1988-05-09

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise in my place this morning, under Standing Order 106, and present a petition from quite a few people in my constituency who are totally opposed to the Government's proposed trade agreement with the United States.
They call upon the Government to dissolve the House and go to the people so that they can decide whether or not they want this trade deal.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a group of constituents from the Shellbrook-Canwood area near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
They suggest that since the Conservative Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude the free trade agreement, the Government should go before the people of Canada in order to give them the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, the petitions that I am tabling today are signed by residents of Halifax; Rimouski; Winnipeg; Burlington; Crysler, Ontario; Summerside, Prince Edward Island; Florenceville, New Brunswick; Saint-Bruno; Laval; Greenfield Park; Pierrefonds and Laval-des-Rapides.
These petitioners deplore the fact that more than 100,000 people were homeless in Canada last year, that the number of homeless young people, women and whole families is steadily growing, that the number of affordable housing units is always decreasing and that the Government has not yet done anything to solve this problem.
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to act immediately so that all Canadians can be given healthy, appropriate housing and that social programs be established so that these disadvantaged Canadians can re-enter Canadian society.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally is indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 301.


Mr. Howie: 1.	At the present time are there any contracts for the procurement of goods and services outstanding between the government and American suppliers and, if so, what is the (a) number (b) total dollar value of these contracts?
2.	To the knowledge of the Government, will this situation change following the full implementation of the free trade agreement and, if so, in what ways?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. It is
impossible to provide a direct response which enumerates the number and value of contracts currently outstanding between the Government and American suppliers because the current system of data collection only carries contracts which have been formally signed during a given fiscal year. However, SSC awarded 10,331 contracts with a value of $750 million to U.S. based suppliers in 1985-86; representing 11.2 per cent of the total value and 3.3 per cent of the total number of contracts awarded. In 1986-87, 9,160 contracts with a value of $438 million were awarded to U.S. based suppliers, representing 5 per cent of the total value and 3.1 per cent of the total number of contracts awarded.
2. The implementation of the free trade agreement will result in some opening of both the Canadian and American government procurement markets. Additional opportunities valued at $3 billion will be opened to Canadian suppliers in the U.S. market, and opportunities valued at $400 million will be opened to U.S. suppliers in the Canadian market.

May 9, 1988
Business of the House


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Wednesday of this week, May 11, will be an allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre) moved:
That this House urge the government to provide for emergency financial assistance to grain and livestock producers in the southern Prairies and in Central British Columbia in the event of a continuation of the current drought conditions in those areas, and to establish a long-term plan to deal with environmental disasters such as droughts, floods, and pest infestations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion is put before the House today because of a disaster that seems to be looming but, more correctly, because those of us who have lived on the Prairies all our lives know that disasters do not occur necessarily this early in the season. It often appears very bleak in May and early June. Rains will turn that around. However, the statistics on this particular drought show that it is probably more all encompassing and more well entrenched than virtually any time previous in the history of recorded weather; and because the Government has said that as a result of the experience that we had with the 1985 drought it was to put into effect a longterm strategy to deal with such disasters. Since no long-term strategy was put into effect, we thought it would be desirable at this time to remind the House and the Government of the commitments that it made back then.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in the speech to this House on November 27, 1985, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) who is still the Minister of Agriculture said, and 1 quote from Hansard, as reported at page 8869:
The $150 million program we are announcing today will provide immediate relief and we will continue our efforts to develop a long-term approach to emergency funding.
He went on to say, as reported at page 8870:
It is disruptive to producers to live with the uncertainty of not knowing what back-up assistance they will receive when natural disasters occur. Nor is it easy for the federal Government to take on substantial new financial commitments which have not been previously budgeted. That is why we are viewing the Crop Disaster Assistance Program as a field test for a permanent emergency assistance program which could be offered to farmers as a complement or extension to the current Crop Insurance Program.
Later in the year the Ministers of Agriculture for all provinces met. A national agriculture strategy was outlined. In that strategy it was pointed out that such a long-term disaster program was of great necessity.
Here we are in May of 1988 and no one knows what the long-term disaster program is because it has not been put into effect. That is the point of my motion today.
The data that are facing us are quite overwhelming. We have a drought of proportions not seen in western Canada for a long, long time. Some of the data that I have collected show that we are in a type of dry spell that has not been recorded very often in the 100 or more years of recorded history in terms of weather in that part of the country. We should notice that the threat of drought, given the current Environment Canada statistics, is that there is only about a 30 per cent chance of recovery this year. Thus we have less than one chance in three of getting lucky on this one.
To point out just how well ingrained this drought is, we should note statistics from the various recording stations in the country. In Saskatoon this is the worst drought that has been seen for 81 years. In Prince Albert it is the worst in 96 years. In Regina it is the worst in 88 years, and in Swift Current it is the worse in 101 years. This is not just a short-term drought of a few months' duration; it is a very well entrenched type of drought.
The people from Environment Canada point out what most of us know, that is, south of the Yellowhead Highway it is very dry. When one gets farther south of the No. 1 Highway, which covers about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the prairie grain belt, it is described as really, really dry. When one looks at the record of the small communities and the farmers who are trying to cope with this lack of moisture that has been building for close to a year now, one sees that the dug-outs are going empty.
For a big chunk of the territory about which I am speaking, in particular Palliser's Triangle, it is very difficult to strike water for wells. Surface moisture must be relied upon, and there is no surface moisture. There was no surface moisture in the soil last fall. All small sloughs and potholes have gone dry, as have many small lakes. Farmers were pumping water from whatever sources they could find to their dug-outs close to home, as were towns and villages. Many of those are now down to 10 per cent or 20 per cent available water supplies from reservoirs.
Governments cannot make water. They cannot create it. However, they can by setting out long-range programs to work out methods of coping with a shortage of water. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration has been doing that to
May 9, 1988
[Stage Direction]
some extent ever since a very bad drought in the 1930s. It has been supplying long pipelines and large pumps to transfer water from where it exists to where it is needed. The options are very limited. There are not very many sources left.
The problem is not limited only to the Palliser's Triangle in the Prairies or the area south of the Yellowhead Highway. It has extended with a vengeance into central British Columbia. To give Hon. Members some idea of this, I wish to quote from a couple of reports. An official from the Quilchena area, a spokesman for the Vernon irrigation district, said that they can only operate at about half supply this year. Five mountain reservoirs feeding the Vernon district stand at 10 per cent of capacity and are not expected to climb about 50 per cent during the melt and run-off. The official said: "We cannot create water, no matter what the public thinks we can do as a Government".
In the forest area foresters point out that the lack of moisture can create a very bad fire season this year. This will occur because some of the logs that are lying on the bed of the forest are now drying out and are becoming very combustible. This makes it easy for a forest fire to get started and to carry. This will have an effect on the tourist industry.
British Columbians in the central part of the province are already predicting a reduction in tourism, as they are expecting they will need bans on campfires and camping in the forest areas which attract people to that part of the country. As well, fishing lakes are now losing the volume of water they have and many lakes are significantly lower this year. The lower water levels result in more fish dying off. As well, it makes it very difficult for them to spawn and to move upstream. It is impossible for a fish to move up a stream that does not exist any more. Thus the long-term effects on the environment in that part of the country are quite scary as well.
On the Prairies the lack of surface water will have a longterm effect on the amount of wildlife that survives, particularly water-fowl that use the prairie region as their major flight path. Many species also use it as their major nesting site, including Canada geese and field duck. A great many of those species have their traditional nesting sites in farming areas on the Prairies.
We are concerned that the Government has failed to provide a long-term financial plan to deal with disasters such as those that occur with drought, flood, massive forest fires, or an influx of grasshoppers or other forms pestilence. The Government could have done something about that, but it has failed to do anything even though it promised to be back in the fall of 1985.
Apparently the Government has also not paid very much attention to the long-term trends that the Department of the Environment points out is a reality. I am speaking now of the greenhouse effect. Most Members in the House will know that is an effect that scientists have discovered over the past 10 or
Supply
15 years. It has resulted in a layer of carbon dioxide being formed in the stratosphere. As forests and fossilized fuels burn they create carbon dioxide which has not been recycled in the normal manner by the breathing of plants and trees to utilize the carbon dioxide and transpire oxygen. As forests disappear and the burning of carbon fuels increases, a surplus of carbon dioxide has been produced which has created a layer that has tended to trap the heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphere. That has been slowly raising the mean temperatures of the earth.
Environmental experts tell us that in Canada this will mean an increase of mean temperature from 2° to 5° centigrade depending on which part of the country one is speaking of. Of most pertinence to this dissertation is that the prairie region, particularly Palliser's Triangle and central British Columbia, will be the areas that appear to be most likely to reap the benefit, if one can call it that, of the 5° temperature.
According to scientific projections, this will come into full being somewhere around the year 2000 or 2010. I believe at the present time we are seeing the beginning of that phenomenon in Palliser's Triangle of the Pairies and in central British Columbia. This particular drought will not go away easily, but we will be faced with these high temperatures and limited rainfalls that are projected as the greenhouse effect exacerbates in those regions of the country.
This effect will require a massive change in technique for people to survive in that region. It will require some assistance from federal and provincial Governments. I think that the Ministers of Agriculture for the provinces and for the federal Government were correct in 1985 when their assessment was that there should be a long-term agricultural strategy which would take this effect into account. I regret that that strategy has not been put in place, and no long-term funding has been established on the part of the federal Government or in conjunction with the provinces in order to address these types of long-term issues. The answers will not be found by simply sitting back in a rainier part of the country and observing those areas with telescopes, preparing reports, or attending in the areas. Stringent scientific work will have to be done to delineate the problem. There will have to be recourse to the engineering and ecological knowledge that we presently have to make better use of moisture supplies in those areas in order that they do not turn into the semi-desert that the greenhouse effect is projected to have on those particular regions.
As I mentioned when I commenced by speech, 35 to 45 per cent of prairie grain land lies in this region; much of the fruit belt in the Okanagan is dependent on the water supplies that are generated in central British Columbia, as are the beef industry and the grazing industry, very large parts of the agricultural component of central British Columbia. As the pastures dry up and the water disappears, there will be less chance of producing calves and beef in that area. A reduction of 50 per cent in the water reservoirs will make it very difficult to keep the apple and soft fruit industries alive and healthy in that part of the region.
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1988
Supply
This particular drought is not only isolated to Palliser's Triangle in the Prairies; it goes much beyond that. I submit that because this is a well entrenched system and it has been well defined by international scientists that the greenhouse effect will be with us for a long time until the earth can be reforested and the consumption of fossilized fuels is reduced. Therefore, a long-term solution and plan developed if we are to keep populations on that semi-arid part of the Prairies as it turns into a semi-desert.
The Government was remiss in not acting upon its own good advice in 1985. I close my remarks by reminding the Government that it has neglected to handle the wealth of the country in a proper manner by putting water wells and collection sites in place in the intervening years. It has been remiss in not taking seriously the drought situation on the central Prairies and in central British Columbia. This motion draws the matter to the attention of the country and of the Government in order that the Government can correct its lack of policy for the last two and a half years.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today concerning the prairie drought situation calls upon the Government to take two actions. The first part of the motion seeks to provide emergency assistance to the Prairies facing the worst drought in a hundred years. The second part of the motion calls upon the Government to put in place longterm programs to deal with the drought situation.
As the Hon. Member from Saskatchewan has already indicated, the Government should have known in 1984 and 1985 that we were not dealing with a casual occurrence of an occasional drought. Clearly there have been two important influences on world weather patterns. The El Ningo effect which caused tremendous drought in the Sahel region of Africa has had its influence in the last year or so in the prairie regions. That is a cyclical event; it comes along from time to time. But more important is the long-term problem of the greenhouse effect of warming of temperatures due to increased carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere.
I am very conscious of the issue because in the fall of 1986 in my own constituency, which is on the shore of Lake Huron and has the same water table levels as Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, there was the highest water levels in 100 years. Yet one year later, in the fall of 1987, there was a drop of some two and a half feet in the lake level of Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and the compensating effect on Lake Superior,
Only through a tremendous increase in temperatures generally, with a corresponding reduction in moisture levels, could we have experienced a drop in the level of the Great Lakes Basin of some two and a half feet to three feet. The western Prairies have been hit by the same kind of reduction in moisture levels and the same kind of increased evaporation rate due to warmer temperatures, resulting in the lowest
moisture levels in 100 years. The last time the western Prairies and certain areas of B.C. experienced moisture levels comparable with those being experienced today was in 1889.
The motion now being debated calls upon the Government to take appropriate action to deal with this emergency, and to put in place longer term mechanisms to deal with the drier prairie conditions being experienced.
I had occasion this morning to speak with a farmer in southern Alberta, who told me that the actual top soil was dry to a level of two and one-half to three feet. Given the total lack of ground moisture, the small showers that they do experience have practically no impact.
I had occasion last week to talk with some long time residents of southern Alberta, individuals who speak from actual experience when they speak of the drought of the 1930s, and they feel uncertain about the current situation. While everyone hopes that the present lack of moisture is a temporary situation, time is running out for this year's crop. Livestock operations are equally affected. Clearly, if there is no substantial rainfall by mid-May, summer pastures will be irretrievably damaged. Without sufficient moisture, we even face the possibility of grains not germinating.
I should like to quote from an article on the prairie drought which appeared in The Ottawa Citizen of May 2, 1988, as follows:
Since last summer, parts of Western Canada, especially in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, have had only about 50 per cent of normal precipitation. Some areas have received only one quarter.
That confirms the kinds of effects we have seen in other parts of the country.
The article goes on to quote a Mr. Allan Moore of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, as follows:
"I think it's as dry, if not drier, than the Dirty '30s," said Allan Moore of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration in the nearby town of Gravelbourg, Sask.
"It's so dry, the land is just like a sponge".
There was also an article in The Globe and Mail of May 2, 1988. The article is datelined as originating from Tilley, Alberta, with the headline being: "Albertans bracing for drought".
The article quotes Mr. Thomas Jensen, of Alberta Agriculture as follows:
"They're all sitting out there waiting, debating whether to seed. If we don't get rain in May it could be a catastrophe. But it's not just Alberta. There is a similar situation in California, Montana, Utah and Idaho. It's a continental thing.''
And, of course, the "they're" refers to the agricultural producers.
A recent press release dealt with the desertification of the world, areas which are becoming drier, and drier, and drier. The maps which accompanied that press release showed
May 9, 1988

eastern B.C. and the southern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan as being among those areas which are becoming more and more desert-like.
The farm producers to whom I have spoken say that dug-outs are dry; that there is no spring run-off, and no possibility of those dug-outs, which are so important in terms of cattle operations, being filled this year. For the first time, many wells have run dry. In many areas of southern Alberta, one can go down to two and one-half to three feet without finding any moisture whatsoever.
We are experiencing one of the driest periods in the history of western Canada and, while we all hope that it will be of a temporary nature, clearly the Government must now indicate the type of emergency system that will be provided, whether it be by way of dug-out construction, the drilling of wells, the construction of water pipelines, or other measures.
The Government of Alberta has already indicated that it is prepared to provide some $20 million for the purpose of making emergency supplies of water available to these areas.
The second matter to be addressed is the provision of feed supplies for livestock. The situation in respect of grain crops will become clearer toward the end of this month, and certainly by early June. We may be faced with a situation of there being insufficient moisture to bring about germination.
The producers to whom I have spoken in the last week stress the need for a livestock assistance program on an urgent basis. They need to have a commitment from the Government on what it is prepared to do.
To sum up, what the western agricultural community needs is a commitment that there be provision for making emergency water supplies available, together with a commitment to address the ongoing problem of water shortages, and a commitment in respect of emergency supplies of feed to support the livestock.
In some areas of Manitoba, cattle can be moved to feedlots. However, that is not a solution for southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is simply not possible. The grass supply in the community pastures in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan is such that those pastures are refusing to accept any cattle. That is a first for those areas of the country.
In addition to the drought, the western agricultural community continues to face the whole farm debt problem, the insolvency of the Farm Credit Corporation itself, and the dropping of land values.
These are all matters that need to be addressed. In addition, the higher Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar leads to lower prices, the reason being, of course, that most farm commodities are traded in U.S. dollars.
Clearly, there are a number of ongoing problems facing the agricultural community. Maintaining interest rates in Canada at 2.5 per cent above the American rate pushes the Canadian dollar up in value vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. I suppose that is
Supply
part of the "gentleman's handshake" on the Canada-U.S. trade deal. The result, of course, is that we end up with lower effective prices for Canadian livestock, together with higher interest rates.
What has the Government's response been to date, Mr. Speaker? In answer to a question which I put to the Minister, he said that he would probably be answering the need for additional assistance for water supplies and would consider taking money from the long-term soil conservation fund which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced last December. He did not give any indication whether the full amount of the funding would be made available. The $75 million is a cost-shared program. Alberta has already made a commitment of $20 million. If the federal Government were to do the same, I suppose there would be enough in that fund, but it has not yet been indicated what the Government has not yet indicated what it will do. It seems to me this is an emergency and that we should not be taking funds out of the long time soil conservation and degradation fund. It seems to me that we have a contingency fund of a couple of billion dollars. That is from where the funds should be coming so we can get on with the long-term soil conservation and degradation program as has been done in other years when we faced this same kind of problem.
So far there is no clear commitment of assistance to move feed into the drought areas. There is no clear commitment as far as I can see on the number of dollars for emergency water supply funding or for emergency systems such as expanding or developing new dug-outs, wells, or pipeline systems. Equally important in the long run is the need for long-term expansion of PFRA funding for the water management program, to put in place measures and programs for improved water storage, new wells, and so on. We should have increased funding for that because this does not appear to be a short-term policy.
In the Minister's press statement of November, 1985, he indicated that the Government was working toward a longterm disaster assistance program in place of this year's plan. In the agriculture committee meeting a couple of nights ago, when the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) was asked whether the Government was going to put in place a long-term program, he said that it was difficult to have an ongoing emergency planning operation. By definition, if it is an emergency, it is pretty tough to know what it is one should be doing. Whether the Government will put in place a long-term emergency program is clearly not apparent at this time.
We need today a commitment from the Minister that, if the emergency continues to develop, there will be systems on an equalized basis for pipelines, for emergency dug-out development, for water supplies, and so on, as well as a commitment of funding for the provision of feed in the drought areas. That would strengthen prices which have dropped for stock cows and cow and calf operators at this time.

May 9, 1988
Supply
Those issues must be faced because long-term problems require time to develop fully. Clearly there is a need in the southern Prairies for more long-term water storage management and funding for the PFRA. From the presentation made last week by the various farm groups, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, funds under the PFRA program are totally committed for this year. We need long-term funding for a consistent policy of developing water storage for irrigation. We may have to face this in the future. We may have to change the types of crops that are grown in some areas of the southern Prairies. We know that with the PFRA program projects have been put in place which ensure water supply and have made a big difference this year. Some farmers have been able to irrigate crop land and can seed a crop. That is perhaps not a first, but it is rare. Usually the irrigation system is used to supply moisture at a later stage, not just for the seeding operation itself.
These are urgent issues and I hope the Minister will be able to give a clear commitment of the Government's plan in this regard. The western drought situation, on top of the whole downturn in the oil industry and the whole downturn in commodity prices for grain, is leading to a big disaster. The West is waiting to know exactly how much of a commitment the Government is prepared to make to meet this emergency, to maintain livestock herds, and ultimately to provide assistance for the grain crops if and when that becomes necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? Debate. The Flon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this occasion for the House to pay attention to and examine the serious water conditions in western Canada and in certain parts of the Province of British Columbia.
I want to assure Members opposite, indeed all Members of the House, as well as all primary producers, and others in the agri-food industry that our Government is fully aware of the situation. The Prairies are faced with low soil moisture reserves, low spring run-offs, and virtually no rain to speak of.
Most areas of southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and the southwest portion of Manitoba are those areas most seriously affected. Topsoil is dry in many locations. Dug-outs and water supplies for livestock are low. The below average quantity of snowpack in the mountains is a cause of concern for irrigation districts and for producers who rely heavily-and some rely exclusively-on irrigation for crop success.
In the Province of British Columbia, a serious lack of water this year may-and I underline the word may-affect livestock producers in the central and southern ranching areas and fruit producers in the Okanagan Valley. In some cases, below normal water levels have been experienced for several consecutive years. We are fully aware of these conditions, as are, I hope, most Members of the House. It is obvious, of course, that some Members are not aware of the considerable effort the federal Government is expending right now, even as
I speak here today, to deal with these adverse conditions in western Canada.
We are actively monitoring the situation in co-operation with the provinces, and there are federal-provincial drought committees in each of the affected provinces. A special Agriculture Canada task force has been working for several weeks now to assess conditions and to look at the adequacy of our present programs. In fact, just last night, there was a meeting of Deputy Ministers, my Deputy Minister and his counterparts in the western provinces. I am pleased to say that the Assistant Deputy Ministers' committee is being formed to work with Agriculture Canada's task force and the provincial drought committees. They will advise Ministers, both federal and provincial, on a daily basis.
We are acting and we are responding. We have safety net programs in place to deal with the situation. We already have a framework for action to deal with drought and similar disasters. There are a number of elements in that framework.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, of course, is one of these elements, and a very important one. Since 1935, PFRA has been at work developing rural water supplies and conserving prairie topsoil. The federal Government set up PFRA to respond to the terrible conditions in the Dirty Thirties. Its job was to ensure that communities and producers got water when they needed it and to ensure that soil would not blow away and turn them into another dust bowl.
The PFRA continues to this day to develop water supplies to help drought-proof the Prairies, no small task. It has been a lot of work, but it has been a bona fide success story. Because the PFRA people are working very closely with the provinces to monitor the soil and weather conditions, we are ensuring that we get the maximum mileage out of our complementary water programs. We are providing technical assistance and advice. Pumping equipment is also being utilized. Of course, there are community pastures which are proving to be especially useful, and helpful, at this time.
PFRA will spend about $7.2 million on its rural water development program this year. It will help farmers dig wells, plan dug-outs, as it will help with stock-watering dams, and irrigation projects. In fact, since 1935, more than 165,000 farmers have obtained assistance for these projects from this program.
Grants and advice are available to groups of farmers wanting to build common reservoirs for irrigation projects. Small communities can receive financial and technical help for developing water sources and water resources.
Over the years, PFRA has built more than 100 major dams, reservoirs, and irrigation works. There is the Gardner Dam-Lake Diefenbaker project, built at a cost of some $100 million. More recently, there has been the Weyburn Dam in Saskatchewan, the Carseland Dam, the Brooks Aqueduct and the
May 9, 1988

rehabilitated Bassano Dam in Alberta, and finally, the raising of the PFRA dam in Morden, Manitoba. These activities demonstrate the federal commitment to providing water to the ever thirsty Prairies.
In British Columbia, action is under way to use the federal-provincial agri-food development agreement, or ARDSA as it is called, to develop better long-term water supplies. We are working with the local irrigation districts in fruit growing areas to divert new supplies to reservoirs or to lower dam projects.
Very importantly, we are working to conserve water by using available supplies as effectively and efficiently as possible. In the cattle regions of British Columbia, we are looking at perhaps extending the ARDSA to help cover on-farm water supply projects such as digging wells. Cattle producers, fruit growers, and other farmers have the continued support of the federal Government as they seek solutions to their water problems.
It is clear that we are taking steps to deal with the present situation which is a water shortage situation, not a crop drought situation, as this debate will indicate today. We are working co-operatively with the provinces and with the producers. We will do what we can to ensure that our present programs help out as much as possible.
I am pleased that the motion before the House recognizes that additional measures are not necessary at this time. It is too early to speak of losing crops or of losing livestock. Agriculture Canada's research scientists are advising farmers on how to deal with the current soil and water situation.
For instance, the Lethbridge research station advises that the season is still early. Adequate and timely rainfall between now and August will still ensure a good harvest. I understand that the problem area has already been reduced in Manitoba as a result of rain on the weekend. There was also rain in certain parts of southeastern Saskatchewan, the Estevan and the Weyburn areas. It is too early to make predictions.
The motion before us asks the Government to establish a long-term plan to deal with emergencies like drought. I wonder if opposition Members have an appreciation of what PFRA has been doing in that specific area for the last 53 years: in two words, drought-proofing; in a phrase, making the prairie farming community more stable and viable. However, what happens in those years when crops are still hit by drought or some other disaster like floods or pests? We have a long-term plan to deal with crop failures. Again, in two words, it is crop insurance.
In 1959, the Crop Insurance Act was passed by the federal Government, and since then we have been providing to farmers a way of protecting them against crop losses. It is a vital element in our over-all strategy because there are now some 230 different insurance plans for the 87 crops that are covered across Canada. In 1987, some 134,000 farmers participated and more than 42 million acres were covered.
Supply
The federal Government contributes 50 per cent of the premiums in all provinces with the exception of Newfoundland and Quebec. In these provinces it pays 25 per cent and half of the administrative costs. In no province does a farmer pay more than 50 per cent of the premium.
In fact, last year, the federal Government paid some $181.5 million toward farmers' premiums and it was money well spent. It provides the kind of protection needed in the risky business of farming, and this Government is committed to crop insurance as the main way to hedge our bets against the whims of Mother Nature.
Let us look at the drought years of 1984 and 1985. For those two years a total of some $24 million was paid out in the Province of British Columbia, $79 million in the Province of Manitoba, $487 million in the Province of Alberta, and some $640 million in the Province of Saskatchewan. That is an awful lot of protection, but it was not perfect, so in 1984 and 1985 the federal Government paid a total of $75 million in livestock drought assistance. In November of 1985 we announced a $ 150-million prairie crop drought assistance program.
After these special measures, we took a hard look at crop insurance to see whether or not it was doing the job adequately. Indeed, the federal Government and the provinces agreed that it was doing a good job of covering crop losses at a reasonable cost. However, the federal and provincial Agriculture Ministers agreed that additional protection should be provided to meet widespread successive losses. This was so that special measures would not be required again.
More crops across Canada are now insurable, and in western Canada major improvements have been made. There is expanded and improved feed security-forage insurance and there is now a multi-year disaster benefit. We made special efforts this year to publicize the deadlines for both forage and crop insurance. I can report that western farmers, particularly livestock and forage producers, have responded quite positively. Not only is the number of farmers insured for forage up by 60 per cent, farmers have purchased some 130 per cent more protection. Increased participation is also expected for crop insurance. In short, we have long-term measures in place to deal with disasters. We have PFRA. We have all-risk crop insurance. Just as important, particularly at this very trying time for Canadian farmers, especially those in western Canada, we have the record of commitment by this Government.
Since September, 1984 federal spending on agriculture increased by over 400 per cent. In 1986, we introduced the Special Canadian Grains Program, the largest federal farm initiative in the history of the country. We put $1 billion into the pockets of grains and oilseeds farmers reeling from the effects of the international subsidy war. Again, in 1987 we outdid ourselves by extending the program another year,

May 9, 1988
Supply
seeking an additional $1.1 billion for farmers. About $975 million of that is for western producers.
Last month, my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, announced a western grain stabilization interim payment of some $695 million, but that is not all. We are also writing down $750 million of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund deficit. We have extended the farm fuel tax rebate program until 1991. We put more money into the Farm Debt Review Boards, and we are providing additional funding to the Farm Credit Corporation.
On the specific subject of soil and water conservation, we announced a $75 million national soil and conservation program to prevent losses of our most precious resource. In the dry conditions being experienced in parts of the West right now, the need for soil conservation becomes all that much more important. We cannot let our future blow away.
Those are just some of the things which show the Government's commitment to Canadian farmers. I think that upon assessment by any fair-minded individual the record speaks for itself. The farmers of Canada know this Government has gone to bat for them and will continue to do so, both on the domestic and the international scene. They know we have supported them with technical and financial assistance. They know we have supported them with long-term development programs like PFRA and safety nets like the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. With the renovation and updating of crop insurance, they know they have the ongoing protection from disaster they need to continue in the business of farming.
In conclusion, we have built a sound foundation for the future. Our aim is a prosperous, stable agriculture industry in western Canada, indeed in all provinces and regions of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether there will be a specific amount of money allocated for emergency water supplies. As I understand the situation, the most urgent need is for a commitment regarding emergency water supplies and funds for livestock feed. In 1984, I believe it was, the Government provided a direct payment of about $30 per stock cow. The Minister mentioned in the House on May 4 that he was prepared to take funds out of the long-term soil conservation and degradation program for emergency water supplies. Is the Minister indicating that he is prepared to match the amounts allocated, for example, by Alberta of $20 million for wells and dug-outs and pipelines? Is he prepared to indicate what the funding will be?
In addition, the Minister mentioned the all risk crop insurance. Does that preclude special assistance, as well, for grain producers who may not be fully covered by that insurance? I realize, of course, that question will not be fully canvassed until we receive information about the crop situation much later this year.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Hon. Member to take exception to my response. He has put some pretty good questions to me, but I am not so sure that they are not hypothetical. However, that is somewhat immaterial. What is important is that they are premature.
He talked about the emergency, the response I gave to him the other day with respect to the $75 million soil and water conservation program, and whether the revised crop insurance program would preclude any additional measures. I can only say at this point that the federal-provincial task force is continuing its job. It will do so on a day-to-day basis. As in the past, as things develop, at the proper time, and when they are in a position to assess the seriousness of the situation and report with certain recommendations to which we can respond in a reasonable and effective manner, then and only then will I be in a position to respond to those questions. I think the Hon. Member knows exactly what I have in mind.
When I responded to him in the House, I believe it was last week, with reference to the $75 million I meant this and nothing more. When we have an emergency situation, sometimes common sense and good judgment dictates that we change our priorities. First, I hope Mother Nature looks upon us favourably. Second, I hope it will not be necessary to respond with any special program because I hope ongoing programs meet the need. Consequently, I hope it will not be necessary for us, even during an emergency, to readjust our priorities so that perhaps we might have to consider taking money from that fund.
It is an important subject. We lose $1 billion worth of topsoil a year. We could not sit by as a Government and do nothing. We have been doing a fair amount through PFRA, of course, but because of its importance it needed additional funds.
Discussions have been ongoing between PFRA and the various provinces. In most areas, particularly western Canada, we are reaching the position where we are just about ready to sign accords with the various provinces. They can match dollar for dollar, and consequently we will have $150 million in funding in that area.
In response to his last question with regard to whether or not it will preclude it, that will depend on a number of factors. Even though participation in crop insurance has been at an alltime high, we will have to await the assessment of that federal-provincial task force. When it sends its recommendations to us we will respond.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, in the Minister's response to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) he mentioned that he believed he is about to be able to sign accords with the various provinces regarding to a long-term strategy. What has caused the delay over the past two and a half years? Did it take another imminent drought to get all the parties back to the bargaining table? What has been the delay since the national
May 9, 1988

agricultural strategy was agreed to by the 10 First Ministers of Agriculture and the federal Minister himself?
The intention of all parties concerned seemed to be very clear. What has taken so long to get the four western agriculture Ministers to read an agreement? Was it not prepared until the drought became more imminent and the disaster became more real, or were there technical considerations in the way? What is responsible for the two and a half year time lag?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, there was not a two and a half year time lag. The Hon. Member refers to the national agricultural strategy. That, of course, was one document. Our $75 million soil and water conservation program was announced and made available when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke in December at the Agricultural Outlook Conference. December 1987, is not two and a half years ago. There has been no delay in this program at all.
Subsequent to that announcement in December PFRA officials began their negotiations with various counterparts across the country. Therefore, the contrary would indeed be the case. Significant progress has been made and was only made when we put that $75 million in the window, with the condition that it had to be matched by provincial funds. That made a lot of sense because agriculture is a shared and joint responsibility. In land use and matters more closely related to soil and water conservation one will find that there is an awful lot of provincial jurisdictional responsibility. If you do not think so, just challenge the provinces on that particular aspect.
The only way to make progress in that area is to put up some dollars, identify the problem as a serious one, and tell the provinces that as they have a responsibility as well they should match our dollars; then, at the end of the day, we will have $150 million which we can invest in this specific area.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I take it from the Minister's answer that he was referring in his remarks only to the soil and water program rather than to the long-term crop disaster fund about which I thought he was talking; he sort of mixed the two together in his response.
I would like to shift to the central British Columbia problem with its low snow melt and shrinking reservoirs, some of which are at less than 50 per cent levels. Since those reservoirs are also being used as part of the water supply which provides power through an international river into the United States, could the Minister list for us what the priorities will be from the Canadian side with regard to power requirements, human use, food growers' use, cattlemen's use, watering lawns, and so on? Is there a priority list for usage? I would think that there must be some such plan in existence, since the problem existed last year as well and appears to be getting even worse this year.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that is a timely and excellent question. I wish that I were in a position today to respond accurately and in detail to the Hon. Member. I am somewhat cautious to do so in the time available. While there may well be no question in my mind about what the priorities should
Supply
be-and I think common sense would dictate that-I am cautious about listing them at this time because we may well be precluded by some international agreement. I would at least want to have the opportunity to check whether such an international agreement exists. I am quite certain that it does. I am sure that it is public information. I will be seeking that information and, when I find it, I will be happy to share it with the Hon. Member.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate about drought on the Prairies. I want to address my comments for a few minutes to a different area, that is, farm stress.
I came back from my constituency about a week ago where I attended 12 public meetings in the last four or five days of April. Some were in farmers' houses to which they invited their neighbours and friends to get about 15 or 20 farmers together. I was able to acquire a very good understanding of the situation farmers are facing.
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) knows, the drought problem is not as acute in my riding as it is in some, as my riding is a bit more toward the northeast. In fact, in the northern part of my riding, which is near Swan River, Manitoba, they have a bit too much rain. Mr. Speaker, you may have seen on the news that Swan River has a bit of flooding, and that comes into my riding a bit. However, when one gets further south near the City of Yorkton one starts running into the drought problems, and the farther southwest one goes toward Regina the more severe it becomes. Therefore, while the drought is a problem in my riding, it is not as severe as it is in the south near Swift Current and Moose Jaw.
However, we must do whatever we can to relieve what I call the farm crisis in general. In addition to the drought there is an economic crisis facing farmers. There are the grain wars between the Europeans and the United States. There has been a tremendous drop in farm income. A large part of farm income is now received from farm stabilization plans, the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, deficiency payments, and other such things. As a result of economic hardship and the very severe drought, there is now a great deal of stress and emotional problems for farmers right across the prairie basin.
My colleagues from Humboldt-Lake Centre and Algoma mentioned many of the statistical realities of the drought- farm income going down, water reservoirs going down, dug-outs drying up, shallow wells drying up, the need to dig deeper wells, what is going to happen to the crops, the greenhouse effect, and the semi-arid part of the southern prairie belt which will turn into a quasi-desert if this situation continues.
We all know what happened in the 1930s as a result of the drought. Behind those headlines and those realities is another reality, that is, the tremendous stress upon the farmer and the families involved in this kind of an economic crisis. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about that this morning. I hope

May 9, 1988
Supply
we can start thinking about what we can do to help farmers out of this situation.
Behind the headlines there is a great feeling of despair, a great feeling of helplessness, and a great feeling of hopelessness for the many thousands of farm families in the southern part of the prairie belt. A very recent study was commissioned by the provincial Government of Saskatchewan into the whole area of farm stress. The study by the Burgam Consulting Company talked about the tremendous increase in alcoholism, depression, family violence, suicide, drugs, and so on, with respect to farmers. I want to suggest that we all take a look at some of the findings. I have here a copy of the May 2 edition of the Regina Leader-Post which gives a very good report of the study conducted on this question. It talks about alcoholism being on the increase and how depression is increasing because of what is happening on the Prairies, not just because of drought but because of economic hardship in general. I would like to quote Derrell Rodine of Weyburn who, for a number of years, has conducted farm stress workshops across Saskatchewan. He says that many of the problems are as a result of shattered dreams. He states:
"You get married and have lots of dreams," Rodine said.
"When things begin to fall apart there are feelings of guilt and a person tends to turn on the people they love."
Every day Rodine sees the toll that tough economic times are taking on farm families.
"Some farmers are carrying an immense burden of guilt for not being able to manage their land well in either physical or financial terms," he said.
Many fall into a form of "psychological paralysis" and are unable to work.
While many rural people are under a great deal of stress and some have been pushed into depression, a few fall into the ultimate depression and take their own lives.
Two years ago 26 people killed themselves.
"I had a woman come up to me in tears-she said her husband stopped the combine in the middle of the field, got off and shot himself," he said.
The aftershocks of suicide rip through a family and the community, leaving scars that often never heal.
These are signals of what is happening right now across rural Canada. I am not sure whether the federal Government can provide more leadership on the problem of farm stress, but perhaps when I complete my remarks in a few moments, the Minister of Agriculture can make a response in the period for questions and comments whether or not there is any new initiative the Government is contemplating in terms of farm stress.
I want to refer to another study that was done by the University of Manitoba, which indicated that farmers in financial crisis suffer more stress than a police officer three days after a shooting incident. When I first saw that headline I found it hard to believe, but I would like to read the very short article that summarizes this particular state:
Financially troubled farmers face higher levels of stress than police officers in shooting incidents, according to a Brandon University study.
And farming is ranked in the top 10 per cent of high stress occupations, according to studies carried out in the United States.
The Manitoba farmers, interviewed for the Brandon study, suffer from headaches, marriage problems and irritability at a greater rate than Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers contacted within three days of a shooting incident, said the study by James and Lily Walker of the university.
Another study by the Walkers said 11 per cent of Prairie farmers had considered suicide. Meanwhile, a survey in north-central Saskatchewan found that 80 per cent of farm families exhibited signs of stress.
For their First study, the Walkers interviewed 643 Manitoba farmers and compared the results with a study of 56 RCMP officers involved in shooting incidents.
They found that 16 per cent of the farmers had increased their consumption of alcohol, compared with nine per cent of the RCMP officers.
Twenty-seven per cent of the farmers reported marriage problems compared with two per cent of the police officers and 58 per cent of the farmers experienced sleeplessness compared with 50 per cent of the police officers.
In addition, 78 per cent of the farmers said they were irritable and losing their temper, compared with 11 per cent of the police officers.
This is the result of a study conducted by Brandon University about the relative problems of stress between police officers after a shooting incident, which is a pretty serious thing, and farmers in severe financial difficulty. The stress level is higher for farmers living under severe financial difficulties. I think these kinds of studies point out in very vivid detail that there is a real crisis in rural Canada, particularly in prairie Canada where it is compounded by the drought situation which is forcing many, many farmers to the wall in terms of their very survival. There are increasing rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, emotional problems, and so on. It is also creating very serious community problems.
When there is a crisis like this more and more farmers leave the land. We can see this in my riding and in many other rural ridings in western Canada. More and more people leave the small towns, and then the whole fabric of community organizations start to deteriorate and disappear. The people who are left feel more and more isolated because many of their friends have moved away to large towns and cities. Many of the services in these rural communities start to disappear because the population base drops, and of course the economic infusion drops. There are fewer people to support community events and activities. There are fewer people to organize sporting events, social events, and so on. In many ways the community itself then starts to re-enforce the depression and stress the farmer is facing, and people become very isolated. That is the very, very serious social problem facing many farmers in Prairie Canada today.
I referred to a series of excellent articles in the May 2 edition of the Leader-Post. It might be worth while reading it. It is a summary of the stress study done by the provincial Government of Saskatchewan and the University of Manitoba. There is also a reference to what is being done in the United States in terms of farm problems.
Also in the same newspaper is an article under the headline "Alcoholism Exacting a High Price in Rural Saskatchewan". It concerns the tremendous increase in alcoholism related to
May 9, 1988

the economic and drought crisis now plaguing farmers in rural Saskatchewan. In some ways the very occupation of farming, because one is alone so much of the time, makes alcoholism a lot easier than in other occupations where one is working more closely with others. The farmer is often alone. He goes out on the combine or tractor, or he goes out to check the cattle. It is very easy to consume a mickey of hard alcohol, or even 26 ounces of hard alcohol, and be able to hide it from his family and friends. He can hide his problem a lot easier than if he was a teacher at elementary or high school. Alcoholism is a way of forgetting some of the economic problems one has.
I do not want to go on at great length and repeat the facts placed on the record today by my friends, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and the Minister himself. We all know there is a very serious problem in terms of drought in western Canada. We all know there is a very serious economic problem in terms of the grain wars around the world. We all know there is financial insecurity, deterioration of rural communities, and so on.
What I want to do this morning is point out some of the human consequences and tragedies behind the headlines of the newspapers and behind the television footage we see in terms of the crisis facing farmers. I was wondering if the Minister would get up in the question and comment period to tell us what his thoughts are about farm stress. Perhaps he could elaborate on what we could be doing as a Parliament and what he could be doing as the Minister to provide some type of support, more than what we already have provided to help farmers who are in this type of situation.
I know that he has been doing something in terms of initiative and in terms of the drought question itself. There are committees now at work. He has talked about various financial solutions. All these items are, of course, very helpful. I am wondering whether or not the Minister can add more in order to offer some hope to those facing farm stress crisis.
I want to underline that this is a very serious problem. We all hope, of course, as the Minister said, that Mother Nature intervenes to solve the problem for us. But that will not necessarily happen. Even if it does happen, the world trade wars which create financial crises, have created a lot of stress for the farmers of this country.
I will stop there and invite in a rather bizarre way the Minister to comment on these matters, or perhaps to ask me a question as a way of telling us what he is thinking about in terms of farm stress.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I said when I began my speech a few minutes ago that I welcomed the occasion in the House to assess the potential drought problems in western Canada. Of course, I certainly do welcome the debate today. The lead-off spokesman for the Official Opposition and also the spokesman
Supply
for the New Democratic Party were somewhat premature in dealing with the subject-matter today.
However, I want to compliment the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), for taking his time to touch on a very serious problem which exists today. More than likely, unfortunately, it will persist in the country for some time in the future. I suppose I am here to make certain that I respond. If there were no response it might leave the impression, the very false impression, that we were not aware of the situation related to stress that exists in certain sectors of the farm community. I hope the Hon. Member will appreciate that one can hardly be the Minister of Agriculture of Canada and not be aware of the tragic events in the primary sector, particularly during a time when certain sectors of the industry, primarily grains and oilseeds, are facing the toughest times ever in 50 years.
One observation I want to make is with respect to the fact that we often talk only about the stress on farmers. It is true that farmers have stress, but I wonder if we ever stop and think about on whose shoulders and in whose heart and mind that stress really ends up. It is at least shared. I think the heaviest share probably falls in the heart and mind and in the lap of the farm wife. This is why we have given a much higher priority to the concerns and day-to-day problems that have been overlooked and ignored for decades by previous Governments and how those problems and concerns relate to farm women.
Farm women have been the unsung heroes of the primary sector of the agricultural industry in Canada and, indeed, in many other countries I suppose going back to day one. We have been dissatisfied with that. We have given them a much higher profile. Indeed, we have increased our budget by some 300 per cent or 400 per cent to pay greater attention to the issues and concerns of farm women.
I do not want to leave the wrong impression here because we are fully aware of this. I think the Hon. Member will appreciate the fact that Agriculture Canada's responsibility, while recognizing this and trying to do something about it within its own shop, is really not the primary deliverers of programs of this kind. In fact, if one looked at some of the areas about which the Hon. Member talked, and they are shared, there is some federal responsibility. There is no question about it. If one examines the record one will see that the Government has responded in that particular area. However, a good number of them more appropriately fall within provincial jurisdiction. We do not have the facilities, the network, the people on the ground, or the extension people that provincial agricultural Departments have. There are reasons for this.
One must recognize what has happened in the past decade, or even less than a decade.
One has only to examine in detail the majority of cases that are going through the farm debt review process to find that almost without exception they fall into one category. That category includes those people who were told certain things and advised to do certain things in the early 1970s, because

May 9, 1988
Supply
certain things were going to happen in the 1980s. They took that advice. They did those things. They expanded their operations very dramatically. Then, of course, they were hit by 24 per cent interest rates and had to refinance. Some of those people are able to get through with some real difficulties.
But people who are in the grains and oilseeds sector are the ones who unfortunately are not able to get through. These are really days of paradox in Canadian agriculture. There has been record farm income in 1986 and 1987. Record farm income is being predicted for this year, 1988. This would not be the case if it had not been for the support programs provided to Canadian farmers by the Canadian Government.
From an agricultural point of view nothing is perfect. However, the record will stand the test of time. We delivered on all our campaign commitments. We have increased the budget by 400 per cent. We have taken 585 initiatives, delivering more than $9 billion, most of which has gone out in the form of direct farm support.
After having said that, I would not want anyone either in the agricultural community or anyone in Canada for that matter to think that this Minister of Agriculture, my cabinet colleagues and my caucus colleagues are not very much aware of the stress mentioned by the Hon. Member. We are going to try to do everything we can not only to minimize it but, hopefully, to eliminate it completely.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Minister. A great many of these matters fall within provincial jurisdiction, especially in terms of social services, health, and so on. It might be worth while for the Minister to consider putting this item on the agenda for the next meeting he has with provincial Ministers of Agriculture. I am not sure when that is. I believe it is in July. They will be discussing the general problems facing farmers across the country. There might be some value in pursuing this item at a special conference. I do not want there to be a big study done, something which will delay things and cost all kinds of money. However, it may be worth while to have it as an agenda item and perhaps to have a working group from the federal and provincial ministers' conference to take a look at farm stress.
It is particularly important on the Prairies, as the Minister has said. In the grains and oilseeds sector there is a world crisis. That has been compounded by the fact that there is a drought. I am just thinking on my feet as we go along. I had not thought of this until the Minister got up. Perhaps it can be considered as an agenda item or for a working group to consider. It can offer some hope in this particular area. It can, if nothing else, co-ordinate the approach among the provinces.
The Minister mentioned one thing that is really important, which is the emotional weight falling on the shoulders of the farm woman. The study conducted by the Government of Saskatchewan stated that there is now an increase in abuse of the farm wife and an increase in the abuse of children. The
report states: "According to one special counsellor there is an increase in wife and child abuse, including sexual abuse, but also non-sexual abuse". Obviously the load falls more heavily on the unsung hero who is the farm woman. Over the years the farm woman has made a tremendous contribution not only to rural Canada but to Canada in terms of doing more than her fair share of the work on the farm and of making it a productive unit. She is the person who often receives no wage, no pension plan, and does not have the social net that many women working outside the farm and outside the home would have in an urban setting.


John Wise: Or, had her total salary go into the farm.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, or have her total salary go into the farm operation. Even in the best of times, the role played by the farm woman is a very difficult role and must be a very stressful role.
I grew up on a farm. I left the farm and went to university in the city. I know many farmers in my own riding, and in my community over the years since I was a small child. I know the contribution made by many of the women during those days. Even in the better days, in the 1950s and 1960s, and the booming agriculture days in western Canada in the 1970s, there was still an extra burden borne by farm women. Today they have this type of stress. I can think of examples in my riding where the male farmer is horrendously depressed by of things he cannot control by his own hands or brain in terms of his own operation because of trade wars or the rain does not fall, and in many ways the burden is even greater on that farmer's wife.
I wish to underline what the Minister has stated, but perhaps he could consider the possibility of this being an agenda item at the conference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister a further comment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture.


John Wise: I appreciate the unanimous consent granted, Mr. Speaker. I know that the time for questions and comments has expired, but I would just like to utilize this opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's request that we place this item on the agenda at the next federal-provincial agricultural ministers' meeting.
I would like to indicate to the House that I will seek concurrence from my provincial counterparts to add this particular item to that agenda.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey).
May 9, 1988


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: May 9, 1988
Supply
the farmers' share of premiums from 80 per cent to 75 per cent in 1966, with a further reduction to 50 per cent in 1973.
The program has also been made more flexible. Farmers can now opt for 60, 70 or 80 per cent coverage in some provinces. Since 1973, enrollment in federal-provincial crop insurance plans has increased significantly. Last year, almost 135,000 farmers participated in the Crop Insurance Program. More than 42 million acres were covered by insurance, with the federal Government contributing more than $180 million to crop insurance schemes across the country. Of that amount, more than $145 million was provided to western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Crop insurance officials are well aware of the dry conditions in much of western Canada. They well remember what happened in 1984, and again in 1985. This year, those officials have made a special effort to encourage farmers in the West to enroll in insurance plans. The deadlines for applications for crop insurance were widely publicized, and especially so in western Canada. Farmers had until the end of March to apply for coverage for forage and feed crops, and until the end of April for annual crops.
Estimates for this year indicate that more than 95,000 farmers from the prairie provinces will be covered by the Crop Insurance Program, with the breakdown being as follows: 16,800 farmers in Manitoba; 48,000 in Saskatchewan; and 30,500 in Alberta. Almost 3,000 farmers in British Columbia are expected to be covered.
The federal Government is pleased by the response of the producers. We are especially pleased that the registration of forage producers is up about 60 per cent, and that they have purchased 130 per cent more protection.
The federal-provincial crop insurance scheme has a proven track record. It is a vital part of the federal strategy, a strategy that very much addresses the concerns of the motion now being debated by this House. Crop insurance is in fact one long-term response of the federal Government to help protect Canadian producers against environmental disasters.
This Government is committed to crop insurance as the best means available to protect against crop loss. With crop insurance, farmers can be confident that they are well protected against the whims of nature-and that, Mr. Speaker, is what we are discussing this morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have both a comment and a question in respect of crop insurance.
As I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, one of the concerns with having insurance as a long-term tool is that we eventually stabilize at a lower level as a result of a continuing reduction in production levels. That is a concern of those farmers who have experienced lower and lower production levels over a period of three or four years. Farmers in that circumstance are now at a point where they are insuring at a
level at which it no longer becomes worth while buying insurance.
In my region of Saskatchewan, the return on crops has dropped to a level where the insurance pay-out is not sufficient to pay one's production costs. That is a weakness of the Crop Insurance Program that is making itself felt in respect of a number of agricultural products.
I am wondering whether the Hon. Member has any suggestions to offer to federal-provincial crop insurance officials in respect of the problem of insurance levels dropping to the point where they no longer return even the cost of production to the producer.


Elliott William Hardey: I appreciate the comment and the question from the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). Certainly I am aware of the ongoing discussions aimed at making the Crop Insurance Program as lucrative as possible for the producer. The program itself is designed to insure against disasters of nature, providing for those who suffer from such a disaster a return close to the average that would have been realized in normal circumstances.
I hope that the Hon. Member for Prince Albert is not confusing the 5-year averages with the stabilization program, something about which we all have a concern in respect of the development of averages. Certainly in my area of the country, regional averages have not been dramatically adjusted as a result of natural disasters impacting on crops. While we are now facing average lower incomes as a result of market prices, yield averages have not been drastically affected, to my knowledge.
Individual production records are carefully maintained by the crop insurance officials and individual producers can develop their own averages, based upon their own pattern of production, with the result that an individual producer, in the event of a disaster, can realize a return that reflects that producer's past yield pattern. Certainly, this is the case in my area of the country, and I am sure that it is not very much different in the western part of Canada to which the Hon. Member for Prince Albert referred.
I agree that we should try to do whatever we can to make the crop insurance plan as workable and as lucrative as possible for the producer. We need to have ongoing efforts aimed at encouraging producer participation.
The crop insurance plan is there for a purpose, and it is achieving its purpose. That is not to say it cannot be improved. Every system can stand improvement, and certainly we encourage efforts toward that end.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
May 9, 1988



DISARMAMENT AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, a recent press release from the office of the Public Works Minister (Mr. Mclnnes) announced that the sale of federal property had yielded over $170 million.
The purpose of this program was to reduce the number of surplus federal properties and to help bring down the federal deficit.
We would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Government would take this opportunity to ensure that some of these spaces and buildings were converted into housing for Canada's 100,000 homeless.
On reading this press release, I noticed that several properties will be developed by private consortiums. For example, the Canlands in Ottawa will become an administrative complex; an old office building in Vancouver will be transformed into chic retail spaces; the RCMP building in Westmount will be replaced with twin towers for luxury housing; Dufferin Street in Toronto will be used for an industrial development and office building project. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the homeless have no voice in this House. The Minister has forgotten them.
On their behalf, I accuse the Minister of lack of leadership in this issue.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, about one month ago Canadians of Japanese origin held a giant redress rally on Parliament Hill. Since then the United States Senate has approved a redress package for Americans of Japanese origin which includes individual compensation of $20,000 per person.
As the House and the Government reflect on these events, I am sure that they will bear in mind the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as reported in The Globe and Mail for May 16, 1984:
-Canadian citizens whose rights were abused and violated and trampled
upon indeed should be compensated.



STUDENTS AGAINST GLOBAL EXTERMINATION

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the students and faculty of John Abbott College of Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, for having recently declared their school a nuclear weapons free zone.
The effort to establish a nuclear weapons free zone at John Abbott was spearheaded by the Students Against Global Extermination, SAGE. They are justifiably proud of their important achievement. In their letter to me the students wrote:
We hope that in our act and the acts of groups like ourselves, in communities across Canada and the world, we will demonstrate that ordinary citizens will not tolerate the nuclear arm's race any further.
Their declaration is not simply a symbolic gesture. Rather, it is tangible evidence of a clear and compelling message that many Canadians share, that continued nuclear deployments, expansions, and modernizations are untenable and unacceptable.



ABORTION

[Stage Direction]
RIGHT TO LIFE OF UNBORN CHILDREN Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River): Mr. Speaker:
Why is there always such a controversy over when life begins? Even if there is doubt that it is a human being from conception, what gives one the right to take that life? Am I free to shoot a rifle at an object if I am not certain what it is, especially if it might be a human being? The doubt must give that little unborn child a right to life that is equal to that of the mother. If there is not a human being at conception, at some point the fertilized ovum becomes one. If I had difficulty in believing that human life began at conception, I certainly would not want to be in the position of deciding whether it began at eight days, one month, three months or at birth. Anyone who claims to do that is taking the place of God.
This quotation came to me from Rev. Father Ken Forster of Fort St. James, B.C.
I believe that life begins at conception. When we write an abortion law, let us make sure it is based on the truth that the unborn have the right to live.

[Stage Direction]
1985 GANDER AIR CRASH-JUDICIAL INQUIRY URGED
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, evidence is mounting daily which seriously contradicts the findings of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board's preliminary report into the terrible tragedy which took the

May 9, 1988
lives of 248 U.S. servicemen in Gander, Newfoundland, in December, 1985.
Members of the ground crew who worked on the ill-fated DC-8 prior to its fatal crash stated over the past weekend that "there was no ice build-up whatsoever on the aircraft prior to takeoff'.
This is in direct contradiction to the findings of the Board's preliminary report which concluded that "icing caused this terrible crash".
Canadians are asking when the Minister of Transport will stop stonewalling this important issue and call for a full judicial inquiry so that the families of the crash victims and the Canadian public can learn the real facts behind this tangled web which was shrouded from the beginning in contradiction and mystery.
Lives have been lost, Mr. Speaker. We have to make sure it is our responsibility that this tragic incident is not repeated. We can only do that with the facts.



FINANCE


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the new measures announced last week by the Progressive Conservative Government of this country, flow-through shares have once again become an attractive tax shelter. For the next two and a half years, flow-through shares will remain the best tax shelter available in this country.
We owe this victory to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) (Mr. Merrithew), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and Deputy Minister Pierre O. Perron, who, thanks to his experience and competence, was able to correctly advise Members in mining areas, and Regis Labeaume, president of the Quebec Prospectors Association, the only association in Canada whose members have been digging in their heels since June 1987.
Mr. Speaker, ever since the White Paper on Tax Reform was tabled, I have fought side by side with our prospectors in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. It wasn't easy, but thanks to the joint efforts of our prospectors, the mining industry and the public, we have been able to make the mining industry in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Quebec one of the pillars of the sustained economic growth we need in Quebec.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-MINISTER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, despite the Government's hard sell and $14 million in propaganda to try to push the U.S. trade deal, even the Finance Minister's own constituents are worried about it. I have here the results of a questionnaire sent out by the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) in his "Householder".
These results show that 38.4 per cent of the Minister's own constituents are strongly opposed to the trade deal while only 34.9 per cent strongly support it.
The biggest concern for those against the deal is the loss of Canadian sovereignty, with 36.1 per cent saying that was why they opposed the deal. They realize how this deal is eliminating Canadian freedom in energy policy, investment, publishing, automotive policy and so forth.
Nor do the Minister's own constituents see this deal as being a big boost to jobs. More oppose the deal because of job concerns than support it-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.



MANPOWER


Mr. Claude Lanthier (La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Montreal, I had the honour of representing our Government when a grant for $50,000 was announced to establish and fund a manpower adjustment committee for southwest Montreal, including Ville Emard, which is part of my riding.
As a long-time resident of this part of Montreal where my family has lived for generations, I am confident that those representing federal, provincial and municipal governments, employers, unions and community organizations on this Committee will make use of every available resource to revitalize the labour market and the economy in southwest Montreal.
A special word of congratulations to the Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand) who has been working on the Committee for two years and is now about to see his sustained efforts bear fruit!
May 9, 1988



TAX REFORM


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, under stage one of tax reform, parents of healthy children 18 years or older who live at home lose the current personal exemption of $1,200. A tax credit of $850 is offered for handicapped children. There is also a tax credit for post-secondary education tuition fees, but an 18-year-old still attending high school is not eligible, and in Ontario most grade 13 students are 18.
Single parents are hit hard. A single parent who formerly claimed the equivalent to married deduction for a dependent child over 18, valued at $3,740, can no longer do so. Imagine the financial burden being placed on a single person with a child over 18 still at home, either in high school or unemployed. Family allowance payments have stopped, support payments for the child from the other spouse have more than likely stopped, and now there is no tax relief.
In November of 1987 the Finance Committee recommended that the Government reconsider these proposals, but the Government has decided against it. The high cost to parents of supporting 18-year-olds should not have been ignored by the Government.



FREEDOM OF SPEECH


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, a shameful incident occurred in Moncton, New Brunswick, during a demonstration organized by labour union leader Greg Murphy, a former NDP candidate. The wife of Canada's Prime Minister was insulted and attacked, and several children were injured. The demonstrators acted in a way that was degrading and harmful to the image of this country. In its Saturday edition, the Moncton Times reported that representatives of the federal NDP in Moncton had urged people to join the demonstration organized for that day.
The newspaper's report read as follows: "The Moncton wing of the federal NDP gave its unanimous support to a public demonstration organized to coincide with today's visit to Moncton by Prime Minister Mulroney".
I hope the Leader of the NDP will make a public statement to the Members of his Party and all those who contributed to this show of violence, and tell them that this kind of behaviour is anti-democratic and unacceptable for any political party in
this country. We were familiar with the verbal violence of Shirley Carr and Bob White, the labour leaders who are in bed with the NDP. But now, with organizers like Murphy, we have seen physical violence in Moncton!



FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the backing down by the Government last week on film distribution policy was another cave-in on our independent cultural policy, and it is certainly not the last as a result of the influence of the free trade deal. Listen to what Jack McAndrew of Video Atlantic has to say about it:
Flora's bill has about as many teeth as one of my chickens-and they have more heart.
Not only will Canadian distributors be required to bid against Americans with more resources; the Americans can use their clout in controlling the American market to force the addition of Canadian rights to U.S. rights. It simply means more paperwork in signing two contracts instead of one. Flora's distribution fund won't do much in the face of that economic power.
We are seeing the first cultural casualty of the Free Trade Agreement.
The Americans squawk like a rooster in heat, and the Tories furiously lay another egg-a cracked egg.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal dominated other place has placed politics above the Canadian people by allowing the immigration system to become a world-class joke. Without passage of Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, Canada has to contend with the present inefficient and slow-moving refugee process.
The criminal element has seized this opportunity to escape prosecution in their own countries. Recently an American wanted for murder was using our liberal immigration law, which was passed by a Liberal Government, to thwart his return to the U.S. by claiming refugee status.
Our refugee laws are only to be applied to those who meet the UN definition of convention refugees. Criminals are exempt from these regulations. Only genuine refugees and the Canadian people are being hurt by the Liberal Senate's lack of responsibility.
5. O. 21 FISHERIES

May 9, 1988



CANADA-FRANCE DISPUTE-ISSUE OF FRENCH PERMITS TO NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERMEN

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, a common description of a dead codfish, as you will well know, is head-on-gutted. The Government of Canada looks even worse in its dispute with the French. It is both headless and gutless.
First, it failed to warn Captain Willoughby Holt that he would be arrested if he fished where he has always fished.
Today we discover that fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland have forms in their hands which the French are going to issue as permits before they can fish where they have always fished.
It is about time that the Government got some guts and stood up to the Government of France and cancelled the Airbus and other negotiations. It is about time that the Government of Canada stood up and fought for Newfoundland fishermen.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday in San Francisco the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) was awarded the highest award for service to the environment by the Sierra Club.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: I hope you will not take that applause from my time, Mr. Speaker, even though it was well deserved.
In his acceptance speech he asked what hope there was for the future of the planet if two close friends like the U.S. and Canada cannot make progress on environmental issues.
The Sierra Club recognizes the great progress we have made in co-operation with our great friend south of the border, even if the Opposition does not.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, a mediator has been appointed at last in the dispute between Treasury Board and the language teachers. As you know, the
situation has been dragging on, and the Government has been particularly stubborn and very reluctant to reach a settlement. The parties will go back to the negotiating table tomorrow. We are optimistic, and we sincerely hope that the Government is prepared to negotiate in good faith and settle this dispute.
The mediation process must not be allowed to fail through the fault of an intransigent Government that claims it is doing everything it can to promote official languages. As was said recently by Huguette Labelle, Chairman of the Public Service Commission: "It must be very difficult, if not impossible, for a language teacher to teach 37 hours per week. We would never agree to those conditions. We have said quite clearly that as far as we are concerned, 25 hours per week is a maximum . .. ".

[ English]



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government seems to have a deliberate policy to denigrate the progress that Indians have made in economic, social, and educational advancement of their people over the years. The latest betrayal has been the Government's denial of the 1976 Saskatchewan formula for settlement of land claims. The Minister responsible is proclaiming the "first survey" solution which would eliminate a major portion of the claims in Saskatchewan and across Canada.
Besides that, bands are being put off in their attempts to upgrade their schools, both physically and educationally. Attempts to provide equity in education are being stonewalled wherever the bands are making plans for progress.
It is time the Government accepted the First Nations as citizens who need quality schools, homes, and a solid economic base on which to build.



PROSTITUTION


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, street prostitution continues to be an insufferable problem for urban Canadian residents and has caused a continuing headache for local police.
In Parkdale-High Park and the rest of downtown Toronto residents have repeatedly complained of encountering harassment, abusive language, and problems with drug trafficking in their neighbourhoods as a result of an increasingly bold population of prostitutes and their clients.
May 9, 1988

Municipal by-laws prohibiting street prostitution have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Although the new federal law has improved the situation, it has not resolved the problem.
I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to move quickly to draft stronger enforceable legislation which will finally put an end to this longstanding blight on Canada's urban landscape.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. France has snubbed the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, insulted the Governor General of Canada on a recent visit to Paris, deliberately provoked the arrest of a French fishing vessel, kept Canadian tourists from entering France, and has now improperly arrested a small Newfoundland fishing boat. More than that, the huge factory freezer trawlers continue to overfish the disputed zone off the coast of Newfoundland.
Has the Prime Minister told the French Government that, while Canadians can understand an isolated incident or a diplomatic error, Canadians cannot understand or tolerate a series of provocations on the part of France and that this series of events runs the risk of jeopardizing the good relations between our two countries?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we take this most recent incident very seriously. We have been pursuing a negotiated solution with France on the larger question. This morning we delivered a formal note of protest to the French Government regarding the incident respecting the Maritimer.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that note is a big deal. I am sure it will impress the people of Newfoundland.


REQUEST THAT SUBMARINE AND AIRPLANE NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, why does the Government not stand up to France? The French have no more right to overfish off the coast of Newfoundland and treat those waters as their waters than we would have to lay a claim to the Palais de Versailles, the Champs Elysees, or the Eiffel Tower.
The Prime Minister is not here so I will address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week he ridiculed members of the Opposition who felt that the
Oral Questions
issue had become serious enough to suspend negotiations for the purchase of the nuclear submarines and the French aircraft. Today he will know that even the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford, is supporting the claims we made here in the House of Commons for the suspension of those negotiations for the purchase of both French aircraft and the nuclear powered submarines.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to ridicule the Premier of Newfoundland in the same tone as he ridiculed our members and the members of the Opposition last Friday here in the House of Commons?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had rather hoped, when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition began his questions, that he was going to take a more responsible tone than had been taken by some of his members the other day. Some of them, of course, were trying to use this very serious difference with France as the pretext for starting a trade war which may well claim several French casualties, but a trade war which would also claim very many Canadian casualties.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, better than other members of his Party, should know about the provisions of the 1972 treaty which is at the root of this difficulty because he was a member of the Government which concluded and signed that treaty.


John Napier Turner: The 1972 treaty is a bit of a myth of the right hon. gentleman and his colleague, the Minister for International Trade. It has nothing to do with this present dispute. It has no bearing on it whatsoever. I take it from the tone of his response to me, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is disowning the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, and we will transmit that when we have an opportunity to be there.


OPPORTUNITY FOR CANADA TO TOUGHEN POSITION TOWARD FRANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, claims it does not want to jeopardize good bilateral relations between France and Canada. Isn't it a fact that France has already jeopardized those relations? The Government claims that the arrest of a small Newfoundland fishing boat is only an isolated incident. However, it is the latest in a series of incidents including the insults to the Governor General, the harassment by French officials of Canadian tourists on the French border, and flagrant overfishing in our fishing zones by French trawlers.
The incompetent and weak approach taken by our exambassador Lucien Bouchard has turned out to be a total failure. Mr. Speaker, isn't it time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister did something

May 9, 1988
Oral Questions
about this? Isn't it time Canada started to play hardball the way France has done, the latter without eliciting any any response from the Canadian Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to the statement issued by the Premier of Newfoundland. The Right Hon. Leader knows that I would never disown the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. He would also perhaps know that with my usual caution I have read the statement of the Premier of Newfoundland-


John Napier Turner: Right here!


Charles Joseph Clark: No, you are reading a press release. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is reading a press release. He would be well advised, as a matter of general practice, to read the whole document and not content himself with press releases.


DISTRIBUTION OF FRENCH PERMIT FORMS TO NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERMEN
Bill Rompkey: As I told you earlier today, Mr. Speaker, there is a common description for a dead codfish in Newfoundland. It is "head-on-gutted". The Government of Canada looks even worse. It is headless and gutless in this dispute with the French.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs talks about a note he sent. I want to tell him that permit forms are in the hands of fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland today, French permit forms, that they are going to have to get to fish inside that 12-mile St. Pierre zone.
What Government is this? Is this the Government of Newfoundland or not? If it is, why won't the Minister show some guts? Why don't you cancel the Airbus? Why don't you cancel the nuclear submarines? Why don't you stand up and fight for Newfoundland fishermen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this Government has acted vigorously to protect the interests of Canada, and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -Canadian fishermen, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador, regarding this dispute with France. In the case at issue, the case of the Maritimer, for example, it had not before been the practice, when there have been Canadian fishermen involved in this kind of dispute, for the Government of Canada to put up bond. This Government has put up bond. It has not been the practice-


Ms. Copps:: Big deal!


Charles Joseph Clark: Big deal, says the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. Yes, it is. It is a change in a precedent.


Bill Rompkey: Will you pay the fine?


Charles Joseph Clark: There has been a threat against Canadian interests. This Government, instead of being bound by the precedents and, indeed, instead of being limited by the treaty signed by the Liberal Government in 1972, this Government has been prepared to put up the bond, which had not occurred before.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Big deal!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is prepared to offer legal counsel to the captain, which had not been the case before.
We have a proposal here by the Liberal Party that we should take this very serious incident, and it is unquestionably serious and we are pursuing it with France, and escalate it into a trade war. I think one knows that a trade war which might begin with this kind of issue would go on to something else. One of the things it might go on to, I say to those who are interested in the economy of Atlantic Canada, for example, might be the investment in Michelin Tire.


John Napier Turner: Come on! Get out of it.


Charles Joseph Clark: If there is a trade war, among the casualties in Canada of this trade war the Liberals are trying to start gratuitously, might be a thousand employees of Michelin Tire in Nova Scotia. The Liberal Party might want casually to throw those Canadians out of work. We are not interested in doing that.


NORTHERN COD STOCK-CANADA-FRANCE NEGOTIATIONS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, that is what the Secretary of State is not prepared to do. What is he prepared to do? Is he prepared to act at all?
If he is not prepared to do something let me ask him if the Government, which denied a quota of northern cod to Labrador fishermen, will also say no to the French? Will he give an assurance here and now that there will be no northern cod on the table when and if negotiations ever start with the French?


Charles Joseph Clark: What we are dealing with here is a long-standing dispute between Canada and France, a dispute that is rooted in an agreement signed by those two countries when the Liberal Government was in power in Canada, under the 1972 treaty. It is a matter that we want to have resolved. We had been moving toward mediation. The French then took an action which made it impossible for us to continue in those circumstances with the mediation arrangement.
We acted to stop the mediation. We have acted to protect the interests of the Maritimer, and its captain and crew. We have acted to follow the process through the courts. We have
May 9, 1988

acted to establish a formal protest with the Government of France. We are following the matter now.
It is our view, and I take this opportunity to state it formally, that the established practices that had been followed respecting the smaller fishermen of Newfoundland and, indeed, of St. Pierre and Miquelon, should continue in the future to be followed as they were in the past. That is the position that we are putting forward to the Government of France.


Bill Rompkey: Then say it publicly.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Eton. Member asks why I do not say it publicly. In my view when I say something in the House of Commons of Canada I am saying it publicly.


Bill Rompkey: The French have not heard it.


TRADITIONAL ARRANGEMENT ENJOYED BY SMALL FISHING CRAFT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the arrest, which the Minister called an invitation, of the Maritimer on Thursday, the French now require inshore fishers to have permits to fish off St. Pierre and Miquelon. On Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said:
This is the first time that traditional arrangement has ever been challenged
as it was yesterday, and in that respect, Canada will not stand idly by and
allow this to happen.
Will the Minister tell us what Canada is doing so that this will not happen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just been making the point in the House of the things that we have done since the French acted in a way to break traditional practices that had brought benefit to smaller fishermen from Newfoundland and smaller fishermen from St. Pierre and Miquelon. We want those former practices respected in every case. That is the position of the Government of Canada.
I should not have to tell Members of the House-I think they understand-that these events may well have been related to an election in France yesterday. I think that Hon. Members, whatever their interest on Friday was in a trade war, would want Canada to proceed calmly and positively to try to resolve the situation in a way that respects the traditions, practices, and interests of all Canadians, rather than jumping into an unnecessary and provocative trade war.
If we have to defend Canadian interests, we will certainly defend them. We as the Government of Canada have done that on scores of occasions. We believe that there may well be some change in the circumstances now as a result of the election yesterday. We want to take advantage of those changes that may occur.
Oral Questions CANADIAN POSITION


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that we want the former practices restored. He did not say what Canada is prepared to do to get those former practices restored. He did not say what Canada is prepared to do, instead of standing idly by and wringing its hands. When will Canada be prepared to take this issue as seriously as France obviously takes it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, laying down our defences is a very odd position being put forward by one of the leading advocates in the House of Commons who wants to take Canada out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
What he wants us to do is to take an issue that is serious and complicated in itself, a very specific issue, but instead of trying to solve it in the Canadian interest he wants us to use it as a pretext to start a trade war. That is a very odd kind of pacifism.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned trade wars. I have not mentioned trade. I have been asking the Minister what he is prepared to do, and what the Canadian Government is prepared to do to defend the interests of Newfoundland fishers.
He said that the Canadian Government is not going to stand idly by. What is the Canadian Government going to do to protect Canadian interests? That is what we want to know.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I have said in the House before. We have provided the bail and the bond in the case of the Maritimer. We have indicated to the ship captain who has been involved here that we will take the very unusual practice of providing legal counsel.
We have protested officially to the Government of France.
We have suspended the progress that was being made toward mediation in the larger question that has occupied Canada and France. Those are particular actions that we have taken.
We are now waiting to see what the response of the French will be to the Canadian proposal that the traditional practices that have governed the relations between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland, and have brought benefit to smaller fishermen of both sides, should be respected to the letter.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for

May 9, 1988
Oral Questions
External Affairs. The House and the people of Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland, are trying to understand the position of the Government.
Last Friday in the House the Secretary of State told us that we cannot take stronger measures because it may have an effect on Canadair employees. Today he is saying that we cannot take stronger measures because it may have an effect on Michelin Tire employees.
I am sure the representative of the Government of France in Canada is pleased to report back to Paris today that, essentially, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is advertising to the French Government that no stronger measure, other than words and protest, shall be forthcoming from this Government, and that the people and the fishing industry in Newfoundland are disposable in Canada's relationship with France. Is that what the Secretary of State is telling the House today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have received a question, and the simple answer to that is no.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would sit down-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


FRENCH LICENCES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who thinks this is amusing, and who thinks that Canadians who live in Newfoundland are disposable in the national interest, is the following. What action is the Government prepared to take?
Does the Government agree with France when it states that Newfoundland fishing boats, or for that matter fishing boats from Atlantic Canada, fishing off those waters from now on will have to have a French licence? Does he agree?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's second question of the day, as I have said before in the House, no.
Let us be very clear here. The Hon. Member's-I do not want to impute motives-version of what I have said in the House of Commons bears no relation to the facts. If the French report his version of what was said, then the French will be wrong, just as we believe the French are wrong-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What do you believe? What will you do?


Charles Joseph Clark: -on the elements of the issue. Just as it is our position, we have made it very clear again in the House and in direct conversations with the French, that we
believe that the traditional practices respecting the smaller fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and of Newfoundland and Labrador, should continue to be respected to the letter. That is the position that we have made clear to the French.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are asked what we have done. 1 was asked that question by a member of the New Democratic Party a moment ago, and I listed four or five of the things that we have done already. We are now waiting to see what the French response is, and naturally if the French response is not satisfactory to us, we will continue in the future as we have in the past-


Brian Vincent Tobin: To do what?


Charles Joseph Clark: -to put the interests of Canadians first and to protect those interests in negotiations with France.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: A very brief supplementary, in view of the mix-up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think there was legitimate confusion, and I certainly will recognize the Hon. Member for a short supplementary question.


PRIME MINISTER'S SCHEDULED VISIT TO FRANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister is going to France in two weeks, as the Secretary of State well knows, is he not really telling the House that the reason there is no action forthcoming now or any meaningful gesture, is that they do not want to mess up the Prime Minister's photo opportunity at the Elysee Palace? Is that not what he is really saying?
Will the Prime Minister communicate to the Government of France that, if the matter is not resolved by the time he arrives in France, he will be telling the Government of France when he arrives that the submarine negotiations and the Airbus negotiations are off?
Is that not a reasonable position to take over the next two weeks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member has been through a lot of stress recently, and I simply want to tell him the accusation that he has made in the House of Commons is an absolute falsehood.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Joe, you are a coward personally and politically, and so is this Government.


An Hon. Member:: Shut up.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I won't be shut up; Newfoundland won't be shut up. We won't be traded off for jobs.
May 9, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which concerns the very substantial increase in profits announced by Canadan Tire for this year's first quarter.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that this increase is almost entirely due to Canadian Tire's credit card operations and is the result of the 28.8 per cent interest rate Canadian Tire customers have to pay?
Does the Minister believe that the rate charged by Canadian Tire on its credit cards is excessive? If so, what does he intend to do to protect consumers and reduce the interest charged on these credit cards?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I accept or reject the premise of the Hon. Member that somehow the credit card interest rates are responsible, because I understand that the rate he quoted is pretty well the rate that applies to all retail credit cards, be it Petro-Canada, Hudson's Bay, Eaton's, or any store. I was not aware of any analysis to indicate that the profits of these companies are exceedingly high because of their credit cards.
I will take a look into the matter and report back to the Hon. Member.


RETAIL STORES' CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Does the Minister not recall a few months ago the Finance Committee found "that the credit card rates charged by retailers were blatantly unfair when they were about 8 per cent higher than the rates being charged by the bank credit cards"? That gap has now widened to 12 per cent for The Bay, Eaton's, Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, Sears, Simpson's, and Zellers.
Is the Minister prepared to take action to protect consumers by investigating anti-competitive behaviour of the retailers, or by taking legislative action to bring those credit card rates down?


Harvie Andre: I am not sure what the Hon. Member means by "anti-competitive behaviour". If the Hon. Member has some evidence to support collusion or some sort of monopolistic
Oral Questions
activity by these companies, he should bring it forward because that is a criminal activity and they would be charged.
Perhaps the Hon. Member was not present or had his mind on other matters when we showed a study by my Department which indicated that, in fact, depending on how one pays off one's account, if one pays it off in fairly quick order, in one or two months, it can be cheaper to use one of those higher rate cards than the lower rated bank card because of when the clock starts ticking for accumulated interest, and so on.
It is overly simplistic, as the Hon. Member should know, and not doing a service to Canadians, to try to imply that that rate and nothing else is determinate of profits, of monopolistic behaviour, or any other illicit or improper behaviour.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Twenty-eight per cent is fair, is what you are
saying.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE NETHERLANDS MINISTER OF HOUSING, PHYSICAL PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of his Excellency, E.T.H.M. Nijpels, Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, Government of The Netherlands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*	* V


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment.
Last Thursday Lucien Rolland, Chairman of Rolland Inc., a paper company, said:
The time frame for adapting to the free trade environment is very short, and we feel strongly that the federal government, having changed the rules of the game, has an obligation to put together, in co-operation with provincial governments, adjustment assistance programs designed specifically for industries which are affected.
If the Government is intent on proceeding with this bad trade deal, will it at least listen to these requests for special adjustment programs to help those who are hurt by it?
These requests are coming, not only from industry and labour, but also from two unanimous committee reports of this Parliament.
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1988
Oral Questions
When will the Government act?
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, we have an instrument in place in the form of the Canadian Job Strategy, which has built into it flexibility for dealing with labour adjustment under any number of circumstances.
Labour adjustment is a normal fact of life. Much of the flexibility under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is directed toward allowing people to take advantage of new opportunities.
There are perhaps some people in the business sector who do not understand what instruments we have available now. Even in the committee reports, which I have reviewed in some considerable detail, free trade is not made a major issue.
The authors of those reports know that we are looking at the Canadian Jobs Strategy in terms of ensuring that it is flexible. We also have a private sector labour adjustment advisory committee, which will tell us, as we go along, whether there are additional needs, and we will, of course, be paying very close attention to the advice of that advisory committee.
[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT PLANNING PROGRAM-PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS-MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on April 13 the Economic Council of Canada stated that 188,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the free trade agreement. Most of these jobs are industrial jobs that will be replaced by jobs in the service sector.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of situation requires a considerable adjustment, and the Canadian Jobs Strategy as it stands now is inadequate.
When will the Minister act on the forty-nine recommendations made by the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, to change and improve this program for Canadian workers?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that is a very small number of adjustments, compared to the five million Canadians who annually change their jobs or cope with adjustments within their jobs.
In designing a flexible program we wanted to ensure that, whatever the reason for labour adjustment, the flexibility was there to accommodate it. It is for that reason that we designed the Canadian Jobs Strategy as we have, and it is a program that does work in conjunction with the provinces. As well, various industries themselves have put in place programs to assist in labour adjustment.
When compared to the over-all adjustment in the economy, that which flows from the free trade deal will be relatively
small. Additionally, the free trade agreement will lead to new opportunities for many of those workers affected by it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
It has been reported that, for the past year, the Bureau of Competition Policy has been investigating concerns over collusion in some areas of the real estate industry, which collusion has been costing Canadian consumers many millions of dollars.
Can the Minister confirm that that investigation is actually going on, and whether or not some evidence of collusion has turned up; and if so, tell us what he intends to do about it?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): The Hon. Member is correct, the Bureau of Competition Policy has indeed been investigating the commission structure within the real estate industry. Some months ago, in fact, the Office of the Bureau of Competition Policy had cause to gather evidence from a number of real estate boards across the country, and that information is now being looked at.
Because of the distance that has to be maintained between my office and that of the Director of Investigation and Research, I am unable, under law, to know precisely where that investigation now rests. I am told that it is being pursued with dispatch and that some recommendation will be made in the near future. Whether the decision will be to lay charges, I cannot say at this point in time.


PROVISIONS OF STATUTE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Neil Young: By way of supplementary, is the Minister advising us that there are weaknesses in the law? And if there are weaknesses in the law, does the Minister intend to change the law; and if so, when does he propose to do so?
If the investigation indicates that there has been a contravention of the law, and no charges are laid, one has to ask why the law is not being applied.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to conclude that there are weaknesses in the law. In fact, the new competition law, passed by this House in June of 1986, has shown itself to be a very useful tool in ensuring competition in a wide variety of areas. I would be pleased to go over with the Hon. Member the successes that have been achieved in this regard.
The investigation in question is a trans-Canada one, involving many jurisdictions. It is quite complex.
May 9, 1988

The Director of Investigation and Research is pursuing the investigation with dispatch, and I have total confidence in his ability. I am sure he will reach the proper conclusion in the near future.


COMMISSION RATES CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister and is on the same subject.
I respect the fact that the Minister has to keep a distance between himself and the Bureau of Competition Policy. However, recently a spokesman for the Bureau of Competition Policy made the statement that the Government simply cannot lower commission rates.
My question for the Minister is this. Does he agree with that statement?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): In a general sense, yes, since there is no ability on the part of my Department, in any one of its branches, either to increase prices or lower prices from where they are. However, if in fact there are anti-competitive aspects involved, aspects that are contrary to the Competition Act, and those are removed, I have every confidence that competition in the marketplace would cause a lowering of rates. That is the objective. Certainly we cannot lower rates by fiat or direction. It is only through increasing competition that we can bring about a lowering of rates.


PROVISIONS OF COMPETITION ACT
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: The
Minister knows that the Competition Act makes it illegal for anyone to conspire to fix prices or to lessen competition, whether in sales or in services.
Will the Minister intervene in support of the Canadian consumer? Or is the Minister willing to let the case go to court?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): I await the recommendation of the Director of Investigation and Research in respect of whether in fact there is evidence of collusion to fix prices and whether a successful prosecution could result.
More important, what I am after is to try to ensure that there is as much competition as possible in the marketplace, since I believe that that is the way the consumer will get the greatest benefit.
There was cause to be suspicious in this situation, and that is why the investigation was launched. But, in fairness, I have to await the results of the investigation before reaching any conclusion as to culpability, or otherwise, on the part of any of the participants.
Oral Questions


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, who is no doubt aware that environmental groups are in Ottawa at this very moment to discuss their concerns. How does the Minister intend to respond to their demand for participation in the process of implementing the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission? Will there be a program in his Department to promote sustained development, and will environmental groups be able to obtain funding from his Department to promote sustained development?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member appreciates, the Brundtland ethic, the sustainable development concept that was championed by the Brundtland Commission, is not the type of ethic that one funds on a project by project basis; it is something that we have to weave into the total fabric of all of the decision-making that is done, not only by the Government of Canada but also by the private sector and the provincial and territorial Governments within the country.
With that in mind, I informed the Environmental Network, during the course of a two and a half hour meeting I had with that group this morning, that of course I would be favourably predisposed toward any request for funding that would assist them in their advice to Government as to how that kind of ethic could be practised. I went on to inform the Network that, by the same token, they would have to understand, as they did, that we have to make sure that the Brundtland ethic is practised at all decision-making levels within the country.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister is looking at that, and we will start cheering when we have an agreement on acid rain.


ENVIRONMENT WEEK ACTIVITIES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the same groups expressed concern about the politicization of Environment Week activities. Would the Minister undertake to see that there will not be any political censorship of environment groups for environment week, that the groups will be able to speak their minds? Will he realize they are responsible groups who have a message and it should not be cleaned up for public consumption, with only the politically safe nice messages going out there?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Environment Week is to instil and foster in Canadians a greater awareness of environmental problems and of ways in which individuals and groups can

May 9, 1988
Oral Questions
assist Governments and others with solutions to the problems. It is not a vehicle for partisanship of any political stripe, much less is it a source of funding to pursue any particular ideology. It is an effort by Canadians, involved in the total program to celebrate our environment, to ensure it is protected not only for this generation but for generations yet unborn.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last year the federal and provincial Governments set up a REDUX program to assist tobacco farmers out of the industry. Part-way through the year that program was enriched so we had two levels of benefits, much lower to the first 100 participants and much higher, almost double, for those in the second group, two-thirds of the beneficiaries.
Now that the provincial Government has indicated it is prepared to equalize the benefits between the two groups of beneficiaries under the REDUX program, is the federal Government prepared to come through and ensure that the program is made equal between the two groups?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might be in possession of information that I do not have. The last word I have with respect to the retroactivity matter was that the provincial Government has not made any final decision.
I had preferred to refer that matter to the producers, the Ontario Tobacco Marketing Board. When we introduced the program we did not go forward in isolation but rather in cooperation with the province and with the producers' organization. That is how the first program was developed. It was reviewed by that same group and recommendations for the revised program came from a task force which was representative of both levels of government and the producers.
There are a couple of things before the industry at the moment, namely, additional funds to accommodate the extra applications that have been received, and also the retroactivity question. The last word I have is that the industry was still giving consideration to what option it wanted to follow. The feeling from the producers' level was that, given a choice, they probably would prefer to have additional funds to accommodate the 40 some odd applications that were before the board, rather than deal with the retroactivity question.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Minister is saying that the provincial Government is prepared to proceed on the basis of providing funds to two groups on an equitable basis, but surely it is not retroactive if these funds
are being paid out all in one fiscal year, practically all in one calendar year? That does not constitute retroactivity to some previous fiscal year.
Is the Minister prepared to provide the additional funding for the extra 40 or 50 producers who want to exit the industry and go into some other activity, in order that the program may be fulfilled and carried out very much along the lines recommended by the special committee on agriculture in the House of Commons?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in the last discussions that we had with the province and the producers it appeared it would be possible to secure additional funds for that purpose, but I underline the fact that they would be coming from other aspects of the general over-all program. It would be realistic to believe that we could accommodate one or the other with a very high degree of success.
Recognizing just what the availability of funds is within that over-all general program, I think it would be somewhat unrealistic and perhaps misleading to suggest that one could accommodate both. I think one could do one or the other. From my point of view I would prefer to take my directions from the producing groups themselves.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister's riding is close to the Metropolitan Toronto area. As a result of that he is well aware of the crisis in affordable housing in the Metropolitan Toronto area. He is aware as well that his Department is currently sitting on about 200 to 250 potentially surplus acres of land at the Downsview Airbase in Metro Toronto. If that land were made available, it would help very much to ease the housing crisis.
Will the Minister tell us today whether he is prepared to release that land and help provide needed affordable housing for Metropolitan Toronto?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked that a full review be done by my Department with regard to our current activities at Downsview and our projected activities in the future. We are completing that study at the present time and will be making a report to Treasury Board once we have had a chance to determine whether or not all of the land that we have at the base will be necessary in the future, or whether some of it will be declared surplus.
May 9, 1988


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister.
Two months ago the committee investigating the election expenses of the Hon. Member for Frontenac said we needed a new definition of election expenses. A month ago our caucus chairperson sent a letter with the proposed definition on election expenses. Why has the Minister been unable to come up with a new definition? When does he expect to have a new definition ready for the House?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware, I am sure, that I wrote to both House Leaders of the other two Parties. I have had a response from the Hon. House Leader for the Liberal Party. I have yet to receive a response from the House Leader of the New Democratic Party outlining some suggested changes for Bill C-79, the prospect of withdrawing it and rewriting it.
In so far as the definition of election expenses is concerned, an ad hoc committee has been set up representative of all three Parties and I understand that the committee is dealing with this particular issue. As of this date, I have not received a comprehensive reply.
I think that all Hon. Members are aware that there are a number of housekeeping matters within the Elections Act that should be changed before the next federal election. I hope I can have the co-operation and support of both opposition Parties so we can move and get those matters clarified.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the Minister's letter to the House Leaders. All it says is that there will be a new definition of election expenses to be incorporated.
The Minister in charge of the Act should know that the ad hoc committee is not meeting on this issue. I would ask him to take immediate action to make sure that we do have a proposed piece of legislation in front of the House of Commons where it properly belongs.


ELECTION DONATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister's Quebec caucus and the Quebec wing of his Party have called for a limitation on election donations, limiting corporate and union donations. In the Minister's letter to the House Leaders he makes no mention whatsoever of this issue.
Would he confirm that it is not his intention to act in this manner when we deal with the Elections Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party better make up its mind. At least we know
Oral Questions
where the Liberal Party stands but we do not know where the New Democratic Party stands. I have outlined the suggested amendments. The letter clearly speaks for itself.
If the Hon. Member does not want to co-operate and modify the Elections Act in order to accommodate more Canadians and facilitate their ability to vote, then the New Democrats can well take that position.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to point out to the House that, despite what is happening with the clocks, I have one here that works. Question Period is not yet over.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Over a year ago the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote), when he was Minister of Industry, pledged on behalf of the Government that the Government would soon be introducing a national automotive strategy. The Minister himself made a similar pledge last September, but nothing has happened as yet.
Has the Government abandoned that commitment? If not, where is that strategy? Why do we not have it since it is so important to the future of tens of thousands of jobs in the Canadian automotive industry?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell my hon. colleague that a number of the issues that were being raised at that point in terms of an automotive strategy were dealt with very directly in the agreement we are intending to sign with the United States. We have dealt with issues such as the rule of origin which will require significantly higher Canadian content than rules currently in use, encouraging increased parts sourcing in Canada. Much of the work has been done, and further work is continuing.


CAR IMPORTS FROM JAPAN AND KOREA-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF STRATEGY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the agreement with the United States does not deal specifically with imports of cars from countries like Japan and Korea. The Minister, on behalf of the Government, has not given a commitment that there will be a policy in place that makes it necessary, if countries like Japan and Korea are to sell cars here, for them to have to source in Canada in the way required of North American producers.

May 9, 1988
Points of Order
Why is the Minister implying that the Government is giving up its pledge for an automotive strategy? Why does he not say clearly that there will be one, and announce it today?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, there will be one. I think we have dealt with a number of issues over the last 12 months. We have dealt with access to the U.S., with the future of the Auto Pact, with the future of duty-remission programs, with the common rule of origin, with the bilateral tariffs, and with used cars.
There are still issues that are outstanding, including the future of voluntary export restraints from Japan, for example, the government position vis-a-vis autos under the multilateral trade round, research and development, and assistance to the parts sector. We are dealing with those. There will be a policy. We have already made significant progress on six or seven of the key elements, and we are resolving the outstanding three or four.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question, a single question from the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the federal-provincial agreement on the tobacco REDUX program, as it is called, in Ontario. Although the 260 growers who have used the Canada-Ontario tobacco REDUX program in recent weeks are pleased with the dollars, the 102 producers who went through the program last year and got less feel cheated. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if there are any plans to make a retroactive payment to those who were in the program last year and were short-changed as a result.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that is basically the same question that was posed to me by the Hon. Member of the Official Opposition earlier during Question Period.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The real Opposition.


John Wise: The real Opposition? We have to recognize that this Government, on many fronts, has had to break new ground and develop new programs.
The first REDUX program was developed in concert with the industry and the province. Of course the industry people felt that there were adequate levels of compensation and that the program would be successful. Experience indicated that the level of compensation was not quite adequate for a larger participation. I told the growers back in July that we were
quite prepared to sit down and revisit the program. They agreed to this suggestion and went forward.
They have now brought forward recommendations for the revised REDUX program, and of course the takeup has been extremely high. I had indicated earlier that we are exploring at the moment the possibility of diverting some of the dollars in that general program to the specific purpose of making payments to producers. However, I caution that there are two problems here, and one is the question of retroactivity. The other is availability of dollars to meet the increased and unexpected demand. I hope that we can meet both, but I do not think there are financial resources available to meet them, and I have sent that message to the growers, and the growers at the moment are assessing which option they feel we should address.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a question of how much, to whom, and when!
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe is rising on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise at the first opportunity to apologize to the House for my totally uncharacteristic outburst. As Hon. Members know, I am ordinarily a very calm individual, and I want to apologize to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to the extent that my anger, genuine as it was for the moment, was directed at him.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs wants to find a solution to this problem. The solution is not to be found in suggesting that one region and its problems must be ignored because of possible consequences for another region. I tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that that comment was the source of my anger, and not the Secretary of State for External Affairs personally.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, all of us from time to time lose our normal composure in debate, and while I disagree with the implications, although not the statement of the Hon. Member's elaboration, I certainly applaud his gesture in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), and I want to thank the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for his gracious comment.
May 9, 1988


CHAMBER CLOCKS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we have experienced a rather unusual phenomenon today in terms of the clock. Historically, the precision of a clock is an important element of our proceedings. I wonder if you might clarify for the House what the official clock will be until we get the main clocks in the Chamber put in order. There are 20-minute time limits and limits for questions and comments.
I think it is important for all Hon. Members to understand where indeed they might get information about what time it is for the balance of today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that indeed the clocks have gone a bit crazy and that reminds me a bit of the way his agenda works sometimes. He wants to push things so much that maybe the clocks have started to be scared of him and are trying to advance things a bit faster than normal. I just want him to calm himself. We all have watches.


Mr. Speaker:: I can advise Hon. Members that until the main clocks are fixed, the time will be kept track of by the Table Officers and, of course, the Speaker has a clock here as well. Hon. Members could synchronize their watches and that would probably avail us for the rest of the afternoon.
I must advise that I have no idea about what has caused the clocks to race ahead and extinguish an afternoon of important matters, but it may have started during one of the exchanges in Question Period, I am not sure. In any event, the clocks are still moving and I will send someone to stop them and to reset them.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That this House urge the government to provide for emergency financial assistance to grain and livestock producers in the southern Prairies and in Central British Columbia in the event of a continuation of the current drought conditions in those areas, and to establish a long-term plan to deal with environmental disasters such as droughts, floods, and pest infestations.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to say a few words on the motion my colleague has put before the House. Farming these days in most parts of Canada is not a particularly happy industry. The attack on farming has come not only from nature but from a variety of other sources as well. It has not
Supply
been caused by drought, floods, insects or disease necessarily, but by many artificial sources including ourselves and other Governments in the world which are attempting to control the market.
A part of the difficulty with farming is caused by world events, world markets, low prices, price wars, and unfair subsidies. However, it is because of this rather unstable situation in which farmers find themselves, while attempting to produce the food the world needs, that we have before us a motion which suggests that we need to do something about stability in farming.
What farmers really need is some kind of long-term security. They need to know that what they plant and the animals they nurture will provide a return sufficient to pay the bills and to make a little profit so that they can have a decent life for themselves and their families. They need enough to make sure that they will stay alive, not only in the sense of having enough to eat, but in the industry they have chosen for themselves.
Prices and markets are artificial difficulties which farmers face. We are asking in this motion why we do not have in place a program which gives farmers some assurance that when they hit a bad year, when they are affected by those difficulties which nature sometimes throws up, they will have a program which allows other Canadians to be of support to farmers.
Back in 1985 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) came before this House and made a very specific statement. This was during a time when there was a considerable amount of concern about drought in southern Saskatchewan. The Government acted on that concern and put in the works a considerable amount of money to assist farmers. It was a rather temporary approach, as the Minister said at the time. On November 27, 1985, at page 8870 of Hansard, he said:
There is no question about the fact that there are many western farmers, good farmers, who, through no fault of their own, need special assistance measures at this time.
That is what he was providing; that was the announcement. He went on:
But we all appreciate that ad hoc measures and programs are not an ideal solution. It is disruptive to producers to live with the uncertainty of not knowing what back-up assistance they will receive when natural disasters occur.
He went on to say:
Nor is it easy for the federal Government to take on substantial new financial commitments which have not been previously budgeted.
Yet what the Government has been doing ever since is coming up with ad hoc programs when farmers need assistance. We are suggesting today that it is time that the Government looked for a program which will guarantee farmers that if they face natural disasters they can at least know-and that is the key-that there are programs in place which will help them in the circumstances.

May 9, 1988
Supply
Farming is a difficult business. Drought, floods, grasshoppers, disease, and bad weather are all disasters confronting farmers much more often than possibly we realize because we have a tendency to look at these things as they affect only our little area. They may not bother us too much because we may be affected by only one of them every few years. If we were to put in place a regularized structure, a disaster relief program, then the farmer would know that he or she would receive enough to live on in case of a disaster.
We can look at what has happened in Canada over the years. We have had tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters, and I suppose in every case the Government has come forward with enough to allow the farmers to survive through the particular problem. The Minister and other Members of the House have suggested that crop insurance is now the solution to all such disasters. Perhaps under certain circumstances it is. Others have suggested that western grain stabilization or that kind of program is also an answer. Again I say maybe, but it is not always the answer. Farmers know that both those programs are based on historical production. The farmer's income is stabilized at a level which is the average of several years before.
Today, as well, several Hon. Members have said that right now we are faced on parts of the Prairies with the same kind of weather patterns we had in the Dirty Thirties. In fact, they have used those particular words, "the Dirty Thirties". One of the features of the Dirty Thirties was that the problems lasted for a good portion of the years between 1930 and 1938.
The Saskatoon Star Phoenix carried a little item this weekend entitled "Fifty years ago today, historical note". It said that 50 years ago today the Province of Saskatchewan received two inches of rain. It was the first general rainfall Saskatchewan had had for eight years. I am not being pessimistic and suggesting that that is what will happen now, but we have no emergency funding for such a long-term disaster. Insurance programs do not deal with such situations.
In fact, when the Minister made his comments on November 27, 1985, he pointed out to this House that one particular portion of the agricultural industry, the cattle raising industry, had had five continuous years of insufficient pasture. Stabilization programs do not help in such circumstances. The programs about which we have been talking will provide shortterm relief, as the Minister said in a press release at that time.
Speaking about the program for drought in western Canada, as well as crop insurance and western grain stabilization, he said that this program would provide short-term relief while we developed a long-term approach to emergency funding. He explained that the Crop Disaster Assistance Program was being viewed as a field test for a permanent emergency assistance program which would be an adjunct to the current Crop Insurance Program. He said that in the past few months it had been referred to as "Phase 3" of the drought assistance
plan. The Minister of Agriculture indicated this in a wire released early in 1986. He was pointing to the need for a longterm program which takes care of natural disasters as they come about.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) keyed in on one of the results of not having in place programs which allow farmers to believe that when they plant they can harvest, that when they breed cattle they will be able to live off the products of those cattle. If, when in the process of planting or of raising cattle, you never know whether the results of your year's work will be enough to keep you and your family alive for the next year, you are under a tremendous amount of stress.
The aim of our motion today is to draw the attention of the Government and the people of Canada to the fact that there is a great deal of pressure on farmers these days due to the fact that they do not get sufficient return on their products to allow them to live, to pay their accumulated debts, and to pay the input necessary to produce the products they wish to market.
One of the results of this in many areas of the country has been an effect on the rural population which Members of this House and citizens of Canada abhor. There has been an increased number of family problems in the rural areas- increased alcoholism, suicides, drug use, and emotional problems. These are all much more prevalent in rural areas now than ever before. Not too long ago a statistic in Ontario suggested that more than one-third of the deaths in its rural areas were by suicide, related in most cases to inability to deal with the problems of farm production.
We are, therefore, suggesting today that it may be possible to eliminate some of the stress by putting in place an income security program based on the farmer as an important and integral part of society, because the farmer is an important and integral part of society. The only link in the food chain from the resource earth to the consumer which does not pay for itself is the producer, the farmer. The only link in the chain which does not make enough from the day-to-day work to pay itself a decent living, to pay for products and input, is the actual producer.	,
I have been talking about the need to eliminate as much of the stress of farmers as possible. The drought may disappear. It could rain tomorrow. However, we have a water shortage and that will not disappear tomorrow. A flood starts today and remains for a few days. A drought which causes water shortage does not happen overnight; it is built up over years. In western Canada the water shortage has been developing for many years, and it is not going to disappear.
Therefore we need not only expand the very successful and worth-while projects which PFRA has in place. We need to put in place a disaster program which will eliminate at least one of the causes of the great amount of stress put on the farmer as he tries to make a living.
May 9, 1988


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I have one short comment. I certainly recognize the seriousness of the drought problem in the Prairies which at this time particularly relates to water for the livestock operations. In the area I represent, the PFRA is working. It is pumping water into dugouts in community pastures, trying to make water available in as many cases as is possible so that there is drinking water for the livestock.
Another comment I would like to make is that having been the chairman of the task force on drought back in 1984-85, I can say that the Government did respond very positively. The positive news we have on the Prairies, as reported by the CBC this morning, is that approximately one-third of Saskatchewan has received sufficient rainfall, along with a better part of Manitoba. The drought area certainly lies in the western and central parts of the province. On a positive note, the Government has been responsive and I am sure will be responsive to these needs.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In reply to the comments of the Hon. Member, I will say that all of us who live in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, recognize the great value of the PFRA programs now and in the past. The PFRA was established for a good reason in the 1930s and the fact it has survived is a good indication that it has done a job and done it well. As far as water is concerned, based on the precipitation in Saskatchewan right now, there are parts of Saskatchewan that will have no problem, but there are parts which will be in trouble. Estevan, for example, has had 40 per cent of normal precipitation up until now. The chance it will reach normal precipitation levels by the end of June is only 24 per cent. In other words, there is one chance out of four that Estevan will have normal precipitation this year. I will go through the statistics very quickly. They are a good indication of how badly things are with respect to water on the Prairies. The statistics are only for Saskatchewan. There is only one chance out of three that Saskatoon will have enough rainfall by June 30 to be up to normal levels of precipitation. Prince Albert has 61 per cent of normal precipitation. It is by far the best in the area. Battleford has 29 per cent, Broadview, 27 per cent, Yorkton, 29 per cent, Estevan, 24 per cent, Regina, 34 per cent and Swift Current, 27 per cent.
Those percentages are indications that we may get some rain, but we need a considerable amount more. That is only part of our motion here today. The main part of our motion says we need in place something which can cushion the farmer so that he knows for sure he going to survive. I appreciate the point the Hon. Member made, that the Government has reacted in the past to give farmers assistance when they needed it, but it would be much less stressful for the farmer if a program was in place that was regularized and structured.


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to comment and put a question to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert. I found his speech a bit confusing as I listened. He went through his points one by one. He began to deal with a motion for a strategy to
Supply
deal with environmental disasters, but he tried to couple that with the problem many farmers face with respect to low commodity prices from time to time, particularly during the past two years when we have been dealing with the Special Grains Assistance Program and so on. I find it difficult to lump these two problems together. Why is the Hon. Member attempting to deal with the motion and at the same time trying to deal with low commodity prices? It appears as if he is attempting to deal with a type of insurance plan to cover both at the same time.
I also want to point out that we recognize that the crop insurance program is not perfect, but the Hon. Member seems not to be aware of how it is set up. Surely he knows that the individual farmer starts off on the program with a regional average as a basis to be paid in case he faces some type of disaster and does not harvest his crop, but as he participates in the program, the Hon. Member will know that each farmer has the opportunity to develop his own personal record of production, thereby increasing the level at which he would be paid in case he faces a disaster.
The Hon. Member is confusing that program with the stabilization program, and they must not be confused because it just confuses everyone who listens to the Hon. Member. So let us deal with environmental problems, and the disasters with respect to those environmental problems, such as grasshoppers, floods, droughts, and, as I pointed out previously, some of the frost problems. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would agree that we have to deal with those issues independently. Surely he knows the Government has a record of being there with special disaster funds, besides the insurance programs, and so on.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we did not make our motion broad enough. Disasters are the same whether they come about from low prices or from no rain. They are all a disaster when it comes to getting bread on the table. I want to point out that historically in my part of Saskatchewan, and the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) will recognize this, the use of insurance to cover crops is not very broadly used because we in my particular district have never been able to establish a level which would allow us to make use of the insurance program. I recognize the difference without any doubt between insurance and stabilization, but historically the two somehow seem to come together in our part of Saskatchewan because of the fact that by the time the farmer has paid the amount necessary for input and insured the crop at that level, he has already used up any possible returns he might get from insurance. Consequently, most farmers do not bother to buy insurance. It is only of marginal value to some people.
The other point I think I have to make is that when a farmer is under stress, when he is having a problem making ends meet, one of the things he has a tendency to drop is insurance, just as many people dropped Western Grain Stabilization when they should not have. It is that stress that builds up which causes the problems of alcoholism, suicide and family problems.

May 9, 1988
Supply
Stress causes the kinds of problems which some kind of a program that guaranteed a return under certain circumstances would eliminate.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I have one short supplementary comment to make. The NDP in Saskatchewan has been opposed to the building of a dam called Rafferty Dam at Estevan, Saskatchewan. The Elon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Elovdebo) mentioned Estevan and the low rainfall in that area.
The Devine Government is moving ahead on this dam which will have a very positive effect on water supply in the whole southern area. Yet the NDP has taken the position of opposing this structure. Certainly, the building of dams for water supply has to be a very positive aspect. The Rafferty Dam is a very positive direction that the provincial Government has taken with the assistance of the federal Government.
There seems to be somewhat of a contradiction here in the NDP line in terms of suggesting on the one hand that we have to look at water supplies and then on the other hand putting road-blocks in the way of the provincial Government accomplishing the building of dams. Someone said that the NDP in Saskatchewan talks about dams and the Conservatives build them.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Rafferty Dam in Saskatchewan is a political dam. It has nothing to do with water particularly. It is a political dam which is being put in place for the benefit of the Hon. Member. It will take 35 years to fill the dam, if it can ever be filled up. If the water level in the dam is dropped by one metre there will be 60 miles of mudflats. This information has come out of a partially developed study which the Government of Saskatchewan never bothered to finish. It got the people to do the study with respect to this particular dam development and did not fill in the blanks that were necessary to make a decision on the building of the dam or the not building of it, which has nothing to do with the economy, water use or anything else about that particular area.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter into the debate which is, of course, of very considerable importance to the agricultural community in western Canada. In doing so I speak at least in part from my own perspective as a Manitoban. I might say that, unfortunately, some of my colleagues who I know wish to be here cannot be present today. I think in particular of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) who could not be present.
I am pleased to report to the House that the situation in Manitoba has changed rather dramatically in the last 10 days. Rather ironically while all of us shared the concern about an impending and feared drought in western Canada some 10 to 14 days ago, in Manitoba we now have a situation of having to look at damage caused by flooding in the northwestern part of
Manitoba in the Dauphin-Swan River area. I suppose this simply demonstrates how quickly weather conditions can change. In a sense we can go from one crisis to another.
The rains of the last two weeks have moved the area of concern to the West. I am advised that at least the eastern third of Saskatchewan has had enough moisture that it can look to reasonable chances of germination. That, of course, is good news. The problem for cattlemen and livestock producers remains since their water needs will not be met as readily as those who are involved in cereal grains.
If I may, I want to make some reference to the exchange that took place in the House a few moments ago with respect to the Rafferty Dam. So much of what happens in Canada depends on one's geographic perspective. In light of the fact that I represent the constituency of Brandon-Souris, and since the Souris River flows from Saskatchewan into North Dakota and back into Manitoba, I must advise my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson), that there are as yet some unresolved concerns in my own constituency with respect to water supply. I simply say to him for the sake of the record that if I understand it correctly, the role of the federal Government is limited to that of providing its permission for construction to proceed. If I understand correctly, I think that that is still under review.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Take him out behind the barn, Lee.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Member who just spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party, a good friend of mine of several years standing, said that what western Canadian farmers want to a very large degree is an assurance that they can count on the federal Government to be of assistance if indeed the need for that assistance proves to be there. While all of us in the House understand how quickly weather conditions can change on the Prairies, the drought that we fear today could indeed be gone in 48 hours. Thus we do understand the importance of the concerns which are there.
We want to take this opportunity to reassure the prairie agricultural community, although it understands full well, that the Government has been there in the past when it was needed since 1984. I think the community understands full well that we will be there again if indeed our assistance is necessary.
I am pleased that there have been some changes to western grain stabilization programs and crop insurance, which have made them more responsive to the needs of prairie agriculture. For example, we now have provisions for livestock feed forage crops to be included under crop insurance to a greater degree than they were before. While I, like other Members, appreciate the need for long-term planning, it is very difficult in some instances to have the kind of long-term planning which some of us would seek. That is particularly true when talking about drought.
Part of the problem with drought is the fact that it does not necessarily follow a uniform pattern. For example, I think of programs which the federal Government put in place in 1984
May 9, 1988

and 1985 in which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister played a very significant role. I remember some $60 million was provided in 1984. I believe that something in the order of $146 million was provided in 1985. I remember one of the problems at that particular time was the fact that for those programs to proceed there had to be provincial co-operation as well. Due perhaps to variations in economic conditions, and perhaps due to the attitudes of provincial Governments, some of the farmers in my own constituency were not able to participate in the latter program because the Government of Manitoba did not believe the crisis was as severe as the federal Government believed it was. Our neighbours to the west in Saskatchewan and Alberta were able to participate in those programs, and benefit from them.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the new Government of Manitoba was sworn in this afternoon. There is as of now a new Minister of Agriculture. I am sure that that new Minister of Agriculture will be very responsive and sensitive to the needs of the agricultural community, I believe to a greater degree than has been the case over the last few years. What the farm community understandably seeks, and what we as the Government are prepared to offer, is a statement of commitment on our part. One might well ask in view of the cynicism which exists among the public today just how the farm community is to determine that a Government's commitment is something which indeed will be honoured.
We as politicians live in a world of words. In fact, the very word "parliament" means "to speak". There are many who would suggest that there is far too much speaking that goes on in Parliament. I think there are some of us who would applaud that.If we cannot judge a Government or politicians by their words, the obvious question arises as to how does one judge a Government. How do we know that it will honour its commitments?
As a Member of the Government, and particularly as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I am pleased to be able to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the prairie agricultural community that I believe this Government's commitment to the agricultural community will be respected and well received, not because of the words which we use here or elsewhere, but because of the actions which have preceded the words and the actions of the last four years.
I have no difficulty in saying that the crisis which has existed in agriculture for the past four or five years has been the worst that we have seen in Canada since the 1930s. I also have no hesitation in saying to the Canadian agricultural community that the record of the Government over the past four years is one of unprecedented support for agriculture. Nowhere in the history of Canada has there been a four year period of growing financial support for agriculture as there has been for the past four years. The strength of our commitment is to be measured and determined by that record of which I speak.
Supply
I have referred to the fact that when there was a drought in 1984 and in 1985, programs were put in place which met the needs of the agricultural community. We have also moved to try to strengthen the safety net programs to which we as government Members refer. I have mentioned amendments to the Western Grains Stabilization Act, amendments to crop insurance, and other Members have previously spoken on that.
We live so much in the age of dollars and cents that sometimes our record is measured only in those terms. Perhaps one statistic alone is more significant than any other, that is, our direct financial support to Canadian agriculture has increased by some 400 per cent since 1984. That is an unprecedented record of increased financial assistance to agriculture. That is why the farmers realize that when we say we will be there, we will indeed be there.
However, many of the problems which exist in agriculture today are not of a short-term nature, but of a long-term nature. Many are international in nature, rather than national or regional. That is why the Government has worked very hard to address these problems at the international level. That is why agriculture has been more on the international agenda than ever before in the history of Canada.
In June, 1986, Canada hosted a meeting of five major grain exporters to work toward solutions and problems in the grain trade. In September, 1986, there was a very important development when the Secretary of State participated in the launching of a new GATT round. We understand very clearly that GATT was tragically ignored in the last talks by the previous administration. Agriculture is on the GATT round for the first time. Much is expected of that, but indeed I think there is reason to be optimistic about what is expected.
In May, 1987, Canada and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds played an integral part in the meeting of the Cairns Group, a group of 14 nations that are among the principal grain exporters moving toward trade reforms. In a similar fashion, at the economic summits, and at the OECD meetings, agriculture has been very much on the agenda as a result of initiatives that we have taken.
In addition, we have had a considerable amount of success in moving grain under very competitive circumstances. We have used short and medium term credit measures through the Export Development Corporation to facilitate those sales. We have had agricultural trade missions to Japan, the Soviet Union, and China. We signed a five year commitment with the Soviet Union, which continues to be a very important economic trading partner. As a result of that commitment, the Soviet Union has agreed to purchase a minimum 25 million tonnes of grain. There is a new three year agreement with Brazil. As a result of these various activities, the total representing last year was a record export of 31 million tonnes. This has been done at a time when some of our competitors have been attempting to give away their grain in order to take away markets that have been historically ours. We have succeeded

May 9, 1988
Supply
not only in retaining our traditional markets, but adding to them.
At home we have done what we can to be of assistance. As I stated previously, we have done more than any other Government prior to us. For example, in October, 1984, although it is a long time ago in our memories, the St. Lawrence Seaway's tolls were frozen, saving farmers some $2 million. In January,
1985,	a moratorium was introduced on the Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures until the Farm Debt Review Boards were in place. As a result of the Farm Debt Review Boards being in place, and those many agricultural-minded citizens who work on them, we estimate that some 2,000 farmers remain in business today who would not otherwise be there. Funding for those boards has been extended until 1991 because the need is evident. There is a further federal commitment in that regard of $40 million.
In February, 1985 the Western Grain Stabilization Act was amended in order that farmers could receive interim payments in time for spring seeding. As a result of some of those amendments, and as a result of the support for the program, that program has paid out nearly $3.6 billion, $2.4 billion of that amount having been paid in the spring when it is needed most.
In June, 1985, and I remember this well because I was Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, we succeeded in establishing tripartite stabilization programs for red meat producers. Unfortunately, many provinces have not yet joined in the beef area, Manitoba being one of them, but I think that will come in the not too distant future.
In October, 1985, there were special cash advances of up to $3,000 per farmer to help prairie producers pay for the cost of drying grain. The problem at that time was too much moisture, the opposite of what it is now. In November, 1985 there were cash advances for unthreshed grain on the Prairies. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker.
There are federal tax rebates for farmers worth some $200 million per year at the moment. In March, 1986, there was a $94 million branch line rehabilitation program. In April, 1986, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a freeze on the freight rates paid by producers for moving their grain. In July,
1986,	there was an investment of $35 million to promote the long term development of the livestock feed sector in Atlantic Canada. In December, 1986, there was the Special Canadian Grains Program, the first of two. The first was $1 billion, and more recently there was $1.1 billion in December, 1987.
In April, 1987, $64 million was provided to farmers to cushion them from a statutory increase in western grain freight rates. Presently there is another program of a lesser nature, but with the same objective. In December, 1987 assistance was given to the Farm Credit Corporation, recognizing that the credit crisis is not going to be resolved immediately. There was $30 million in extra funding provided in order that it could participate in lowering debts and interest rates with the Farm Debt Review Boards, and there is a promise of
$100 million per year for each of the next three years to permit them to do the same thing.
There was also an attempt to strengthen the FCCs. Last December $100 million was announced to cover corporate losses, and a deferral of a $103 million loan payment which lessened the crisis they were facing. Of course, there was also the extremely important $1.1 billion program to which I have already alluded.
Despite the fact that some $29 billion is being spent on interest on the national debt, the Government honoured the commitment it made some four years ago that farmers would be entitled to substantial capital gains tax exemptions. We recognize that the land they own and seek to pay for represents their own pension fund. Farmers are treated in the unique manner they deserve as a result of tax exemptions of some $500,000 per farmer.
In the past four years, as a result of all those programs and many to which I have not referred, our financial commitment to agriculture has risen by some 400 per cent, virtually 100 per cent per year for each of the four years we have been in power. This averages out to some $20,000 per year to each commercial farm in 1987, as contrasted with figures of some $4,000 per year in 1984.
Virtually every farmer to whom I speak, and there are many, would prefer that these types of programs were not necessary. They would prefer not to have to come to Government in times of stress. They would prefer that all of their necessary income could be found in the market-place. But agriculture is a very unique industry, in the sense that it depends entirely on the weather. I remember well living in Saskatchewan north of Regina in my teen years during the dry years when as a young person one spent more time looking at the sky than anything else, not to enjoy the beauty of the sky, but to look for rain clouds and worry about what agriculture could mean to prairie people who are so dependent upon the climate and the weather.
Agriculture is unique not only because it depends on the weather, but also because it depends, to a very large degree, on what international markets are. On the one hand, the Canadian farmer is historically very much of an individualist, but on the other hand he recognizes that he is in a uniquely dependent situation. I can think of no sector of the Canadian economy where those who practise that economy are as dependent on others as is the case in agriculture, and are particularly dependent upon forces over which there is no control. In my own constituency until 10 days ago the dirt and the dust was blowing, reminiscent of the 1940s and the 1930s. What is so tragic about that situation is there is very little that the individual farmer can do about that.
The farmer is in the same position when the price of grain declines. Who else in this society has suffered a 40 to 50 per cent reduction in the price for their product? That is what has
May 9, 1988

happened to the prairie grain producer over the last two, three, four years. Those are aspects of an agricultural operation which all of us regret, and they are aspects which we as a Government, in conjunction with our provincial counterparts, are striving to minimize to the greatest degree possible.
I wish it were possible for Members of this Government to stand in this Elouse today and say that there will be no drought in the Prairies. That, of course, is not possible. No one can accurately forecast what will happen with the weather. Certainly no one was forecasting the flooding which has taken place over the last few days in the Swan River Valley.
I wish we could stand in this place and outline precisely what we intend to do should the drought continue. But that, too, is difficult to do, given that we do not know the nature of the crisis as it will unfold. We do not know how large an area will be affected. What we do know is that we, as Members of this Government, can stand in this place and say to the prairie grain producers that we have been there over the last four years to an extent that no government before us has been there; and we can say to the prairie grain producers that we will not abandon them in their moment of need.
We have demonstrated our commitment to agriculture over the last four years a way of which I am personally proud, and we say to the agricultural community today that, if the need is there, we will be there again, as we were in 1984, as we were in 1985; that we will do whatever is necessary to assist the prairie agricultural community in the manner in which they deserve.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Maurice Brydon Foster: I was interested in the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister regarding the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I remind the Hon. Member of the commitment made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the 1984 general election campaign to expand the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a national farm and forestry rehabilitation act, which act would include coordinating national concerns with respect to drought, water, soil management, conservation, wetlands management, and the general enhancement of the quality of rural heritage.
Perhaps the Hon. Member can advise us as to whether that campaign commitment has been met. Will the Government be bringing in legislation between now and the end of this Parliament to implement that commitment?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the Hon. Member the commitment which he is seeking with respect to what the future agenda of this Government will be. As all of us know, there are more Bills now before the House than are likely to be completed in the normal course of events, let alone those which might be produced in the future.
Since its establishment in 1935, the PFRA has been associated with soil and water conservation. What was announced last December, as the Hon. Member well knows,
Supply
was a special commitment to soil and water conservation, entailing a financial commitment of some S75 million, all in the expectation that those moneys would be matched by the governments of the Prairie provinces-and there is some indication that that will be the case.
Whether or not the umbrella of the PFRA is expanded, whether its name is changed, the type of work which PFRA has been associated with over the years is very much continuing now and into the future. I was very pleased to see that some of the individuals who have been associated with the work of the PFRA are now themselves becoming involved, in an administrative capacity, with the new soil and water conservation program. That augers well for the future on the Prairies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), on a question or comment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), in his speech, spoke about certainty, and the difficulty that farmers have in feeling dependent. He should be aware that that is precisely the feeling that we are trying to address through this motion. The Government promised on November 27, 1985, in the Minister's statement, to continue its efforts toward developing a long-term approach to emergency funding. This motion is to remind the Government of that promise.
Until becoming a Member of this House, I depended upon farming as my sole source of livelihood, and I can tell the Hon. Member that farmers do not feel any sense of certainty from the kinds of statements that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister has made today. The farmers can take no certainty in being told that this Party, or that Party or the other Party will look after their interests. The sense of certainty that farmers are looking for is that which comes with a law, the kind of law that gave us, as farmers, the Western Grain Stabilization Administration. We got that because the law was there, not because a given party was in power. We got that because it was enacted as a law of the land.
That is the kind of certainty that farmers are looking for with regard to emergency drought aid. They want to know the parameters of the aid and what is required before action is triggered. They want to know what federal and provincial committees have to be put in place.
This all happens after the fact, and a formula is worked out. But, it is not enacted with any certainty. No one remembers from one emergency to the next what steps have to be gone through. It is something that has never been spelled out in the law. That is what we are trying to remind the Government of, since it seems to have forgotten what happened some three years ago on the occasion of the last emergency confronting the agricultural community.
Farmers want to know that the processes and steps are the same from one emergency to another, and they want them set out in the law. At the moment, those steps and procedures are

May 9, 1988
Supply
not set out in any orderly procedure, and there is no organization within any of the Departments to take over should we be in the middle of an election campaign at the time of a disaster, or going through a change of Government, or whatever.
Farmers must have the kind of certainty that can be had through having the steps and procedures set out in law, and that is what we are trying to stress through this particular motion.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: : I appreciate the security which a law may provide-and I say that as someone whose own farm is still within the dry area of Saskatchewan. On the other hand, it may merely lend to a false sense of security, inasmuch as one cannot anticipate, in advance, all that the weather can do in terms of its impact upon the agricultural sector. One can simply not foresee all of the vagaries of weather.
In 1985, I had farmers in my own constituency, in the Grand Clairiere area, who suffered from drought, as well as from grasshoppers. Because those twin disasters were, so-called, local in nature, they could not qualify for assistance. The provincial government of the day took the position that the drought was not serious enough. My own inclination would be to proceed on an ad hoc basis, in belief that when one responds to the real circumstances of the moment, one can respond more adequately when trying to foresee the future.
There was no law which required the Government of Canada, in 1986, to provide a special $1 billion program to the Canadian agricultural community. Yet, because of the need, the Government responded with a $1 billion program. And there was no law which required the Government to respond in
1987.	Because the need was there, this Government did respond.
Those who believe that they can adequately prepare for the future through perfect legislation, legislation which encompasses all of the circumstances which the future will present, have a naive belief in the power of legislators to anticipate the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), on a question or comment.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments and then I have a question for the Hon. Member. In my constituency, and probably in many parts of Alberta it is very, very dry. Last Saturday I dug down into the earth with my hands-I did not have a shovel-around eight or nine inches. The soil was bone dry. Hon. Members know that unless you have some moisture in the top four or five inches there is very little sense putting in seed because it will not germinate. There is a great deal of concern about this drought.
When I was in the Alberta Government, we explored plans for a catastrophe fund. People by themselves cannot provide for a catastrophe. You can provide for small happenings, but
you cannot provide for a catastrophe. We checked with Lloyds of London and others for a catastrophe insurance fund so that something could be in place when a tremendous flood or a devastating fire occurred, wiping out neighbourhoods, et cetera. These things may never happen but if there is a fund in place, it gives people a sense of security.
The United States has programs in place for emergencies. Frankly, I would like to see an expanded insurance policy or catastrophe fund, whatever you want to call it, set up. It may not look after every catastrophe or emergency that arises-no one can foresee everything, as the Parliamentary Secretary said. There is a feeling today that, sure, the Government will come through, but no one knows how, why or when a catastrophe will occur. If we do not get rains in Alberta in the next two or three weeks, it will be terrible for growth. Farmers will be unable to put in their seed. That will cause a calamity not only for Alberta but for Canada. We depend upon the farmers to produce our food.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary take a look at an expanded insurance policy or having a catastrophe fund-I do not care what it is called-in place that will give the farmer a feeling of security if the grasshoppers come in hordes, as they did in southern Alberta a year or two ago, when they destroyed crops and ate paint off the houses. We have no provision for those sorts of things, but something should be done in conjunction with provincial Governments. I would like to see the farmer given a feeling of security that if some of these terrible things happen and he cannot seed, he will not be left high and dry. This has been done in the United States. Canada can similarly set up a program. It will not cover everything but at least something would be there in the event of a catastrophe. I would like the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) knows, there is a need for both levels of Government to work together to try to provide some sort of catastrophe fund, safety net or whatever. I would be the first to admit that perhaps there are too many programs but we have created a series of programs, both federal and provincial Governments working together. We have crop insurance, western grain stabilization and soil and water conservation programs. We have done many things. I would readily concede that there probably has not been as much coordination and integration of those as I would wish. We are spending a very substantial amount of money on agriculture on the Prairies, as the Hon. Member knows well. I referred to some of those figures in my address. We subsidize the movement of grain and there are various programs to keep down the farmer's share of freight rates, et cetera.
Part of the difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Hon. Member is aware and sensitive to this, is that while we believe that some of our programs are advantageous, the farmers do not necessarily agree. For a variety of reasons they choose not to participate. I think particularly of the Western Grain Stabilization Program which has paid out a substantial
May 9, 1988

amount of money to those who are in it. But what of the 13 per cent who are not in it? That is a problem this Elouse will have to address in the next few days or weeks.
There are people who would advocate that we could take the various programs, roll them together and probably provide to a substantial degree the sort of insurance coverage to which the Elon. Member refers. But what of the 40 per cent who do not choose to be in crop insurance for a variety of reasons? What about the 13 per cent who are not in the Western Grain Stabilization Program? Part of the difficulty in providing that kind of a safety net is that we are left with the understandable desire on the part of individual farmers to reserve the right to participate or not participate. That is why in some ways this special grains program, ad hoc though it may have been, was a response that met the needs of agriculture, I would argue quite well, because it was there. It was drafted after the circumstances were known. We knew what the situation was. We knew how far the price had fallen. We knew the size of the crop and the quality of the grain. We said in consultation with the farm communities that it was available to the community as a whole.
I have no lack of sympathy for the Elon. Member's objective in terms of trying to integrate these programs. But what do we do for those who for a variety of economic or philosophical reasons do not wish to participate?
Crop insurance is not nearly as adequate as it should be. For that reason many do not buy it. Many are buying it this year for the first time because of their concerns, but it is not adequate for many. The Western Grain Stabilization Program only covers a certain percentage of production. I would like to see us try to bring all this money together into a more comprehensive fund. But what about those who do not wish to participate? That remains a philosophical problem.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Trade-Canada-United States free trade agreement-Request that Government compensate grape growers/Request for guaranteed lines of credit; The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Film Distribution Industry-Effect of Canada-United States free trade agreement/Effect of agreement on cultural industries; The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Energy-Low sulphur western coal-Proposed use by Ontario Hydro.
______________________________________15273
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That this House urge the Government to provide for emergency financial assistance to grain and livestock producers in the southern Prairies and in Central British Columbia in the event of a continuation of the current drought conditions in those areas, and to establish a long-term plan to deal with environmental disasters such as droughts, floods, and pest infestations.
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the environment critic for the New Democratic caucus, I am pleased to take part in this debate today because agriculture is extremely important to Canada and primary production is something highly dependent upon the environment. We are dealing with what we hope will be treated as a renewable resource. Far too often we see agriculture treated as a mining resource, as something that is here today and gone tomorrow. It is with a view to looking at agriculture as sustainable development that I participate in this debate and address some of the questions that my colleagues have already raised, specifically with regard to drought in western Canada, the need for long-term solutions and some security for our farmers.
It is a very discouraging prospect for us to consider the matter of drought in western Canada. We think of the drought in the 1930s and we are told that some of these scenes are beginning to happen again with sand, dust and soil blowing across the Prairies as they did at that time.
Droughts are not necessarily caused by some mysterious forces of nature over which we have no control. Droughts can be "man-made". Certainly human activities can influence the weather. The weather is not a given-that comes from the outside. What we do in terms of our forests and the renewal of the cycle of moisture in the air will be extremely important. We have to look to the possibility of the greenhouse effect which means carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere, trapping heat close to the earth's surface, raising the temperature world-wide and as a result melting the polar caps and raising the level of the sea. One of the consequences of that can be the wiping out of populations along sea coasts. One of the other consequences, more pertinent to the debate before us today, is massive changes in weather and the possibility of drought on a permanent basis in areas that right now are very productive.
What are we doing about this? The Government has set up an international conference of the air. That is one of the things at which this conference will be looking at the end of June in Toronto. I applaud the initiative taken to bring countries

May 9, 1988
Supply
together to look at these basic, long-term potential environmental disasters.
What are we doing in the meantime? We continue to burn fossil fuels. We are becoming ever more dependent on them, and part of the policy of the Government is to increase this dependence. Under the trade deal, there will be an even faster use of our fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are major sources of the carbon dioxide that causes the greenhouse effect.
Rain forests in South America are being destroyed. We are not directly involved in that destruction as we are not there in person, cutting down rain forests, but we are part of a worldwide system. Rain forests are being cut down in order to make way for grazing land for cattle so that we may have beef for our fast-food chains. Canadians, as big beef eaters and big beef importers, are a part of this world-wide system that will mean the loss of rain forests.
Rain forests are crucial to the climate. Rain forests are crucial to the cycle that keeps moisture in the air. The destruction of the rain forests can mean a long-term change in weather patterns which again could mean that there will be even worse droughts than this immediate drought that is being faced now in western Canada.
We have to think about these things. They are not things that simply happen over which we have no control. We are a part of the world-wide community that is changing the surface of the earth and the surface of the earth reacts by setting up new processes. Some of the things we do have extremely negative long-term consequences. As responsible human beings, we must look at those consequences and consider what we can do to be productive and to use our resources in a fashion that will not deprive future generations of those resources and in a fashion that will keep those resources coming.
We need renewable resources. In agriculture, we are talking about productive soil. When agriculture began in Canada, the soil was very productive indeed. Productivity itself is declining through massive use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, monoculture, not rotating crops and using crops that demand a great deal of the nutrients from the soil without replacing them or replacing them with more chemicals which are then taken out in the next crop year. We are beginning to get warnings about our agricultural practices through declining productivity and not very many of us are heeding those warnings.
There are some enterprising primary producers who are beginning to go into biological or organic farming, using methods that do not destroy the soil and view it very seriously as a renewable resource. I applaud those efforts. I am sorry to say that our own laws, tax provisions, subsidy systems, training programs and all of these things in which the federal Government participates by encouraging some practices and discouraging others at this time encourage the wrong kinds of farming practices.
Subsidies are still being provided for the kinds of agriculture that do not treat the soil as a renewable resource but as something from which one can get money right away by putting in certain ingredients, getting a crop out of it and then worrying next year about putting in more chemicals to make up for those that have been taken away in the past.
The decline of the family farm is a related concern. Family farmers, fewer in number in Canada, are very often in desperate situations. They are struggling to hang on. This drought will menace even more of them. Yet it is the family farm that is the best security for preserving the farming environment for the future.
Families do think of the future. Families are the means of reproducing for the future. Families see that young people grow up and inherit the farms. They have a very vital interest in seeing that the land that gets passed on to the next generation is productive and has the same possibilities for providing a livelihood as it did when the present generation inherited it. A family farm has no interest in simply killing off a resource, using it as a mine, taking out the nutrients and leaving nothing left for the future. We have a far better chance for developing a sustainable development approach to farming with the family farm.
If the family farm had adequate supports, it could do that. If the training centres and agricultural colleges and various kinds of assistance programs emphasized this, we would have an even better chance of seeing farm land used as a renewable resource, something very precious that should be kept productive, something that should be enhanced and not be allowed to be depleted.
I would like to make some remarks about the use of dams as a means for ensuring adequate water supplies for farming. Dams have historically been used to provide a water supply in a certain area for irrigation purposes. Certainly the immediate effects are favourable for a producing community. The effects may be unfavourable for those who are displaced, but clearly there is a positive impact on the people who are the beneficiaries of the new water sources in the new areas.
I think we must realize, however, that the long-term consequences of dams may not be as favourable as the shortterm consequences. There may indeed be very negative longterm consequences. If we are to use dams as a strategy for seeing that there is water, we must do this very carefully and after very thorough assessment.
Dams do interfere with natural processes. They see that water is kept in one place and does not move to another place. Dams see that certain lands get irrigated but the water has to come from somewhere else. We cannot simply assume that the beneficial consequences will flow to those producers without there being unfavourable consequences to other people because of the changes involved. We have not done nearly enough to assess those environmental consequences before those kinds of decisions are made.
May 9, 1988

We now have a water policy which provides that there should be no inter-basin diversions of water. I was pleased to hear the announcement of that, especially since we must be very worried about the trade deal giveaway of our natural resources. Perhaps water would be explicitly included as one of those things that could be given away. I would suggest, however, that some of us are not quite so happy that this water policy only remains a policy and it is not legislated. It is something that could be changed.
If water ever were treated as a commodity that could be simply sold south of the border, then, according to the trade deal, it could be treated as other resources and we would have an obligation to continue to treat water as a commodity. If any Government were so shortsighted as to do this, future Governments would not have the opportunity to redress that mistake. That, of course, is one of the real difficulties with this so-called trade deal, this giveaway, this loss of sovereignty.
Decisions can be made by one Government that will have an impact for the foreseeable future. The provisions that bind us, the provisions that mean that Canada cannot make decisions about markets, dispute-settlement processes or panels or commissions on which Canadians are only a minority will all bind future Governments as well as the Government of the day. That is why they are so very unfair. They do not allow for the political process.
A Government is elected and comes up with a policy which is not the right policy and it has to pay the penalty by being thrown out in the next election. However, with the trade deal, we may throw the Government out in the next election, but those decisions are entrenched in a treaty. It will be very hard to undo that. We cannot renegotiate it. We would have to get rid of the whole treaty, and the longer it would be in place, the more difficult that would be. The dislocations that would already be caused would be substantial, and we would risk even further dislocations if there were to be an abrogation of the treaty.
Water policy is one policy about which we must be concerned for the long term. I am not very confident about what the Government has done so far. It has certainly not managed to meet the concerns that I would want to see met.
Not only is there a question about quantity of water, we also have to be concerned about quality of water. The quality of water on our farm lands has been enormously affected by the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. This has an impact on drinking water. It has an impact on the water used for irrigation. What I do not think people have been adequately concerned about is the slow build-up of toxic substances in the soil and, through run-off, in the water system. Pesticides can get on the market because they do not have too toxic an effect on human or animal health when they are tested on lab animals at certain dosages. However, no one is looking at the long-term consequences of using those quantities of pesticides.
Supply
I asked a question about that in committee and I was quite disappointed to learn, although not entirely surprised, that the Department of Agriculture does not conduct any studies on the long-term consequences of using pesticides at present levels. I asked a question concerning running projections on the basis that the same quantities would be applied over 50 years or 100 years and what would the quality of the soil be. What would the implications be for the quality of water? No one has looked at that. The tests are only about the effect on a lab animal right now with these quantities. The chemicals used may only be a certain weight per hectare. It is not an enormous amount. The soil can absorb it. However, what if that same amount, even if it is only a teaspoonful per hectare, goes in year after year? These substances do not disappear. They are not broken down into helpful substances. Pesticides by definition are killers. Quantities can build up. Yet there has been very little attention paid to the long-term consequences.
What is our soil productivity going to be after 50 years of use of these chemicals? How safe is the water going to be in agricultural areas? Why are we continuing to approve these pesticides when we do not know how safe it will be after a number of years, even 10 years or 20 years, of use? Can we not have a Government that thinks a little bit about the future? I am sorry to say we do not. Fifty years or 100 years is just beyond its comprehension. It is thinking only about the next election and bribing the voters. It is not thinking about the long term.
That is just not good enough. If we are going to be concerned about sustainable development, if we are going to look at agriculture as a way for people to make their living and provide food to eat year after year after year, we have to take a longer term approach to the question. We cannot afford to simply say "no lab animals died this week from this pesticide." We have to look at them all together and think about the longterm consequences.
We have concerns about the quality of water and we must have concerns about the quantity. We have to look at the environmental decisions we make. We have to begin to think of the recommendations by the wonderful UN Brundtland Commission chaired by the Prime Minister of Norway. It brought together producing countries from all over the world, north, south, east and west, rich countries, poor countries, countries that use a great deal of pesticides and chemicals in their agriculture, and countries that do not. A rather amazing set of conclusions came from the deliberations of the commission. We all have to change our ways. The planet is at risk. We are threatened with being buried under the garbage created in our own communities. We risk leaving future generations with depleted soil, depleted fish stocks, undrinkable water, depleted but important non-renewable resources. Instead, we will be left with tailings and pollution in those communities.
It is a very sad fact that over roughly the last 100 years we have been using the earth in this extremely irresponsible way and getting rid of our resources and leaving pollution for future generations. The acceleration of the pace in the

May 9, 1988
Supply
Industrial Revolution, particularly after the last war, has been quite incredible. The result is that we are irresponsible citizens and the Brundtland Commission documented the abuses. Elowever, it also left us with some hope. The report says we can change. If we are going to survive on this planet we have to change. We have to change how we look at agriculture, fishing, forestry and all these other things. We have to look at agriculture as a renewable resource and we must integrate environmental questions with economic decision-making. When we look at the question of how we use pesticides, or whether we should be damming a river or not, whether we should be diverting water here or there, we have to look at the long term from the point of view of sustainable development.
I can see my time is up so I simply want to say that I have taken this opportunity to raise some of these long-term questions. I congratulate my colleagues who are raising the short-term questions and the tragic situation of the families involved in this drought. I certainly hope the Government will respond positively, listen to reason, and begin to devise some solutions to meet these immediate questions and at the same time begin to come to terms with the long-term need for sustainable development in agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, although the resolution before us today concerns the emergency need for water supplies to deal with the drought problem in western Canada, and a long-term policy for water supplies for agriculture, clearly the Hon. Member who just spoke reminds us of the half-term report of the Science Council of Canada which indicates some of the dramatic and difficult problems facing our water supplies, even in Canada, for drinking purposes.
For example, the report, which came out last December, says things like: "The future is not bright". It refers to "a looming environmental crisis on a scale and depth of disaster far exceeding any met by earlier generations." This is in a country with some 10 per cent of all the fresh water resources in the world. It goes on to say that water shortages in southern parts of Ontario, Quebec and western Canada will grow, leading to more conflict among water users and demands for costly and environmentally damaging water diversions. It says that Canada will be caught up in a global water crisis by the year 2000. Half the world's population will lack adequate water supplies. It also mentions that Canada lacks a coherent science policy for water. Research is under-financed, students are not educated about water issues, and universities have failed to treat water as a serious field of study. It points out as well that the marine ecology laboratory and internationally famous research centre, the Bedford Institute for Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, was just granted aid recently by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I think the Hon. Member has raised some very important aspects of this whole topic. Although we are sort of looking at the need for water for crops, feeding cattle and emergency community water supplies in western Canada, it is not just a
regional problem for Alberta and Saskatchewan and parts of B.C. It is clearly a matter of national priority and national urgency.
I wanted to make these comments because I was reminded of them by the Hon. Member's speech in which she drew attention, not only to the volume and quantity of water, but to how important the quality of it is, not only for the growing of crops but for the feeding of livestock and the feeding of humans as well.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the Hon. Member. I share with him the concern that Canadians cannot be complacent. We indeed have abundant water resources, but we certainly do not have too much, certainly not with the use we are making of our fresh water resources right now. We do face the prospect of severe shortages in the near future because the water available cannot be used for drinking because it is polluted. Therefore, I welcome his putting on record the very particular concerns highlighted in this report. It is a long-term issue. Research must be done and we have to look for long-term uses.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague who, like myself, spent some time this past summer in a part of the world where they have done miracles in terms of finding water and using it to grow things from almost nothing. The State of Israel has a computerized irrigation system for its orchards. It distributes small hoses to the base of each tree and, through the use of a computer, adds the exact amount of moisture needed in order that there is no wastage whatsoever.
Has the Hon. Member any examples from her research in environmental matters which indicate a methodology which we could use to more appropriately utilize what we normally think of as an over-abundance of resource but which is really finite on the planet earth? Has she any other suggestions from which we can learn on how to protect that resource?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the specific example given of computerized irrigation to ensure that this precious resource is used sparingly and in the best possible way. The very thrust of the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission report is that we have to get more out of less, that we have to stop wasting so much, that we must challenge our resources much more effectively. The report is very rich in practical examples of how we can get more out of less, how we can use fewer materials but better know-how in order to accomplish this.
As a general point, we must build into the decision-making on whether a particular project ought to be pursued the economic consequences through environmental risk. We must look not only at what will happen to one community, but at the community which will be deprived of that resource. We must not look only at what will happen in the here and now, but what will happen to the next generation. We must figure out
May 9, 1988

ways of costing this so that we will not continue to make mistakes. When we do something because it looks cheap right now, it means that someone else will have to pay the price in the future.
We need a different process. We must do our costing differently. We must build into the decision-making the costs to the environment and ensure that we do not continue to make the same kinds of mistakes as we have so far.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in pursuing the issue of getting more for less, would the Hon. Member care to make some comments about a number of different methods of damming water? One of the more popular systems which has developed in western Canada, and I guess other places in the world, is to go for the very large developments, to put in the very large dams. These are popular with politicians, I am sorry to say, and are not always as efficient as some of the alternatives.
There is a project in western Canada to which I will refer without giving its name. Local community farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists worked out a system of providing the same cubic acre feet of water through a series of 15 or 20 small dams across small creeks running into a river. They have saved the same amount of water for use by the rather scattered community. Wildlife has more access to the surface water under this system than would have been the case under the very large dam which was proposed, and there is much less likelihood of major damage to population centres if any one of them breaks. It is very unlikely that all 10 or 15 will break at one time, even if there is a flood situation.
As an additional extra, this seems to have provided a sponge effect over a relatively large area of the Prairies and has thereby maintained subsoil water supplies and the wells of some of the small towns and larger communities in the area seem to be benefiting as well.
Is this the type of interference by man which the Hon. Member has in mind when she speaks of getting more for less? Man seems to have drained most of the potholes in that part of the Prairies. Water used to go out very quickly down the rivers. It is now delayed and much is saved for use during the summer and future use.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, again I welcome those comments and the very practical example of getting more out of less. We do have to learn the lesson that small is beautiful. Megaprojects are great for politicians; the bigger the dam, the bigger the bridge, the bigger the building to open, the bigger the ribbon to cut. All of this gives the taxpayer and the citizen the chance to see something big happening. Politicians fall for it all too often.
However, you can also get megaproblems from megaprojects and that is something which we want to avoid in the future. We should be paying far more attention to the careful use of this natural resource, respecting the diversity of uses, and respecting wildlife, something I did not go into. We must realize that agriculture has to coexist with environmental uses
Supply
of a different nature for the long-term preservation of both. If we really want to think to the future we must be looking at these varieties of uses.
The small projects, which can be extremely efficient and productive, are a far better way to go. Megaprojects have a dramatic impact but it is very hard to estimate their future consequences. One can find out too late that the project did not produce that which it was intended to produce, or that it has detrimental environmental consequences. One thinks of the Aswan Dam, a major project, the unfavourable results from which are just beginning to mount now. People are beginning to wonder seriously whether it was the right decision.
If we are humble enough and have enough respect for nature we will stick to smaller projects for using our resources very efficiently rather than bringing on the major problems which can be part of megaprojects.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today calls on the Government to provide both short-term and long-term solutions to a very serious problem. I do not have many farmers in my part of the world but the people who 1 represent are very close to nature and have suffered from time to time as a result of their livelihood being curtailed through the forces of nature. It seems to me that that is exactly what we are talking about today as far as the short term is concerned, possibly not as far as the long term is concerned, but certainly as far as the short term is concerned.
The evidence seems to be overwhelming that there is a serious problem with which we have to deal immediately. The precipitation in the Province of Saskatchewan has been declining over the past little while. It is quite obvious that it is a very serious situation, indeed. For example, the percentage of normal precipitation at the Saskatoon recording station is 83 per cent whereas from November 1987 to March 1988, it was under 70 per cent. That kind of ratio can be applied to other recording stations in the Province of Saskatchewan. The evidence is overwhelming that there is a serious and immediate problem as far as water is concerned.
I think there has to be an immediate solution found by the Government of Canada, but I do not think the solution should be a drain on other programs put in place for developmental purposes. I think there are adequate precedents and adequate funds within the Government to react to the situation. For example, there is an emergency response policy that was always there whereby there is a shared co-operation between the Government of Canada and the provincial Government. As I understand it, the province must put in the first advance of funds, something in the order of $.5 million or less. If that is done then the Government of Canada, if the situation is categorized as an emergency, can respond on a pro rata and shared-cost basis depending on the total nature of the bill. Those mechanisms are there now. They are available to the

May 9, 1988
Supply
Government. I think that is the approach which must be taken to solve the short-term problem rather than dipping into programs of a developmental nature which are designed, and should be used, for quite a different purpose.
I notice that the Government of Alberta, for example, has announced it will contribute. The Premier of Alberta has said he will provide help to rural municipalities and landowners suffering through this problem. There is money for building and rehabilitating dugouts and livestock water facilities, and so on. There is a certain movement on the part of at least some provincial Governments. The question now is if the federal Government will follow the lead of those provincial Governments which have made a contribution. Will it enter into a shared cost arrangement to solve in the short term this very serious problem?
In terms of the seriousness of the problem, we are told by the Alberta Agricultural Association that farmers want to seed by June 1. If they cannot do that, they might be able to plant barley, but they are sitting there waiting, debating whether to seed. A farmer, like a fisherman cannot go on with that amount of uncertainty. He has to be prepared for the season. If nature intervenes with an impediment, it has to be resolved.
These are questions we all face whether we live next to the sea or on the land. If we get our livelihood from nature, if we are primary producers, there will always be these accidents of nature which are going to have to be dealt with and which are no fault of the primary producers. That is what we elect governments for. We elect governments to deal with situations like that. It is easy to govern day by day when one can project what is going to happen three years down the road, but what is more difficult is to deal with emergency situations. But that is what governments are for. There is no way the individual farmer or fisherman can deal with a situation like this. It has to be dealt with by the Government. I believe that is what is needed here.
We are told, for example, that Ottawa may want to consider dipping into soil funds to ease the effects of drought in the West. As I said before, that is not the way things should be done. There is a need for the immediate resolution of the problem and there is a need for long-term development. I do not think we should take money from one to solve the other. There is a suggestion, for example, that the federal Government would consider taking money from the special $75 million soil and water conservation fund to help ease the effects of a drought in western Canada. I ask again, why do we have to dip into developmental funds? They are needed too. What is needed here is an immediate response from the Government. It has the funds and the mechanisms available to follow the lead of the provincial Governments and to respond in kind. That is for the immediate problem.
With respect to the long-term problem, I have to really support some of the things said by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Indeed, we do have a long-term water problem with which the Government has not
come to grips. There is the problem, for example, of acid rain. There has been a lot of talk about that but very little action. And there is the problem of soil erosion which is going on all over the world. I was able to travel to Ethiopia to see the kind of erosion going on there. That kind of soil erosion, to more or less of a degree, is happening everywhere. It is obviously not as serious in this country as in parts of Africa. It is a question of degree rather than kind. We must come to grips with that long-term problem.
There is another point to be made which I do not think is entirely irrelevant. That is the whole question of water supply. We are talking about a specific and immediate problem in western Canada, but there is also a water problem all across this country. I have villages in my riding in 1988 which do not have a supply of fresh water. In my opinion, there is nothing more important than that and there should be no higher priority. The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has asked the Government of Canada to join with it because there is now no federal program for participating in water problems anywhere in this country. There was such a program when the present Leader of the Liberal Party was the Minister of Finance and, hopefully, there will be again. We did have a program for contributing to water supplies but we do not have one now.
The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has asked the Government of Canada to participate with it because it cannot do it alone and some provincial Governments cannot do it alone, either, because in this country certain regions are richer than others. There are provincial Governments which would find it very difficult to get into the kind of expense that will be needed. Only the power of the purse of the Government of Canada can adequately respond to a situation like this. The Government of Canada has said to the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, no, that is your problem. Well, it is a problem. We have in western Canada an immediate problem and I think we have the ways and means to solve it.
I welcome this motion today. My Party has obviously staked out our position which was so well put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and I stand to give him some support from another part of the country, and to give support to those people who are so adversely affected in western Canada both in the short term and in the long term.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss the water problem in western Canada. First, I should bring everyone up to date as to what my position is.
I have been a farmer since 1948.1 was born in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan and experienced what was really the drought of all droughts, the drought of the 1930s. My father was a blacksmith and the community ended up owing him something in the neighbourhood of $100,000. However, he could not keep his family any more so he decided to move up
May 9, 1988

to the northern part of the province to an area which is very similar to that which we see depicted in pictures in the Railway Committee Room. Most of the farms are covered in bush. The area was what one would call a homestead area. There were no roads. There was very little of anything. However, there was rain, growth and beauty. The move to that part of the province was well worth the time.
My father never did get paid his $100,000 or anything like it. However, he never wanted to go back to the part of the prairie where I was born. The memory I have of the prairie during the drought was of dust storms, grasshoppers and gophers-everything but green grass and growing crops. I was only too pleased to move to the area to which we did move. It has become a very productive farming area.
I must disagree that there is no long-term thinking in government. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) talked about pesticides, something which she hates. City people hate pesticides. However, they have come a long way, too, since the first ones were manufactured. The new ones leave less of a residue in the soil and are more efficient. They dissipate much more quickly than did the older ones. There has certainly been a big change in them. As time goes by I am sure that progress will be made in the use of various other types of pest control which may or may not be chemical. We are certainly going through a different type of control now that will be beneficial to the country in the long run. It has done very little harm to the soil.
As a matter of fact, in our particular area if we can get rain we can grow as good a crop now as we did when that soil was first broken. The control that we have over the weeds is of great help. Many people term pesticides chemical pesticides, something with which I do not agree. A great many of them do not hurt the soil but certainly help the farmers. Without them, all the government help in the world would not be able to keep the farmers in business.
Getting back to our long-term ideas with respect to what has happened over the years, I should speak a little about the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, the PFRA. In the 1930s farmers were under siege. Early in the decade drought struck western Canada, turning the skies brown and the soil was blowing all over the place. I quite well remember that. The Great Depression plunged wheat prices from $1.25 per bushel in 1929 to 40 cents per bushel in 1932. That had nothing to do with the drought but with protectionism that was put in place by various countries. The opposite should have happened but because of protectionism that is the price to which grain fell.
In 1933 an infestation of grasshoppers destroyed crops. Again, I missed that one since I had moved to the north country where we do not have grasshoppers. They do not like a lot of moisture. We avoided that plague, and grasshoppers still do not like our country. In 1935 a rust blight struck the region, by which time the drought had spread to more than seven million hectares. We called them acres in our day. Between 1929 and 1937 some 14,000 farms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Supply
and Alberta were abandoned. If we keep these high interest rates up, we will have a lot more abandonments.
By 1937 the total value of grain produced in Saskatchewan was just 10 per cent of what it had been a decade earlier. That was partly due to protectionism. The federal Government responded with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in 1935. The purpose of the Act was to secure the rehabilitation of the drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and to develop and to promote within those areas systems of farm practice, tree culture and water supply that would afford greater economic security. Initial legislation allocated funding to PFRA for a five-year period. However, in 1939, the Act was amended to allow the agency to provide planning and assistance for soil conservation and water development over the long term. The PFRA became a permanent agency.
Now the PFRA has evolved to meet the needs of rural communities. On-farm soil and water conservation programs began in the 1930s. Large dam projects began in the 1950s, and municipal water systems began in the 1970s. The promotion of soil conservation began in the 1980s.
I return to what the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood said with respect to us not trying to improve our water supplies. The Government of Saskatchewan encourages dug-outs, small dams, and that so many acres are set aside for wildlife where there are beaver dams in order to create areas where the natural water level can be kept at the proper heights where conditions are available.
Today, as we grapple with the water shortage problem in western Canada the PFRA continues to play an important and relevant role. The PFRA now employs about 850 people. Its headquarters are located in Regina, with district offices in Winnipeg and Edmonton. It maintains a network of 21 field offices across the Prairies. Field staff provide how-to information to farmers seeking help with water supplies, soil problems, grazing space, water pumping and so on and so forth. I know that at the very moment it is very busy trying to fill dug-outs and municipal water supplies as well as water supplies to local villages and farmers.
One of the biggest projects that PFRA took up was the Community Pasture Program. Today that program has 87 community pastures in all three prairie provinces, mostly in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They took over a lot of land that was badly eroded, that had suffered from wind and water erosion, and used the proper varieties of grass seed to fight the drought. They now have a good program going for areas that were once barren and caused a considerable amount of soil drifting and water erosion problems.
PFRA also took on a tree distribution program. Any Member who has been south of Saskatoon will see an example of many miles of trees that have been planted to keep the wind speed down. The trees have beautified the area, they keep the

May 9, 1988
Supply
snow in place, and also keep up the water level. This has helped a considerable amount with the shelter-belts. Last year
10.000	farmers received well over one million seedlings from Indian Head, and they continue to plant trees at a nominal cost, the cost of which is mostly the shipping involved.
PFRA has also entered into a soil conservation program. Over the long term it has made the land more resistant to precisely the type of wind erosion associated with the dry conditions now facing the Prairies. PFRA has revitalized its mandate for soil conservation by establishing a soil and water conservation service.
In 1984 soil conservation programs were launched under the five year economic regional development agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The federal share was around $8 million to the Saskatchewan agreement, and $4 million was contributed to the Manitoba agreement. Under these programs 45 soil conservation groups have been formed; approximately
2.000	producers have received almost $4 million in incentives for soil conservation activities. The PFRA soil conservation program in Alberta is jointly administered with the Alberta Government.
The PFRA is giving prairie farmers the hard facts about soil conservation. The present day farming techniques have been major contributors to salinity, erosion, and organic matter loss in the soil. The PFRA is working to create new attitudes about how prairie farm land can be best used. The PFRA is providing information about farming techniques such as continuous cropping and zero till. It conducts workshops, provides field tools and involves many other activities to spread the gospel of soil conservation.
We hope today's innovation will be a common practice tomorrow. The PFRA rural water development program is providing timely and substantial assistance on the Prairies to alleviate the current dry conditions. In particular, the well program is providing water supplies in many water-short areas. Rural water supply pipelines are carrying water to parched areas. Dams and dug-outs are widely used to trap water. In the Prairies, 75 per cent of the water supply typically comes from the winter run-off. This year the winter run-off was nothing. There was no snow in the southern part of the province. Therefore, that creates many problems because water has to be pumped sometimes as far as 10 or 15 miles.
Beginning in 1935 the PFRA had a program to encourage farmers to build dug-outs and stock watering dams. Since the initial year of this program the PFRA has spent well over $70 million on almost 200,000 on-farm water supply projects. Last year PFRA provided almost $5 million to help fund more than
5.000	individual projects. For some irrigation projects the PFRA will pay up to one-third of a farmer's cost. The PFRA also gets involved in group and community water projects. Hundreds of reservoirs constructed by the PFRA now dot the Prairies. Last year, it invested in more than 80 groups and community water projects. Under its current program the
PFRA will establish water supplies for groups of five or more farmers and towns with a population of up to 300. The costs are shared equally between the groups and the community and the PFRA.
While water is a natural resource, it is developed according to provincial strategies, the PFRA sometimes gets involved in large scale water related projects. It has contributed to building new water and sewage works in 49 towns in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
The PFRA has played a key role in several major water projects. For example, the Bassano Dam rehabilitation project is assuring reservoir capacity meets the needs of area irrigation projects. Another example is the South Saskatchewan River project. Approximately 30,000 hectares is irrigated with water from Lake Diefenbaker. Irrigation has helped what was once primarily a wheat growing region to diversify. There are some problems with salinity because of irrigation. I know that PFRA is studying this problem and will be attempting to solve some of the problems created by the over-use of water in some areas.
The hydroelectric station at the dam site in Lake Diefenbaker is an important component of Saskatchewan water power. There is also a new dam that has been built very close to my farm which flooded a few acres approximately one mile from my farm. It will be beneficial to keep that area for the water that attracts the rain, and so on.
The sparse population of western Canada, its climate, and vast arable land has led to an economy based largely on natural resources, primarily agriculture. Soil and water are cornerstones of the western economy. They require careful conservation and development. Skilled management is essential. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation program is certainly conducting some good studies and work in that particular area. That is a long-term program that has been very beneficial to the farmers in western Canada. It has done some exceptionally good work, and will continue to do so with the projects that it has and the projects that it is now starting out.
Drought is not the only problem in western Canada. It is my personal opinion that the biggest disaster to hit the farming community in western Canada was in 1982 when the Farm Credit Corporation was changed to become a bank. This was done by the previous Government with the help of the NDP. It allowed interest rates to follow the lending practices of the other banks. The Farm Credit Corporation is now the eighth or twelfth largest bank in Canada. This system of helping farmers has not been beneficial to the Farm Credit Corporation or the farming community in general. No industry can stand a 12 per cent or 15 per cent interest rate. At one stage of the game the interest rate was as high as 22 per cent. What we have today is worse than a drought. We have a situation where interest rates are the biggest bloodsucker to the economy in western Canada, and will continue to be so.
May 9, 1988

While Ontario is doing very well economically, that is not the case with the rest of the country. Western Canada is suffering as a result of high interest rates. In addition to impacting adversely upon the agricultural sector, high interest rates are having a negative impact in terms of business startups, thus affecting the broad economy.
We have to come to grips with the problem of high interest rates. More farmers will be chased off the land by high interest rates than by drought. If a farmer has to sell his crop for less than the cost of production, it is not possible for him to stay on the land. If we are to keep our young farmers on the land, we will have to bring about some changes. Under present conditions, it is not possible for the younger generation to carry on the family farm.
I met with one young man recently who is burdened by high interest rates. While he has been able to meet his payments to the Farm Credit Corporation thus far, he has had to do so through use of his operating loans, to the point where he is now faced with the situation where he can no longer make those payments. That young man now faces interest payments totalling some $32,000 in interest. There is simply no way that anyone can survive when faced with that kind of situation.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for getting a little off the subject of the motion. However, the interest rate problem is one that is ever much as severe, in my mind, as the drought, and our planning has to address that question, as well as that of water conservation.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, during the last three years I have been a Member of Parliament, I realized that Canadian agriculture was having serious problems, especially in Western Canada. As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I remember listening to representatives of farmers' groups, from the Prairies, who appeared before the Committee when we were looking at the possibility of drafting a report on farm input costs. At these hearings, the personal and very serious problems experienced by farmers and their families were also discussed, all the more poignant when we consider the pride of Canadian farmers who hate being dependent on government handouts.
Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member is very knowledgeable about his part of the country and is familiar with the wide open spaces of the Prairies we know that many farmers are at a considerable distance from urban centres, so when there are family problems, these are even more acute because there is no convenient access to services-I would like to know, since we in Quebec do not necessarily get the latest news every day, something about the human dimension of the present problems farmers are having because of the drought.


Jack Scowen: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to answer the question.
Supply
It is difficult for one to describe the degree of social problem created by a drought, by a lack of water. For the most part, the agricultural sector is made up of family-operated farms, with the mother and the kids helping with the sowing and the harvesting, and it is a great disappointment for those families when they realize they are unable to meet the costs of the operation.
When confronted with a drought, the farming community suffers from an increase in divorces, in suicides, and in social problems in general, and high interest rates lead to the same situation.
We do have in place counselling centres for farming families, to assist in overcoming these problems. Certainly, this Government through its programs has shown that it is concerned about the problems which confront the farming community.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), on debate.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate. It is not the first one I have been involved in since becoming a Member of this House in the fall of 1968. In that brief period, we have been through this type of debate on more than a couple of occasions. It is the same kind of debate that has prevailed since the West was first settled. There is nothing new about it. The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen), and the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who is a south Saskatchewan boy, have both been there, and they know the score.
One has to ask when governments at the federal and provincial levels, regardless of their political stripe, are going to learn their lesson. When are we going to learn, from experience, that there will be cycles of drought; that there will be wet years and averages? That is the way Mother Nature operates. It has never been any different.
We continue to move from crisis to crisis. I can recall the spring of 1951 in Saskatchewan, when the southwest part of that province, along with southeastern Alberta, was covered with water. We thought we were into a flood comparable to that experienced in the days of Noah. In the main, southwestern Manitoba, all of the southern one-third of Saskatchewan, almost all of the southern one-third of Alberta, and the interior of British Columbia, chronically go through these cycles.
In the 1920s and 1930s there were many who asked that a long-term disaster fund be put in place. The view was that in years of good prices and good yields, the farming community would be willing to contribute to such a fund, with provincial and national governments also making annual contributions, thus enabling the fund to build to a point that it could be of assistance when disaster struck.
By way of example, the Western Grain Stabilization Fund went several years without having to be used. It built up, as I

May 9, 1988
Supply
recall, something near $3 billion but that has all gone now. In fact, it is in deficit. My friend says it has gone the other way. We had a billion or two dollars in it but now we are a billion or two short. But you must have something in place like that all the time, Mr. Speaker. When a disaster hits or when you have a period of drought for three or four years in a row, what do you do? You have what is called good, sensible, long-term planning, which you put in place and leave there. If you get lucky and go 15 or 20 years without a drought or without a flood, so much the better. We never seem to learn our lessons. I have watched successive governments in the provinces and in this House still refuse to do anything. They always do things at the last minute. It is the barn-door syndrome. As soon as the horses are gone, shut the barn door and see how we stop the horses from getting out again.
It is dry on the Prairies. One thinks of all the black humour. I am sure my friend from Victoria will know a lot of stories. There was one a few days ago. In several towns in Saskatchewan it rained briefly. Two and three year old children who were playing out in the yard ran into the house screaming in terror. They had never seen rain in their lives. It was so dry in one little town in southwest Saskatchewan, this farmer was getting a little elderly and he fainted in front of the post office. They brought him to by throwing a pail of dust on him. There is another story I have mentioned in the House. It was so dry that every time the wind blew the dust was so thick that the gophers were 10 feet in the air digging. In fact, the last time I told that one in the House was when our friend Mr. Whelan was Minister of Agriculture. We were in the middle of a drought and he said he was going to see how dry it was. I told him he did not have to go because I could tell him but he did not believe me. He went anyway but was still late helping the farmers.
How long are we going to take to learn our lesson? We do not learn from history. We keep on repeating it. We have weather records in detail back over 100 years in western Canada. The cycles are fairly consistent. It will have to cost, to begin with, the federal Treasury, a chunk of money. This will be in addition to moneys the Government has already put into the Western Grain Stabilization Program, in addition to moneys the Government will have to put in by way of a deficiency payment as long as that stupid price war goes on between the United States and the European Economic Community. So you are looking at $3, $4 or $5 billion a year in the coming years. That is the name of the game. It will not matter what political Party is in power sitting on the Treasury benches, it will have to be done. The question is not whether or not it will be done but when and how much. That is what the argument will be about.
We have been looking at figures for Saskatchewan and the efforts being made by the Saskatchewan Water Development Corporation. It is all great stuff, this farm dug-out pumping. Lay down a few hundred yards or a mile or two of pipe or hose and fill a dug-out out of the nearest river, creek or slough. Dug-outs have almost doubled, from 46 to 88. I do not know
but I think there are probably-I will get corrected by my colleagues if I am very far out-50,000 dug-outs in Saskatchewan alone. There are probably 100,000 dug-outs in the three Prairie provinces. It will be a little much to try to figure out how to try to pump water into them because mostly they are all dry.
Test drillings have done down. In 1987 we did 107. So far this year we have done only 93. What about deep wells? We had 26 last year and only 17 so far this year. As far as community wells are concerned, there were six last year and six this year. Then we have dug-outs and small reservoirs. We had 65 last year and we are up to 107 this year. Those efforts are all very worth-while.
Let me say to my hon. friend from MacKenzie who just spoke, if it does not snow in the winter-time and if it does not rain in the spring, those dug-outs, wells and reservoirs will be dry. It does not take a genius to know that. In fact, the water table has been lowered so much in the southern parts of the prairie provinces that drilling wells is tougher now than it used to be. You can drill all the wells you like, as worth-while an effort as that is, you have to try, but they will have to be deeper wells and a lot more expensive. Even if you were lucky and got an artesian flow, it might be enough for one farm, maybe two.
I suppose we could make the Prairies look like Swiss cheese and fill them full of holes. Surely it is not reasonable to expect that all levels of government and all the farmers could afford to drill enough wells to satisfy the water needs of every farm, every ranch in the southern parts of the three prairie provinces and the interior of B.C. Forget it, Mr. Speaker, you can't.
There will be years where there is no snowpack in the mountains. We had hardly any snow all year in Regina. The same situation applied to Moose Jaw, Swift Current and Medicine Hat. In fact, one day we got some snow in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, about four or five inches, and a farmer thought just for the fun of it, as he still had a team of horses, that he would hook up the sleigh, go into town, get some mail and groceries and take the kids along. It was only four or five miles. Away they went into town, but the snow did not do any good. He was heading back home from town and one of those strong Chinook winds came up, blowing from the southwest, coming from the Crowsnest Pass and Lethbridge country. He had those horses going at full gallop. The Chinook was melting that snow so fast, the front runners were on snow and the back runners were on mud. That snow did not do very much good. It sank into the ground a little bit and a week later the dust was blowing again.
All the efforts we make with damns, reservoirs, dug-outs, well digging and everything else, you must have something else to protect farmers and ranchers from what is inevitably going to happen every few years in dry land areas. May I say that many farmers will have to smarten up about misusing their land. You will still find a farmer cutting down a bluff of poplar trees in the middle of a section of land where he should be
May 9, 1988

planting trees. Trees hold snow. They provide more moisture. They keep birds around, and birds eat grasshoppers. Farmers should not be cutting down trees. They should quit cultivating to the point where the top six inches of soil turns into the consistency of flour. A slight breeze comes and blows it into the ditches, filling them up. We should be into a major tree planting campaign, even greater than what we did during the Dirty Thirties and forties. I wish we could double or triple the tree nursery at Indian Head. It is not only the farmers but also the towns, villages, municipalities and Departments of Highways which need to pitch in in the name of soil and water conservation.
There is as well the matter of over-grazing. There is a guy in my province who has 96 or 100 sections. It's easier to keep track of them by townships than it is by sections. That land ain't fit for more than one head per quarter section, but it is over-grazed. In dry years, the deer might be able to survive because they eat the tops of the brushes, but no livestock can get enough feed to survive. Since it has been badly over-grazed in previous years, after the first one or two dry years, there is nothing left. The great sand hills begin to expand.
Efforts to combat those sorts of things have to be substantially enlarged by both the federal and the provincial Governments. We also have to begin to set up a real crop insurance scheme. Just because Mother Nature does things to us periodically does not make them disasters. If we have not learned our lesson from the way nature operates in Canada, we never will. It is not a disaster, it is the normal course of events. The climatic changes run in a pretty routine cycle of wet years, medium years and dry years, and it goes around and around, every 10 or 20 years. We need to have in place a crop, drought and flood insurance program with sufficient capital so that no matter what happens, even if there were a 10-year drought, we could cope with it.
We will be spending millions this year, unless we get some rain, moving hay out of Ontario and the Fraser Valley and the northern part of British Columbia down to the Prairies. We may even have to move hay from northern B.C. down to southern B.C. Farmers will be reducing their herds and that will cut the hog and cattle prices. Farmers will reduce their herds because they will not have enough feed, they will flood the market and down will go the price. They will be in the same rat race again.
This brings me to the whole issue of prices. I spoke to one farmer early in April. I said: "Well, what are you going to seed this year?"
He said: "I have concluded that I will save money if I don't put any crop in. I've got about 25,000 or 30,000 bushels in the granary, the wife's got a part-time job and I got a part-time job. I'll be money ahead to just fill my quota, make my payments to the Farm Credit Corporation and to the bank for the fertilizer and spray I bought last year, and just not seed a
Supply
bushel, not an acre. Let the damn weeds grow, and don't do anything with it this year".
I think that might not be a bad idea in some cases. Just do not bother putting in a crop. If there is some carry-over grain from last year and the year before, ride it out. Now, it is easy for me to talk. I am just relaying what one farmer said to me.
I know that there are other farmers who will need a lot more income than that just to keep their heads above water. Even if they do get a half-decent crop, unless there is a substantial improvement in the prices they receive for their product, they will continue to farm at less than the cost of production. I do not know of any other sector of the economy, except perhaps the fisheries sector, which experiences that. Only in agriculture and the fishery are we able to organize our economy such that they get less than it costs them to produce.
There is another old gag about the farmer who won $1 million in the lottery. They asked him what he was going to do with the money. He said: "I'll keep farming until it's all gone".
If you were to foist that principle onto the automobile industry, one can imagine what the big three automobile companies and the auto workers would do. If we were to tell them that they had to produce cars at less than the cost of production and the people who did the work had to get less money than it cost them to raise a family, we would have riots in the streets.
What would happen if we were to say to the financial institutions: "We are going to drive you money-changers out of the temple?" A fellow did that a couple thousand years ago, and they all snuck in the back door since. It needs to be done again.
When usurious interest rates are being slapped on to primary producers from coast to coast, it is no wonder that we have lost half a million farmers in the last 30 years. Where did they go? They went into the city. We didn't need any more in the city but we drove them out of a life they wanted to live. Our system drives people out of the kind of life they want to have. We stack the deck against them year after year. It is not a case of Conservative, Liberal or socialist Governments. Those are the kinds of things that any self-respecting national Government will damned well have to deal with. If there is to be an ideological war about it, the people of Canada and particularly the people of rural Canada will not pay any attention and will not vote for that kind of rhetoric. They want action and they want results.
Interest rates have to be reduced immediately. All the farm debts across Canada must be redone, and if that costs the banks a few million bucks each, tough cookie. They have ripped these people off enough for the last 20 years. They made profits in the billions of dollars and the big five did not pay a nickel's worth of income tax. Yet farmers write to me trying to get me to help them with an argument they are having with the income tax Department over a couple of hundred dollars.

May 9, 1988
Supply
The system has to be changed. It must have a fundamental change in its direction, its nature and its purpose. Without that, we will lose thousands more farmers. We will waste money trying to help them just barely make it. It will take them twice as long to go broke instead of half as long to get their heads above water and stay in business.
If this debate accomplishes nothing else, I hope that it has helped to concentrate the minds of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Nothing so concentrates the mind than knowing you are going to be hung in the morning. If they do not act, they are going to be hung one of these mornings.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today, and I have listened very carefully to all Hon. Members who spoke to this Opposition motion. If we look at what is happening in developing countries, I am sure many people in this country would be astonished to hear we have a drought problem, a resource problem, a problem with soil erosion in a country as large and as productive as Canada. The problem is a very serious one. Emergency debates on the agriculture crisis have become more frequent, and today, throughout the world, negotiations are under way under the multilateral agreement referred to as GATT. I am sure that in the not too distant future, we will have to find the right answer to bringing Canadian agriculture back on its feet.
Today, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this debate, I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members more particularly to the Canadian Crop Insurance Program. As you know, the Crop Insurance Act was passed in 1959 to enable the federal Government to help the provinces provide farmers with a form of protection, by minimizing the economic effects of crop losses caused by uncontrollable natural hazards, including drought.
The protection guaranteed under the Crop Insurance Program is available to all farmers who wish to take advantage of this offer, and applies to all Canadian provinces.
In recent years, this contributory program has played a vital role for insured producers. In fact, the federal Government's contribution totalled $181 million for 1987-88 alone. Today, crop insurance constitutes a safety net in case of disaster, offered by both levels of government to farmers. This shared-cost program is a vehicle of choice for the Government to provide producers with long- term protection, not just in emergencies.
This fact was also recognized when the Agriculture Ministers adopted the National Agriculture Strategy.
Crop loss assistance is generally a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal Government acknowledged
the need for helping the provinces through financial contributions to crop insurance programs, and in 1959, it passed the Crop Insurance Act, which was subsequently amended in 1964, 1966, 1970, 1971, 1973 and again quite recently, to improve assistance to farmers. The first province to acquire a crop insurance plan was Manitoba. By 1975, all ten provinces were equipped with a crop insurance program which is still in effect at this time.
A sucession of widespread drought-related crop losses struck Western Canada in 1983, 1984 and 1985. This led to a call, at the First Minister's Conference in November of 1985, for a concentrated effort by both levels of government to develop a national disaster-relief program. Following the conference, a federal-provincial working group was established to develop recommendations.
In January 1986, the working group presented its preliminary findings. It recommended, and the ministers of agriculture agreed, that crop insurance was intended to cover disastrous crop losses and that the program was doing a good job at a reasonable cost. However, the ministers agreed additional protection should be provided under the crop insurance program to meet widespread successive losses.
As an interim measure, the ministers recommended that the crop insurance program be enhanced in the western provinces for 1986, in areas most seriously affected by successive drought-related losses in 1984 and 1985.
The enhancement, called the "Multi-Year Disaster Benefit", took the form of additional coverage equal to 10 per cent of the average yield up to a maximum of 80 per cent.
In August of 1986, the working group presented its final report, which recommended that an enhanced crop insurance program be made available to producers in all provinces beginning with the 1987-88 crop year.
The recommendations were tabled at the Annual Conference of Ministers of Agriculture in August 1986.
The report became the basis for the section in the National Agriculture Strategy dealing with production risk protection and was signed by all Ministers of Agriculture and endorsed by the First Ministers in November 1986.
In response to recommendations, the Government made the following improvements in the Program: First, a large number of crops are now eligible for crop insurance. Second, programs for forage and feed grain have now been improved. Third, coverage has been added in the event of a natural disaster affecting farmers several years in succession. Fourth, the methodology has been enhanced for setting the premium rate and indemnity payments.
Mr. Speaker, the assistance provided by the federal Government and producer participation in the Crop Insurance Program make basic crop loss protection available to farmers
May 9, 1988

in the form of a production guarantee. Crop insurance is a form of long-term assistance offered by the federal Government. It plays a role similar to that of the fire brigade that rushes in when the neighbour's house or your own is on fire. The fire brigade is always on the alert and ready to help. Crop insurance is a little like fire insurance, and we are trying to encourage farmers to take advantage of this kind of long-term protection and assistance.
Deadlines for participating in the Crop Insurance Program are announced well in advance so that producers have plenty of time to buy the insurance. The guarantee applies to all farmers contributing to the Crop Insurance Plan, in all Canadian provinces.
The Program is very attractive to farmers. In fact, as I said before, federal contributions in 1987-88 totalled $181.5 million. During that year, 134,173 farmers insured 42,096, 702 acres of land. In Quebec, for instance, insured producers who were struck by a natural disaster received $21 million in payments, which included over $15 million from the federal Government. This protection is offered at a cost affordable to most farmers and taxpayers through government contributions. Producers pay only 50 per cent of the total cost of the program.
The guarantee provided is based on the principle of compensatory production for all fields of the same crop. Thus, when part of a farm incurs losses, it may be that with the aboveaverage yield of some fields, the total production of the farm exceeds the base production guaranteed.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is limited. In closing, I wish to say that we now have 230 crop insurance plans for some 87 kinds of crops in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the losses due to the water shortage that is now severe in the West are also covered by crop insurance and I am sure that with the sense of duty shown by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture when we intervened in March to solve temporarily, to be sure, the problem Western farmers were going through, with our Government's commitment, we will no doubt continue to play a leading role in Canadian agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the conclusion of this debate, the proceedings on the motion now before the House have expired pursuant to Standing Order 82(12).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate
TRADE-CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT COMPENSATE GRAPE GROWERS/REQUEST FOR GUARANTEED LINES OF CREDIT
["The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to the Order made Wednesday, May 4, 1988."]
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on April 25 I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) as to whether the Government of Canada would provide a line of credit for the grape growers who are being put out of business by the Government's free trade agreement.
This does not involve only growers in the British Columbian Okanagan Valley, but in the Niagara area as well. In fact, some 15 grape producers in Ontario have had to walk away from their farms because they could not get a line of credit. That information was revealed only on April 25.
A few days earlier a letter had been made public by Fred Somer who had been advised by the Kelowna and District Credit Union that they would no longer provide credit to him because, in their opinion, his financial resources in 1989, with the start of the free trade agreement with the United States, would in fact put him and the other grape growers in the Okanagan Valley out of business.
The letter from W. M. Redstone, the branch manager of the Kelowna and District Credit Union makes it very plain. It says: "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Somer: We refer to your letter of March 14, 1988, the communications we received from the federal and provincial Governments, and our subsequent conversations. Our concern is regarding 1989 and beyond. We feel reasonably assured that the 1988 crop will be purchased but income from that will only repay the operating loan, pay interest on the mortgage, and a small principal reduction. In 1989 you will have no income to service the mortgage interest and our security will be worth substantially less than the amount owing against it.
Unless you can provide one of the following which is to be acceptable to us, we regret we cannot make operating funds available to you in 1988 and we cannot pay any more cheques; additional security, compensation in the form of a lump sum reduction of the mortgage."
I spoke with Mr. Somer's son and he said that he had been on the farm for eight years and his father had been there for many years before that. Clearly it was the case that the Fred Somer family was the first victims of the free trade deal.
I asked the Minister whether, if the free trade deal is putting these people out of business, the Government would provide a line of credit. The Minister, of course, did not answer that. He usually does not respond directly to questions in the House. He talks about how great he is, how great the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is, or how many billions of dollars he has spent, but usually does not respond directly to any questions put to him in the House. In this case there was no change. He did not respond to whether the Government would provide a line of credit to the producers who are being put out of business and that is where the matter lay.

May 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
It is interesting that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) went to the Okanagan Valley a few days later. He showed a great deal of concern. The press report in the Toronto Star of April 26 indicated:
-Crosbie did say he would be "disappointed" if banks and credit unions
began refusing loans to grape growers for no reason other than fears over free
trade.
He was "disappointed". Mr. Somer and the other producers are not disappointed, they are devastated. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in these vineyards and they are being put out of business. They cannot get a line of credit and therefore cannot look after their vineyards. There will be no crop and they will be destroyed by this action. All the Minister could do was mumble that he is studying the matter, negotiating with the provinces, and so on. However, as far as providing a direct line of credit to get them through this year until longer-term measures will be provided, there was nothing provided at all.
Although the Government has apparently made some representations to the Bankers' Association to support them, the Bankers' Association is saying "no dice" and essentially the Government is saying "no dice".
The Minister for International Trade talks in the newspaper article about visiting Kelowna. He said that in every arrangement there are going to be some winners and some losers. We have not learned of any winners. Certainly, the grape producers in Niagara and the Okanagan Valley are the losers. I think it is time the Government showed its goodwill to these producers who are being put out of business and provided them with an interim line of credit for the operation of their vineyards this year. If the Government is going to have a proper adjustment program, let it be put in place so that these grape producers know where they are going and know that the Government will stand behind its free trade deal.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for his continuing interest in agriculture and particularly for raising the question of the position of the Canadian grape growers at this time. I certainly concur with the Hon. Member when he states that the Canadian grape growers and the industry they represent are experiencing difficulties. I do not, however, agree that the reason for those difficulties is solely as a result, or even primarily as a result of the free trade agreement.
As the Hon. Member knows, the grape growing industry in Canada has suffered for many years as a result of historical surplus production. Quite frankly, the federal Government has done its share throughout those years in purchasing that surplus production. In addition, of course, there have been some very real problems in the industry as a result of difficulties with GATT and a subsequent GATT ruling which, I am afraid, was anticipated by the Government and, I would suspect, by the industry as a whole.
During the course of the last eight years, the Government has been buying the surplus grape production even though it has recognized that that in itself is not necessarily a solution. Nevertheless, it was a type of assistance that the Government could provide. In fact, the Government spent some $ 13 million buying the surplus, and I am sure the Hon. Member applauds the Government's recent announcement that it will buy the surplus production in 1988, as it has done in previous years.
We believe that our efforts in buying the surplus production has given some degree of stability to the industry. Furthermore, we have on numerous occasions sat down with the industry and tried to address the problems that were anticipated with the GATT ruling. That is now with us and we are in the position, of course, of having to respond. The nature of that response will be very significant in terms of working out a long-term strategy.
With respect to the free trade agreement itself, I would suggest that the financial difficulties which exist in agriculture in general, and in the grape growing industry in particular, are not a result of a single year's events and not a result of a single development such as the free trade agreement. I think the difficulties which exist and which have been affecting those in the Kelowna area are the result of ongoing difficulties. Certainly the federal Government is committed to coming up with some sort of adjustment program. I too talked with producers in the area. I know how important it is that an announcement is made in the near future, and I anticipate that it will be.
FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT/EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON CULTURAL INDUSTRIES


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to continue with the question of culture on the bargaining table for the so-called free trade deal. It is not a free trade deal. It is not free trade because we do not have protection against the American countervail power. It is simply not free trade. It is much worse than that. It is a loss of political sovereignty. It is a loss of our power to make decisions and it is a loss of cultural sovereignty.
The film distribution scheme is perhaps the first casualty from the point of view of culture because of the shameful act of the federal Government in giving up on a promise it made to Canadian producers, directors and film people that there would be some improvement to allow for film distribution in Canada. It was not going to be Canadian ownership as recommended by a task force, but there would be a film distribution scheme. The Government abandoned that.
Last week the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) had the colossal gall to say that because of free trade not including culture this very minor measure could be proceeded with. The film distribution scheme recently proposed by the Government is a farce. It is a real capitulation
May 9, 1988

from the not staggeringly strong measure that it had proposed a year ago. It is still far from Canadian ownership.
The point is that culture was always on the table. It is not just film distribution. It is a whole lot of things. There would not be a section on culture if it had not been on the table at all.
Article 2004 is on intellectual property. Article 2005 is on cultural industries. Article 2006 is on retransmission rights. Obviously, the Americans did not have confidence that the Government would proceed with retransmission rights although it had already promised to do so.
Article 2007 is a print-in-Canada requirement. This is a sudden repealing of the sections in the Income Tax Act which define a Canadian issue of a newspaper or periodical for purposes of deduction of income tax expenses. In order to get this, as a result of this provision, the production has to be printed or typeset in Canada. There was a great row when this provision was brought in. The American Government protested it for a very long period of time. It was not clear that it would go through at all. Finally, it did go through. Here we have with a stroke of the pen a provision which has enormously stimulated the magazine industry in Canada and which is now going to be taken away.
Those are four very specific provisions. There are also a number of areas in which tariffs will be reduced on cultural goods.
Article 2012 deals with the definition of cultural industry. It says what cultural industries are. However, it is made very clear that printing is not a cultural industry. We could not have told Gutenburg otherwise, that printing was not a cultural industry. Thus the printing trade has been simply wiped off the cultural map in negotiations in which, clearly, culture was on the table. This is one of the items that got lost. It got traded away, although we have a printing industry in Canada and we want to keep it and stimulate it. This means that provisions that deal with school textbooks being printed in Canada in order to get on school lists will be against the free trade deal.
Articles 2010 and 2011 in this agreement are on monopolies. However, we do not call them monopolies. We do not call the CBC a monopoly. We call it a public broadcasting corporation. We do not call TVOntario or TV Quebec a monopoly. They are provincial networks for broadcasting. It seems to me that if the trade deal had been in operation back in the 1930s when the CBC was set up, it could not have been established. The same goes for TVOntario and TV Quebec.
The monopoly section of this deal says that whenever an American corporation can make money in the trade deal it has the right to do so. The Government may not set up a public service in that service area. Or, if it wants to set one up it has to go through a process, it has to notify the American Government that it wants to do so. It has to consult with the American Government, if the American Government asks it to do that. It may be taken to binding arbitration. If we agree to go
Adjournment Debate
to binding arbitration we would go there. If we do not agree we would be taken to dispute settlement. In the meantime there can be retaliation of so-called equivalent commercial effect, which means that Canadians would be set against Canadians. Extra tariffs could be placed on lumber, fish or some other product in order to punish us for taking an independent stance in the area of culture. Compensation could be ordered, and it could be ongoing compensation. This problem exists most importantly for our social programs. It could also occur for our cultural programs. There is no specific exemption.
When we look at the so-called exemption for culture, it is made very clear that it is only a partial exemption, that notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, a party may take measures of commercial effect equivalent to those that in our case Canada took. In this way the United States could retaliate if we do something to protect our own culture.
This is an agreement that is the beginning of the end for our political sovereignty for Canada. It strikes right at the heart of our cultural identity. It is a shameful agreement. What is even more shameful is the fact that the Canadian Government will not square with Canadians about it. It will not even admit it is going on. It buries the most important provisions at the back of the agreement where it hopes that people will not see them. It does not even mention monopolies in the elements of the agreement. It sneaks these provisions in and hopes that Canadians will not notice.
I hope that Canadians will notice. I hope that Canadians will protest and fight for Canada.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, although I respect the right of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to interpret the free trade agreement as she sees fit, 1 simply cannot-and I say this at as a politician historian-concur with her assessment that the political sovereignty of Canada is in any way in jeopardy as a result of the agreement. However, the specific question before the House today relates to the cultural community and industry in general, and that is the point I would like to address.
We on the government side believe that our cultural industries are exempt from the free trade agreement, including Canada's publishing, film and video, music and sound recording, broadcasting and cable industries. The Government, as promised, has maintained all existing cultural support measures for cultural industries, as well as the ability to introduce new ones.
There are four specific undertakings in the free trade agreement touched upon by the Hon. Member. She identified them. We do not believe the ones identified by the Hon. Member have anything to do with the cultural role of these industries, and there are no other undertakings in the agreement which will apply to the cultural industries.

May 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
The exemption for the cultural industries makes it clear that the free trade agreement will not in any way limit our flexibility to introduce special measures to assist these industries, as required now or in the future.
Last week the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) announced policies which were referred to by the Hon. Member in rather disparaging terms, with respect to new investment policies for the film industry and $200 million in new support programs to assist the production, promotion, and marketing of Canadian film and videos. The Minister also announced that she will shortly table legislation, as promised, to ensure that Canada operates a separate national distribution market. Through the additional funding and legislation to regulate the importation of films and videos, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the industry.
This policy was not negotiated as part of the free trade agreement. It is a Canadian solution to Canadian problems, developed in consultation with the film industry in Canada and around the world. Despite attempts by the Americans to raise the issue, Canada's cultural industries, including the film distribution issue, were kept off the bargaining table.
The free trade agreement will not in any way affect our ability to continue to develop cultural policies for Canada. In particular, the claim that the agreement will encourage U.S. retaliation against our future cultural policies is groundless. In fact, the opposite is true. At the moment the United States is free to take unilateral action against Canada in retaliation for what it considers to be unfair trade practices. The agreement will improve the situation, by placing some constraints on the ability of Congress to take action against any of our so-called cultural trade barriers. The United States will be required to demonstrate that a Canadian measure in fact contravenes the trade agreement. United States retaliation must be limited to a measure of equivalent commercial effect.
Furthermore, the U.S. will not be able to act unilaterally, as it can now. Advance notification and consultations with Canada would have to take place, in accordance with provisions in the agreement. The trade agreement is about trade, it is not about culture. It is a commercial arrangement that will put our economic relationship with the United States on a secure footing. Our culture can only gain from the stronger Canada that will result from this agreement.



Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have to remind you that yesterday was Mother's Day. I know that you are well aware of that, and I am sure you celebrated Mother's Day as people right across this country did. I am sure that all of us paused to reflect on that very special day and to think about that special relationship that you and I, Mr. Speaker, and all Canadians have or had with their mothers.
Unfortunately, my mother passed away about five years ago. Mother's Day always brings back those memories and those feelings of that special relationship. Many times I think of the qualities and the character that she tried to instil in me with her own way with those various lessons that she taught me. I think, as well, about those little things that make the mother-child relationship so special-and certainly occasions such as Mothers Day bring back one's childhood memories.
I often think of the nursery rhymes my mother used to repeat, and the one that comes to mind this evening is one she used to say when it was raining outside. Her purpose in saying it was probably to get me out of her hair. It went along the lines: "Rain, rain, go away, little Allen wants to play".
That is a rhyme that comes to mind every time it rains. I am one who does not like to stay inside when it rains. I much prefer to be outside enjoying the rain, whether it be a teeming rain, a thunder-storm, a steady all-day rain, or drizzle, or a mist. I am one who always enjoyed the rain. However, it is not something that I enjoy as much now, the reason being that when I am caught outdoors in the rain now, it not only takes the press out of my pants but causes severe health problems.
We are all aware of the devastation caused by acid rain in this country, and across the world. Our forests, our lakes and rivers are being severely affected, as are our buildings. As well, human health is severely impacted. We know that acid rain can lead to respiratory diseases and to certain cancers.
Acid rain is a tremendous problem for the world today, and it is one that all Canadians are well aware of. The only people in the world who do not seem to be well aware of the problem of acid rain are the Americans, who seem to think that acid rain is caused by bird droppings, or something of that sort. Some Americans do not seem to be able to come to grips with what this problem is all about.
Half of the acid rain that we experience emanates from U.S. sources, and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been doing his best, in the last few years, to try to deal with that. He has put acid rain at the top of the agenda with the Americans. He has talked to the President about it; he has talked to the U.S. Congress. He has done everything short of going to war with the Americans. As a sovereign nation, we know that we cannot force the Americans to reduce their acid rain emissions. Rather, we have to do so by encouragement, by negotiation.
The other half of the acid rain problem emanates from within Canada-and again this Government has made enormous strides in controlling acid rain emissions from within Canada. The federal Government has now entered into agreements with seven of the provinces to reduce acid rain emissions by 50 per cent of what they were in 1980, with the target date for that reduction being 1994. In addition, the federal Government has introduced strict lead emission controls for cars and trucks.
May 9, 1988

Perhaps the greatest source of acid rain emissions is Ontario Hydro, and that is the case because of the fact that Ontario Hydro uses high sulphur American coal to generate power, instead of the low sulphur Canadian coal that has been proposed as a substitute by our Government. It is because of the use of the high sulphur American coal that we have this enormous acid rain problem, and it is one that we cannot seem to solve.
A short time ago, you know, Mr. Speaker, and I know the Governments of the provinces and the federal Government set up an action committee to deal with this problem to try to find a way to bring low sulphur western Canadian coal to Ontario so that Ontario Hydro could make use of it, and reduce these horrible acid rain emissions very substantially. That action committee was made up of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of British Columbia.
I have not heard of very much action from this committee. We have heard all the excuses. We have heard that Ontario Hydro can get cheaper coal from the United States, so why shouldn't it buy cheaper? We have heard the excuse that all these long term contracts are in place with the Americans, so we have to keep buying this high sulphur coal from them, causing acid rain emissions in Canada. We have heard the excuse as well that transportation costs from western Canada to Ontario are so high that it does not make economic sense. We have heard all the excuses, but what we are looking for is action.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when you and I, Mr. Speaker, and all Canadians can expect to get some action out of the action committee so that I can start enjoying those rain storms again the way I used to when I was a kid. How about it, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? When are we going to get that action?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does think that is a good question. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that non-editorial comment. "Jack Spratt could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean, but together they licked the platter clean". I think that identifies the sense of co-operation which this Government has tried to bring to the country since 1984. It is because of that sense of co-operation in elements like the
Adjournment Debate
action committee that sometimes things are a little slower. It is easier in terms of speed to be a dictator, but it is not necessarily more secure in achieving what it is we would like to achieve.
It is particularly encouraging to stand in this Chamber today, and I speak as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, from Alberta, one of the places from where low sulphur coal might come and deal with a question by a Member from Toronto. The interests of the people of Toronto, the people of Ontario and central Canada do coincide with the producing provinces which have the low sulphur coal. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Member mentioned, were involved in these discussions.
We are pleased in western Canada to hear that Ontario Hydro has made a commitment to reduce its emissions by 50 per cent over eight years, between 1986 to 1994 and that progress is already under way. In terms of action, 1 million tonnes of low sulphur western coal was bought by Ontario Hydro this year due to an unexpected demand. Original concerns about price are starting to diminish. The price of western coal and its deliverability-transportation is a big part of it-is starting to come down. One of the first initiatives our Government undertook was the deregulation of transportation, bringing in more competition. We are beginning to see this important commodity become more price competitive.
The Member asks specifically when we can expect action. I wish he would use the words "more action". There has been action. Meetings have been held. The Secretariat has produced a report on coal technologies which will now be the subject of a high level meeting of the action committee that I understand will be held in the very near future. We expect out of that to have some financial commitments to continue to work on those technologies which reduce price, help Ontario consumers, help the acid rain situation, and help create jobs in western Canada which will ripple back to eastern Canada with an increased capacity to purchase goods and services, equipment, supplies and materials. It is good economically. It is especially good for the environment and to be able to demonstrate in this country that by working together we can lick that platter clean and produce a better situation for all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to the Order made Wednesday, May 4, 1988.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, May 10, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers