handle the load". He does not have enough people to handle the existing load, not to mention the additional load which will be created when the FCC starts its flow of foreclosures.
According to The Toronto Star, Mr. McLaughlin also said that "the review board had already received 425 applications from farmers and completed 193 reviews. He went on to say that of those completed reviews, only five had been translated into firm legal agreements". That is not a very strong endorsement of the efficiency and the usefulness of the board by the very person which the Conservative Government appointed to chair it.
Obviously, farmers have to be sceptical about the value of these farm debt review boards. Farmers across Canada are being squeezed, not only by low prices for what they grow, but by the problem of debt. There is a strong reason the Government should continue the moratorium against foreclosures of FCC mortgages. It is the absence of an effective system to deal with the farm debt crisis. Farm leaders and individual farmers across the country say that the Government has not put in place an effective system for this purpose. We in the Official Opposition call upon the Government to say today, before the debate ends, that it will continue the moratorium on foreclosures of FCC mortgages.
The Government says that if it does that, the banks will be unhappy and that farmers who have their mortgages with the banks instead of the FCC will also be unhappy. The Government is not here to serve the banks; it is here to serve the people of Canada.
In these circumstances the Government should not drag down the clients of the Farm Credit Corporation to the level of pressure which is being imposed upon clients of the chartered banks, pressure that might be increased if the Government's moratorium on foreclosures of Farm Credit Corporation mortgages is raised. Instead, it should take action right now to get the banks to commit to having an equivalent moratorium on their mortgages so long as the Government's FCC moratorium is in place.
That seems to make more sense than to pull down the clients of the FCC in the agricultural community to the level of those
farmers who may now be facing more pressure by way of foreclosure from the chartered banks.
In the face of the 18 per cent drop in initial prices of grain this year, surely the Government must commit itself today, before this debate ends, to putting in place deficiency payments to bring returns to grain farmers up to the level where they will be equal to those of last year.
Earlier in the debate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) rose to his feet with a great deal of fanfare and said:"Oh, we are doing something. We are going to provide a subsidy of $64 million on freight rates for shipping grain". The 18 per cent drop in initial prices alone is worth $1 billion. While I am sure $64 million is welcomed, it is only a pittance or a drop in the bucket in the face of the reduction of $1 billion in income. Also, farmers will still have to pay $11 million to $12 million in increased freight rates.
All the Government has done is to go through a smoke and mirrors exercise, holding out the hope of survival to farmers, but as they get close to it, like a train moving away from them, it gets farther and farther away.
I conclude by saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in his trip out west should not be looking for photo opportunities. Instead, if it cannot be done in this debate, he must reinstate the FCC moratorium on farm foreclosures, introduce a proper debt restructuring program, and announce a real deficiency program for this year's crop. Nothing less will do, if the Government is serious about preserving one of the three crucial foundations of the Canadian economy-the western grain industry-and the way of life it represents.
We owe it to the people in the western grain industry to ensure that this debate does not end unless we get this type of commitment from the Government. I call upon the Government to show some small element of heart, concern, and caring, by making this kind of commitment. This is the very least it can do for the western grain economy, for agriculture generally, and for the entire economy of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in this debate today. I did not intend to start this way, but I do want to deal with the moratorium the Opposition House Leader has called upon us to reinstate.
Let me point out to the Hon. Member that there are about 225,000 commercial farms in Canada, 75,000 of which do business with the FCC. After the moratorium is lifted, the FCC will deal with a potential 50 foreclosure cases a month. Only 20 per cent of these are in arrears, including some 6,000 that have made no payments for at least two years. This means that one-quarter of 1 per cent of Canada's farming community will potentially be affected by this moratorium.

April 30, 1987
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the moratorium was imposed while programs to assist troubled farmers were being developed. Those programs include the interest rate conversion program that assists over 5,000 farmers, the shared-risk mortgage program, commodity-based loans and farm debt review boards. As well, the moratorium was creating a two-tier system in agriculture: those farmers who were protected and those whose creditors were not the Farm Credit Corporation and who therefore had no protection.
The lifting of the moratorium is supported by organizations like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which talked about distortions caused by the debt moratorium although it sympathized as did others with our reasons for bringing it in in the first place. The association said that this was not a good solution because it provided no lasting benefit to Canadian agriculture. That is what I would like to talk about throughout most of my address to the House today.
It was interesting that in the first part of his address, the Opposition House Leader did not refer to farmers at all. He talked about the automobile industry, the forest products industry, fishermen and railway workers. Then he finally got around to talking about farmers. However, I did agree with him when he talked about being an urban Member from southern Ontario. I myself am a Member from Toronto. There are compelling reasons for people like me and the Hon. Member to talk about farmers, and those reasons are how important farmers are, not just to the Canadian economy but to every consumer in Canada, and the way of life they represent.
I feel particularly strongly about this because, although I am an urban Member, like many Canadians and probably many in this Chamber, my roots are with the land. My family farmed in Ontario for 150 years. My grandfather who owned the farm in 1929 came very close to losing it then because of the kinds of conditions we are seeing today. He was able to save it through hard work and community assistance, but it took him many years to pay for what happened to him in 1929. That is why we on this side of the House recognize the importance of farming to our communities and that all issues that affect farmers affect Canadians across the land.
I would like to point out how the situation facing Canadian farms affects women and their lives on the farm. Of course, there is nothing new about women taking active and equal roles on the farm, but two things have changed over the years. Farm women are now far more involved in the decisionmaking aspects of the family farm than they were years ago. Second, the structures on the farm have changed. When my grandmother worked side by side with my grandfather, they had help in the house, on the land and in the barn.
Now there is a wider public understanding of the contribution of farm women and how it has increased so much throughout the last generation or two. Women on the farm are now involved in all aspects of the farm business, from domestic activities to work in the fields. Studies show that 49 per cent of farm field work and 97 per cent of farm domestic work is done by women. Something that has not changed is that most farm
women are responsible for keeping the books as well, just as my grandmother did.
One of the problems with the family farm today is that with increased pressure on families, more and more women are seeking employment off the farm. That creates additional pressures on farm women and their families. They are continuing to do the domestic work and the work in the barn and the fields. They are also taking jobs in town. Along with the lack of availability of help, that is leading to a greater dependence on child care, a need that must be met, a need to which the Government has been committed since its first day.
High quality child care is particularly hard to find in rural areas, particularly in the spring planting season and the fall harvest when care is sometimes required around the clock. At the same time, women working off the farm require year-round child care. The demands are diverse and our sensitivity to those issues has been expressed many times. I have been in touch throughout the past year with farm women across Canada to deal with how we can jointly find a solution to this problem. That is why when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has talked in the House and in public about our commitment to child care, he has always talked about flexibility. He knows that women in rural Canada have different needs than women in the cities.
Farm women have played such an important role throughout the history of farming, but so has this Party. In the history of Canadian farms, the Progressive Conservative Party has always had a strong relationship with farmers. In fact, I could say it is a relationship that is unique among Canadian political Parties. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that created the Department of Agriculture. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that founded the Farm Credit Corporation. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that set up the Canadian Wheat Board. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that established crop insurance. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that brought in the Agriculture Stabilization Act. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that set up the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation administration. The list goes on. I will bet you your very last bushel, Mr. Speaker, that if it is positive for Canadian agriculture, it was put in place by a Tory Government.
Let us now turn to some more recent history that has led to the problems Canadian farmers are now facing. The problems faced by farmers in Canada today arise out of both domestic and international occurrences. Domestically, the Canadian farming community was devastated by the economic conditions of the early 1980s when a Liberal Government was in power. I can understand why the Opposition House Leader did not talk a lot about farmers in the first part of his address. Interest rates in excess of 20 per cent crippled the farming industry. The economic policies of the Liberal Government contributed significantly to the large number of farm bankruptcies which occurred from 1981 to 1983. It was this attitude of the Government led by the then Prime Minister who asked why he should sell their wheat, that devastated the Canadian farmers. That is why the policies we put in place and the temporary moratorium were so needed.
April 30, 1987

The attitude of the former Prime Minister is not the attitude of our Prime Minister, our Party or our Government. Our record in agriculture is second to none. We have implemented a 16 point agricultural program that has been widely praised. As the Prime Minister stated in this debate, when Canadian farmers are in need, this Government responds. That is why we have committed $1 billion to assist grain producers. Without this program, farm income would have declined by 17.9 per cent this year. That is the kind of action we are prepared to take.
The Liberals would not sell our wheat. We are selling Canadian wheat.
In our Party we know that Canadian farmers are efficient. They are on the leading edge of agricultural technology. Throughout the world they have a record second to none. Our farmers are adaptable. Our farmers work hard while dealing with one of the most difficult climates in the world. But, of all of us closest to this great land of ours, we recognize that our farmers know of the richness of our country more than anyone else.
We are committed to selling Canadian wheat. We are selling 25 million tonnes of grain to the U.S.S.R.; 4.5 million tonnes to Brazil; and 2.5 million tonnes to Egypt. We are proud of the products produced by our farmers. We care enough not just to sell those products internationally but to drive forward for a better deal for Canadian farmers.
Last year we provided $150 million to grain farmers hit by the drought and by grasshopper damage. We provided $705 million under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, providing much needed cash to farmers for spring seeding. We have amended the Western Grain Transportation Act to protect farmers from sharp increases in freight rates. We have established a 10-year $700 million loan program to provide commodity-based mortgages. This initiative helps those farmers with substantial debt problems.
Earlier today my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), discussed in the House his new measure to protect farmers from the statutory increase in 1987-88 western grain freight rates. So when the Opposition House Leader said that farmers will spend more on freight, I think that for the record I should point out that when farmers deliver their grain to the elevator this year they will pay $6.32 per tonne on average in the upcoming crop year. That compares to a rate of $7.70 paid by producers in 1984-85 prior to the present administration coming to power. It is an 18 per cent decrease from what was paid by producers in that year. The federal Government will pay the average $2 per tonne difference to the railways.
Our Government established farm debt review boards to provide independent third-party review, thus assisting farmers who were having difficulties with their creditors. Providing this third-party analysis is an assistance and comfort in many cases that has been able to have an influence on a farmer's ability to keep his farm and to ensure the survival of the farm business.
The pattern is clear. This is a Government that understands the Canadian farmer. This is a Government which, throughout the history of the country and the history of the Party, has understood the Canadian farmer.
Let me get back to the international work that we have been doing to improve trade in agricultural products. We have been in the forefront of nations calling for new ground rules. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had agriculture discussed at last year's economic summit for the first time ever. That was an initiative of our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister and this Government are going to bat for farmers hurt by protection in other countries, hurt by the fact that it is a deliberate policy in European communities to protect their farmers and to subsidize them no matter what the cost to the consumer.
We, as a Government, have involved Canada in the Cairns Group, nations formed to counter the power of the European Community, the United States and Japan. We are in the forefront of negotiations in GATT to stop the international trade war in agriculture. We are involved in trade talks with the United States that will be of great benefit to Canadian farmers. We know that our farmers can compete with any of those farmers in any of those countries if they are given a fair chance to do so.
On a political level, western Canadians and farmers have never been better represented in Cabinet, in Government and in caucus. I will not list the great extent of their involvement since the Prime Minister pointed that out to the House in this debate. However, I can say that when I look at our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), and when I listen to the voices that they represent on behalf of Canadian farmers, as a Member from Toronto I am very proud to support them in their endeavours and to sit beside them in Cabinet and in this House.
On an economic level we all know the disastrous effects of the Liberal economic policies on Canadian farmers. Our Government's economic policies have had a positive effect on farmers, a stabilizing effect under enormously difficult circumstances for farmers and for this Government. But we have never, ever, betrayed our farmers, and we never will. I would like to remind Hon. Members that just by our general economic policies a 1 per cent decline in interest rates represents a savings to Canadian farmers of $130 million a year.

April 30, 1987
1 am proud of our record in agriculture. We intend to build upon it. Traditionally, our Party has been the voice of Canadian farmers in Parliament, and this will continue. It will continue as long as this Government remains in office with its representatives, not just from western Canada but Members such as myself who come from downtown urban centres and who are totally committed to the Canadian farmer. We will keep working diligently to ensure a better life for the people on our farms, men and women, and to ensure that the children on the farms will have the right to inherit a stable and happy farm environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak in this emergency debate today which concerns the current crisis facing grain producers. My Party, the Liberal Party, is concerned by the tremendous tragedy that is taking place in the western grain industry.
The Conservative Government has failed the producers, despite the good words that have just been spoken by the Minister. It is clear that the Conservative Government believes grain producers will have a great future in two or three years' time when the market turns around. But most western farmers are not very certain in their own minds whether that will be the case, because there has been absolutely no commitment of a deficiency payment for the new crop year. Farmers do not want nice words, such as those just expressed by the Minister. They do not want nice words for the future. They want money now. They need it, and they need it badly. They should get it from the Conservative Government.


Charles James Mayer: That is what they are getting. They are getting $1.3 billion in the next month. That is money. That is cash. That is now!


André Ouellet: I realize that the Minister is very concerned and he is becoming very nervous. I certainly appreciate that he is very sensitive because it hurts. It certainly hurts-


Charles James Mayer: All I am trying to do is tell you what is going on so that you do not make a fool of yourself when you speak.


André Ouellet: The Conservatives have made a mess of farming. It hurts them. Certainly this debate is a clear indication of how nervous and how desperate is the Minister.


Charles James Mayer: It is a clear indication of all the things that this Government has done for farmers.


André Ouellet: Last year, when grain prices went down by 20 per cent the industry said that, in constant dollars, grain prices were at the same level as they were in 1933 under R. B. Bennett. Tory times are tough times. This has been said many times in the past. I think it has to be repeated today. Tory times are tough times. They certainly are for a great number of western farmers who must now realize that, because grain prices have gone down by a further 18 per cent this year. There is not only the 20 per cent reduction of last year to consider, but the additional 18 per cent which will take place this year.
Western wheat growers were saying to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who is the Liberal
critic for agriculture, that the crisis today is not so much with respect to price, although that is certainly a serious problem, but that the major problem is the uncertainty of government policy. They have said to my colleague that they do not know whether there will be a deficiency payment or a special grains program, and they do not know on what basis.
This is unacceptable because other governments are taking care of their farmers. They are letting them know exactly what they are going to do for them, or what they are doing for them now. This is not the situation with the Canadian Government. We know what the Government of the United States is doing for its farmers, and we see what is happening in Europe. Those Governments are providing all kinds of support and help for their farmers.
Earlier in this debate, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that he was going to take steps to reduce freight rates. In this regard, it is interesting to make some comparisons. In 1984, the freight rate was $7.70 per tonne. At this time, it would be $8.32 per tonne. Taking into account the $2 subsidy announced by the Government, the rate will be $6.32 per tonne. This subsidy on freight rates will reduce the cost to the growers some 8 per cent. Let me remind the Minister and others that the price of wheat in 1984 was $170 per tonne. The price for the 1987-88 crop year will be $110 per tonne, a difference of $60, or roughly 35 per cent.
If the Minister of Transport is serious about helping our farmers, if he really wants to do something, why does he not reduce freight rates by 35 per cent? We have had a reduction of 35 per cent in the price per tonne of wheat, and certainly the same reduction should apply to freight rates. If he were to do that, I would applaud the initiative of the Minister. But, all the Government can do after this two day debate is to come out with that kind of insignificant support.
It is incredible to me that this Government can make the claim that it supports our farmers. What it has come up with is a farce. We on this side of the House want to vigorously express our opposition to the lack of action on the part of this Government.
The U. S. Farm Bill is not going to be changed in the near future, and certainly not during the term of the Reagan administration. In addition, it is clear that the U. S. Export Enhancement Program will be strengthened, increasing yet again competition for Canadian Wheat Board sales.
As a result of the information we have received of late, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and despite all the apparent goodwill, all of the niceties between the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), it is clear that American policies are hurting Canadian farmers and Canadian workers, and our Prime Minister is doing nothing about it. Yet, he tries to make us believe that he has a very special relationship with the President of the United States. Indeed, he has; he is selling Canada to the Americans at a very low price.
April 30, 1987

My colleague the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry today wrote the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will take a moment to read that letter. It is as follows:
It has come to my attention that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has today prepared a new set of agricultural trade subsidy initiatives that include measures of great damage to Canada.
Specifically they are proposing to include under the Export Enhancement Program an offer of 1.25 million metric tons of barley to Saudi Arabia, a traditional Canadian buyer.
If this measure is approved by the Trade Review Committee of the U.S. administration in the next week, it will mean a loss of 75 to 85 million dollars to Canadian farmers.
The Minister today spoke of providing $64 million for western Canadian farmers. A single sale of U.S. grain to Saudi Arabia will cost Canadian grain producers $85 million-much more than what the Government is prepared to give them today.
The letter goes on:
This initiative certainly flies in the face of assurances apparently gained from President Reagan that he would be considerate of Canadian agricultural concerns-
Well, these concerns are not being given very serious consideration.
In addition to this sale to Saudi Arabia, we have recently been told that the Americans have negotiated a sale with the U.S.S.R. Under that agreement the Americans will sell to the U.S.S.R. four million metric tonnes of wheat, and for every three bushels of wheat bought by the U.S.S.R., the Americans will provide one bushel at no charge.
This is the type of endeavour that other countries are becoming involved in so as to sustain their agricultural industries, their farmers. We would like to see what this Government is ready to do to sustain our own farmers.
Unfortunately, the attitude of the Government thus far has been rather puzzling. If our agricultural industry is to survive in the face of international competition, we are going to have to provide more in the way of deficiency payments, more special grains programs, and more aggressive marketing.
In closing, I should like to refer to another aspect of government initiative that is, to say the least, a real slap in the face for our farmers. I refer to the decision taken earlier this week by this Government to lift the foreclosure moratorium imposed upon the Farm Credit Corporation.
This action will permit foreclosure proceedings to be commenced against those farmers whose Farm Credit Corporation loans are in arrears. FCC loans represent 30 to 40 per cent of long term debt in the agricultural sector, and we are told that 6,000 of the 75,000 accounts with the Farm Credit Corporation have been in arrears for more than two years. This has just been confirmed by the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) who spoke just before me.
The history of the Farm Credit Corporation has been that if a loan is in arrears for more than two years it almost invariably leads to foreclosure. That means that 8 per cent of the Farm Credit Corporation loans are certain to face foreclosure proceedings.
The Minister of State for Privatization has just said, "Don't worry about this, we are only going to foreclose on about 50 a month". I believe that is what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said as well earlier in the week. That means that about 600 farmers a year will have to worry about foreclosures. This is incredible. I am not concerned about thousands of farmers, I am concerned about every farmer who has to face foreclosure. It is unacceptable for the Minister to say that we should not worry, that only 600 will be foreclosed upon. We should have a policy which protects every farmer and no foreclosures should take place. This is absolutely unacceptable. This kind of thing will not wash.
I believe that if the Government has lifted the moratorium on foreclosures, then it is lifted and it may apply to many thousands of farmers. The Government should take every step possible to prevent this from happening. It is certainly agony for farmers who have devoted years, their entire lives in some cases, and have planned great future projects for their farms, to see them go by the wayside because of the incredible misunderstanding or bad heart of the Government.
It has been said many times that the Conservative Government is very close to big business, the big multinationals, the big oil companies, and the big banks. Time and time again the Government has passed legislation in the interests of the prissante, the people who are rich and influential, but very seldom does the Government take up the interests of the poor, those who are in difficulty. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that this is the time to act. This bad decision could be cancelled, because it will only come into effect tomorrow.


John Wise: Farmers don't want it cancelled. Farmers want it lifted.


André Ouellet: Regardless of how the Minister wants to sugar-coat it, this is not the way to do it. The moratorium has been in place for 19 months. During that time the Government should have put in place a debt restructuring program to solve the plight of farmers. Had it put in place a proper debt restructuring program the moratorium would not be needed in place at all. However, the Government did not have such a program and the moratorium bought it time. The Government had 19 months to put in place a debt restructuring program which could work well. As the Minister knows, the things which are in place do not work. The situation is getting worse and worse.

April 30, 1987
In conclusion, the Leader of the Liberal Party put the situation quite clear earlier in this debate when he made a vibrant plea to force the Conservative Government to work for the farmers. On behalf of farmers he said that unless special programs are put in place to cope with it, we will see the loss of an entire way of life in rural prairie communities across the country. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that action is needed now. I want to repeat his words.
The Government should come clean, give a commitment to a deficiency payment, stop foreclosures which will begin tomorrow, and put in place a proper debt restructuring program. If the Government does not do so the problems faced by western Canadian agriculture and agriculture in other parts of the country will be horrendous. People in this House, the Liberal Party, and many, many Canadians across the country who are concerned about agriculture are willing to make that commitment. The Government must make that commitment now to our rural communities. It is absolutely essential. I hope this debate has opened the eyes of the Minister and has opened his heart and his pocket, because the farmers desperately need money and they need it very soon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I gladly participate in this debate. I want to refrain from rhetoric, place facts before the House, and deal with this matter in a manner which I hope will be helpful.
I am honoured to represent the constituency of Saskatoon West, which is a very important part of the great Province of Saskatchewan, a province which relies on agriculture, on a per capita basis, more than any other province in the country. I am very proud to represent a rural area in my constituency, although it has diminished over the years since I was first elected.
I am very proud of how many of our Ministers and Members have participated gladly in this debate. We have a record of which we can be justly proud in most difficult circumstances. I want to compliment in particular my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). As a western Canadian representative in the House of Commons, I feel comfortable in Government with the representation which these two Ministers have given us in these important portfolios. I say that on behalf of my constituents.
The Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who brought this matter forward, knows that farmers in Saskatchewan are not a bunch of dolts. They understand exactly what is going on. They follow the proceedings of the House of Commons very closely and are not taken in by the hysterical rhetoric which I have heard from opposition Members.
When the Liberal-NDP coalition brings forward a motion in an attempt to demonstrate that they represent western farmers, nothing could be further from the truth. It pains me and western Canadians to see Liberals stand up in this House and suggest that they are somehow interested in the plight of
the farmers of this nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) participate in this debate. I want to remind people that the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Finance in the Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. He had great influence in that Government. Where was the Leader of the Opposition when Mr. Trudeau asked western farmers, "Why should we sell your wheat?" and turned his finger on western Canada? He was silent. Now all of a sudden he has a newfound interest in the western grain farmer. This is not being believed at all in western Canada.
Our policy was developed in the tradition of John Diefen-baker with whom I had the great honour of serving, as did many of us in this House. The leadership which was given by John Diefenbaker with regard to western Canada is being continued under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Indeed it is a fact that the Prime Minister first came to Ottawa to work for the Minister of Agriculture in the Government of Mr. Diefenbaker, and that was the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). That was his exposure to politics in Canada. That has given him an abiding faith in the sanctity of the farmers of Canada.
I say to my colleagues in the House of Commons that I do not want to indulge this evening in anything except the facts relating to the very serious question facing farmers across the nation. On CBC this morning I heard the Hon. Member for Prince Albert, who precipitated this debate, complimenting the fact that the Government had taken initiatives in terms of international discussions to deal with the root problem of the difficulties facing Canadian farmers today, that is to say, the position of commodity prices in Canada.
I must compliment him for saying that. In fact, he complimented our leadership, the Prime Minister in particular, on the CBC farm program at six o'clock this morning. I give him credit for stating a fact which I think has not come out of any member of his Party during the course of the debate. He gave proper recognition to the role played by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board.
What are the facts? We in the Government have come forward at a time of crisis and difficulty for western farmers in a way which any thinking Canadian would have to say was fair and reasonable and demonstrates our priority toward agriculture.
I should like to give some indication of comparative figures of spending, because the Opposition keeps talking about the money we should be spending. Federal support to agriculture in Canada in 1983 totalled $300 million. However, what is it now? It is anticipated that this year we will be spending something in the vicinity of $3 billion.
April 30, 1987


John Wise: At least.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Three billion dollars at least. Does that sound like a Government, in comparison with what we experienced under a previous administration, insensitive to agriculture? Anyone who suggests the contrary is not telling the truth.
I should like to remind my colleagues of the situation in 1984 in respect of input costs. For example, what was the cost for farm fuel? In September, 1984, the cost to fill a 100-gallon tank was $115. Because my colleagues in Cabinet have been so effective and have been thinking about producers, in February, 1987, the cost was $40. This is a $75 reduction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We must look at some of the fundamental problems, not only in agriculture, but also in small business. Average farmers, whom the Progressive Conservative Party have represented so faithfully and so well over the years, have been concerned with some of the root problems. We must remind ourselves of them.
What was the prime interest rate in 1981? What were farmers paying when they had to go to banks and credit unions for assistance to carry on their operations? Have we forgotten what it was? It was 22.75 per cent. What is it now? It is 9.25 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do we remember these figures? I am not being partisan. I am being factual by showing the management of the Government and the Prime Minister.
What was the cost of a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in 1981? The interest rate at that time was 23.75 per cent. Today it is 10.25 per cent. That is a 12.5 per cent difference.
We must ask ourselves why the Liberal-NDP coalition is raising this debate at this time. It is clear that the only reason is that it wants to prevent the passage of other government legislation. It has nothing to do with agriculture. Opposition Members want to stall the business of the House because they do not want to deal with Bill C-22 and other legislation in the House of Commons. This is not bona fide.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You want to put the price of drugs up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think I have hit a responsive chord. The agricultural critic of the Fiberal Party, who stands in the House to speak about agriculture, understands precisely what it is. I think the people of Canada should understand why we are here. They have given us a telling blow, but this time it was with the point of their chin. They are giving us on this side of the House an opportunity to remind Canadians-and we do it gladly-that we in fact have a commitment or priority to
agriculture which has been unexceeded, quite frankly, by any other Government in the history of Canada.
There has been much talk about farm bankruptcies, but I think the fact is that it is a regrettable matter. We understand that. I know what it is like to go home and see farmers in difficulty, wondering what they will do this year and living in a situation brought on by international circumstances. 1 understand all that because I go home every week-end. I do not maintain, as do some Members, a residence in Ottawa or Aylmer. I go home and talk with these people, and I understand what they are saying. We are working as hard as we can, within our financial ability, to bring some relief to farmers.
Fet us look at the number of farm bankruptcies under the Liberals. In 1981, there were 261 farm bankruptcies nationally. In 1982, there were 410, which was a 57 per cent increase; in 1983, 488, which was practically a 20 per cent increase; in 1984, 551, which was a 13 per cent increase; in 1985, 508, which was a 7.8 per cent decrease; and in 1986, 440, which was a 13 per cent decrease.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I did not interrupt the Hon. Member. Is he not prepared to listen to my speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I wonder whether the Minister could explain why he is taking off the moratorium and starting foreclosures-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, you dealt with that point of order with the kind of certainty which I admire in a Speaker of your eminence. It was mischief. This man is twisting and turning in his seat, unable to hear the truth spoken to him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why are you taking off the moratorium if you don't want more foreclosures?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much your support.
I want to bring forward some facts, particularly to the attention of the agricultural critic of the Liberal Party. What has been the record? In the time we have been in Government, which has been something over two years, the rate for five-year Farm Credit Corporation mortgages dropped from 14 per cent in September, 1984, to 10.75 per cent in March, 1987.


Maurice Brydon Foster: They are 11 per cent, Ray, be honest.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why are the Liberals so intolerant? Why is the Opposition so intolerant? Why is it that Hon. Members opposite do not want to allow Hon. Members to speak their mind? I believe that is a principle of democracy.

April 30, 1987


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: What is your point of order?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I thought the debate was getting longer and longer, and I just wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the chair is being occupied now by a very fine gentleman.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was on a roll and he actually managed to put me off by pointing out that you are very distinguished. He interrupted my discussion.
Let us look at the Special Canadian Grains Program of which 1 am particularly proud. Members of the Opposition ask what the Government is doing for the Province of Saskatchewan as if it were doing nothing, not taking its responsibility. Let me just tell the House what the Government is doing, what kind of cash is now being placed in the hands of Saskatchewan farmers alone. As a result of that $1 billion payment under the Special Canadian Grains Program, we in Saskatchewan will realize $415.6 million. Without that payment the farm income would have been desperate. By virtue of that payment alone, there has been an increase in the income of Saskatchewan farmers of 82.5 per cent. 1 think that increase is not insignificant.
The Saskatchewan portion of the Western Grain Stabilization Act payment will be $382 million. Rounding that off, $800 million in total that will go to Saskatchewan. That is not an insignificant amount of money that will be received by farmers within five weeks.
An announcement was made today on western grain transportation. While we are having this debate, the Government is routinely facing a very serious question brought on by Liberal legislation which forced the freight rate up substantially and dramatically by something in the vicinity of 39 per cent. Over the course of the last weeks and days, the Government was addressing this problem in the anticipation of a substantial increase in the cost of transporting grain. Today the Government responded to the increase brought on by the Liberal legislation which was passed with the support of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We felt that the increase was not acceptable so we decided to make a payment in anticipation of the increase to ensure that no increase of any consequence is borne by the western farmer.
I do not see opposition Members congratulating us on taking this position. They are silent and they should be ashamed of themselves. If we are to have fair debates, I expect the Opposition to be critical at the proper times but when an action is taken by the Government which does bring relief, I would simply ask for fair play on the part of opposition Members. I would ask them to acknowledge such action.
The Hon. Member for Papineau spoke of representatives of big business and asked who represents it. I think he forgets the
fact that his leader was on the boards of directors of many corporations including the Bank of Montreal and Canadian Pacific. I do not know who represents big business in the House, but I do not think the Minister of Agriculture does. I do not think the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the Hon. Member from Sarnia, the Hon. Member from Sept. Isles or the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) represent big business. Do these look like big-time bankers to you, Mr. Speaker? These are honest-to-God common people representing their constituents in a way of which I am very proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, has been there in times of adversity when we really needed expanded sales. I think a vote of thanks should go out to the Minister. He was educated in Saskatchewan. He went to the same school and the same university as I though he is a little smarter and a little brighter. We admire the way the Minister of State for the Wheat Board has, with the assistance of the staff of the Canadian Wheat Board, sold our grain in an unprecedented manner. This is a man with whom I am proud to be associated.
I can tell the House that the people of Saskatchewan understand what is going on. They are not taken in by silly games played by the Opposition. They are here to ensure that the Government is sensitive to their real needs. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I and this Party are concerned, we are determined to help farmers across Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, they talk about out of the mouths of babes. What I just heard from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) makes babes sound as though they are speaking sense.
What we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is bafflegab. I was not even supposed to be here. I am supposed to be away on a short maternity leave enjoying my family. However, when I saw this nonsense going on on the government side, I could not take it any longer. I had to come here to start calling a spade a spade and to speak for the record.
The Hon. Member invoked in solemn tones the memory of John Diefenbaker. At the same time, his own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has appointed at the expense of the public purse Dalton Camp, the very man who did in the former eminent Prime Minister, the man who stabbed him again and again. Dalton Camp is now being paid to be chief adviser to the Prime Minister. I cannot believe that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West would be able to talk about Diefenbaker while Dalton Camp is sitting in his cabinet room advising his colleagues. Dalton Camp is the kind of adviser who makes speeches like the one made by the Hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mrs. McDougall). We heard her describe herself as an urban Member and she admitted that although she had some rural roots, she was not that familiar with the current situation in farming. We also heard her say that the reason the Government will end the moratorium on farm foreclosures as of midnight tonight is because it does not want a two-tier system.
April 30, 1987

I believe a number of government Members were present when the Eton. Member for St. Paul's said that she did not want to have a two-tier system. Fine, the Conservative Government will be implementing a one-tier system and driving more farmers into bankruptcy. It is driving more family farms to end a great history. Is that the kind of tier this Party promised the people of Canada when it went to the voters on September 4, 1984?
With the departure of Bill Fox, perhaps we will get some new script writers. I certainly hope so. We heard the litany of former Liberal sins and we heard about interest rates back in 1981. I would like to ask Members on the government side what those same farmers are now paying in the spread. As any Hon. Member knows, the real cost of borrowing to farmers is the cost of the spread, not necessarily the interest rate. The cost of the spread has not been reduced substantially.
We heard what the former Liberal Government did and did not do. Presumably, on September 4, 1984, the people of Canada made a judgment and they gave a mandate to the Conservative Government, the largest mandate in the history of Canada. Now, almost three years later, we are seeing the Government's inaction on agriculture.
The Minister in charge of privatization read off a check list of monies that had been given to farmers in the form of subsidies or other goodies. It took the Government only 48 hours to come up with $1 billion to bail out Canadian banks. Yet the same Government dragged its heels for months on end until it was on the edge of an election in Saskatchewan. It took a call from the Premier of Saskatchewan to force the Prime Minister to change his mind and come across with some much needed cash for western farmers.
We know that the Prime Minister himself has flown over the western provinces more times than he would care to admit. Even though he has promised to go to western Canada next week, I suspect that he may decide to fly over again when he receives the most recent piece of news which is that today, the United States signed a 4-million-ton deal to sell wheat to the U.S.S.R. That 4-million-ton deal represents one-half of the annual Canadian wheat sales to the Soviet Union.
Where is the benefit accruing to Canadians as a result of our great relationship with the United States? The United States is undercutting our markets with the European Economic Community and with the U.S.S.R. At the same time we host the President of the United States to come here to tell us how we should be moving toward a free trade system, a free trade system which will destroy whatever semblance is left of our agricultural community.
There are promises and more promises that have been broken. You have heard, Mr. Speaker, from some of my colleagues today who have outlined the hypocrisy of a Government that came into power with 338 promises and then leaves
all the work to the Opposition. It has left all the work to people such as the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who time and time again in this House has stood in his place and asked the Government to come across. He has asked the Government to come across with a deficiency payment which will be equal at least to what the farmers received in the last fiscal year. He has asked the Government, because no firm restructuring program has been introduced for debt refinancing, to waive the decision to end the moratorium on FCC farm foreclosures.
The Hon. Member for Algoma, along with the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the Official Opposition, have travelled the country on a Liberal task force asking farmers what they think. So too we in the Liberal Party can be justly proud of another one of our members who has carried a one-man, one-woman fight across the Prairies in the person of our Senator Hazen Argue and his wife, Jean. Many of us know that he has taken to his trailer to go out to the small communities in Saskatchewan and Alberta to find out from the farmers and the farm wives themselves just what the Government can do to assist them. He has taken his fight even to the point of demonstrating before the American Embassy to ensure that the American Government starts instituting some fair trading practices so that we Canadians can compete on an equal basis.
I heard the Hon. Member for St. Paul's talk about the efficiency of Canadian farms and the efficiency of Canadian farmers. Nobody doubts that we have some of the most efficient farmers and most efficient farm production in the world. But when we are competing with subsidies in the United States and in other countries which are so great that our farmers cannot even recoup the cost of planting, then we know that this Government has to get in there and fight toe-to-toe to establish the principle of fair trading practices among nations. We talk about Canada being at the leading edge of the GATT negotiations. Yet we have seen what that has yielded for the Canadian farmer-a big fat zero.
Today, we know that the Prime Minister is meeting with his provincial colleagues. If I were a western Premier I would say to the Prime Minister: "Don't bother visiting us. Send cash. Don't bother, Mr. Prime Minister, showering us with more flowery promises, we have seen the 338 promises that went along with your election brochure and we simply do not believe you".
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture in a brochure which was given to all members at the end of January, 1985, cite chapter and verse the promises made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Official Opposition. Times have changed and his tune has changed. We have heard the Government talk about the woes of past Liberal administrations. We have heard it again and again and again. It sounds like a broken record.

What the farmers want to know, and what the people of Canada want to know, is once given the largest mandate in the history of Canada when is this Government going to start to deliver for the little people? When is this Government going to start to deliver or is it simply going to chop off those farms that are now teetering on the brink? We heard the figures-it is only 50 a month, said the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for Privatization. Some 50 farms a month will be going down the tubes as a result of an action which will be consummated at midnight tonight, and this Government has a chance to stop it now. It has a chance to follow through on its promise to develop a restructured debt capacity through the Farm Credit Corporation, until that restructuring has been carried out to place a moratorium on all FCC farm foreclosures.
I know that I could go on at length, but there are many other members of my Party who would like to call on the Government-


Charles James Mayer: Why don't you tell us what your policy is?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) asks me to tell the House what our policy is. I would like to tell the Minister that his policy should be an immediate move to assist those farmers-and he knows the situation because he is a farmer himself-who are not even recouping the cost of planting in the commodities that they are selling this year on the wheat market. That is the situation and he knows it. Yet he and his colleagues are prepared to move at midnight tonight with Draconian measures to force farms across the country into receivership and into foreclosure. So he does not have to shout across the House to members of the Opposition who were the only ones to force the Government into an emergency debate. What we would like to see is some action, a decision to end farm foreclosures, and also a decision with respect to a deficiency program. We have been asking him for weeks in the House-for months-to introduce a deficiency program at least equal to what was in place last year. To date we have heard a resounding silence from the government benches.
Where are the western Members tonight on the government side of the House? Where are they? Do they not care about their farmers? I see one Member over there who was recently occupying the chair, and a fine Member he is too. But we have to consider that here we are in an emergency debate in the House tonight considering a situation which could mean devastation for farmers across the country and with the exception of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) there is not a single Conservative western Member here in the House to speak for the farmers. I would like to challenge those-and the Minister of Agriculture looks around to check me up on my figures. Do I see a Member from western Canada?
April 30, 1987


John Wise: You are wrong.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With the exception of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, whom I already mentioned in my remarks, where are the back-benchers from western Canada?


Charles James Mayer: Where are your western Members?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Those Members on the government side of the House have not spoken. Believe me, when we look at those Members in Alberta who were sent here in the grand wave of 1984 we know that they will be waving the next time, but it will be in the opposite direction.
Even though I would love to go on at length, I would like to yield the floor to other Members whom I am sure would like to add to this debate and who would like to prevail upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board to cease and desist in their decision to end the moratorium on farm foreclosures. The Government does not have a system in place to assist those farms that are now teetering on the edge. We cannot afford to lose 50 farms a month. We cannot afford 600 farms a year. If the Minister has other comments, I prevail upon him to extend the debate and we will be happy to participate.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Hon. Members extend to me the courtesy to speak again by giving their unanimous consent I would very much like to take an opportunity to address some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sorry, we have too many speakers.


Charles James Mayer: I would be more than happy, with unanimous consent, to comply with the Hon. Member's very gracious offer to allow me to expand on some of the things we have been doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We have a long line-up. I want to hear people who make some sense.


Albert Girard: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has suggested that Conservative Members are not interested in this debate. I think she ought to realize that 28 Conservative Members have already taken the floor, including 10 Ministers. No .. .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the nature of the debate is becoming quite interesting. It is intriguing that we would sit and spend a great deal of time hurling invective back and forth across the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Invective!


Raymond John Skelly: Pardon me, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) corrects my pronunciation, and that is very helpful. Her contributions are well known and respected in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you.


Raymond John Skelly: What we probably could do as much as anything else is begin to look for solutions to a massive problem. Without becoming overly hostile, I must say that I listened to the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) make some comments about what a fine job the Conservatives have done throughout history. I am sure she mentioned that in order to give the House some direction in terms of coming to a resolution to this problem. As I recall, she talked about the Conservative Government putting in place, because of its great concern for agriculture, institutions such as the Wheat Board. She talked about attempts to obtain price stabilization, prairie farm rehabilitation programs and a number of things that rose out of the Great Depression.
Up to 1929-30, the Liberal Government had been in power. It brought us up to and beyond the bank of the abyss, and tore Canada apart from one end to the other. It created enormous circumstances complicating and making the Depression worse.
Unfortunately-and this is something the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) forgot to mention- between 1930 and 1935 we had a Conservative Government in power. In the first four years of the R.B. Bennett Government, the problems that had been inherited from the previous Liberal Government worsened. Under R.B. Bennett, we saw one of the greatest wreckages of the Canadian economy and Canadian agriculture in the history of this country.
In the last year of the term of that Government, the Prime Minister, R.B. Bennett, a Conservative's Conservative, suddenly said: "We have done all things wrong. Things have to be changed 180 degrees". And they came up with some of the most far-sighted solutions that this country has ever seen.
I believe R.B. Bennett suffered a heart attack early in that year and was unable to give his energy and direction to seeing those programs through to completion or to debate them during the following election campaign, and when the Liberals were returned to power, they cut many of them, with the result that it was many years before many of them saw their potential realized.
The point of the exercise, Mr. Speaker, is that the Progressive Conservatives, after four years of damaging activity, did come to recognize that their course of action was completely wrong. In 1935, the final year of their term, they made some of the most dramatic and important changes-changes that
were designed to help agriculture, help alleviate unemployment, and generally improve the economy.
That is what was forgotten in the speech of the Minister of State for Privatization. Hopefully this Government will see the error of its ways and change its course, in much the same way as the R. B. Bennett Government changed its course in the final year of its term, and try to get something in place that will help this country and help agriculture.
The Comox Valley has some of the small amount of Class 1 agricultural land in the entire Province of British Columbia. There are some very hardworking and committed farmers in that valley, people who work their guts out in order to keep the family farm going, in order to keep agriculture an important part of the economy of that valley.
The Province of British Columbia, in a move to protect farmland, passed a land reserve program under which farmland would be protected. That measure was supported by the majority of the British Columbia population. But what it did for farmers was to remove other economic options for them. They had to farm.
Under the previous Government, as has been mentioned many times during this debate, we had great fluctuations in farm product prices, with always rising costs, the result being that farmers went into debt. We also had a period of extremely high interest rates.
I was quite interested in the remarks of the Member for Hamilton East (Mrs. Copps) when she said: "It doesn't really matter what the rate is; they are concerned about the spread".
Well, if a farmer is paying between 22 and 25 cents interest on every dollar that he owes and not 10 cents, or 10 per cent, certainly there is a great difference. While the interest rates are better now, for a period of time earlier in the 1980s they were so bad that the existing debt accumulated at an enormous rate, and the largest percentage of debt, in many cases, was the accumulated interest payments.
The Canadian Bankers' Association, an organization known as the true friend of the farmer and as the absolute supporter of the principle of maintaining the family farm in Canada, had some interesting insights when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1986. They in fact advocated throwing farmers off the farm, throwing families out. They recommended a transition program for the purpose of relocating farmers, retraining them, and getting them off the farm-I assume to turn the farms over to corporate agriculture, something we have seen in the United States and in eastern Canada.
They also recommended that farm financial review boards be established. This is something about which the Government made a serious error. Had the Government, in legislation, provided a solid basis for those financial review boards, they would be an effective agency today. They could bring together the farmer and his creditors for the purpose of making a financial arrangement that was realistic, that was viable, that would preserve the family farm-everything that has been talked about during the course of this debate.

April 30, 1987
Had the Government given those review boards the teeth to make binding arrangements between the farmer and his creditors, it would have a better platform now on which to induce further financial assistance for farmers. It is absolutely critical to bring about a stabilizing agreement between the farmer and his creditors. That is absolutely crucial to any farm reconstruction effort that we embark upon.
What does the Canadian Bankers' Association say about that? "Absolutely not". It wants the financial review boards to have the power to give advice only. Well, I do not know of any banker in this country who takes anything by way of advice. He simply looks at his accounts and collects his money.
Review boards with the power to compel reasonable arrangements for repayment, payments that would permit the farmer to survive and allow him an income, are what is needed. Such boards would allow this Government the opportunity to make meaningful additions in terms of assistance programs.
There are the old promises that this Government made prior to coming to power. It talked about agri-bonds as a source of funding for farm loans. Those election promises have never materialized.
Another recommendation of the Canadian Bankers' Association: No debt moratorium. The Canadian Bankers' Association, a true friend of the farmer, has put together a prescription to destroy family farming, to put farmers off the land and replace them with large corporations, thus breaking one of the strongest foundations of Canadian society. We in this Party are not prepared to stand by and see that happen. That is why this debate is under way. Hopefully the Government, when this debate ends, will declare that this moratorium will continue until an effective policy is put in place.
Mr. Speaker, as it happens, before coming into the House, I was speaking to a farmer from my constituency. It would perhaps be interesting to review what happened in his particular circumstance. He will be one of the statistics when the Farm Credit Corporation lowers the boom. He meets a lot of the criteria.
Those on the other side of the House have said that only 50 farms a month will be affected by the lifting of this moratorium. When the Minister was asked how that could be, he said: "Well, the Farm Credit Corporation has sufficient staff to handle that number only".
Well, it strikes me that, just taking the criterion of the Farm Credit Corporation that anyone who is two years or more in arrears will be foreclosed, we are talking about thousands upon thousands of Canadian farms that will go down the drain. And one would assume that, the minute this moratorium is lifted, the other creditors, in order to protect their position, will push the button-


Charles James Mayer: That is not true, and you know it. You know better than that.


Raymond John Skelly: Does the Minister wish to speak? If he has good news for our farmers, I would be more than pleased to take my seat.
I take it there is no good news, Mr. Speaker-and I feel very sad that he doesn't have some good news for our farmers.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer).


Charles James Mayer: As the Hon. Member is being so gracious, perhaps he would seek the unanimous consent of the House so that I could give some good news.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Raymond John Skelly: That is truly unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, would be more than prepared to hear what the Minister has to offer to assist farmers.
If it is not true that the Farm Credit Corporation can handle only 50 cases a month, then I would ask the Minister to put on the record what in fact the number is. I should like to know how many will be pushed over the edge each month.
It strikes me that once other creditors see the Farm Credit Corporation moving on a farm, and there are assets on that farm, other creditors, such as the bank-and the banks still have an enormous amount of outstanding debt on farms in this country-will push them over the edge in order to claim assets that they have nailed down. Other creditors would push them over the edge. Removing this moratorium tonight would put farmers in real jeopardy from their other creditors. The Farm Credit Corporation may not have sufficient staff at this time, but other creditors may start the entire process rolling and push them into bankruptcy before the Farm Credit Corporation gets around to exercising its options.
I believe this is one of the most ill-conceived and regrettable situations that we have seen in the House of Commons for a long time. Thousands of people will be affected by this. Other agencies will wish to begin the process of recovering assets from insolvent operations.
There was discussion earlier about policy which the Government should follow. First, it must not allow the moratorium to be lifted. Second, there must be some work with free trade. Farmers and the Canadian agricultural industry cannot be exposed to the direction in which the Government is travelling. Marketing boards and other such agencies have protected farmers for years. They have allowed them to manage supply, market demand, and keep prices at least somewhat ahead of production costs. If that is destroyed by free trade there will be no more Canadian farmers.
April 30, 1987

If Americans are allowed to ship milk into Canada below the price of Canadian produce, we can kiss Canadian dairy farmers goodbye. The same proposition applies to vegetable producers and orchardists. I think we are in for some very serious trouble across the board if a free trade agreement allows Americans to push their products into Canada and ties the hands of our marketing boards. There will be serious consequences. If financial institutions thought the Canadian Government was going to do that they would begin to grab the assets of farms before all was lost with the advent of free trade. This is a very serious matter indeed.
The first step must be the cancellation of the lifting of this moratorium. A debt review board must be created which would have the power to make binding agreements with creditors so that the farmers can continue to exist and earn sufficient income to feed their families while debt repayment is ongoing. That would ensure the existence of the farmer and is absolutely imperative. The Canadian Government must guarantee that free trade will not kill Canadian marketing boards and thereby the Canadian farmer. I do not think any reasoning Member of Parliament would want that situation to occur. Yet the Government has not said that it will protect the marketing board system and supply control system in the Canadian economy.
We all recognize that the Government, to its credit, has placed $1 billion at the disposal of Canadian farmers. It has made efforts to reduce freight rates. There is a certain amount of cynicism about the coinciding of the $1 billion program with the Saskatchewan election, but nevertheless, it was SI billion which moved in the right direction. There is a multimillion dollar program on freight rates which is another move in the right direction. Unfortunately it is not enough. If we are to save the family farm and agriculture there must be a continuing injection of cash to relieve the debt burden of Canadian farmers. That is an absolute must.
Another item of importance is encouraging a rational approach to marketing areas which are not now covered so that farmers can have a price support system which will allow them to produce food for Canadians at prices above the cost of production. As an example, the potato industry in eastern Canada has an extremely important market in the United States. At the same time, potatoes are shipped from the United States to British Columbia and Alberta in almost unregulated amounts at unregulated prices which forces the price of Canadian products below the cost of production.
The anti-dumping tribunal in British Columbia imposed a tariff to stop that importation. The imports have now shifted to Alberta and the Alberta surpluses are now being pushed into British Columbia. Farmers are continually handicapped by the lack of control of potato marketing in Canada. There are many other such areas of concern. A national marketing board which is encouraged to develop the rational marketing of products in Canada would certainly be very useful.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this moratorium must not be removed. The results would be absolutely chaotic. We must give teeth to the debt management review boards and allow them to make binding agreements between the creditor and the farmer which will keep the farmer on the land. More cash must be put into debt relief by both provincial and federal Governments. We must guarantee Canadians that free trade will not kill Canadian agriculture. Marketing boards must be left intact and given a free hand to manage the Canadian market. Where marketing boards do not exist to provide price and supply stability in the Canadian market they must be encouraged and developed.
Federal and provincial Governments must participate together in this and we must succeed if we want to keep in place something which we all support, namely, the family farm in Canada.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate. However I am somewhat disappointed by some of the reactions of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who fled like a mouse a moment ago after stating in this House that times are hard when Conservatives are in office. Well, I must say I have an impassioned recollection of the time when the Constitution was brought home, when he was there, and when he proved to be one of the participants responsible for the exclusion of Quebec from the agreement. Today, at Meech Lake, they have been trying to redress these past mistakes.
That being so, I think the important thing now is to concern ourselves with western farmers. Earlier this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in the House: I rather doubt that the major newspapers of this country will give front-page treatment to this question. Sad to say, he was right.
Again today, after so many hours of debate by Members here in the House and given the fact that the three Party leaders want to help western farmers, I was disappointed and surprised that the vital question of western Canada farm community problems was covered in a few short seconds on English TV and not even mentioned on the French network. I must say this really does something to me. 1 cannot understand that our major newspapers and the media would choose to ignore the urgent problems of the residents of a large part of this country. Still, today's La Presse did carry a very interesting article by Pierre Gingras. Mr. Gingras acknowledges, as we do, that there are problems in the agricultural industry. The important thing is, however, that he also acknowledges in his article the work done by the Conservatives, by my Party, by my Prime Minister, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and by my colleagues during the 30 months we have been in power, to help farm producers.

I remember that when I first came here, and I come from a rural riding, I was not an expert on agriculture. However, just about everything is produced in my riding. Some of my best friends are farmers, and I am in touch with them regularly. I have learned a lot about agriculture. Since this Government came to power, and my colleagues will agree, we have tried to correct the mistakes made by the previous Government with the support of the New Democrats. For two and a half days we have heard the Opposition criticize here in the House every procedure and measure introduced by the Government. They have criticized but they have failed to propose any new approaches to solve the problems of western farmers.
This afternoon, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) announced that the Government would spend $64 million on the transportation of western grain, I saw opposition Members smile.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not true.


Marc Ferland: It is true. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but that is what the Government did. It spent $64 million: $2 a tonne. That is what we have done.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's not true. We'll talk about it later.


Marc Ferland: Well, I never saw a Liberal who understood anything about agriculture in this House. We have had ample proof of that. For years, when you were in power, the agricultural industry was in the worst possible shape. You let rates rise-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The seventies were the best years. We sold-


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals had the floor and were talking their heads off, we suffered in silence. So I would ask opposition Members to return the favour, even if my comments fall somewhat harshly on their ears. How could they be expected to address the problems of the west when they only have a single Member from that area? And let's not forget that the Liberal Leader went out west 32 times in 18 days during the past three weeks. It is unbelievable. Maybe the Party bought him an airplane, but he sure is doing a lot of travelling out west. Thirty-two times in 18 days. That is really something. But maybe that is only media talk. I read that today in the papers.
The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that I find unacceptable that those people there in Opposition are bent on destroying and will not recognize all the help this Government has been providing to farm producers. Just the day before yesterday, we were working with the Minister of Transport to try and find a way to reduce costs. It was unacceptable, of course, for the rates to go up 39 per cent while the price of wheat declined 18 per cent. It was unacceptable, and a solution had to be found. We found one: we are proposing to inject $2 per tonne in assistance, so that the increase will only be 5 per cent rather than 39 per cent. And they are scoffing at that. They suggest we do not want to help farm producers.
April 30, 1987
Mr. Speaker, since we were elected, in 30 months, we have taken more than 400 initiatives in agriculture alone. This is one area where we did not cut. Quite the opposite, we have been constantly adding funds for the farm industry. We invested nearly $7 000 million in agriculture, mostly in western Canada of course. There was the dairy policy that benefitted of course Quebec dairy producers. But those are tools that had to be provided to our farm producers, and we did so with very great pleasure.
There is also another aspect the Opposition does not seem to understand. As a Government, we have been working in constant consultation with producers, whether from eastern, central or western Canada. We always consulted them, and the proof is the farmers are pleased with the work we as a Government have been doing in this House. As far as I am concerned, I can state that I am very proud of the work done by my Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and so on. All my colleagues did a tremendous job on agriculture, this is something that has to be told.
The New Democratic Member earlier referred to concerns over free trade, I must again remind him that a commitment was made here on March 16 that marketing boards are not on the table. And I personally remember seeing Liberals and New Democrats oppose that motion. This is really something. People may have a short memory, but I can tell you we will remind you of that. You voted against that motion. But we have stated on a number of occasions that marketing boards were not on the table. Do you think otherwise we would have introduced the kind of long-term dairy policy that had been requested for years by farm producers? Since 1981 we were calling for a long-term dairy policy, and we came up with it.


An Hon. Member:: That had been promised by the Liberals.


Marc Ferland: It had been promised by the Liberals with the support of the NDP, but it never came. We kept our promise and delivered the goods. That dairy policy would never have been provided had we had to negotiate a few months later. The dairy policy is not negotiable. The Canadian culture is not negotiable either. That was clearly stated. That is clear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: With the Tories the entire country is sold to the United States.


Marc Ferland: Let me finish, you will speak when your turn comes. You will all have an opportunity to speak. The debate has not yet ended my friend. Take your time.
I have taken the liberty, Mr. Speaker, of reading over some speeches made by my colleagues opposite. We now have some 150 pages; or rather, yesterday afternoon at four o'clock, we already had reached 150 pages. Needless to say, I did not find the best speeches among the Liberals or the New-Democrats. I did not find in them any food for thought or any new idea. The Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) said at the beginning of his speech:
April 30, 1987

-I should like to take this opportunity to state the policies of the NDP-
I could perhaps say that "N" stands for narrow-minded, "D" stands for demagogues and "P" for professional, and this is the New Democratic Party. I did not find anything in that speech. He spoke 20 minutes but said nothing.
If I turn to another agricultural expert, the NDP member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), she said that in order to help western producers, we had to provide them with daycare centres. I do not think that western people need daycare centres this evening. What they needed to know was the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Transport, that is they will be given financial assistance of $64 million to help them move their wheat. That is the kind of assistance needed by farmers and it will be provided to them.
We have been carrying out negotiations throughout the world for the first time. There is a detail that is often ignored, Mr. Speaker, because the Opposition does not mention it. There was never a Canadian Prime Minister before the present Prime Minister who demanded that priority be given to agriculture in the GATT negotiations. And that was done at the Tokyo Round. But who asked for it and who did it? A Liberal Government would never have had the nerve to consider such a step. And they are the same people who went out west and laughed at western producers. We told the people in western Canada: We are going to work hard to sell your grain. We told eastern producers: We are going to try and help you sell your products throughout the world. We are going to try and end the world trade war. There is not a single farm producer in this country, Mr. Speaker, who would claim that Canada can sustain a trade war against the United States or against the EEC on grain shipments. I think everybody in Canada realizes, and farm producers certainly do, that if we really want to deal with the problems in the agricultural industry, we will first have to negotiate at the GATT level.
Meanwhile, we have to take action on a day-to-day basis. And as I said earlier, we have taken hundreds of measures in the past 30 months to help the agricultural industry, and I am thinking of apple growers in Quebec and British Columbia, of the new marketing boards that will be set up for potato producers, and so on. Hatchery egg programs have been set up at the request of farm producers. These are some of the things we have done and will go on doing, but listening to the empty speeches of opposition Members here in the House is not going to help the cause of agriculture in this country.
Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker, it is by trying, and I would very much like, by the end of this debate, to hear the concrete proposals you will be coming up with and to hear also, when you tell us your concrete proposals, how much money is involved and where that money will be coming from. Because there are facts opposition Members seem to forget. You say: "Spend, spend, spend!" but you do not ask where the money will be coming from. This we found out when we came here in
1984, that little surprise of the $240 billion deficit. Except that now the debts have to be repaid. I appreciate that to a New Democrat paying one's debts is not important. Even if we were to mortgage the forty-second generation in this country, that is of no matter to them, because they will be dead. No problem. They will have had their way and let the others pay. But something else is required to manage the country soundly, to show that we are a responsible nation. And the proof we are a responsible nation is that interest rates came down. Why? Because we kept sinking the country lower into debt, or because we had realistic policies?
Mir. Robinson: What about the unemployment rate?


Marc Ferland: The unemployment rate came down, my dear colleague.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Only in Toronto.


Marc Ferland: It is incredible how short your memory is, you New Democrats. Your kind of memory is nothing to boast about. Go back a few months, you will see what kind of unemployment rate and interest rates we had. What did you do on that side when people were paying 23 per cent or 24 per cent, when the price of oil was going up, when you established Petro-Canada on the other side. Throw billions at it. What we have today, this debate and the problems that the west experiences, result from all the stupid things you have done for years, from policies which had no sense whatsoever and were only designed to make you look good and make people dream. But you cannot sell dreams to Canadians. No one is more down to earth than a farmer, because when he gets up in the morning he looks at his field and thinks about ploughing it and working it. He does not have time to dream, he is a doer, while you, with your free-flowing phrases and your awe-inspiring dreams, you ruined completely the economy of western Canada. That is what happened.


Michel Champagne: "Tighten your belt!" they were saying, but they were wearing suspenders.


Marc Ferland: Of course. Trudeau could say: "Tighten your belt!", he was wearing small white suspenders underneath, to look good. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I think that what is important for western farmers and all farmers is to know that Conservative Members from eastern Canada support them in their work. I can tell you that as late as yesterday, MPs from Quebec were working with the Transport Ministers to find a solution to avoid loading even further western producers. I can say that our colleagues from the west were delighted to have our co-operation to solve their problem. We are confident that we will have similar help from the west should a problem develop in the east. In the meantime, they are the ones who need help, and we are delighted to be able to do something for them.

April 30, 1987


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, why has this country become so aroused? Why is it that the House of Commons has now been involved in an emergency debate for three days? It seems that the Government struck a nerve in a way it has so far failed to do in any other thing it has done. The action it has taken has touched hearts and minds and has affected us deeply.
Tonight, the Government is to lift the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures. The lifting of the moratorium has touched the hearts and minds of Members of Parliament and it has certainly aroused the media. The media has reported this debate very fully, despite the comments made by some of my colleagues. The country is aroused because the issue comes down to a simple image which comes to mind, an image which all too many older Canadians hold in their minds from the Great Depression. It is the thought of farms being foreclosed on.
We recall the stereotype of a person dressed in a black suit with a long moustache and a black hat who went from farm to farm with writs of foreclosure in his hands. That image is still in the memories of people who lived during the last Depression and remember the stereotype of the heartless person who would come to the farm to throw the people out after all their lives, hearts and savings had been put into that farm.
We are not simply dealing with vast figures, we are dealing with the thought of a farmer waiting for someone to come and close down his farm at a time when other parts of the country are enjoying great prosperity. It so happens that I represent such a part of the country, the area called the Golden Horseshoe, though we certainly do have problems. It has touched the minds and hearts of people in every part of Canada to realize that, at what is supposed to be the end of the recession, we are seeing situations that remind us grossly of the terrible and bleak days of the worst part of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The image we have in our minds is that there are people who are down and now we are kicking them. We heard that the Wheat Board announced that prices for 1987 would be 18 per cent lower than they were in 1986, but we knew that in 1986 the prices for wheat were 20 per cent lower than they were in 1985.
As if these blows to people who are trying to stay on the land and have committed themselves to improvements were not hard enough, within a day after the announcement of the reduction in prices the Government made the incredibly insensitive and unfeeling announcement that the moratorium on foreclosures would be lifted. That announcement means an open season on Canadian farmers, some of whom fought in wars, the heart of our country, the pioneers. That they will now suffer this kind of treatment is something that has touched the heartstrings of all Canadians.
What has brought on this debate? It was not another discussion about interest rates, it was this image in our minds. This image is what is hurting our consciences. We cannot go to
bed at night without thinking that things like this could happen to us, and knowing that western Canadians will experience this kind of suffering.
Today the Government announced a reduction in the impact of the blow to farmers caused by new freight rates. Nonetheless, this announcement is still more bad news for farmers, because it amounts to an increase of about 6 per cent in grain freight rates. That is the net result of the so-called good news. The announcement still means that the cost of shipping grain is going up, not down. While the price of wheat goes down, freight rates are still going up and that is another bad piece of news. How could the Government, knowing that this bad news about freight rates was on the docket, then have proceeded to announce the lifting of the moratorium on foreclosures?
Canadians have been aroused by this heartless approach to human situations. It brings back to our minds the worst images of the Great Depression. It brings back to our minds the thought that the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), who spoke to us a while ago, was able on an emergency basis to rush to the banks with $1 billion-worth of aid. She has not found in her heart a strong enough motive to rush to the Cabinet and call for an end to this attempt to lift the moratorium. Why has she not fought for those people who will suffer now? She was so anxious to save western banks that she found $1 billion. How about throwing $1 billion at western farmers?
We know that the Government did throw $1 billion at farmers in general. We also know that that was linked to an election in Saskatchewan-a very cynical kind of gift. Indeed, members of the Opposition, people from the west and western farmers have been begging and pleading for months, in fact, for years, for that type of assistance. It only came in time to help the Conservatives win a provincial election. That is hardly what people regard as being a responsive, compassionate reaction.
We find that what we are asking for at this moment, what we are calling upon the Government to do, is to stop the cancellation tonight of the moratorium on farm foreclosures. We are asking the Government to have some kind of compassion today and to go to the aid of those who are the weakest among us. That is what we are asking.
I do not think that my colleagues pretend that they have all the answers. Nor do I expect the Government to have all the answers. But the answers that the Government is giving are absolutely unacceptable. What the Opposition can say is that this step is heartless. When the Minister of State for Privatization talked about the fact that her family had been on the farm during the Great Depression and that they almost went under, but the thing that saved them was hard work, was she perhaps implying that it was hard work that was needed on the part of western farmers and maybe if they worked a little harder they too could save their farms? That is not acceptable. We know that many of the people who are facing foreclosure have certainly worked hard enough on their farms.
April 30, 1987

The problem is not that they are not willing to work. It is that the price of wheat has gone down, that the Government has taken away their protection which would give them a further chance to continue their businesses. This is what we are concerned about. This is the type of advice we can give the Government. A five-year old could give that advice to the Government, but it is lacking in compassion and concern for the people who are on the farms and who are facing the possible loss of their way of life, the possible loss of all the work that they have put in and that their parents have put into their family farms.
This is a very cruel moment in the life of the country, which is why this debate has been going on for so many hours. It has struck a nerve. It touches us personally to our hearts that we are living in a country of reasonable affluence and yet we are watching our fellow Canadians face such an unacceptable fate. For what? They do not deserve it.
This is a Government that apparently cannot get its act together. It is unpopular because it apparently cannot show that it has compassion for the people. I ask Elon. Members to consider the various steps that it has taken, whether it be with respect to patent drugs, which shows a lack of concern for senior citizens, or whether it is about the provinces which will have to provide more money for the cost of drugs. The Government has shown no compassion when it talks about cutting rural post office deliveries and eliminating rural post offices. Nor has it shown compassion when we consider the tax system which has, in effect, provided the most terrible blows to people who earn in the area of $15,000 per year.
When we look at the tax increases that have been thrown at these people since this Government has come to power we see that they have increased by 75 per cent while on the other side of the coin those who earn $100,000 find that their taxes have risen by only 4 per cent. That is not compassionate.
Peter Cook, who writes as financial critic for The Globe and Mail, when speaking about the action of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that he has gotten away with raising personal income taxes by 19 per cent, sales taxes by 33 per cent, excise taxes by 18 per cent, and gasoline taxes by 120 per cent. These are enormous increases in taxes. Yet we have a quotation from the same Minister of Finance who has done this to the people of Canada made on August 28, 1984. He said:
We have no intention of raising income taxes to Canadians. What we have to
do is get down government-
He has got down Government. He has got it down on the people. He has certainly raised the taxes and completely broken his promise.
On March 1, 1985, the Minister of Finance said this:
I don't want to increase taxes ... A tax increase, certainly a general tax
increase, puts a dampening effect on the economy and I don't want to see us do
that.
When we look at the way he has structured the taxes he certainly has put a dampening effect on the poor. They are the ones who are paying the taxes while the Government has provided a capital gains relief of $500,000 in a lifetime for those who make much more money.
Yes, this is a Government which lacks compassion in some amazing ways. It seems to be able to come up at the most amazing times with destructive types of decisions that hurt the poor, that make the poor poorer and the rich richer. The small businessman sees higher postal rates. Independent oil companies see their businesses threatened and, in some cases, they have been driven out of business. We saw that sales taxes were imposed when the Government came into power at a rate of 9 per cent. They are now at 12 per cent. In addition, the Government has slapped some brand new taxes on items which relate to hygiene, drugs used by senior citizens and some children's foods. This tax of 12 per cent which the Government has slapped on is a sales tax which is put on to the backs of the poor.
The Minister of Finance has said that such sales taxes are regressive, yet he has resorted to imposing more taxes which hurt the poor because they cannot afford the same taxes that the rich can afford. In other words, if a tax of 10 per cent is placed on a product then a poor person has to pay the same amount of increase as does a rich person. That is why such a tax is regressive. In other words, the impression the Government continues to give, whether in the tax field, the business field or in the area of the Post Office-whatever it seems to touch-seems to hit the chord of hurting the poor, the beaten, the down-trodden. The Government seems to pick on them.
In the case before us the Government has taken the most obscene type of action we have ever seen. We see a situation in which it will foreclose or allow foreclosures on the family farms of hundreds and hundreds of Canadians. I have risen to speak on this matter because I know what is at stake. It is whether or not we have compassion. It is whether or not we will see from the Government a realization that, unless it changes its ways, it will not be at the rate of 24 per cent or 25 per cent support in the polls, but will drop even further, if that is possible, because people everywhere in the country, not just in the centre but even those in the west, will now come to the conclusion that the Government has no ability to show compassion. It seems absolutely unable to get its act together, especially in terms of the west. Even westerners are now losing confidence in the Government. That is too bad.
This situation is threatening our unity. We have always felt a sense that Canada was a whole country, a totality, and that when one part of the country was in need we came forward with equalization payments to try to balance out the situation. We followed the motto "bear ye one another's burdens". That is a compassionate concept. It seems in this particular situation that we are not willing as Canadians to bear one another's burdens at all. We see the Government letting everyone loose, and whatever happens to them the weak ones will fall behind and be eaten up. That is a policy of laissez faire, a policy which they literally are carrying out. In so doing, they conjure up in our minds an image from the Great Depression, the image of a Government that allows its farmers to be put to the wall.

April 30, 1987
A Government that permits foreclosures to take place conjures up the worst images we could possibly have. It is a Government that shows a lack of concern and compassion.
This Government, by its activity and its actions, is threatening Canadian unity. It causes people in the west to think that we in the east do not care. Well, we do. We in the east and in the centre of this country care about what is happening in the west. In this particular case, let it be understood that we do care. We do not want the west to think that there is no future with us; that we don't care, that we have no sensitivity. That is why this Government is indeed in a sense threatening our sense of unity. We must bear one another's burdens; we must care about one another.
Hon. Members opposite can smirk and laugh as much as they wish. They are going down further in the polls. The Hon. Members opposite are laughing at what I am saying. They are free to do that. The people in the west are not laughing, Mr. Speaker; we are not laughing. This is a matter of Canadian unity, Mr. Speaker; it is not a laughing matter.
We have to show concern for our western provinces, because the people in the west really do wonder about us. They wonder whether we easterners do care-and we do.
I conclude my comments with one last plea to the Government, to continue the moratorium on farm foreclosures. The lifting of that moratorium will take effect tonight at midnight, and I plead with the Government to respond to the Opposition, to respond to its own Members, to respond to the people of Canada and in fact continue the moratorium until it has found a better way to find some reasonable protection for our farmers.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this landmark debate on the crisis facing Canadian farmers today.
I should like to start by paying tribute to my colleague, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who initiated this emergency debate a couple of days ago. He is himself a farmer, and he has done a great deal to sensitize those of us in the NDP caucus who haven't been as aware in the past as we should have been of some of the problems and concerns facing Canadian farmers. I am pleased that he has shown this kind of leadership in the House, along with my colleague from, the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), our spokesperson on agriculture. These two individuals have played a real leadership role, not just within our caucus, but in this House, in bringing to the attention of the Government the concerns facing the farmers across this land.
The crisis facing us relates to the decision announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to lift the moratorium declared on September 17, 1985, on Farm Credit Corporation
foreclosures. It is of some significance that the Government has announced that this moratorium will in fact be lifted on May 1, tomorrow. And what is the significance of May 1? May 1 is May Day.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Canada are being hit with the lifting of the moratorium on May Day! May Day is the traditional symbol of distress. I think it is of considerable symbolic significance that this Government, on May Day, should be once again attacking the farmers of Canada by lifting the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures.
We heard earlier from the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), "Well, you know, it is only a small number of farmers who will be affected; it is only one quarter of 1 per cent of the farmers who will be affected." We heard that from the Minister of State for Privatization, the same Minister who was heard some time ago to say that the motivating factor in our economy is greed. Well, it is not surprising that that Minister should exhibit such a heartless attitude toward those farmers who will be driven off the land as a result of this Government's decision.
I wish to put some figures to the statistic that the Minister so blithely dismissed. My colleagues have already spoken to the breakdown in the various provinces. I wish to speak for a moment about the national implications of the lifting of this moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures.
As of April 1 this year there was a total of 14,597 FCC loans outstanding, 6,000 of which were two years or more in arrears. Of the 6,000 that were two years or more in arrears, some 1,300 are affected by this moratorium. That means that 1,300 families may be driven off the land with the lifting of this moratorium. In some cases, their farms have been handed down from generation to generation, and as a result of this Government's heartless decision these people will now be driven off the land.
The Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) laughs. He laughs at the farmers who are being driven off the land. Well, he will have to answer to the farmers in his constituency for his laughter, and his contempt for their plight.
Even though this Government says that it is only one quarter of 1 per cent who will be affected, the reality is that it amounts to some 1,300 families.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine continues to laugh at the farmers of western Canada from behind the curtain. He hasn't even had the courage to speak out in this debate on behalf of the farmers in his constituency. He has been silent, Mr. Speaker. He has been totally silent on the plight of the farmers in Winnipeg-Assiniboine and he will pay the price for that at the next election.
April 30, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit more about these figures. We have heard from government Members that it will be "only 50 farmers every month who will lose their farms". My colleague from Prince Albert has actually made some inquiries of the Farm Credit Corporation, as a result of which he has learned that the FCC does not have the staff to send out the foreclosure teams to shut down the farms at a rate faster than that. What a disgraceful commentary on this Government's farm policies!
The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the lifting of this moratorium is going to have devastating consequences on the farmers of western Canada.
It is not just the lifting of moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures that is going to have devastating consequences; it is also the fact that other financial institutions will take this action as a signal that it is open season on those who have defaulted on their loans.
Canadian farmers have accumulated debt in the order of $24 billion. Once the Farm Credit Corporation foreclosure moratorium is lifted, the banks and the other financial institutions will take it as a signal to move in, and yes, Mr. Speaker, it will be open season on farmers.
Last summer I travelled to my constituency by train, and 1 will never forget a family that boarded the train in Moose Jaw. They had lived on a farm that had been in their family for three generations, and they could no longer stay on that farm. They had been driven off their land and were travelling by train to British Columbia to try to make a new life for themselves. That destructive erosion of the family farm in Canada will be repeated in increasing numbers as a result of the Government's heartless decision to lift the moratorium on foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation.
Women on the farm have traditionally been among the hardest hit in times of adversity. Not only have women been forced to work off the farm to supplement inadequate incomes, they are increasingly being called upon to do work on the farm without pay. The work which was formerly done by hired hands is now done by women because farmers cannot afford to pay for hired hands. In addition, they continue to perform their traditional roles on the farm, which includes raising children. They are obviously working in partnership with their husbands in many cases, but the reality is that in too many cases it is women who are bearing the brunt of the burden.
As I said, women are being particularly hard hit. They lack retirement security, child care facilities, crisis shelters and women's centres. They are often faced with discrimination from lending institutions.
It is also important to note the harsh personal impact of the financial crisis facing the farming community. In terms of stress, for example, in Saskatchewan farm accidents account for 40 per cent of the fatalities despite the fact that farmers make up only approximately 20 per cent of the labour force. The suicide rate of farmers in Alberta in 1984 was 40 per
100,000 compared to a rate of 15.5 per cent per 100,000 in 1981 and compared to a rate of 18.1 per 100,000 for the rest of the population in 1984. The suicide rate was almost three times greater for farmers than it was for the rest of the population.
The Canadian Mental Health Association learned through a study in Saskatchewan that 88 per cent of the farmers surveyed had experienced stress-related symptoms including health problems such as headaches, mental fatigue, insomnia, depression, anger and frustration which sometimes led to communications problems and alcohol abuse. In Ontario suicide is the number two cause of death on farms following only machinery accidents. We can see that the personal toll of the crisis in the Canadian farming community is very great indeed.
I do not often make reference in the House to a publication called Western Report. Recently in its cover story Western Report dealt with what it called the death of the grain men. Inside it speaks of a requiem for the family farm, of why the small producer is being threatened with extinction. They talk about the attack on one of the country's most revered institutions, the family farm.
I would like to say a word about the family farm. I had the honour of serving as a member of the special joint committee which drafted the Constitution of Canada. I remember that during the course of that debate there was considerable controversy, which has continued to this day, on the question of the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution of Canada. The Conservative Members of Parliament who suggested that we should entrench property rights in the Constitution of Canada are now members of the Government which is driving farmers off their property.
I suggest that the Conservatives should show a little more respect for the property of farmers and for the families who are struggling to maintain their farms after generations. After all, 95 per cent of the farms in Canada are still family farms. I suggest that we show a little more respect for those farmers and their attempts to protect and preserve what is important to them, their property.
I suggest as well that we heed the cry of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) who said that the west is being ignored by his Government. That Tory MP from Alberta has thrown up his hands in despair. He said recently that unless the Government gets serious about the problems of western Canada, he will leave that Party.
It is a rather sad commentary that in response to the Conservative Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) fired him as a Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues from Alberta slammed the door and excluded him from the Tory caucus. We have not heard from that Member during this debate. He said as well that the Tory Government is creating jobs all right but is only creating them in downtown Toronto.

April 30, 1987
The plea of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona is being echoed across this land by farmers who are saying to the Government, "For God's sake don't hit us when we're already down". After grain prices dropped 18 per cent last year and 20 per cent the year before, and costs are going up, the Government kicks farmers in the gut on May Day. That is a tragic commentary on the Government's lack of concern for the farmers of our country.
I want to take a moment to speak about what New Democrats believe to be the two key priorities for protecting and strengthening the farm in Canada. First, it is essential that we continue the moratorium on foreclosures which was imposed on the Farm Credit Corporation in September, 1985, until a comprehensive debt reduction program has been put in place. It is important to recognize that many other farmers are not protected by this moratorium. They are at the mercy of private financial institutions, the banks. It seems as though the Canadian Bankers Association is writing the Government's agricultural policy. That association put forward five key points, each and every one of which was accepted by the Government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has suggested that farm organizations wanted this moratorium lifted. That is an astonishing suggestion. The National Farmers' Union, the three prairie Wheat Pools, and many other farm organizations have said no such thing. Indeed, they have said the opposite. For example, Keystone Agricultural Producers based in Manitoba has said that the termination of this moratorium will make it much more difficult for farmers to get loans from banks and other lenders.
This is a particularly critical time for farmers because they are now planting their crops and at planting time they must borrow money to purchase fuel, seed, fertilizer and chemicals for the coming crop season. At this particular time of year farmers need even more cash. Keystone Agricultural Producers have said that the Government should not lift this moratorium.
The President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Garfield Stevenson, said that the termination of the moratorium "is completely irresponsible and just not acceptable". Mr. Stevenson went on to say:
I thought the Minister had more on the ball than this.
Those were the comments of the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The President of the National Farmers' Union, Wayne Easter, said the following:
1 just can't understand why he would announce it now ... Normally farmers
feel a sense of optimism at this time of year.. . But this tears the heart out of
thousands of farmers.
When the Minister of Agriculture states, as he did on The Journal last night, that farmers want the moratorium lifted, I must ask: Who is he talking about? He is not talking about Keystone in Manitoba. He is not talking about the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. He is not talking about the National Farmers' Union. He is not speaking for the thousands and
thousands of farmers who are desperate and want to survive, not be driven off the land.
This brings me to my Final comment in respect of the importance of a guarantee that the income of farmers will be at least at the same level next year as it was this past year. It is essential that farmers who are planting now have confidence that they will get a recovery from what is planted this spring and harvested next fall which is enough to cover their costs and enough, I would add, to ensure a decent standard of living.
This Government which has bailed out banks should surely recognize its responsibility to the farmers of Canada. I point out as well that other countries, including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the EEC, have recognized the importance of ensuring an adequate income for farmers.
In conclusion, I remind the House and those who are watching the debate that my Party was founded at the depths of the Depression in the 1930s. My Party formed the first Government in 1944 in the Province of Saskatchewan. One of the first acts which that Government under Tommy Douglas brought forward was a moratorium on debt for farmers. I am proud of that record of my party in defending farmers in Canada.
I am also proud that myself and my colleagues, led by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), are continuing in that tradition to defend farmers by calling upon the Government not to lift the moratorium and to ensure adequate income for Canadian farmers.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the temptation is too great for me to let pass the suggestion that I can think of no more appropriate Member than the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to be speaking in the House about May Day.
Let me also note an irony, if I might, as I begin this debate. We have just heard the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby giving their views on farm matters. Let me perhaps introduce some balance to the debate by quoting the President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, a western organization with a western based president, when he said: "The Canadian Cattlemen's Association supports the decision of Agriculture Minister John Wise to end the temporary debt moratorium on debts to the Farm Credit Corporation". CCA President Stan Wilson also emphasized: "Our concern is that the distortions caused by debt moratoria do more damage to the farm credit system than any possible benefit to individual farmers".
That is the voice of agriculture. They do not want damage to the farm credit system. They want the farm credit system strengthened, and they want the farm situation across the country strengthened, as do we. One characteristic about the farm situation in Canada, which is known to any of us familiar with agriculture, is that it is in a state of crisis now. That is known. That is recognized by every honest Member in the House.
April 30, 1987

Elowever, another characteristic of the Canadian farm community is that it is made up, to a singular degree, of individuals who are honest, who are realistic, and who know that there are no magic solutions. They will have noted, as we did, that in this week alone in the Canadian House of Commons the New Democratic Party has proposed spending new billions of dollars on Dome Petroleum, has proposed spending new billions of dollars on the Post Office, and has proposed spending new billions of dollars on agriculture. Those are the three items proposed by that Party in one week.
Ladies and gentlemen-excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have been away from the House of Commons too long-there may be disagreements here about how some of these problems can be resolved. However, there is no illusion among the agricultural community in Canada about the fact that the long-term solutions to the problems with which we are dealing will not come easily.
I had the good fortune-and I will not pretend to be a farmer-to grow up in an agricultural community in western Canada. One thing which is evident to all of us who had that experience is that when the farm community is in crisis, it is not a local or isolated crisis. It speaks of a region in crisis; indeed, to some degree, a whole economy in crisis. When there are problems in agriculture, they extend to every other part of the large rural community.
That is not something we read about. That is something that if one grew up in Viking in Vegreville, as did the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), or in Provencher, Manitoba; or in wartime Saskatchewan; in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; or in Drumheller, Alberta, or in High River, Alberta, as did Members of the Cabinet, one grew up knowing the realities. Because the Cabinet of Canada is composed today of men and women who grew up directly with the cyclical and deep problems agriculture faces, we understand that the problems will not be resolved suddenly. We understand that there must be a very serious effort on the part of the Government of Canada, domestically and internationally, to solve some of the problems.
It is not a matter of getting up and saying, as a former Prime Minister unhappily did, that he is not going to sell your wheat. We have an obligation to try to sell the wheat of the farmers of Canada. We have an obligation to try to achieve a better international trading system. We have an obligation, when there is a crisis in farm income, to inject money into the western Canadian economy and the whole Canadian economy.
The Government has accepted that obligation. We will continue to do that. Indeed, the record of the Government in terms of action on agriculture is unsurpassed in the last two decades or three decades in Canada. Most farmers understand that and respect that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 take part in this debate as both a western Canadian and as the foreign Minister of the country. I
have been back in my constituency speaking, among others, to people operating centres for women in small towns like Whitecourt. There is a crisis there. There is the implication for farm families, as has been indicated by the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women and others in the House. That is part of the reality.
The sense of crisis in Canadian agriculture is deep and is growing. In Barrhead and in Fort Assiniboine in my constituency, the price of barley today is in real terms about what it was in the 1930s. Some 50 farmers in Manitoba declared bankruptcy in the last year. In Saskatchewan there were 45. In Alberta there were 93. In Ontario there were 102.
Costs of production continue to climb as prices drop. A growing number of farmers have to work out to keep their operations going. Many individual farm families face the prospect of having to get out of agriculture. The problems are complex. Nobody, least of all farmers, pretends that there are easy solutions either at home or internationally.
The Government has acted on a wide range of agricultural issues. We have delivered relief from capital gains tax. We have frozen freight rate and elevator handling charges on grain handling and on grain transportation. We twice amended the Western Grain Stabilization Act so that it is now a true instrument for stabilization. We have established a farm debt review board. We have removed federal sales and excise taxes from farm fuels.
Last year, in the face of grave crisis, we committed $1 billion to grain producers under the Special Canadian Grains Program. Not counting that $1 billion expenditure, the budget for the federal Department of Agriculture last year was 60 per cent higher than it was the year before the Government took office. With all of that spending on agriculture, our over-all fiscal management has been so successful that the interest rates farmers pay are from 4 per cent to 5 per cent lower than they were three years ago.
Our calculations are that every 1 per cent drop in interest rates results in approximately $240 million for Canadian farmers. These actions are important. They are only part of the program for agriculture of the Government. The priority of agriculture in the Government is high and is growing.
There was a comment made by one of the Hon. Members opposite who talked about the need for Canadian farmers to have confidence about money which will be coming in next year. The projections for federal Government spending next year for support for western Canadian agriculture suggests that there will be more than $3 billion going from the Government, that is, in 1987 and to western Canadian agriculture. That means that western Canadian farmers can have confidence that in calendar 1987, there will be more money coming to them from this Government than there was in calendar 1986. That is simply a projection of reality and one that should be understood across Canada.

April 30, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will speak tonight particularly about farm policy and foreign policy because if they were once separate, they now come together. There is a constant and a clear interlinking between what happens in foreign capitals and what happens in every farm across Canada. Every day, political decisions in Paris, in Washington, in Moscow and in other capitals affect the markets and prices for Canadian farmers. Mikhail Gorbachev is a very important man to the farmers in Fort Assiniboine and Barrhead in my constituency.
The common agricultural program of the European Community has done as much damage to the farmers of Alberta as the National Energy Program did to our oil workers. Let me talk for a moment about the European Community and the problems that have been built into the whole system of agriculture as a result of the policies of that Community.
The European Community has changed from a net importer to a major exporter of farm commodities. For example, in the crop year ending 1966, the European Community imported nearly 11 million tonnes of cereal crops. Sixteen years later in the crop year ending in 1982, the European Community exported well over 6 million tonnes. That trend has continued and it has continued because of a growing program of subsidy that has become a pattern in Europe and has been responded to by subsidies in the United States. It is catching the farmers of Canada, the farmers of Thailand and the farmers of other countries that are efficient in production but do not have giant treasuries to subsidize agriculture in a very serious domestic and international problem.
In 1958, the European Community exported only 23 per cent as much food as it imported. By 1985, the Community exported 60 per cent as much food as it imported. Even considering the fact that the Community had expanded its membership significantly over that period, increasing population by 60 per cent, that is a dramatic turnaround in food production and it has to do with subsidy.
European farmers receive prices for commodities which are as much as four or five times the world market price. For example, European farmers get the equivalent of $450 Canadian per tonne for Durum wheat when world markets indicate that is worth something just over $100 Canadian. Canadian farmers receive $130 Canadian for that. Another example is barley for which prices in my constituency are down to Depression year levels. European farmers get the equivalent of $400 per tonne of barley while the European Community sells that same barley for $80 per tonne or less on world markets. That means that the export subsidy alone on barley is five times the current world market price. That is the problem facing agriculture in this country and in others. The question is, what do we do about it.
That is a serious question. It is too serious a question for mere partisan division and debate. It is a very basic and serious problem. Let me tell the House about some of the things we are doing about it. We are acting on a number of fronts internationally.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeking new markets for Canadian products. This of course includes traditional activities such as negotiating an agreement with the Soviet Union for the purchase of 25 million tonnes of Canadian grain over the next five years. Actually, despite a massively subsidized and fiercely competitive world grain market, we managed to increase our market share by nearly 2 per cent last year. It is true that prices were low, but we are better off increasing our market share even if prices are low, than losing on both counts.
This trade initiative also includes new sales to Egypt and Brazil and more possibilities in the Pacific Rim. We have food aid programs in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Peru, Senegal, Mozambique and Ghana. These programs have resulted in the purchase of $163 million worth of Canadian wheat, $47 million worth of Canadian flour, $61 million worth of canola and $51.8 million worth of other products.
Some of these development programs have modified the consumer and production habits of other countries, thus creating new markets for Canadian products.
We also promote agriculture related trade as often as possible, and we do so in two ways. One example is a recent visit to the Soviet Union by the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian business people. That country is our biggest wheat buyer. If the Soviet Union would rather deal with Canada it is partly due to our reputation as a reliable supplier. The interest of the Soviets can also be attributed to the fact that we actively seek Canadian markets for their products so as to achieve a better trade balance. Progress comes slowly, but this initiative on the part of Canada is essential if we expect to continue to have access to the major market which the Soviet Union represents.
In another vein, we encourage Canadian agricultural service industries to expand their activities at the international level. Last September in Venezuela and Argentina I headed a delegation including representatives of Canadian agricultural companies. This enabled companies like Regina's Prairie Microtech and Calgary's Agriteam to explore new possibilities of trade and business markets in joint ventures in South America. This way, Canada's contacts in the agricultural sector are increasing in countries where new markets might open up for commodity harvests, technology or Canadian know-how.


Marcel Prud'homme: And in the Middle East.
April 30, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: There are possibilities in the Middle East.


Marcel Prud'homme: They are enormous.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are possibilities in the Pacific, and this is a part of what we have to do as a country and a part of what we are now doing.

Most important, we are tackling head-on the fundamental international agricultural problem and that is the problem of international subsidy. It is as threatening to agriculture in the 1980s and 1990s as the drought was in the Depression. The agricultural trading system is in deep trouble with artificially depressed international prices, subsidized export competition and a growing proliferation of non-tariff import barriers.
We have two complementary goals. The first is to break the cycle of subsidy which has led to the trade war between Europe and the United States, a war whose casualties grow in Canada, in Australia, in Thailand and in a dozen other countries whose treasuries are too small to compete with the European Community or the United States. The second is to establish fair, firm international rules of trade in agriculture, rules that will increase the role of efficient producers and reduce the role of direct and indirect subsidies and protection.
Let me recount to the House briefly some of our experiences in the last year. Almost a year ago exactly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and I were at the meeting of the OECD in Paris and we heard to our great surprise Ministers speaking for European Governments beginning to criticize the common agricultural program. That had not happened before. I must tell the House that the Ministers who uttered those criticisms were Ministers of Finance, not of Agriculture, the people who have to pay for the subsidy programs. However, that was an indication that there might be a possibility of change in European attitudes toward subsidy in the Community. We did not simply note that as a phenomenon. We came back to Canada, we sat down with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and we developed together the opportunity that existed for a country like ours to take advantage of these changes that were developing in the Community, to take advantage of the possibility of some self-questioning, to begin to break this terrible, crippling cycle of subsidy.
The Prime Minister of Canada took to the economic summit in Tokyo as Canada's principal emphasis in that summit the need to give priority to breaking the cycle of international subsidy in agriculture.
I have been to three economic summits. I know that not before-at least not before my experience-has there been a situation in which the President of the United States, the President of France, the Chancellor of West Germany and other leaders have been forced to defend practices which they themselves found difficult to defend in the summit context about agricultural subsidy. One of the European leaders who was there, and I will not identify the country, made a very significant comment. During a discussion that would not have occurred without the initiative of the Prime Minister of
Canada he said that everyone recognized that this was a problem that everyone shared but that no one could solve on their own. Recognizing that, Canada proposed at the summit that we should try to solve it together.
We came away from the summit and tried to put in place a very special experiment in international relations. We tried to put together a special group of leading international experts who might in preparation for the Venice Summit coming up in June be able to identify subsidy practices in each of the summit countries on which action could be taken at Venice. We were making progress on that proposal. We had funding from foundations in Canada and the United States. We had agreement from several countries, including the United States. We had the enthusiastic interest of countries such as Thailand, Argentina and others. For a while we had the agreement of some European countries. Then one European country said that, no, they would not agree. The proposal then came apart. We were not able to proceed with what may have been-what had the promise of being-a Canadian breakthrough in this cycle of subsidy. That did not work. But it was very much worth trying, as it is very much worth trying for this country to find other means by which we can break the cycle of agricultural subsidy that is at the root of the problem being discussed in this House and the problem being felt on farms across the country.
We have acted on other fronts. I led the Canadian delegation to the GATT talks in Punta del Este, Uruguay, last year. In the past, agriculture has been a casualty of the GATT. It has been something that has been shunted aside when nations gathered together to deal with international trading rules. Well, this year that was changed. While there were many countries which took part in the change, one of the leaders in achieving that change was this country and this Government. We do not believe that the world can long afford to put agriculture to the sidelines. We do not believe that when new trading rules are put together they can treat agriculture as though it were unimportant.
Agriculture is essential. Fair trade in agriculture is essential. If we are going to achieve that then we have to have trading rules that are acceptable to and guide the practices of countries around the world. We have made a start on that. We have made a start on that in the GATT. But, again, there is much more that needs to be done. Again, this Government is exerting our leadership to try to ensure that we are able to make that type of progress.
There was a group established, as a result of an Australian initiative, with our active help. It is the so-called Cairns Group, a group of a number of countries such as Canada, in conditions such as ours, victims of the subsidy practices of the Community and of the United States, which gathered together in Australia to prepare for the GATT negotiations in Uruguay. Within three weeks that group will meet again in Ottawa at the invitation and under the chairmanship of the Government of Canada. We think that that type of pressure has to be maintained.

April 30, 1987
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling that my time is up.


Marcel Prud'homme: No, no, please go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I hear correctly that there is unanimous consent to allow the Minister more time?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, I do not believe there is. However, I am sure the House will allow the Hon. Minister a minute or so to complete his speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the generosity of the House. I appreciate the fact that there is real interest in what we are trying to do internationally. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress in the meeting that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), along with my colleagues, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), will be convening in Ottawa.
There are two other important meetings coming up in the immediate future. One is the next meeting of the OECD in Paris in two weeks' time. The other is the summit in Venice. It is the intention of the Government to continue at Venice the initiative which the Prime Minister of Canada began in Tokyo, and to continue in the context of the economic summit to try to reach agreement on some progress against the practice of subsidy. We are not sure we will succeed. We know we are asking fundamental changes in practices and traditions that have grown up, particularly in Europe, but the size of the challenge should not turn us away. The size of the damage has to drive us to try to achieve some change. As we did in Tokyo, and as we did in Cairns and Uruguay, and as we will do in Paris, we intend at the economic summit meeting in Venice to try to get some progress.
The Prime Minister raised the matter at the meeting earlier this month when the President of the United States was here. He has raised it in a number of other direct conversations with other summit countries. We hope to make progress.
Finally, and not to abuse the time of the House, we have in the context of the OECD the grouping together of modern economies. We have suggested that there might be agreement on some basic principles regarding international trade in agriculture. We have been in touch with all of the Governments of the OECD and we have set forth some principles that we hope might be the basis of the approach we all can follow together as an alternative to the subsidy cycle that has been so devastating to our economy.
Those principles are, first, that agricultural policies must become more price-responsive. Second, support for agriculture should avoid production incentives. In other words, support should be for farmers and not for farming. Third, countries should freeze and seek to reduce governmental assistance measures that artificially depress world prices. Four, countries should not introduce new import barriers that are not already mandated by existing legislation. Finally, and this is essential to it all, these basic principles must be implemented by us all, together. As was set out at the Tokyo Summit, this is a problem we all face. None of us can solve it alone. But if we cannot solve it alone then a country such as Canada can at least exercise leadership in trying to get it solved. That is what we are doing and that is what we intend to do.
In the last year alone the Prime Minister has held three formal meetings with leaders of Canadian agriculture organizations. I do not believe that that has ever happened before in Canada. It will happen again prior to his departure for the economic summit in Venice because we have found before that in terms of the effectiveness of our case internationally and in terms of consensus at home it is very valuable to draw in the leaders of agriculture in this country.
So what the Government is doing in agriculture is continuing action at home that is unprecedented in recent decades. We are carrying out extensive and continuing consultation with farm leaders. We are maintaining a very vigorous pressure internationally to change the cycle of subsidy that is at the basis of our international agricultural problems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this very important debate on a crucial matter to the economy of Canada and, in particular, to the western economy. I want to begin by congratulating all of those Members who have participated in the debate because the subject matter is of great national importance and it ought to be debated in that way.
It was my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) would have availed himself of the opportunity-and perhaps he would have had the time available to him-to talk about the recently announced sale by the United States of 4 million tonnes of wheat to the Soviet Union and what that sale will do to the price of grain in Canada and what it will do to the economy Canada.
It was my hope, too, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have responded, in some measure, to the letter forwarded to him today by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
April 30, 1987

As that letter is now a public document, I should like to take a moment to read it into the record. It is as follows:
It has come to my attention that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has today prepared a new set of agricultural trade subsidy initiatives that include measures of great damage to Canada.
Specifically they are proposing to include under the Export Enhancement Program an offer of 1.25 million metric tons of barley to Saudi Arabia, a traditional Canadian buyer.
If this measure is approved by the Trade Review Committee of the U.S. administration in the next week, it will mean a loss of 75 to 85 million dollars to Canadian farmers.
This initiative certainly flies in the face of assurances apparently gained from President Reagan that he would be considerate of Canadian agricultural concerns, and I would ask you to immediately demand that this damaging measure by the U.S. administration be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, those are just two initiatives with regard to the foreign policy aspect of this subject that I would have hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have touched upon during the course of his remarks, and perhaps at another time, or indeed later in this debate, he may want to expound upon them.
Government Members have stood in this place and talked about some programs and some initiatives that have taken place over the last two and a half years. I have listened to their speeches quite attentively, both from my place here in the Chamber and through the Oasis system that is available in our offices.
Mr. Speaker, it is their job to talk about government programs and initiatives. The issue before the House in this debate is the present crisis and what the Government is prepared to do about it. I do not believe that on any side of this House any Member is questioning what the problem is.
No Member-and I may have missed the speeches of a few of the speakers in this debate; a great many have spoken-no Member has disagreed with the fact that there is a crisis situation in the western economy as it relates to grain producers. The question is: Does this Government have the political will to address the situation? But to cite the benefits, chapter and verse, is not going to help the farmers who are in a crisis situation today. And no doubt there are some benefits arising from such programs as the Rural Transition Program. The establishment of the farm debt review boards is another initiative that they hauled out.
The problem is that the Government, up until now, has been refusing to address the very serious crisis situation existing in the western Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, I know something about crises. I know something about setbacks. I know about property foreclosures. I have seen entire families and subdivisions of families move out of communities. We in Atlantic Canada know something about that.
What is required, Mr. Speaker, is not only goodwill, good intentions, or even a meaningful and dynamic record, but the political will on the part of the Government of the day to exercise its authority, both legally and monetarily, in order to address the situation.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has some 225,000 farms, of which 175,000 are commercial farms. The Farm Credit Corporation estimates that 8 per cent, or 13,000 farms are insolvent. Of those 13,000, 6,000 have not made any payments on their loans for at least two years. Some 52,000, or approximately 30 per cent of Canadian commercial farms are facing moderate to serious financial stress. Real interest rates paid to farmers are as high or higher than they were at their peak in the early 1980s. An example: The current real farm interest rate is about 6.57 per cent, while it was 8 per cent to 8.5 per cent in 1981.
Members opposite have said that only 600 farmers a year are going to be affected, or 50 a month. Mr. Speaker, do you realize the consequential effects of that? And I am thinking not only of the symbolism of the Government of Canada foreclosing on 600 farmers a year, but the consequential effects on the Canadian banking community, on unsecured creditors, on secured creditors. The trustees in bankruptcy will be the real winners when it comes to the moratorium on foreclosures.
Surely the people of western Canada and those individuals who have their loans with the Farm Credit Corporation are entitled to some sense of fairness. Mr. Speaker, I was part of a Government that was stupid enough to implement an audit program for fishermen of Atlantic Canada. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the lifting of this moratorium is just as stupid if not more stupid than what we did some years back.
It is really not appropriate to be partisan in this debate, but I can tell you that we paid dearly for that mistake, and I suggest that this Government will pay just as dearly as a result of this action against the farmers of western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said and much has been omitted in the debate which has taken place in the Chamber over the last two days. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was quite correct when he stood in his place and said that two amendments were made to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. But what Party in this House of Commons fought tooth and nail every step of the way for the implementation of the Western Grain Stabilization Program?


An Hon. Member:: The Liberals.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it was Jean-Luc Pepin, a former Minister of Transport, who initiated that legislation, legislation which was proclaimed into law under a Liberal Government.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs gripped his heart with his hand and said: "We can't be partisan". Yet he refuses to acknowledge fact, unequivocal fact, Mr. Speaker, in terms of who it was who proclaimed that law, the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
It is also intellectually dishonest and unfair, and, yes, not appropriate for parliamentarians even to debate this issue. On the one hand, we have government Members saying: "When you were in Government, you were the ones who caused the

April 30, 1987
high interest rates. It wasn't the international situation. It wasn't the economies of the superpowers or of the European Community that had to do with interest rates; it was you, the terrible Government". Now that the tables have turned and the western grain producer is in this situation they look to the heavens, they look behind them, they look to the media, to the Opposition and, when they are really desperate, they look to the NDP. You cannot have it both ways. Parliament is a place to which men and women of good faith come to tell it like it is. We are here for one reason. Some may interpret it differently, but there is one unequivocal reason why all Members of Parliament are in this Chamber and serving in public life, and that is to serve.
The question is not one of what the problem is and not one of what the solutions are, but simply of where the political will is to exercise the authority which the national Government has on this issue. 1 can say proudly that yes, I have travelled to western Canada and no, I am not a farmer, but I have listened to their plea, I have heard their argument, and I sympathize with them greatly. They do not want any handouts from Government. They do not want to be on their knees. They only want an equal chance which the Constitution has guaranteed them. Instead we have heard rebuttals, deferment, and that they are considering it.
The latest gimic is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He is going to take two planes, four cameras, a couple of bearers in Gucci shoes and go to western Canada to make a whistle-stop tour. Does anyone want to make any wagers that the Prime Minister will be announcing a few cheques along the way? He is a political opportunist. Members may laugh, but if I am wrong they can come back into the Chamber and raise it. This is shameful.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has said clearly time and time again in the House, outside the House, in western Canada, in Atlantic Canada, in Toronto and in Montreal that the Government must announce deficiency programs so that farmers can make their plans for this and subsequent crop years. He has said that the Government must reinstate the FCC moratorium on farm foreclosures and that it must put a proper debt restructuring program in place. Those are three things that we do not have to ask the United States or the European Economic Community for. Canada can do those things today.
In concluding my brief remarks on this most important subject matter I say sincerely that I have listened to what Members from western Canada have been saying and I will continue to listen. I believe the way in which to solve this particular crisis is to show some real leadership domestically. You cannot go on the international stage and say one thing then do the opposite domestically. Canada must be consistent. That is why I raised in my initial remarks the conduct of our neighbours to the south who have continuously, since entering
preliminary negotiations with regard to a free trade agreement, been giving it to us in the neck.
Let it be clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not anti-American. I may be anti-United States administration, but I find the people of the United States to be a great people. I do not like it when a sovereign nation such as Canada is continuously and repeatedly confronted by the administration to the south which, for its own reasons, selfish as they may or may not be, singles out Canada and the sectors of our economy which are suffering as a result of the lack of leadership of the present administration. Much can be said and much more ought to be said. The Government will pay the price.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member who just finished speaking will not mind me pointing out a grave error which he made in his submission which again demonstrates the fact that the folks across the way are uninformed. He said that Jean-Luc Pepin brought in the Western Grain Stabilization Program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not a point of order, that's debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he checked the facts he would find that he was in error.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was Otto Lang, so he made a mistake.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At least you know. Why didn't you correct him then?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Once in a while you make mistakes, too. I don't rub it in to you. I should, but I don't.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was one great Liberal Minister or another.


Jack Scowen: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I had visions of not being able to participate in it because I was up in northern Saskatchewan when I heard about it and was afraid it would be all over by the time I got back. When I arrived yesterday afternoon the debate appeared to be over and I was afraid I had missed out. I am pleased to be here and participating now.
I was in Lac La Ronge in northern Saskatchewan participating in an agricultural meeting of the native population of northern Saskatchewan. It was a meeting of SIAP, the Saskatchewan Indian Agricultural Program, which is intending to expand the agricultural base.
My background is as a seedgrower and farmer from the northeast corner of Saskatchewan about 20 miles from where the trees start, north of which there is no farming. We grow a tremendous variety of crops and while we are certainly affected by the fight between the European community and the United States we have a bigger variety of markets. The crops of wheat, oats, barley, canola and flax seed have been affected very seriously as have other crops which may not be considered very important in the larger scheme of things in the prairie provinces.
April 30, 1987

However, dehydrated alfalfa, dried pea, lentils, fava beans, canary seed, some mustard and such, have been very seriously affected and did not qualify for subsidy under the special Canadian grains program, much to the disappointment of some of those growers. They grew many of these crops to relieve the over-production problem and were hoping to find a market for these lesser grown crops which cannot be grown in areas farther south.
Last year we had some good crops of grass seed and alfalfa. The prices were very good. There was a bright spot in that particular area. However, the biggest bulk of our acreage is in common crops. Certainly our farmers are hurting simply because input costs are very much higher than they are farther south.
Fortunately the Conservative Government has been able to help my constituents ever since it came into power in September, 1984. The very first time it helped was in an area in my constituency which suffered from a lot of rain and severe flooding. The Conservative Government subsidized these people to the tune of $7.5 million. Perhaps that does not sound like a great deal of money, but that particular area had been without crops for a good many years and the provincial Government also put up $7.5 million. This helped to save some of those farmers. They certainly appreciated it. I am sure some of them would not be there today had it not been for that particular help. Of course, they have participated in all the rest of the programs which most of the previous speakers have covered. I am sure you are quite familiar with them, Mr. Speaker.
There has been much rhetoric on the part of the Opposition about the lifting of the moratorium on FCC mortgages. I checked what some opposition Members have been saying about this particular matter. So far in my study of the "blues" I have found nothing that made much sense in terms of a solution on the part of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I am here is because I became kind of angry sitting on a tractor one day and said: "I guess I'll have to do something about it". I got involved in politics simply because of some of the policies which were in place.
I know that members of the NDP have supported the Liberals. I heard much rhetoric from them about money going out of the country for various reasons. In 1982 when they changed the Farm Credit Act from being an assistance to farmers to a banking institution, the situation was made much tougher on farmers, simply because they were borrowing money on long-term agreements and at long-term interest rates which are very difficult for farmers to get out of. The New Democrats supported the Liberals on that particular one.
Since 1982 I believe $1.3 billion has been borrowed in the way of long-term money by FCC and over 50 per cent of the interest on that money goes to countries other than Canada. I
wonder how the NDP can say that it supports farmers when all this money is going out of the country and not recirculating back to farmers. It is very interesting that they come to these conclusions when it suits them to be critical, forgetting some of the mistakes they have made themselves.
We must have a little optimism in the farm area. I know there are some sections in agriculture, particularly in western Canada, and in livestock in eastern Canada, which have improved the outlook of farmers. In western Canada the livestock industry is doing well. The cattle and hog industries are doing well. Grass seeds and other products such as lentils are doing well. It is not a complete bust in the over-all farm economy picture. Those who are prudent are able to survive. They are not able to make money but they are able to survive.
The hope of the recovery of farm prices is always there. There is only a slight difference between surplus and shortage. Not long ago in the House we worried about hog producers. There was much talk about supply-management and various short-term solutions. However, the United States came out with a 7 per cent decrease in the farrowing of hogs some three months to six months ago, and the prices have certainly increased considerably. The same could happen to the price of some grains, perhaps all of them. Who knows?
It is a pretty good thing that some of the previous speakers in the Opposition are not the farmers out there. It is probably a good thing that farmers are all busy in the fields these days and not watching this particular performance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What happened to all your socialist friends?


Jack Scowen: I don't know. I should like to refer to some misquotes which I saw. For instance, I noticed that the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), from that hardrock country, told us how he was looking at a machine where they were baling grain to inject anhydrous ammonia into it. I think it was probably hay. I will not go into the mining business if he does not go into the farming business, and I think we will probably survive a lot better.
Another one I noticed was, somebody said that the price paid to grain farmers was down by 18 per cent. The truth of the matter is that the initial price is down by 18 per cent, and we do not know what the price will be.
I also saw in The Globe and Mail, and I guess that is where opposition Members get some of their information, a picture of a farmer and a big bird in the background, the Farm Credit Corporation. Over to one side was another little bird and a bag of seed. On that bag of seed, it said, "18 per cent decrease in subsidies". The truth of the matter is that there will not be an 18 per cent decrease in subsidies. In fact, if these prices do not improve, it will probably amount to about a 40 per cent increase in subsidies. It is an 18 per cent decrease in the initial price.

April 30, 1987
As the convict said to the judge, "No, noose is good news". I do have some good news. I have the pleasure of announcing today, for the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), that the cheques for the initial payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act were mailed today. I have some figures here that will help put a little smile on some western farmers' faces. To Saskatchewan, my home province, 57,713 cheques were mailed out, to the tune of $382 million. That will be a big help to the economy of that particular province. To Alberta, 34,950 cheques were sent, to the tune of $184 million. To Manitoba, 20,589 cheques were sent, to the tune of $134,100,000. To British Columbia, 1,063 cheques were sent out, to the tune of $4.7 million making a total of 114,314 cheques being sent to the total tune of $705 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Scowen: That is some good news for the Canadian farmer. That, along with the final payment, will help farmers in western Canada stay in business.


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this emergency debate, although I must confess that, contrary to the Minister, 1 am not a first-class expert in the area of agriculture. But there is no need to be an expert in that area to realize that the actions taken by this Government are typical of a Government which unfortunately does not care about the future of hundreds and even thousands of farm producers who are affected by them. And even if my friend who has just concluded his remarks could mention a few measures taken by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I do not believe they are adequate and will really solve the problem which has made this emergency debate necessary.
This emergency debate was initiated following the insensitive announcement by the Government Monday morning that it was ending the moratorium in effect since February 17, 1985, on the loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation. It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and it is not without reason that it was described as a historic event. With this decision, the Government is destroying the way of life of the family farm. It is attacking farmers at a time when they are already in a position of weakness, losing their self-reliance and have realizing that the Government is not going to help them at all. That is why they are calling on their elected representatives to emphasize their very severe economic plight and that of their families. They are asking for programs to be implemented right away. They are asking the Prime Minister to set up without delay federal-provincial programs which might allow them to remain on their farms, and more specifically to provide them right away with significant deficiency payments for the 1987-88 crop year.
In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, the Government dares tell farmers and Members of this House that its last gesture will only have a slight effect on farmers generally. It dares say so when it knows quite well that in fact, its action could be
disastrous for all farmers affected. However, there will not be any disaster, because as a result of pressures made by farmers in the three Prairie provinces, the Government will have no option but to make specific commitments on the matter. It will have no option, if it wants to continue to boast about everything it does for farmers.
In the first place, with respect to declining prices for various grains, farmers want to know what will happen during the 1987-88 crop year and whether the Government will maintain the level of agricultural assistance, and they want to be informed right now. The Government should tell them under what circumstances a deficiency payment will be made under a special grain program and what the amount of such payment will be.
As I said, the Government should clearly and unequivocally announce what assistance it will grant farmers during the current crop year. As a result of the measure hastily taken by the Minister when he removed the moratorium on foreclosures made by the Farm Credit Corporation, that decision has raised to an intolerable level the stress experienced by thousands of farmers.
The initiative taken by the Minister will allow foreclosures against farmers who are in arrears in the reimbursement of loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation, loans which represent 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the long-term debt in the agricultural sector. There are arrears of over two years on some 6,000 of the 75,000 loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation and in such a case the organization almost always decide to proceed with the foreclosure.
It is not 25 per cent, as suggested by the Minister responsible, but approximately 8 per cent of farmers who obtained a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation who are threatened with foreclosure. The Minister said that we should not worry, that there will be only some 50 foreclosures a month, that the staff of the Farm Credit Corporationm cannot do more and consequently, the number of farmers who have some reasons to fear foreclosure is restricted to 600. What a joke, Mr. Speaker. How can we know, as the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) asked, what are, among the 6,000 loans which could lead to a foreclosure, the 600 cases which will actually be foreclosed? That is what the bank manager will ask the farmer who is seeking a loan to continue his operation. If the manager tells him that the Farm Credit Corporation is carrying out foreclosures, the farmer will be able to reply that he should not be concerned about that, the Minister having indicated that there will not be more than 600 foreclosures a year out of 6,000. He may add that if he is the last one, his property will not be foreclosed before 10 years from now.
This moratorium has been in effect for the past 19 months. The Government should have used this time to devise a debt restructuring mechanism to help farmers. If it had acted then, there would have been no need for a moratorium, but the Government has failed to act and the moratorium was useful in gaining time.
April 30, 1987

In the meantime, however, no debt restructuring mechanism was set into place. In my opinion, we should continue the moratorium and take this opportunity to devise better programs.
Mr. Speaker, so much for the actions taken by the Government which are causing farm families to go bankrupt, filling them with anxiety and spreading distress as well as financial, economic and social destruction in the agricultural community.
Only a Minister of Agriculture perfectly insensitive to the reality of the situation could make such decisions. The Government did not consult the interested parties to try and find a solution. It has even failed to meet with the farm producers, as well as the representatives of both the federal and provincial governments, the farm organizations and the banking institutions.
When we asked in the House whether it would be useful to meet with the banking institutions which are holding 69 per cent of the loans to discuss this issue, the Minister in turn asked: Why should we do so? Why should we discuss the situation with the banks? We know why the Government should talk to banks. It is because all bankers today are telling themselves, when reading the statement made last Monday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise): If the Government can foreclose, why can't we? They will start looking at their overdue loans.
When farmers start canvassing, looking for loans in order to produce, looking for credit for the coming crop year, how do you suppose those banks will react, Mr. Speaker, after the Government of Canada made that shameful and despicable announcement that it is lifting the moratorium and will let the FCC's mechanism shatter farm communities? This is an open invitation to banks and other financial institutions to follow suit. What is now preventing them from doing so? How could they feel obligated when the federal Government, which normally has a duty to look after farmers, when a public institution or at least what used to be one behaves in such a way?
We are faced with a crisis that requires immediate action to save family farms in western and eastern Canada. It is not good enough for Conservatives to refer to what they have done-they must solve the present crisis. They cannot rest on their laurels. This is not good enough, it will not help people through the current crisis.
Our Party urges the Government to do something. It must recognize that farmers are now in a very tight situation. It must recognize the emergency situation. Now is the time to act, not six months down the road. Farmers must be given a chance, they must be allowed to adequately plan their crops. Our Party urges an extension of the moratorium, to avoid unnecessary stress to farmers. Our Party also urges the announcement now of a price support program for this year's crop, in order that western and other Canadian farmers know where they stand. It is my hope that the Government will act before midnight, so that the odd hundred farm producers in
Quebec who are facing foreclosure will not be penalized and hit by those foreclosures.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this emergency debate on the crisis our Canadian farmers are going through. Since I represent a city riding, one might wonder what kind of an impact my opinion can have, but as a Canadian woman I am concerned about the well-being of all our farmers.
The crisis our farmers are in right now will affect all of us at a certain point in time. We are all consumers and we all need a strong and healthy agricultural sector. I am glad that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) mentioned figures in his remarks. Otherwise, the Government might have eluded the problem once again. The Hon. Member for Algoma suggested Tuesday night that the Government had to take a clear position and make a commitment to assist our farmers before it is too late.
On Canada AM this morning, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board clearly demonstrated that the Government, by dropping the moratorium, really does not want to help farmers. Yesterday afternoon, the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) blamed the Opposition for its refusal to congratulate the Government on its initiatives on behalf of this sector of our economy. There really is not much reason to congratulate the Government. Canadian voters will keep in mind the horrible nightmare our farmers are going through because of this Government.
It is hard to imagine that a technologically advanced country like Canada can show such indifference to our farmers. Our farmers have always been proud to contribute to our economy, but now we penalize them by forcing them to abandon their way of life, their farm, and their means of subsistance.
That economic sector affects our daily life the most. Dairy products, vegetables and grain products are always present on our tables. It is high time we give back some dignity to our farmers.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made the electoral commitment to assist this sector of our economy.
They try to sweeten the pill in each Speech from the Throne through tax initiatives that are beneficial to farmers. Yet today, they blatantly turn around in order to better stab them in the back. Our farmers are discouraged.
Let us face the problem. Many farmers throughout the country and especially those in the west have financial problems for various reasons. According to the figures reported by Ralph Ashmead, Research and Development manager of the Canada Farm Credit Corporation, 68.8 per cent of our farmers have a stable financial situation; 23.2 per cent have cash flow problems whereas 8 per cent are insolvent. In Saskatchewan, 11.4 per cent of farmers are insolvent and in Alberta 9.9 per cent of them are. Those are, I believe, the two most deeply affected provinces. According to an article published in The Ottawa Citizen dated April 28, 1987, and I quote:

April 30, 1987

The average FCC loan is about $120,000. An average of 22 per cent of loans to western producers are in arrears, compared to 17 per cent in Ontario and 9.6 per cent in Quebec. In the Atlantic provinces, the percentage of loans in arrears ranges from 17 per cent in Nova Scotia to 33 per cent in Newfoundland.

Mr. Jules Modderman, of the FCC, said:

Only 2 to 3 per cent are in danger of losing their farms.

Only 2 per cent to 3 per cent is not serious for our friends in the Government. For the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, it is far too much. It is easy for us, Members of Parliament, sitting comfortably in Ottawa with our generous salary, to say as that public servant did that only 2 per cent to 3 per cent of our farmers may lose their farms. It is easy to speak heartlessly about a bankruptcy when we are not personally affected. For our farmers, things are different. It is often a family farm handed down from generation to generation. Our farmers have developed that land with their hands like a sculptor has a work of art.
The Liberal Party is asking today that the moratorium that has existed for over a year and a half be maintained. This is the basis of all our social programs. In the past, we thought it right to assist the unemployed until they could find work. Today, when the price of grain is at the same level as in the thirties, the Government decides to end the moratorium. Why did the Government decide to do it now? Why did they say no to farmers? They did not say no to the two western banks that went bankrupt last year. Mr. Speaker, they have double standards.
When ordinary farmers are concerned, the Government has nothing to offer. This is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Only the polls and the rich are important to the Conservative Government, it does not care about ordinary people. Canadian farmers are facing the lowest wheat prices since 1933 and this is the time the Government chooses to end the moratorium.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced his decision one week only after wheat prices went down by 18 per cent. Wayne Easter, Chairman of the National Farmers Union had this to say to The Globe and Mail last Tuesday:

"I just can't understand why he (the Minister) would announce it now".

And he added:

"To lose your farm is the same as capital punishment. When they lose their land, farmers feel that the life has gone out of them."

I heard a Conservative Member say this morning that the Liberals were at the root of the problem. They keep repeating that same story since 1984. However, in this case as in most other cases, the responsibility rests with the Government which decided to end the moratorium one week after the fall in the price of wheat. This decision has all the trappings of a conspiracy, given that it comes from a Government with a majority large enough to do as it sees fit.
Since 1984, the Conservatives have afforded again an unwarranted level of protection to drug firms which are already billionaires. They managed to shore up two banks which had gone under while at the same time attempting to deindex Old Age Security pensions. And today, they are putting a large number of farmers out of business. All of this teaches us that the Government cares a lot about the haves but considerably less about the have-nots.
Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that the Liberal Party has always attempted to narrow the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich in order that all Canadian men and women might benefit from the collective wealth of Canada. We in the Liberal Party are of the opinion that it is only natural that those who are well off should help those who are less well off. Our unemployment insurance program is a case in point. It has often been said that the Liberal Party has an acute sense of political timing. The same cannot be said of the Conservatives. We would never have dared to do what the Minister of Agriculture has done. When things are looking bad is not the time to make them worse. When the price of grain is so low is not the time to lift the moratorium. The Government has a moral obligation to postpone the termination of this moratorium. The Government should show leadership and come up with a debt restructuring program to help our farmers.
History is bound to repeat itself, it would seem. Indeed, in 1930, a Conservative Government was brought to power with a comfortable majority by a disgruntled electorate. Five years later, that same Government fell. The Conservative Government ignored repeated requests by the unemployed for an employment policy, preferring to cause that famous Winnipeg riot. That was a Tory Government listening to the people in the 30's. This modern version of a Tory Government listening to the needs of the people decided to end the moratorium on farm foreclosures at a time when grain prices are at their lowest.
The signal the Government is sending, Mr. Speaker, is this: If your industry has a problem, do not expect the Conservatives to help you.
April 30, 1987

That is why 1 am now turning to the maple syrup industry. Mr. Speaker, the maple products industry also is on the verge of facing major financial difficulty. What is the Government doing? It is reviewing the situation with its friends down South.
Sugar-bush owners have been trying to get the message across for a long time. When will we decide to listen to them? When are we going to take their concerns seriously? Are we going to wait till an emergency arises? The emergency already is here, Mr. Speaker.
The Government is not interested in farm problems. This is what I tell maple producers: Do not wait, act now. Show your concerns. Make a lot of noise, because this Government is hard of hearing.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave Elon. Members and Canadians with a thought that was expressed by Mr. Gerard Fillion, that famous journalist who came from the Lower St. Lawrence, and I quote: "What is urgently needed is to ensure that farmers, who are both highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs, enjoy a standard of living similar to that of city dwellers with equivalent skills."
That Mr. Fillion wrote on May 12, 1943. And like the Union des producteurs agricoles, I say: Forty-four years after that statement was made, the challenge is still relevant.


Allan Ernest Pietz: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. Having been involved in the dairy business all of my life, I can fairly well say that I have some knowledge of agricultural issues.
I have followed closely the Government's program of agriculture initiatives. I spent the first 25 years of my life on the family farm, and during the latter part of that period, was directly involved in its operation. I have also held office in local and area agricultural organizations in the County of Welland and in the region of Niagara. While Ontario does make a sizeable contribution to Canada's wheat and grain production, the Niagara Peninsula, where my riding of Welland is located, is best known in the agricultural industry because of its productive fruit and vegetable growing areas.
For instance, 90 per cent of all the grapes grown in Canada is produced in the Niagara Peninsula. The farming areas of Thorold and West St. Catharines in my riding of Welland have some of the finest and most productive vineyards in the country.
The Welland riding is also very dependent upon the agriculture industry and the western grain producers in particular, because of the presence of the Welland Canal which runs through the entire centre of the riding and, of course, is an integral part of Canada's grain shipping route to the East.
The canal is central to the western grain industry and the western grain industry is central to the economy of the Niagara Peninsula. The growth of the Cities of Welland, Thorold, and St. Catharines are due to the Welland Canal which was built primarily to provide efficient transportation for the western grain being exported to Russia and other parts of Europe.
In 1829 when the canal was first built it was called the grain lane to Europe. It provided the means to bring grain cheaply and quickly from the interior of the country to the St. Lawrence River and on to Europe. The canal made it possible for grain carrying ships to conquer Niagara Falls, making it possible to link the Canadian West with 2,200 miles of continued inland waterways to the Atlantic Ocean.
Since 1829, the canal had been rebuilt four times. It has gone from a 20-lock system to an 80-lock system, making it progressively easier to ship western grain in ever greater amounts in even larger ships across the Niagara Peninsula and up the St. Lawrence Seaway to their destination.
The Seaway's corporate plan indicates that the Welland Canal, without improvement, would not be able to handle increased demand that will be placed on it in the future, a demand placed on it primarily because of the increased need for shipments of Canadian agricultural products.
As part of the Government's commitment to the growth and prosperity of Canadian agriculture, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) announced last November the allocation of $175 million for the rehabilitation of the Welland Canal.
Again and again, in so many areas of government policy, agriculture appears as a primary consideration. Agriculture means jobs. It means a considerable number of jobs in my riding of Welland because agriculture has a domino effect on so many other industries.
When a strike recently left grain shipments sitting for weeks in silos in Thunder Bay, every available ship, including ships that had been out of service for over a year, was called into service to meet the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board. One hundred and fifty to 200 ships were needed to move the grain and even with such a volume no bottlenecks appeared along the Seaway. The wheat was delivered on time. The co-operation of the shipping industry and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority was crucial to meeting the needs of the western grain farmers.
The $175 million improvement to the locks on the Welland Canal is proceeding at the present time. Between the closing of the shipping season last November and the opening of the season this spring, major reconstruction has taken place on Lock 7 in the City of Thorold, where a $7.5 million contract has been let. These locks are more than 50 years old. Over the next five to seven years, all the eight locks will be rebuilt and refurbished. The producers of this country, therefore, will be able to look with confidence to the canal and the Seaway as a continuing dependable and capable shipping route.

April 30, 1987
I am proud of this Government's record in agriculture issues. I am proud of the direction we are going in ensuring that agriculture is front and centre in the GATT negotiations and in our trade talks with the United States.
Canadian farmers can be sure that these trade talks with the United States will bring a good deal for Canadian agriculture or no deal will be made. With the importance that has been placed on agriculture by this Government, I am confident that the current economic slump in world grain prices will be weathered and our agricultural industry will emerge stronger with the persistent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
When our Government took office, many thousands of Canadian farmers were suffering from the devastation of high interest rates that characterized the last years of the former administration.
In an effort to assist many of these farmers, the present Minister of Agriculture introduced a moratorium so that no Farm Credit Corporation clients would be forced to leave farms while programs to assist them were being developed, and programs were developed. For instance, an $80 million interest rates conversion program administered by the Farm Credit Corporation assisted over 5,000 farmers. Rates have been locked in at 16 per cent and this program reduced these rates by some 4 per cent. The federal Government, therefore, subsidized the corporation loss resulting from the conversion program.
Our Government has given agriculture a priority that is unprecedented. Our record is second to none. Agriculture means jobs. About 1.6 million jobs. We promised in the recent Throne Speech to spare no effort in seeking to protect the interest of Canada's farming community in the face of unfair pricing and subsidy practice conducted beyond our borders. We are providing the largest farm assistance package ever. The billion dollar special Canada Grains Program is putting a billion dollars of new money into the pockets of our farmers.
This Government, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) successfully pushed for agriculture to be included in negotiations under GATT. For the first time, agriculture will be on the table. Bilaterally, we are continuing to push for a better mechanism for settling agricultural trade disputes with the United States. We are seeking secure, reliable access for our farm products.
A motion passed in the House of Commons on March 16, 1987, supports the negotiation of a trading arrangement with the United States while protecting our agricultural marketing systems. Since we took office in 1984 we have introduced over 400 agricultural initiatives at a cost of nearly $6 billion. That is over one new initiative every other working day. I will enumerate some of those initiatives.
First, we provided $200 million in drought assistance for the western provinces. Second, we abolished capital gains tax on the sale of farm land up to $500,000. Third, we effectively eliminated all excise and sales taxes on farm fuels, saving
farmers $185 million per year. Fourth, we established farm debt review boards now operating in every province and assisting financially troubled farmers to come to agreements with their creditors. Nationally, arrangements to save the farm have been made in over 50 per cent of the cases. Fifth, a new long-term dairy policy has been established. Sixth, we have new Farm Credit Corporation lending programs with the lowest agricultural credit interest rates since 1979. Seventh, lower interest rates are helping our farmers. Every 1 per cent decline represents a saving to Canadian farmers of $130 million a year.
Our Government has delivered, Mr. Speaker. The promises made during the 1984 election have materialized and more. They have been outlined over and over again by my colleagues on the government benches. They include, as I said before, 400 separate initiatives which will benefit Canadian agriculture by over $5.76 billion. Despite this, more help is needed. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) are continuing to consult with farm leaders to devise new ways to assist farmers in need, not only to assist them at home, but the Government is providing assistance in opening up new markets for Canadian wheat and other agricultural commodities.
The announcement today by the President of the Wheat Board of a $64 million assistance program to protect farmers from a statutory increase in the 1987-88 western grain freights and the allotment last fall of $175 million by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to rehabilitate the Welland Canal will assure grain producers of the continuing dependability of this historic shipping route are further and continuing indicators of the Government's commitment to Canadian agriculture.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in a debate on the crisis situation facing our grain producers. In my riding, agriculture plays a very important role, but the industry certainly has its problems. If we are to understand the situation of our grain producers and the context in which they operate, I think we have to try and put ourselves in their shoes. Farmers have to get up in the morning, prepare their equipment, work all day, seed their fields and spend the whole summer working on their land, and at the end of the year, after the harvest, they are not even sure of recovering their production costs. And why not? There are a number of reasons.
First of all, we heard not long ago that this year, the price of grain will drop 18 per cent, and this comes right after last year's drop of 20 per cent. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the feelings of a farmer who has to cope with this kind of situation. Or perhaps, try to imagine, in the very same situation, the professional or even Member of Parliament. We have to ask
April 30, 1987

ourselves how many of us, how many workers would be willing to function in that kind of situation? EIow many workers would be able to work for a whole season and finally earn the kind of pay that has no relation to all the work and effort expended throughout the season? Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of situation facing our farmers. They can look forward to a season of seeding, working the land, harvesting and then, no money in the till because they will not be getting any return on the work they have done.
Mr. Speaker, all this work will be done in a climate of uncertainty. Why the uncertainty? Whose fault is it? Certainly not the fault of the Canadian farmer.
The farmer in this situation is an innocent victim of circumstances, because there is a crisis ... In fact, during the few days we have been discussing this problem, everyone has agreed that farmers are in a crisis situation. It is a crisis created by foreign governments' intervention in grain production. There is a subsidy war going on between the Common Market countries and the United States. Both parties subsidize grain production without any consideration for the world situation and without any consideration for the harm they are doing to Canadian producers. These governments want to grab the whole market, and they are pouring more and more money into their subsidy programs. And what is our Government doing? Well, nothing for the time being. The Government does not even want to ensure some kind of return. It does not want to provide payments to farmers who are about to seed their fields, payments that would at least cover production costs.
In Canada we already had a situation where some farm operations were experiencing serious difficulties. A number of them were on the brink of bankruptcy. This is why, in a move designed to relieve the stress felt by farmers, a moratorium was imposed on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures of farming operations. But now that we have just learned that wheat prices are going down, the Minister is telling agricultural producers that the moratorium will be lifted. From now on the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada will foreclose farming operations, those which are in financial trouble, of course. In an attempt to allay our fears, they say the FCC will be allowed to foreclose at the rate of only 50 a month, or almost 600 a year. Really, Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to let these farmers go bankrupt. A whole way of life is threatened.
Efforts have been made over the past two days to find a villain, to find somebody who might be blamed, to find somebody at whom we might point a finger. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what is the use of all this. Would the agricultural producer feel any better if he knew they have found someone to blame, that he can point his finger at somebody? This would not change anything at all in the present situation. These past few days, Mr. Speaker, they have tried to boast about what certain people did, including the Prime Minister, they bragged about the merits of certain programs, of course. If everything that has been said is any indication, it would seem that we should not even be going through this crisis. But the crisis is
there, it is a fact. Every month we will see 50-odd farmers go under. We will see a way of life disappear gradually. And in all this tragedy, Mr. Speaker, there is the human tragedy.
Much has been said about statistics, about subsidies, about interest rates. Much has been said about a lot of things. There were only a few references to the human tragedy, men and women and children who will have to witness in sadness the seizure and sale of everything they own, their home, their house. Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with all these farmers who will find themselves on a labour market where the unemployment rate is already rather high, too high for them to expect to find work and be able to earn a decent living? And all those families will experience conflicts because, in such situations, people's nerves are all on edge. People no longer have time to listen to one another. They no longer understand one another. They function in a serious state that leads to conflict. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in such an atmosphere, the Canadian family, the farm family will suffer and pay dearly for the crisis it is going through.
What about the communities that will be affected, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you about that because right now, in New Brunswick we are experiencing massive layoffs that could be called disastrous. You know all about it. We have lost, in the southeast area of New Brunswick, particularly in Moncton, some 800 jobs. Young families are without jobs. They must find another place to live, sell their possessions, because the area cannot absorb all those jobless.
It is as if a storm or a cloud brought over the community a sense of failure, of despair that is very difficult to shake off.
The same thing will happen in farming, Mr. Speaker. What will become of those who will stay, who will try to scratch a living? Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the lifting of the moratorium will weaken the confidence of those people in the Government.
The timing is bad. It is very bad. The moratorium should have been maintained a little longer to allow the farming sector to get back on its feet. For some of them, even many of them, when things are back to normal it will be too late, they will no longer be there. They will be gone.
In my riding, Mr. Speaker, I have tobacco farmers and you know the situation they are in. The Government is asking them to diversify. They are being asked to go into new crops. I know they are watching what is going on here. Imagine their feeling, now that they realize that the Government is abandoning them at a time when they are most in need of help and assistance. They feel alone and they will not have the heart to go into new crops or even diversify their operations.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy. There is no magical solution, because if there were it would already be in place. The fact remains that we have a crisis situation. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is to restore farmers' confidence. We need to help them. They have to be supported for a little longer.

April 30, 1987
In closing, I plead with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to reinstate the moratorium on farm foreclosures for a while to try to regain the confidence of the Canadian farmer. I also plead with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to announce a deficiency program for this year's crop at least equal to what was given last year.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, for farmers it will be a summer of uncertainty and even despair. Mr. Speaker, I beg the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to act in order to restore the confidence of our farm community in the Government, by taking some action which will reassure this industry.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate which is now in its thirty-second hour. I believe I am the forty-third Member to speak from this side of the House.
This has been a historic debate and it is appropriate that this day, April 30, will, I believe, also go down in history because of news we have just heard that tonight the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the 10 provincial Premiers have come to an agreement on the basis of which Quebec can enter into the Canadian Constitution. They will meet again in five weeks to ratify those arrangements. I think that is an issue we all care very deeply about in this country. I think it shows, with good will and willingness to accommodate different interests, how we can make some very significant progress. We are deeply heartened by what we have heard tonight of that progress.
I think in a sense the same thing applies to agriculture. The problems we are facing in Canada, particularly those affecting our grain farmers, will not be remedied by any one single solution, any one initiative, but only by a wide range of responses which people across this country and around the world must deal with.
Having had the honour just over two and a half years ago to be elected to this House by the residents of Capilano I must admit that I had very little background in agriculture. 1 have never been a farmer and my riding does not include farmers. I thought when I came to this august House that probably agriculture was one issue that I would not have to be too concerned about. There were many other issues of particular interest to my constituents on which I thought I would probably spend my time. How wrong I was. I became aware, perhaps for the first time in my life, just how fundamental agriculture is to the way in which the Canadian economy works and the way in which Canadian society works.
I think what I have found moving over the last 32 hours is the fact that Members from right across the country, on all sides of the House, from both urban and rural ridings, have taken part in this most important debate. It is an issue that we
all feel very deeply about: the future of the farmers and farming communities of this country.
Perhaps those of us who are city dwellers take for granted the contribution of farmers. It is easy for us to go into a store and buy a loaf of bread, buy a cake, and not really think about the blood, sweat and tears that have gone into growing the grain used to create the product that we so quickly take off the shelf. We also perhaps grumble if it has gone up a cent or two in price. However, if we are to work as a society we know we have to understand the problems facing the farm community.
Over these last 32 hours I have heard some very moving speeches about the farm families and their situation today. Most important, I think it is very evident that this Government does not take for granted the contribution and importance of the Canadian farmer. We have heard time and time again over the last few days about the efforts this Government has made to provide assistance to the farmer and deal with the fundamental problems facing Canadian agriculture. I thought I would just try to summarize some of the points and the issues I have heard about over these last several days.
The problem facing the Canadian grain farmer is a two-part problem. One part has to do with the cost of production. We responded in a number of ways to that over the last few years. However, the major problem is obviously the price that the farmer receives for his commodity, a price which, as a result of international agricultural subsidies, has been dropping lower and lower. We all know that. Whatever kind of work we do, whether we are shipbuilders, small businessmen or anything else, if our costs are greater than the price we receive for our goods, we have a problem. So our efforts as a Government to deal with both sides of that equation have been multi-faceted.
We have also looked at the problem from the point of view of time, recognizing there are some short-term initiatives that we can take, have taken and will continue to take to address that facet of the problem. There are other facets of the problem which can only be addressed by middle to long-term approaches which will take some time to accomplish. It is well known that the agricultural industry contributes to the economy of this country, over $20 billion at the farm gate. As well, the agri-food industry in this country employs about one in every four workers and contributes about 18 per cent of our GNP.
Let us consider what approaches the Government has taken to deal with the problem facing farmers, particularly western grain farmers, with respect to short-term responses to meet immediate concerns. First, the House has heard repeatedly in the past few days that we have dealt with the issue of the removal of capital gains tax on the family farm. It introduced the special Canadian grains payment.
We have dealt with the fuel tax rebate to reduce the fuel input costs to the farmer.
April 30, 1987

The Government's over-all economic initiatives in dealing with government expenditures and sound fiscal management have meant a decrease in interest rates by over 4 per cent. We know that for each 1 per cent reduction in interest rates there is a saving to the Canadian farmers of some $140 million. This means there is $600 million less that Canadian farmers must pay to banks or financial institutions to support their operations than was the case a few years before the Government took office.
Other measures include the $64 million assistance program announced this morning by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) jointly with the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) to protect farms from the statutory rate increase in the 1987-88 western grain freight rates. Increased subsidies have been provided in this area because farmers would not be able to cope with those increases.
In 1983 the federal Government provided some $350 million in subsidies to Canadian farmers. That has increased in 1987 to $3 billion; made up of $1 billion in the special Canadian grains payment, approximately $1 billion in Western Grain Stabilization payments, and another billion dollars between the Western Grain transportation assistance crop insurance and other agricultural Stabilization programs.
The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) stated a few minutes ago that the cheques worth some $705 million for the Western Grain Stabilization Program are going in the mail today to farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. That money will mean a great deal to the farmers as they begin their season's work.
The Government has consulted farm groups on a continuing basis. We have come forward with measures that have helped farmers considerably and certainly helped to create a much better environment than previously existed. In fact, it is expected that net revenues for western farmers will actually be up from $2.2 billion last year to $2.5 billion this year. That general improvement for western farmers is a result of the Government's assistance.
Let me deal with the middle and long-term solutions we must consider for other problems. This week, the Minister announced that there would be a change with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation, with the controlled phase-out of the moratorium, effective from May 1. Hon. Members will know that there are approximately 225,000 commercial farms in Canada, 75,000 of which do business with the FCC. About 20 per cent of the FCC clients are in arrears, including some
6,000	who have made no payments for the last two years.
The plan is that the FCC can deal with about 50 cases per month on a national basis. Therefore, about 600 to 800 farmers will be affected annually by the lifting of the moratorium, which represents about one-quarter of 1 per cent of Canada's farming community.
Let me emphasize that the lifting of the moratorium was only done after a range of other measures were put into place to assist troubled farmers. These include the $80 million
interest rate conversion program, the shared risk mortgage program, the commodity based mortgage, and 10 year $700 million program of which about $100 million has already been taken up.
Farm debt review boards have been put in place to give farmers in financial difficulty access to an impartial review of their situation. Of course, there is the Canadian Rural Transition Program.
Earlier this evening the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) mentioned the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, a highly respected organization involved in the farming community which issued a press release this week supporting this decision by the Agriculture Ministers. In fact, Mr. Stan Wilson, the President, indicated:
The decision by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to reduce the initial prices for prairie grain, and this week's end to debt moratorium, were tough, responsible, but realistic. We cannot pretend that world grain prices are higher than they really are and certainly no one benefits from the extension of debt moratoria while farmers sink deeper into debt.
He went on to say:
As responsible farm leaders, we must do more than continually criticize the actions and decisions of our Ministers. We need to take more responsibility for contributing to farm policy formation in Canada.
It took great courage for both Mr. Wise and Mr. Mayer to make these decisions. As producers, we recognize that courage, and support the measures taken.
I also support and applaud my colleagues for taking a difficult but realistic and correct decision.
Another important area with respect to the costs facing farmers is that of soil conservation. Recently, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a special research facility of $6 million in a special program in Vegreville. We are familiar with the work of the Canadian Soil Conservation Council, the SWEEP program, and the $62.3 million in the PFRA. All of these initiatives and perhaps more will be needed in the future to ensure that Canadian soils remain productive and of high quality so that our farmers can be as efficient and productive as possible while reducing their costs and becoming more financially viable.
1 want to conclude by briefly dealing with the issue of price. We have heard very often over these last 32 hours that the real problem with price is in the international sphere. We know that we must work to break the cycle of international agricultural subsidies. This cycle which is creating international havoc in the agricultural community must be stopped.
I am proud of the leadership that our Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) are showing in leading this issue at the international scene.
Last year at the Tokyo Summit, the Prime Minister took a leadership role in bringing this issue to the fore and working in an attempt to get a response from his colleagues.
I had the opportunity to attend with the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting in Manila. Again, we brought this issue to the fore.

April 30, 1987
Thailand, Indonesia and Australia have the same concerns. Out of that meeting the response that came was the development of the Cairns Group. Canada, through our Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, attended that first meeting last summer in Australia to work together with these 14 countries to try to come forward with effective ways to influence the international community to get rid of international agricultural subsidies. That work is going on at an increased pace.
We know that at the next meeting of GATT for the first time agriculture will be on the table and will be recognized as one of the most important items to be discussed at GATT.
Our trade Minister was recently in New Zealand for trade talks with colleagues from other countries. Again the issue of agriculture was at the top on the agenda, and from that meeting Canada will now be hosting a meeting of the Cairns Group at the end of May, bringing together representatives of those countries to continue our discussions and initiatives.
Just this past week our Minister for International Trade in Tokyo was lauded for her work, again at the quad round, of raising agriculture to a level of importance and getting international recognition for that. Our Prime Minister at the Venice Summit will be going back again to work with his colleagues. It will not be an easy process. It will not happen overnight, but by increasing international pressure, particularly, as we know, in the EEC and the common agricultural market which has created a lot of these problems for us, we hope and we will be working hard to continue to ask for fundamental changes in the international community because it is only in that way that we will ultimately be able to solve the problem that our Canadian grain farmers are facing.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned in his speech, there are certain principles that must be followed in dealing with the international issues. Policies must be price-responsive and we must reduce activities which reduce world prices. First, the basic principles that can be agreed upon must be implemented by all because it will not work if only a few countries do it. This is an effort where all countries will have to work together if it is going to work for all of us.
When I think tonight of what has happened here in Canada where we have 10 provincial Premiers with widely differing points of view under the leadership of our Prime Minister who, after 15 years, have now come to an agreement about a vital national issue, the inclusion of Quebec in our Constitution, I guess I am heartened and optimistic that that same leadership of our Prime Minister and my cabinet colleagues will be lent and that we will see the kinds of changes occur in the international scene that will assist our Canadian farmers as well.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening patiently to the Members opposite during this debate telling us in the House just what great guys and gals the farmers are, telling us how they have worked hard and how they deserve such excellent treatment
from their Government, also knowing what poor treatment they are getting from the Government. Not only are they getting poor treatment but it seems the Government is kicking them while they are down. The Government has brought an end to a 19 month moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures only one week after giving farmers the news that grain prices will drop by 18 per cent.
As one farmer has said, why give us the news that you are going to stop the moratorium on foreclosures now? Spring is the hopeful time of year. It is the time of year when we are planting and when we feel that things can change around. To tell farmers that they are going to have their prices reduced by 18 per cent after their prices were reduced by a tremendous amount last year, only to tell them that they are open to foreclosures again, is absolutely callous.
What we are going to have is many, many farmers losing their farms. This year alone there will be 6,000 farms eligible for foreclosure. Of these, 10 per cent will actually be foreclosed. There will be 600 farms closed this year. We have heard about the concern of this Government and how it wants to help the farmers. Yet, during this 19 month period of the moratorium on foreclosures, the Government did not arrive at a decision that would come to grips with this very serious problem. If the Government is so serious about helping the farmers, why during this period could the Government not arrive at a long-term solution? The Government went through a 19 month period sitting on the problem doing nothing about it, hoping it would go away, only to realize that the problem will not go away by itself. Instead of doing something, the Government just abandoned the farmers. That is treachery.
What is the situation in Canada? In western Canada of those with loans, 22 per cent are in arrears, in Ontario, of those with loans, 17 per cent are in arrears, in Quebec, of those with loans, 9.6 per cent are in arrears, in Nova Scotia, of those with loans, 17 per cent are in arrears, and in Newfoundland, of those with loans, 33 per cent are in arrears. The average loan of the Farm Credit Corporation is $120,000. It is absolutely mind-boggling how the Government feels that this problem is going to correct itself. This is a crushing debt. These are people who have actually followed the Government's programs, who have had faith in the Government, in what it has said, only to be led down the garden path.
Where is this friendship which the Government has with the United States and the European Economic Community? These two jurisdictions are stabbing Canadian farmers in the back, yet we are ploughing along merrily as if nothing happened. The Government is tra-la-laaing down the road as if there were no cares in the world. Does our Government feel it can jettison the farming community? What is it that the Government has planned for the farming community? It just cannot let a situation like this go on and on without winding up in a catastrophic state, but that is exactly what is happening. We need a debt restructuring program. We need some kind of solution.
April 30, 1987

We need a dialogue with the banking community. The banking community is owed almost $9 billion from farm loans and the FCC is owed almost $5 billion. This is not going to go away. What are we doing? We are driving people off the farms. Farms are being closed down. Now there will be more closings because of the Farm Credit Corporation's foreclosures. There are suicides and marriage breakups in the farming community. There is a tremendous concern among people in all walks of life for the farming community.
It is ludicrous to think that this will go away by itself. Do we want to keep people on the farms? If the Government does not, why does it not have the courage and the decency to say that this is not a concern of the Government, that it does not want to keep families on the farm?
If we are going to keep families on the farm, we cannot deceive them. We cannot turn on them. We cannot tell them one thing and build up their hopes only to bring their hopes crashing down at a time when they are most vulnerable. Farmers want the same prices as last year and they are entitled to that. What they are going to get for their crops is going to be less than their cost of production. How can the Government expect farmers to carry on like that?
Farmers want to know when they plant and harvest their crops that they will be able to survive. Can the Government actually tell them that? It has not told them that yet. Oh, sure, there are cheques going out from the arrangement which was made for the farmers last year. What about the situation in which farmers find themselves in this year? What is the Government going to do?
What is wrong with giving the farmers an undertaking? It is not fair to leave them dangling by their fingertips over a cliff the way the Government is doing. It is not enough to say that these problems are caused by the trade war, and the subsidies which are given by the European Economic Community and the United States to their farmers. It is of no use to say that this is too bad and we are working to fix it. This has been going on for months and what has happened? Certainly it is not going to have any long-term value.
It is of short term political value for the European Economic Community and the United States, but why can the Government not convince them of that? Where is the respect the Government likes to think it has in foreign circles? It is not being listened to. Can the Government not make the case that Canadian farmers are being decimated by the policies of the United States, the Government's very good friend which it is trusting implicitly in trade negotiations, that it is playing up to with the future of the wheat farmers and the future of our oil and gas reserves in western Canada?
The Government remains silent when people like Bruce Smart, the Under-secretary of Commerce of the United States, makes ridiculous statements about meeting to negotiate away Investment Canada because it may not agree with the position of the United States? He more or less said, "If we get
rid of Canadian wheat farmers, that is less world competition for us". It is callous.
The farmers are referring to May 1 as black Friday. Why not? They have nothing to look forward to as far as the future of their loans which are in arrears are concerned. Those who have had their loans in arrears for two years are really fair game tomorrow for the Government's agency. Black Friday is less than an hour away. Do you not think that they realize that on the farm, Mr. Speaker? Do you not think that is something that is very well known to farmers?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that the controlled phase-out of the moratorium and removal of the ban will not precipitate an immediate flood of foreclosures. That is like saying that when one lets loose a plague we know it will be a while before we get it, but it is going to be just as devastating whenever we get it. How can anyone predict who is going to get it and when? Someone is going to get it immediately and that is the case with the farmers who are in arrears who will be subject to review and possible foreclosure.
I really fear for the east and the west of this country. I fear the Government is quite set in thinking that the prosperity of southern Ontario and certain pockets in Quebec is all that it wants to achieve. I do not really think it has any feeling for western Canada or even for Atlantic Canada. They certainly were great places to get seats in the last federal election but, of course, things are going to be different next time.
More important is the Government's attitude towards the people. If we abandon the people in rural communities and in our farming communities, this country is going to suffer greatly. We are going to lose a very valuable supplier of food, particularly grain, who will not be replaced. When farmers leave the farm they will not go back. It is just too expensive for them to begin again.
This is a Canadian tragedy. I really feel badly. I have a sense of hopelessness and helplessness that the Government is not heeding the warnings the farming community is giving. I can only hope that the Government will listen before it is too late.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this debate which may well become historic. I must say it has been an interesting debate for the last number of hours. We have heard concern expressed by both sides of the House. I think people realize that agricultural hardship is not a partisan issue, it hits everyone. I do not believe opposition Members can claim they have the market on hardship and knowledge of the people who are facing these problems.
I was rather taken aback by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) who has absolutely no idea of how the Western Grain Stabilization Program works in western Canada. The Government did not lower the price of grain. It set the initial price at 80 per

April 30, 1987
cent of what it thought the market was going to be by fall. The price for grain could very well go up by fall. Therefore, the Government did not lower the price of grain. It set the initial price lower. It can only do that by law. The Government cannot go higher than 80 per cent of what it was told. I think the Hon. Member should take a lesson from his colleague from the New Democratic Party who is sitting with him now. Perhaps he could straighten him out on the Western Grain Stabilization Program and how it works.
I believe I am about the forty-eighth speaker for this side of the House. We have pretty well heard the whole gamut of problems in agriculture. I think both sides agree that there are no easy answers to these problems. There are those who feel we could throw another $1 billion and the problems will all go away. It is not that simple.
We heard the Secretary of State outlining our problems on the international market. We are being beaten into the ground by subsidy wars between the United States and the EEC which is having an affect on our prices here in Canada. I think it is grossly unfair for Members of the Opposition Parties to say this Government has not done anything, and is not going to do anything.
A number of Members who have spoken tonight have indicated the type of action the Government has taken and will be taking in the future. The Government has spared no effort, and will spare no effort on behalf of the agriculture community of Canada. The farm debt review boards are working. We have heard a great deal of discussion that they are not working and not going to work on behalf of the farmers. Each farmer in Canada has the right to appear before the farm debt review board. As has been pointed out, the review boards will be able to hear the cases of about 60 farmers each month. Therefore, approximately 600 to 700 farmers will have their cases reviewed this year. The rest will have to wait until the next year.
I think it is very unfair to say that the Government, because of the moratorium coming off, is going to drive tens of thousands of farmers off their land. That simply is not true. Those people who criticize the farm debt review boards are also criticizing the people who are serving on those farm debt review boards. There are outstanding ladies and gentlemen who are taking the time to serve on those boards and they deserve all the praise we can give them. Many of them are probably out right now, at eleven o'clock on a Thursday night, working with farmers, trying to solve their problems. I think we do a great disservice to those people who are working diligently in trying to solve the farm problems for the farmers.
We have had solutions from the farm debt review boards. Some have been accepted by the farmers and the farming community. They are going the last mile to try and keep farmers on the land. It is not a matter of them going in with the attitude that they are going to get this guy and kick him off the land and Government is going to take the property.
That simply is not true. If you are going to be a member of the farm debt review board you have to show compassion towards agriculture and the farm community. That is the type of people we have on those boards. I do not think we are doing a service to those people when opposition Members get up and criticize the boards and the people who serve there when they are taking their time on behalf of Canadian agriculture.
I am sure that you realize, having listened to these hours of debate, that this is a very emotional issue. Agriculture today has serious problems. No one is denying that. One of the most disappointing things I think as far as farmers are concerned is that when they get on their tractors to plant their crops they think that things will be better by fall. They have done that in the past. Now they know that the market-place is not going to improve a great deal by the fall. When there is a U.S. corn crop in storage that is as big as a normal year's production, you cannot be optimistic. Market forces simply will not let prices rise. We have to give all the support we possibly can to the farmers this year and you can be assured that this Government will do that, as much as it possibly can. Federal Government spending on agriculture over the past two years has increased by 68 per cent.
We have heard a great deal about the western farmer and the problems they are having. Yes, the problems are very serious. Those of us from eastern Canada recognize that. However, we have farmers in Ontario who are having very serious problems. Our corn, soybean and wheat producers are facing the same kind of problems facing western grain farmers. It is not often recognized that these farmers have also received assistance from the Canadian grains program. Some $100 million came to Ontario last year through that program. Eastern grain corn, soybeans and barley were also covered under a stabilization program. Last year payments under that program totalled $55.8 million. Last year corn farmers in Ontario received 105 per cent of stabilization. That was unheard of. It has never been done before. We have gone the extra mile with people like corn farmers to make sure they have enough money to maintain viable operations.
I am sure that you, along with many other Members of this House, have had many visits from your constituents regarding farm problems. It is a gut-wrenching business. It is not a pleasant situation. Yet I have asked them how they got themselves into this problem. They said, because a few years ago things looked good. I am not going to stand in this House and blame the other Government. Everyone can make mistakes at one time or another. However, that is where the problem began. Many farmers became over-extended. They were told to expand, remodel, buy farms, because agriculture is going to be a good business. Even during the days of the PIK program in the U.S., payment in kind, when Americans were taking land out of production, what did our Government of the day do? It told farmers to plant more. Does that make any sense? That is where our problems began and we are still living with those problems today.
April 30, 1987

Some farmers today still have to live with interest rates set by the previous Government when it kept those rates at a very high level. They simply cannot maintain a viable operation on those interest rates. That is where the problem is. That is where most farmers got themselves into difficulty.
I am not going to prolong this debate! I know other Members want to give their views on the agricultural situation. This Government has been concerned. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has shown leadership. He has gone the extra mile for farmers. He will go another extra mile. We have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and a Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) who work hard day after day on this problem. They are still here tonight discussing the situation and listening to views from both sides.
This problem is not going to be solved by partisan rhetoric. It will have to be solved by everyone working together. This Government is prepared to work with anyone, at any time, in any place. The Minister of Agriculture meets daily with members of the agricultural community. We are trying to solve the problems but it is not going to be easy and the last thing we need is people in this House giving us partisan rhetoric without any solutions.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the crisis in the Canadian grain industry from the point of view of one representing an urban constituency in central Ontario. Very often the interests of producers and those of consumers have more in common than is generally considered to be the case. Furthermore, as a Member of the Canadian Parliament, each one of us has a constituency much broader than the electoral district in which we are elected. When a Canadian citizen anywhere is hurting, that is a concern to me. Our lives are linked economically and socially. As Members of Parliament we have a duty to legislate in the best interests of all Canadians, as far as we can.
As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I have been involved in hearings for the last few days on the Auditor General's report concerning Agriculture Canada. The last report certainly stressed the importance of the agri-food sector. That sector as defined by Agriculture Canada includes not only agricultural equipment and supplies, farming, processing, wholesaling, retailing, restaurants and institutional food service activities, but also important associated industries such as transportation, finance, packaging and construction. It employs about 1.5 million people, 15 per cent of total employment in Canada. It contributes about one-sixth of our Gross National Product.
Consumers in Canada spend $40 billion annually on food. That expenditure represents some 16 per cent of their disposable income. Agricultural exports exceed $10 billion annually compared with imports of about $5 billion. Agriculture makes a major contribution to Canada's balance of payments and relies heavily for as much as half of total farm cash receipts on export markets.
Food processing is the largest processing sector in Canada with sales exceeding $40 billion and a workforce of 250,000. The food service sector employs around 360,000 people, while food retailers employ about 220,000. Decisions taken about agriculture impact on the lives of many, many Canadians over and above those living on the farms.
While the motion which brought on this emergency debate was called with respect to Canadian grain farmers, there are Ontario farmers, Newfoundland farmers, indeed farmers all across the country, who are also facing foreclosure. There have been changes in the farm sector in recent years which have presented serious challenges to farmers. On the whole, farms have become more capital intensive, more reliant on borrowed capital and therefore more exposed to the risk of adverse market forces.
Farmers have also become more reliant on the non-farm sector for fuel, fertilizers, chemicals and other production inputs. Fluctuations in international prices, as well as in interest and foreign exchange rates, subject farmers to further financial stress.
A recent survey indicates that 23 per cent of Canadian farms with $20,000 in farm sales faced severe financial stress in 1984, while a further 11 per cent faced moderate stress.
As the Auditor General pointed out in his report last October:
Current market prospects suggest little or no growth in net farm income-in some commodity sectors there could well be a decline. As a result, a continued decline is expected in farmers' net worth in the immediate future requiring that very difficult adjustments be made.
That prophesy was certainly borne out. Last week we saw the price of grain drop a further 18 per cent, which followed a drop in price last year.
The Auditor General went on to say:
Another important challenge facing the sector is the degradation of Canada's agricultural land which, as announced in a speech by the Minister of Agriculture, will cost about $1 billion annually. Most of this cost directly affects farmers in the form of increased chemical costs, lower yields and reduced international competitiveness.
He goes on:
Domestically, the agri-food sector's two most critical and widespread problems are the farming community's financial difficulties and the sustainability of the land resource base. This stress is compounded by changing world markets. Internationally, the markets on which Canada is becoming increasingly dependent are at risk, with competition increasing and prices falling.
Those are some of the issues that were pointed out in the Auditor General's report last October.
Since then we have seen further deterioration in the international situation. The trade war between the United States and the European Common Market produced an artificial surplus and lower prices of agricultural products. There are the U.S. Farm Bill and the U.S. Export Enhancement Program which give export subsidies to American wheat and create more competition for Canadian Wheat Board sales.

April 30, 1987
As the United States attempts to protect itself from perceived European Common Market competition, there are times when Canada becomes caught in the crossfire. There are other times when our American friends shoot directly at our house. We do not see any great effort on the part of the Government to protect Canadian industries. The Government seems to be paralyzed as it waits for its trade agreement and fails to stand up for the interests of Canadian citizens.
There are serious problems facing our farming community and it is difficult to be clear about what the Government proposes. The Conservatives made a number of election promises in 1984. They have promised agri-bonds but we have not seen them. They promised to expand the agricultural sector research and development but the 1985 Estimates show $263 million allotted to agricultural research while the 1987 Estimates show a drop to $221 million.
At the GATT meeting in Uruguay last fall there was an agreement as a result of which, last February, the GATT organizers asked participating countries to develop some proposals concerning agriculture. Canada has not responded. Did the Government take any action at all?
A moratorium was imposed on foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation 19 months ago. There have been 19 months of inaction, with no attempt in that time to assist farmers to restructure their debts. It seems as though the Government sat for 19 months and hoped that the problem would disappear. Now, the moratorium will be lifted on May 1, in just one-half hour in most of Canada and in a few minutes in Newfoundland.
An article in The Ottawa Citizen on April 28 carries the headline: "Black Friday Looms For Farming Families". The article states that as many as 2,200 farmers are facing eviction. We are told that the Farm Credit Corporation can only process 500 to 600 actions in a year. What kind of cruel lottery will this be? Who decides which families will be foreclosed first?
We are told that if the corporation decides to go ahead with a foreclosure, the farm debt review board in that province will be notified and there can be a hearing. The farm debt review boards which were established last August have not exactly had rave reviews. In fact, most farmers consider them useless.
Comments being made by farmers now emphasize how cruelly betrayed they feel by a Government that has done nothing for 19 months and does not seem to have any intention of doing anything. One farmer said, "Normally farmers feel a sense of optimism at this time of year, spring. But this tears the heart out of thousands of farmers". The President of the Manitoba-based Keystone Agricultural Producers pointed out:
At this time of year, many farmers are trying to borrow money to purchase
fuel, seed, fertilizer and chemicals for the coming crop season.
A farmer needs a lot more cash at this time of year than at any other time of
year.
He pointed out that the termination of the Farm Credit moratorium will make it more difficult for farmers to get loans from banks and other lenders.
Grain farmers are generally considered to be suffering more than other farmers, but let us make no mistake that farmers generally in our country are in very difficult times. Lifting the moratorium with no plan, and just one week after the announcement that grain prices were dropping again by 18 per cent, seems both cruel and lamentably incompetent. The recommendations on what needs to be done are very clear. Surely the moratorium needs to be continued while, on an urgent basis, some method is found of restructuring debt and allowing farmers to continue. Surely even to this Government it must be obvious that it is in nobody's interest to have farmers forced off the land.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at this late hour, although the subject is not a happy one. It is almost midnight, and parliamentarians continue to show their concern for the unhappy lot of our Canadian farmers. Mr. Speaker, this debate should not only make us reflect on the situation of our grain producers. I believe that anyone who is at ail concerned about the future of our country should start asking some basic questions about the kind of country we want to build, the kind of life we want Canadians to have, and look back to the history of this country and consider the important role agriculture has always played in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the situation facing farmers in this country and consider that thousands of Canadian families will go to bed tonight, wondering whether tomorrow will bring them a notice of foreclosure in the mail. Will the bailiff be at the door to take away their land? Will they still be able to send their children to the same school or will they have to move? If they do not want anyone to know what they went through, they will have to move way out, perhaps as far as the city.
Mr. Speaker, that is more or less what the situation is like, on top of all the technical considerations. It is a matter of survival, of pride and dignity for many families in Canada, and during the last 30 or 35 hours, the House of Commons has considered the situation of these people who, granted, are now a minority in Canada but a minority on whom all Canadians depend. I am therefore very disappointed to see the Government has failed to provide an appropriate response to the legitimate concerns of farmers across this country and their elected representatives.
Mr. Speaker, in a society as rich as ours, one starts to wonder about the priorities of this Government. During the past two years, we have seen a Government hoping that the problem would simply go away. There are people who owe money to the Farm Credit Corporation and who had gained some relief as a result of the moratorium on foreclosures. They thought that since the situation was not going to improve, they could at least try to refurbish their operations and try to survive, without the nagging fear that the Government would come and take their land away at the very last minute.
April 30, 1987

The decision made this week will have an impact on people who owe money to the Farm Credit Corporation, but in making this decision the Government is also sounding an alarm signal for all Canada's lending institutions. If the Government no longer has confidence in Canadian agriculture, bank managers across this country are going to be in a panic. Imagine all the calls from credit union managers wanting to withdraw lines of credit.
Mr. Speaker, this decision is like a symbol. It points to a complete lack of confidence in Canada's agriculture industry. And I know my colleagues will get calls from their constituents about the credit manager calling in the middle of the night or coming to their farms in a terrible panic, because it looks like Ottawa does not have much faith in the industry anymore. Mr. Speaker, we know this is going to happen and that it will have a domino effect.
I fail to understand why the Government, which had already announced a few days before that grain producers could expect an 18 per cent cut in prices, then chose to add insult to injury by announcing it would no longer guarantee loans that were in arrears. This is creating a terrible climate in the whole agricultural sector. Anyone who thinks only one region in this country will be affected is in for a big surprise, because the truth of the matter is that farmers across this country will be affected by this decision, and farms will be up for sale all over. There will be plenty of auction sale notices in La terre de chez nous. It will also have an impact, obviously, on the value of farm property. When you get a series of sales by the Farm Credit Corporation, automatically the adjoining land, and so forth . .. this is going to have a devastating effect on the value of farm land as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I feel embarrassed for Government Members who, after making their commitments as legitimate, elected representatives, especially those with western ridings, did not have the mental fortitude to object to the Cabinet's decisions. When Cabinet decided to lift the moratorium on foreclosures, there was not a single Conservative Member who had the courage to say it did not make sense that the timing was very poor.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) who was talking about the Constitution must be a little confused. We are talking about agriculture here tonight. It is a fact that in his riding as well as everywhere else, his Government's decision will have a disastrous impact on our farm economy as a whole. Instead of cracking corny jokes, I think he should show a little concern for what is happening to the farmers in his riding.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is some kind of woodpecker on the other side, if only you could keep him quiet-


Marc Ferland: They were starving when you were in office.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you heard the term used by the Hon. Member as well as I did. I realize this debate is all about agriculture, but still he ought to refrain from referring to wildlife animals and be more relevant. My colleague from Portneuf is certainly not a woodpecker, but I think the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) did refer to my colleague from Portneuf as being a woodpecker. Mr. Speaker, I suggest he ought to talk only about agriculture. We are listening carefully. I think he should stick to the topic of debate and watch his language, particularly at this hour when thousands and thousands of viewers are listening to him, as he said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Given his experience in this House, I am sure the Hon. Member for Shefford uses nothing but parliamentary language.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that "woodpecker" is not among the unacceptable words.
All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that some people are thinskinned. I can appreciate that. If I were the Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) or the Member for Portneuf I too would be touchy because I would feel guilty this evening. If I were in their shoes I would feel guilty about dropping a major sector of our economy like a hot potato. They are guilty of letting the Minister responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation behave like a heartless man. He does not lift a finger to prevent the seizure of farm lands where people have been living in dignity, yet in a few short months they will end up by the roadside. They know that, I trust they feel guilty, and I hope they will rise in a few minutes to apologize to their electors. The one thing I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that if we consider the measures which should be taken, the economic signals which ought to be sent to the whole farming community, it is definitely not by taking this kind of action that farmers will regain confidence, that we will ensure agricultural stability and proper land development-
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about agricultural stability, yet they are about to foreclose. Some stability! Not bad, Mr. Speaker, they want to foreclose. This will prove to be a bonanza for Conservative lawyers, but what a sickening performance for the poor stiff who is only trying to earn an honest living.
Mr. Speaker, I would feel quite ashamed listening to these comments because this is hardly the time to make jokes in the course of a debate which is so important to people who will have no idea which way to turn in the coming weeks and months. Besides, everything is left in limbo, including the very nature of Canada's development because this is just another way of conveying the signal that the Government has lost faith in the agricultural community. That is the message you are sending out.

April 30, 1987
What you are doing now is making sure that farmers will realize the Government has dropped them, so we will end up in a situation where it will be ever more difficult to find people willing to put all their energy and give the best of themselves to develop Canada's agriculture. We are all aware of the exodus towards urban areas in recent years, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot afford the luxury of endangering our independence and self-sufficiency with respect to food production.
This is just one more very alarming aspect of the kind of signal being sent out, the lack of respect for the agricultural profession. The signal means that we are prepared to compromise the very future of the Canadian agricultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand, and neither could any reasonable Canadian, how the Government can announce an 18 per cent decrease in prices when we know that the price of wheat has gone down by over 50 per cent in the last four or five years.
Mr. Speaker, how many Canadian would calmly accept a 50 per cent decrease in their income? Yet, this is what has happened to farmers in Western Canada. I have visited western Canada many times myself, more often than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), following the example of my leader. We, Liberals, want to be sensitive to the needs of western Canada. We want to make sure that we understand their problems. We want to make sure that their needs are expressed in the House of Commons, and this is why we have taken such an active part in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the guided tour which the Prime Minister will take during the next few days will incite him to reconsider the decision made by his government. I trust that his welcome throughout western Canada will make him understand the concerns and especially the feeling of frustration of western farmers. 1 find it unfortunate that we can not continue this debate for another three or four days until next week, at which time the Prime Minister could come back and report on his visit, if he's not too battered by then, because I believe that the situation is dramatic, as evidenced by the fact that this Parliament has spent 30 or 40 hours on this matter. The motion of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is very much to the point-


An Hon. Member:: It is not our motion.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -and I believe that any economic observer can certainly appreciate it.
The other element, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Is it a Liberal motion?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not even able to read his Hansard; he should try to learn. Oh! It is the Hon. Member from Portneuf or somewhere in that region. He has not realized that there are farmers among his constituents. If they saw him now, they would be pretty discouraged.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government is the least compassionate, it will realize that the decision to foreclose on farming operations is completely stupid at a time when the farmers will see their income decrease by 18 per cent. However, today before us, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) told these same people that their transport costs would increase by 5 per
cent or 7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the farmers will have to figure it out this evening and ask themselves how they will be able to begin seeding in coming weeks. Whatever the Government might say, their income will go down by 18 per cent, transport costs will increase by 5 per cent, and the threat of foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation is hanging over their heads. They are faced with an impossible situation.
The other aspect on which we should reflect is that the ones in difficulty today are the grain growers. However, what is going to happen tomorrow? As we have international prices for many products, as competition is fierce and as many countries subsidize their farming industry heavily, tomorrow it could be the Quebec pork producers who find themselves in difficulty, or else it could be our dairy producers, because with higher wheat prices, and so on, no one knows what will happen to Quebec farmers. Our colleagues who are now smiling at the problems of western producers should realize that Quebec producers might be the ones who will need the support of this House and this Government tomorrow. This is the essence of this country and this is why we sit in this Parliament. We have to ensure that the interests of the various regions are expressed in this House and we Liberals believe that there is now a serious inequity in Canada. We are convinced that the Government adds to this inequity by taking unreasonable action and we hope that it will finally come to its senses, because otherwise the situation will worsen and an increasing number farmers will leave the farm, which might threaten our independence and self-sufficiency. I therefore trust, Mr. Speaker, that my small contribution to this debate will raise the awareness of some of our colleagues and that, instead of laughing, they will rise in their caucus and say that such a situation is unacceptable and that our farmers deserve better. They should be able to rise and tell the minister responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation that he has lost his senses. They should be able to tell the Prime Minister: Go to western Canada and listen to the farmers; then propose new solutions because, if this goes on, it is obvious that an entire and very important sector of our economy will slowly disappear.
I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who have spoken on this matter have been able to make Government Members more aware of the daily tragedy we are witnessing in western Canada. We are asking one thing, that they at least go back on the decision these last few days as it will only make matters worse, not better.


André Plourde: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise in this debate, or should I say this marathon. I would like to refer to the 1984 election. I listened very closely to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). To my knowledge, the Hon. Member, during the 1984 election, was with his colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and his former colleague for Saint-Maurice, who were travelling across Quebec saying all kinds of things, making all kinds of promises, except on agriculture.
April 30, 1987


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am certain, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) is making an error and I would like to tell him that I have in my constituency a large farm component and they elected me en masse. This certainly means I made commitments to them and I need not remind him of the commitments we made during the last election. What they should do, however, is remember their own commitments and implement them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the Lion. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has been running too much around the city, because if he had a look at what we are doing for agriculture, he would realize that our 16 points have been 80 per cent implemented. I think the Hon. Member for Shefford-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we should proceed with the debate. The Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) has the floor.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is in this House, you know very well he tries to give a show.
I was going to tell him this, and remind him of something the Hon. Jean Chretien said against farmers during the election campaign, and 1 would suggest Jean Chretien at that point was speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. That sentence hit the farming community very hard in Quebec and Canada as a whole, and I quote: "Farmers, farm producers are damned cry-babies. The more they get, the more they want." So that has been the philosophy of the Liberal Party over these last 20 years, before 1984. That is what the Liberal Party thought of our farm people, the most important in my view of small and medium businessmen in Canada. This is how those people were treated.
Today, the Hon. Member for Shefford rises and says he does not feel guilty of the errors made by his Government. We have been in office for two and a half years, Mr. Speaker. We have been trying for those two and a half years to correct the errors made over 20 years. I suggest that for two and a half years, or during the election campaign as my colleague stated earlier, we made 16, not election promises but 16 commitments to our farming industry, and those 16 commitments we have honoured.
He said earlier he was travelling across Alberta, in western Canada. 1 understand that for the Hon. Member for Shefford. We have not seen him in this House for a year, Mr. Speaker, he is travelling to prepare the next election campaign. You see the point?


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) is either blind or is not here himself. Besides, he does not know our Standing Orders, because while dealing with an issue, a Member of the House should never mention the presence or absence of any of his or her colleagues. On the other hand, I can tell him that we are prepared to compare his record any time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamouraska- Riviere-du-Loup has the floor.


André Plourde: In turn, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Hon. Member for Shefford that when dealing with an issue, he should tell the whole truth, and not only part of it. I heard him say a while ago that there had been an increase in the grain transportation cost. He was not quite sure whether it was 5 per cent or 7 per cent, but he should have read his document to know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has announced today a $64 million subsidy, which amounts to $2 a tonne. And that, my friend from Shefford should know, is less than the transportation costs which western wheat producers had to pay before 1984.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like just the same to mention that-I am ready for the Hon. Member for Shefford come election time-that in my Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup riding, there are 52 municipalities, including 49 rural ones with 898 farm producers altogether. I visit my riding regularly and I know these people. During that election campaign, we met a number of UPA organizations. You know that UPA stands for I'Union des producteurs agricoles. I know two such organizations in my own riding, namely the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Cote-Sud and the Union des producteurs agricoles du Bas-Saint-Laurent. You know what happens during an election campaign. These people invite political candidates to answer the following question: Suppose your political Party gets elected, what would be your commitments as a Government? Well, our Progressive Conservative Party had made 16 promises which we have fulfilled, and later on 1 will provide the House with concrete examples.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we went to the general assemblies of these UPA producers and what did they tell us? In my Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup riding, there are for instance hog, dairy, cattle, grain and potato producers. All these people who had had open and honest discussions with the then candidate of the Progressive Conservative Party who are now their elected representatives are satisfied with the farm policies which this Progressive Conservative Government has implemented to help them earn a decent living, which is quite different from being treated as second-class citizens by former Liberal administrations before 1984.

April 30, 1987
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House of some of the commitments of our Party. For instance, let us take the case of the special Canada grain program. Under this program, our Government will share equitably among the 10 provinces, not only western Canada, a billion dollars to increase the cash flow of grain producers. Without this program, the net farm income which would have decreased by 17.9 per cent in 1987 will increase by 1.8 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) will continue their discussions with the various farm organization leaders to get their input as to the best way the Government could meet the future needs of Canadian farmers.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Page, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, and the provincial UPA have congratulated our Ministers not only in personal letters, but also in newspaper articles and radio and television reports. What was the response first of the Liberal Opposition, then of the NDP? What did they do? They criticized this decision which had been universally accepted. I understand that it is the Opposition's role to criticize. However, what we have on the other side is a systematic attempt to destroy everything good we do. Yet, in their 20 years in power, the agricultural community was totally ignored throughout the country.
Let me quote another passage, Mr. Speaker. "Advance payments for crops. Amendments to the Advance Payments for Crops Act have made it possible to double the maximum level of advanced payments". In Quebec, in 1984, when the Liberals were still in power, what did they do when Canada was faced with the problems of drought, a condition which also affected Quebec? The Liberal Party did not solve anything. It was the Conservative Party, when we were elected, which provided former Minister Garon with some $20 million. You remember, he was the Minister who kept the cheque in his pocket for a week and a half. That is what the Conservative Party did.
Mr. Speaker, mortgages based on the prices of primary agricultural products are to bear interest at a prime rate of 6 per cent. Changes in the capital of the mortgage will be determined under a formula which takes into account the prices of primary agricultural products. Who set up the farm debt review boards? The Conservative Party. Legislation has been passed to set up farm debt review boards composed of people with knowledge and experience in farming and financial matters. They provide the agricultural community with an independent consultative third party review mechanism, and they assist in setting up voluntary arrangements between farmers and their creditors, in order to help ensure the survival of the farm business.
These boards have been welcomed in the agricultural community and constructive arrangements have been made in most cases, thus enabling farmers to remain in the business.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the Canadian Rural Transition Program. It was set up to help families who have to leave farming because of financial difficulties. As you know, those people did not receive any unemployment insurance benefits. If they went bankrupt, they only had welfare to turn to. The Conservative Government has now set up this Canadian Rural Transition Program to help farmers make the transition to a new career.
What about interest rates? Since we came in power, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has taken active steps to reduce interest rates, and not only in the agricultural sector. The drop in interest rates means that farmers have been able to save millions of dollars in interest payments through an interest rate which has dropped to a 13-year record low. The rate on guaranteed loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is the prime rate plus one percentage point, has been reduced from 16.75 per cent on election day to 11.25 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I think this is no small effort on the part of the Government, an effort that we can mention with pride especially if we bear in mind that the rate of the Farm Credit Corporation has also reached a record low since 1979. As far as I know, in 1979, the Liberals were in power. The FCC's interest rate has been lowered five times since we were elected, Mr. Speaker. Short-and long-term rates have dropped substantially, which translates into millions of dollars of savings for farmers; five-year mortgage rates have dropped from 3.75 to 10 per cent, which means that we now enjoy the lowest rates since 1979.
I could talk, Mr. Speaker, about the shared-risk mortgage plan or about the capital gains exemption. Yes, 1 will talk about the latter. We used to meet in our ridings farmers who had problems, and they would tell us: "What am I going to do with my farm? I cannot possibly sell it, I would pay too much taxes?" The Conservative Government solved that problem by granting farmers, in the 1985 Budget, a $500,000 capital gains exemption, effective immediately. It was a very efficient way of eliminating taxes on the sale of agricultural properties, most of which are sold with some capital gain.
Mr. Speaker, I will not go into international trade in farm commodities as this was brilliantly dealt with, this evening, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). However, I will talk about the fuel tax rebate. This is another initiative from the Conservatives. It is rumored that farmers will continue to benefit from that fuel tax rebate as it applies to all fuels for off-highway use.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is fast running out, but I would like to come back to something which is very dear to me and was mentioned briefly by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) a moment ago; it is the long-term dairy policy. I recall very well that during the 1984 electoral campaign, we were challenged by UPA members and dairy farmers who were asking us whether, if the Conservatives were elected, we would sign a long-term agreement regarding the dairy policy? It had expired in 1981 and the Liberals had been promising
April 30, 1987

from year to year to renew it, but they never did. The Conservative Party, with the agreement of the Agriculture Minister, helped us. We signed that dairy policy and it had been said that the Government's $1.5 billion commitment to the five-year program will garantee the dairy industry a stability that had been lacking since 1981. Mr. Speaker, you know that means $750 million over five years for the dairy producers of Quebec who are said to control about 49 per cent of the milk production, let us say 50 per cent. We have also heard that the policy is based on the extension of the supply management system and on changes aimed at profitting the producers and the consumers. The list of controlled import products will be revised to include bulk powder mixes. Milk producers meeting the national needs will remain eligible for the federal subsidy of $6.03 an hectolitre.
Mr. Speaker, I could also tell you about the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. 1 think my time has expired.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I just want to tell people in my riding of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup and to all farmers of the country that the Conservative Party is listening to them. You can rest assured we will be there to support them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I stand to participate in this debate that was commenced by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I want to thank him for giving us the opportunity to participate in a debate on what I think is one of the saddest and possibly most serious situations we have had in a long time.
Members will know that we are now into Friday, May 1, which many have called Black Friday for some farmers. It is black because, as of today, the moratorium that has existed for 18 months will be lifted. According to the statement by the Minister in the House the other day, there could possibly be some 6,000 farmers who will feel the economic consequences of this decision. Up to 50 a month, or 600 a year, are sure to be affected by the lifting of the moratorium on the foreclosures of FCC mortgages. I find that very difficult to accept.
I want to thank our critic for the Liberal Party, the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who helped to organize our side for the debate and assist our Members in participating in what I believe has been a very interesting debate. I have learned much from this debate, most of which I have attended.
Some may ask what an urban Member of Parliament from downtown Ottawa would know about farming.
[ Translation]
I am sure that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has learned something, as I did, because he too has been here almost all the time and even though we are both from the city, we have been able to follow the debate. We feel we have taken part in a general education process but also
in a very urgent debate on the difficult situation facing farmers in Canada.
All Members are aware of the serious problems of farmers, particularly grain growers. We know that for the past two weeks, given the announcement of the 18 per cent decrease in prices and the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures, western farmers particularly, since grain growing is very important in the west, are worried and upset and rightly so; they are certainly very upset because of that decision and they fear the impact it might have on their families, on their farms which in many cases, as we all know, have been inherited through generations and have been part of the family heritage for many years. It is a sad situation because we know that when we see a "For sale" sign, Mr. Speaker, it sometimes means more than that. It means perhaps that a sad story is unfolding because the farmer has not met his operational costs, his cash receipts are too small and he is forced to sell his farm and sometimes to go bankrupt.
For almost 33 hours, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in this House and myself have been discussing two major topics; the 18 per cent decrease in grain prices and the Government decision to lift the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loans, which will lead to the foreclosure of some farms.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am no expert in agriculture, but I worked on farms probably as much, if not more, as many Members in this House when I was a boy. The tradition was to send us to work on a farm, and like a number of youths during the 1940s and 1950s I went haying, stooking the grain-


Marc Ferland: That's a long time ago.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, that's a long time ago, but I think the expression is still in use today, the difference of course being that in those days it was done by hand. It is true that I was still wearing short pants, but I had strong arms and our labour was cheap since we ate mostly eggs, for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The only decision we had to make was whether we wanted our eggs boiled, fried or scrambled. That was the way of life of poor people in those days and we accepted it-


Marc Ferland: You were probably in good shape.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I certainly was. I was in good physical condition. I probably pitched as much manure, and milked as many cows as any one in this room, since I did that for at least 10 summers.
So I think I am one of those who can say: "I worked at it." I may not be an expert, but I worked at it and I know, Mr. Speaker, that is is hard work. I know the work can take a lot of time and can also be exhausting and that is why I am most saddened today, on this Friday, May 1, to take part in a debate which will cause dismay for some farmers, some farm families who, in 1987-88, will most likely be among the 600 who will be forced out of business through foreclosure by the Farm Credit Corporation.

April 30, 1987
Mr. Speaker, I would like to review what I have heard during this debate. I assure you it will not take too long. I will simply summarize if possible some points that have been made, because I have heard some good ones. I heard positive comments and other things which I think are instructive for us.
For instance, I heard the Prime Minister say yesterday morning: "We will answer every call from the west."
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was saying yesterday morning that he would answer every call from the west. The Prime Minister is going out West next week. I understand that he will be travelling to Red Deer, Lethbridge, North Batt-leford, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Winnipeg between Wednesday and Friday. Since he has invited Members and farmers to call him, perhaps his phone number would be helpful. It is area code 613-992-4211. If you live in Red Deer, North Battleford, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, please go out and tell him about your problem or call him, and I repeat the phone number, which is 613-992-4211.

He asked for it.
So, any problem should be looked after.
I have also heard the Agriculture Minister tell us in this House not to get excited, not to worry, that the matter is under consideration, that the Government will show sensitivity about possible foreclosures of farms of which there would be no more than 50 a month.

I want to repeat some of the main points made during the debate. The prices announced by the Canadian Wheat Board reflect the fifth straight decline, dropping 18 per cent from the 1986-87 prices. No. 1 wheat in 1984-85 was $170 a tonne; in 1986-87 it was $137 a tonne; and in 1987-88 it is $110 a tonne. No. 1 barley in 1984-85 was $125 a tonne; in 1986-87 it was $80 a tonne; and in 1987-88 it is $60 a tonne. These are the same figures given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) this afternoon. He was giving us his views. I appreciated the sincerity of them and I appreciate why international negotiations at this time were rather difficult because of the unfair competition given Canada by the United States and the European Economic Community in the trade war. These countries, we were told, protect their farmers with subsidies. We do not. Canada has kept its market share, but has done so on the backs of farmers who get much lower returns. U.S. farmers receive about $6 per bushel for wheat as opposed to $3 per bushel in Canada. Farm expenses continue to rise. For example, fertilizer costs, chemicals, machinery and fuel. Even the Tory House Leader, I see him rise, will want to contribute to this debate. Yes, he is in good spirits. Prices are lowest in real terms since the Depression, Mr. Speaker. I am just repeating some of the things that I have heard. The Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined them this
afternoon and I thought he made a very interesting and good speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I appreciated some of the things he said. I learned certain things that he brought to our attention.
In my view, there is no provision in the Budget right now for funds for a deficiency payment. The $1 billion allowed last year was only announced in desperation during the Saskatchewan election campaign. We heard repeatedly over the last 33 hours that farmers need to know now what their returns will be so that they will know what to seed, how much to seed, and so on. Many farmers are having trouble getting operating loans from the banks and cannot afford to seed. I could go on and read editorials, articles and press clippings in which it is quite evident that this situation is critical for many farmers. It is indeed a very serious situation.
The only guaranteed assistance the farmers have is the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, brought in by the Liberals, I remind the House, and fought-I repeat, fought-all the way by those Tories who are responsible for some of the difficulties these farmers are in. They opposed it systematically but now brag about it to all who will listen.
I want to read some of the correspondence which was received by the Government as of April 28, 1987. I have a letter signed by Mr. Garf Stevenson, President of the Saskatchewan Pool. Mr. Stevenson states in part:
The Pool asks that all Members of Parliament recognize the very critical economic situation confronting western Canadian families and communities. This crisis has far reaching social and economic implications for the national economy as well as for the west.
We specifically recommend:
1.	That programs be immediately developed through federal and provincial co-operation to keep families on their farms in productive capacities.
2.	That early consideration be given to the acute need for a substantial deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year.
3.	That government continue its efforts to restore sanity in the international grain market.
These three points are indeed essentially what we have been addressing in this debate of some 33 hours. I want to address the question of the $64 million announcement made today by the Government. We have not received the press release as yet. I understand it is in the mail. However, from what we have been told in the House and what I have heard on television, there will be a payment of $64 million given to the transporters, the railroads, under the Western Grain Transportation Act. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), in a speech on March 18, 1987, at page 4309, said:
-it would be most helpful if the Government would make a commitment to freeze the grain freight rates, the part the farmer pays himself. Last year the Minister of Transport ordered the Grain Transportation Agency to roll back its estimate of some 31.5 million tonnes to something in the 27 million to 29 million tonnes range. In fact, it did roll it back to 28.5 million tonnes which resulted in an effective freezing of the freight rates.
April 30, 1987

We know that the freight rates rise under the Western Grain Transportation Act as railway costs rise, depending upon volume shipped. The Tories last year kept the rate from rising by forcing the Grain Transportation Agency to bring forward an artificial and unrealistic low estimate of grain to be shipped. Therefore, there would have been a huge 39 per cent to 40 per cent increase in shipping costs this crop year. The Government brought forward a $2 per tonne subsidy today on grain shipped which will hold the increase to 5 per cent. However, that 5 per cent will still have to be paid by the producer, the farmer, to the transporter, the railroad.
Freight rates as a percentage of grain prices continue to increase dramatically. Holding cost increase to 5 per cent, while decreasing price by 18 per cent is no great gift. I submit that this Government has not done anything today but play a game of smoke and mirrors, and the $64 million subsidy will not in any way affect, and I say that sincerely, this year's production and help the farmers.
I want to end my remarks on what I hope is a note of some optimism. I see three Ministers here tonight. In fact, I see a lot of Members who should be Ministers but they cannot all be Ministers. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister who is in the House to look again at this question of the moratorium on the Farm Credit Corporation. I ask him to be serious and do something. All of us have acknowledged there should be a prolongation of the moratorium. For God's sake, let us be reasonable. Have some heart and understanding and give the farmers what they want, and that is a prolongation of the moratorium.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege this morning to follow the Hon. Whip of the Liberal Party. I am delighted to understand from what he has told us that he has learned so much from this debate. His Party tonight has done an extremely fine job of catching up. It is trying to catch up with the other Party, that is, the New Democratic Party, and I notice from the record that each Party has had 27 speakers, so he did catch up. I would also like to mention, while I am at it, that we are now on our forty-sixth speaker, 11 of whom were Ministers.
The Hon. Whip for the Liberal Party also mentioned throughout his speech his ability to shovel manure and the importance of fertilizer to the farm industry. I would say that he may be one of the best people in this House in that area. I would like to commend him on his experience and the benefit it has been to him now that he is here in the House of Commons. I too shared that experience in my youth and in most of my life. I still live on a farm. However, I do not think I will catch up with the Hon. Whip of the Liberal Party.
I listened with interest to this debate over the last few days. It was reminiscent of the time when, sitting in this House, I went to the then critic for transportation who was carrying on a very strong and important debate on the Crowsnest rate. I said to the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski):
"What is this all about?". He took me by the arm and said, "We are just about to have a meeting". The week-end before I had told my wife that I did not know what this Crowsnest rate was all about. By the time the Hon. Member for Vegreville had finished with me, I knew much more about the Crowsnest rate than I had ever intended to know, and it was a great experience for me. It gave me a real feeling of the importance of that debate in Canada's history.
It was the present Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues from western Canada who led this debate. I heard that because of the Western Grain Transportation Act which was brought in, we have been able to keep this rate down to $6. I recall saying how bad this increase was going to be for the farmers of western Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They did not care.


Thomas Scott Fennell: They did not listen to us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Foster was there. He did not care then and he does not care now.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I knew then how important it was. I had an opportunity to explain to this House the importance to my constituency which borders on Oshawa. I say a great deal more about my industry in Oshawa than the Hon. Member who represents Oshawa and happens to be my neighbour. It was a very important discussion because we were afraid that if this rate got out of hand it could have a serious effect on industry in Ontario which supplied goods and services to the West.
1 also remember other debates on the National Energy Program. I remember how one factory in Scarborough had to close down. It made nothing but half-ton trucks and it closed down for a year because of the NEP which imposed inequitable penalties on the West. I know it affected all of Ontario. It affected Kingston, the steel industry in Hamilton, and Algoma Steel in the Hon. Member's riding. It affected all of eastern Ontario.
I have heard the Opposition talk about what we have not done. I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tonight set forth in great detail all of the benefits we have brought to this country through-


Maurice Brydon Foster: How come everyone is going broke?


Thomas Scott Fennell: 1 will tell him the reason everyone is going broke. The Minister explained it and the Hon. Member should have been listening. When interest rates were 22 per cent the farmers were going belly-up by the dozen every day. 1 knew those people. Do not talk to me about farmers getting into trouble. My friends in my community were affected. Your damned interest rates got out of control. You had no control, no voice in your Government to bring them down. 1 hate to hear the Liberals telling me what they did for the farmers when they did not do a damn thing.

April 30, 1987
This Party represents all of Canada. It represents the farm community. We have put up 46 speakers and very few were from the City of Toronto or the City of Montreal. Many were from rural areas.


Maurice Brydon Foster: What about Whitby?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I come from a rural area so do not talk to me about Whitby. It is part of my constituency. I live in a rural area.
Talking about Whitby, I want to tell the Hon. Member what the Liberals did to the farmers in my riding. I want to tell him what they did to 18,000 acres of prime agricultural land in my riding. They drove farmers off that land because they decided they were going to build an airport in 1971.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Not only that, they went to Quebec and destroyed 98,000 of the most arable acres in the Province of Quebec. It was about 1 per cent of the total arable land. Yet it was our Party that took 80,000 of those acres and returned them to farming. It is our Party that will return most of the acreage involved in my riding. Do not tell me about my riding and what the Liberals did for farmers. You hurt the service industry, you hurt the co-ops, you hurt everyone. We will get the land back to its original owners.
We have a major problem in the industry because of the critical problem internationally. Today many farmers cannot afford to pay the rent for their land. It is not worth their while to seed that land. I even approached the manager of the airport property and said that possibly he should give it to farmers just to keep the weeds under control. He said that unfortunately, because of over-supply, farmers do not want to invest the money in planting. That is a tragic situation.
What happened? France is a prime example of what happened. TThey have done extremely well and produce abundant amounts of cereal grains. Right after World War II they were a net importer but now they are an exporter. Many other countries we have assisted to become self-sufficient are now net exporters of grain. We have to deal with that. We cannot afford to pay our farmers a subsidy of $320 a tonne. We are not rich enough. It is only those countries with a much larger tax base who can afford it. We have to make do with less. We are a very large country with a very small population.
Farmers have also been faced with a change in eating habits. Not as much grain is consumed today as there was 10 years ago. This is a serious problem and our Government is trying to deal with it and at the same time give some dignity back to the agricultural industry.
The announcement today that we have reduced the freight rate increase to 5 per cent was very important. Under the method set up by the Liberal Party that increase would have been about $11 this year as opposed to the $6 announced today. I was talking to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) before I came in here tonight. After I read a number of pages
of what we had done for agriculture I turned to him and asked, what else are you going to do for the farmer? I sort of smiled and looked at him and said I have never seen such a complete list of assistance for the agricultural community in the eight years I have been here.
I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative. I am proud to be working with this Government. I am proud to work directly with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of this country who, I have said many times, will go down in history as the greatest Prime Minister this country ever had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud particularly to be able to speak about western Canada with the same feeling that I speak about my own area. They have suffered. Go back to the dirty thirties, the dirty seventies and the early eighties. They have suffered. I do not know how much more we can do but we must rationalize on an equitable basis.
The Opposition has talked about our removing the moratorium on FCC loans. In 1982 and 1983 we pleaded with them to do something to save these farmers. We put a moratorium on foreclosures and we put a review board in place. Not only that, we provided advance payments for crops. We provided crop and livestock drug assistance. We made a record interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We have done more for the exports of this country than has been done in 20 years of Liberal Governments before us. We increased our sales to Russia, and have sold grain to Egypt and Brazil.
We have had to take numerous initiatives on behalf of the agricultural community because of the neglect of the Liberals while they were in government. The Liberals never cared about the farm community.
Unfortunately, the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is not here, because he is largely responsible for these initiatives. I want to congratulate him for his persistence in our caucus in expressing the concerns and views of western Canadians who are in agriculture. He is a western grain farmer and probably grows more grain than all the farmers in the Opposition combined.
Members opposite rose with a holier than thou attitude to talk about the dreadful things we are doing to farmers. The majority of the 46 Members from our Party who spoke in this debate are farmers or live on farms.
I want to say a few words about the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax exemption was a serious inequity. Someone from Toronto who owned a house worth $ 1 million and sold it for $2 million a year later would have to pay no capital gains tax. However, a farmer in my area who owned a $100,000 farm that became worth $200,000 had to pay capital gains tax. We rectified that terrible inequity.
April 30, 1987

The Opposition has spread fear throughout the country about what our free trade initiative will do to the agricultural community. I can tell the House that we will protect agriculture because we intend to maintain the good agricultural industry in this country.
When I met some 240 dairy farmers at a meeting I told them that while I cannot relieve their fears about what might happen, since they have suffered so much through different periods, I could promise that I would stand up for them and ensure that we would protect the marketing boards that had been put in place.


Marcel Prud'homme: Do you speak for your Party or for yourself?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am telling you what I have been told by the Minister of Agriculture. Supply management has been successful in this country and has even been adopted by many European countries. We cannot afford the subsidies that the Americans give their farmers because we do not have enough money. Therefore, we have developed another method and it is working. Those farmers left that meeting knowing that they have a Government that cares.
I had an opportunity to speak to 80 members of the feather industry. They included broiler chicken producers and egg producers. They were also very concerned, but I tried to allay their fears. I had a final meeting with a small group from the local durum agricultural association. I was somewhat complimented by the response I received when I asked why the meeting was so small. They told me that I had answered most of their questions already.
We have taken major steps on behalf of the agricultural industry and I am proud to be part of this Party and tell farmers in the rural communities in my riding that we have stood up for them and will continue to do so in order that they may become a healthy component of this economy.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate. There is absolutely no truth to the rumour that although I represent a rural community I was elected by the farm vote on a promise that I would not speak on agricultural issues. They sent me here to speak on those issues.
1 want to say a few words about the participation in this debate. First, we heard some very knowledgeable speeches from members of the New Democratic caucus who represent the farming community. However, those knowledgeable speeches got off track when we heard from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). He is a notable expert in rural items, who once told the House that his riding of Ottawa Centre was a microcosm of Canada. I do not know whether he is farming what he is throwing, but I point out that he is the Member who continually stands in the House to complain about the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption which the NDP has fought since we introduced it. There does not seem to be anyone in the NDP who realizes that the capital gains tax
exemption was implemented immediately for farms because the Conservative Party realizes that the farm represents the pension of farmers when they retire. Day after day, members of the NDP complain about the fact that we have exempted that pension.
We then heard from the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I was moved when I heard her speech. I realized why she is put on so many travelling committees. Then we heard from the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who went through a whole speech without moving an amendment. Subsequently the Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) made one of his few speeches, while he is still a New Democrat, before he becomes an independent. That is the only Party he has not represented.
Having been somewhat caustic, I want to compliment my good friend, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who commenced the debate. I have worked with him on the Public Accounts Committee and I commend him for his efforts in this debate, as well as the Members of his Party who represent rural communities. Had it not been for the NDP, this debate would certainly have collapsed because there was very little knowledgeable participation from the Liberals.
That brings me to the Liberal Party. I want to highlight some of the speeches made by their Members. We heard from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) whose knowledge of the rural community out west is basically from a
30,000	foot level as he flies back and forth between Vancouver and Ottawa. He stayed in Vancouver longer, before he sold his condo. Now that he has sold it, he does not take as many trips and is losing some of that knowledge of the rural community.
We then heard from the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He is one of the two members in the western caucus, and he did a good job.
The Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) spent 20 minutes denying that there were high interest rates during the Liberal depression. We listened to 20 minutes of explanations that simply did not wash.
Having said that, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who briefed his colleagues, and I am sure it was not easy. He hung here in the debate and 1 compliment him on his efforts.
There are two reasons this debate has been welcomed by the Government Party; because we had two things we wanted to get across. First, we have an excellent record to brag about as a Government in our efforts to assist Canadian farmers. We understand the problems. We do not have them all solved yet, not for a minute, but the effort and the steps have been there. Second, the west is finally fully represented on agricultural issues at the table, as a region and in the House. Members from all areas of Canada in our Party fully understand the

April 30, 1987
problems of the western grain producer. We break bread with our colleagues from the west. We sit on committees with them. We participate in the House of Commons and there is absolutely not one Member of Parliament from the Maritimes, Quebec or Ontario in the Progressive Conservative Party who does not have an empathy with our colleagues from the west. We understand fully.
If I had one message I would like the people from the west to take from what I say it is this. The Members of Parliament from the central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and they are here tonight, understand. There is no learning curve with us. We understand the problem and our Government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) down, has the full support of the Members of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative Party from Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces in the work they are doing on this problem.
The work is considerable. Because it has been referred to at length in this debate I will not walk the House through the details of the programs. There is however, a special grains program, there is crop and livestock drought assistance, there are interim pay-outs, the Western Grain Transportation Act amendments and the commodity based mortgages. All of these steps have been taken to help the west.
I would like to dwell on interest rates for a minute. We have worked as a Party to lower interest rates. We have saved farmers millions of dollars. Those steps have been taken. We have the Farm Credit Corporation rates at the lowest levels since 1979. Interest rates have been reduced five times.
With respect to farm debt review boards, legislation has been passed to set up these boards composed of people who have a knowledge of the agricultural community and have the experience in farming and financial matters to try to ease these tensions.
We have the Canadian Rural Transition Program. In my riding, this was referred to from time to time by my constituents, who are farmers. I got the best example a couple of weeks ago. On the seventh concession of Orillia Township in 1956 there were 21 farm families. Now, 31 years later, there are four farm families on that same concession farming the same amount of land. What has happened is that the ability of our farmers-and we should all be proud of this-to expand production and produce has increased faster than anyone's ability to find the markets and to be competitive in them. Being competitive in them is really the problem we are talking about today.
We have been at the forefront in calling for a new set of ground rules for international agricultural trade. The Prime Minister raised it in Tokyo as Canada's number one agenda item. We have been trying to get an informal international agreement on agricultural trade practices during the negotiations of the the new GATT rules. This may take years, but we have been there. We have made all this effort.
We know how our farmers are facing problems because our competitors are just out-subsidizing us. It is just not practical in this world where we have people who are hungry, not to get food to them. It is just not practical that we are competing with the European Economic Market and the United States which subsidize their producers. I do not think anybody in this House, no matter to which Party they belong, thinks that is a very effective way of doing things.
I went to the annual Simco County Federation of Agriculture meeting. Many Members of Parliament and Members of the provincial Legislature attended. A lot of briefs were presented at that meeting from the Cattlemen's Association, the corn producers, the egg marketing board, the maple syrup producers, the milk committee, the pork producers, the sheep producers and the wheat growers. We heard the briefs and we had a back and forth discussion. There was public participation. I was pleased to hear people tell us that they are in general agreement with the efforts of the Government, that they know what we are faced with and they are behind our efforts in trying to do something.
As I suggested earlier, we do not have all the answers and we have not won the battle. There is no question that our Government has made the effort to win the battle. We have a Prime Minister who time and time again is very, very vocal, and who has then followed his vocal comments with efforts to address the concerns of agriculture. We have a first class cabinet Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) from Ontario and his colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). They work in tandem.
It would be interesting if I were to tell the House just exactly how this ministry works. It works with complete cooperation between the two Ministers, along with the Parliamentary Secretary from the riding of Champlain, Quebec, to give it a Quebec focus. The Ministers have excellent staffs who always have time for Members of Parliament and their problems. They have a concerned Public Service staff backing them up.
The caucus is fully behind all of those people and the Prime Minister in their efforts on the issue. Let me say to the people who are suffering at this time that we do have an understanding of your problems no matter where you live in Canada. Speaking as an Ontario Member of Parliament, especially Ontario, we do have an understanding, and we intend to continue the good fight.
I want to finish my speech by complimenting everybody, the Speakers in the chair, Members at the Table, the pages, the staff, and especially the Hansard staff. With some exceptions, it has been Parliament at its best, and we have truly focused the concern of Canadians on this very important issue.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we have no further speakers. I would like to join in thanking you first, Mr. Speaker, for your extraordinary
April 30, 1987

good presence and patience. I thank very warmly the people from the Table, all the staff, the Pages and those devoted people who take notes of all of what has been said, including the last speaker. Unfortunately, they had to take his speech also. But that is all right.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it has been an important debate about a very basic and noble industry. We have talked about some of the concerns of agriculture and I think we have raised the level of awareness of all Canadians of the problems of agriculture. When one thinks about it, it is a very useful way to make use of the House of Commons, this very noble institution. It is almost an irony that we are here tonight talking about surpluses which are causing us problems when there are all kinds of people around the world who are hungry.
We have heard over 100 speakers representing all 10 provinces. We thank everyone who has had an opportunity to
participate. There has been some political rhetoric and some very good speeches. May I say in many ways one of the most thoughtful speeches we heard from the opposition benches was from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I think it is fair to say that we all enjoyed what the Hon. Member for Saint- Denis had to say.
The debate has lasted over parts of four days and in many ways it has been an historic debate. I just want to join in thanking everyone who stayed with us, the House of Commons staff and everyone who participated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.04 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 1, 1987