1989-05-23

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the three Parties regarding the visit of the President of Israel. I have a motion to put to the House for its consent. It reads:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, on Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the House shall meet at 2 o'clock p.m. in order that at 11 o'clock a.m. President Chaim Herzog of Israel may address both Houses of Parliament in the Commons Chamber;
That when the House meets at 2 o'clock p.m., proceedings will be in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders with the exception that Routine Proceedings will follow Question Period; and in addition any special order relating to the proceedings for the day will also be in effect; and
That the address of the President of Israel and customary related remarks by the Prime Minister and Speakers of both Houses be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House, and shall be televised according to House guidelines.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification with respect to something the Parliamentary Secretary said. He stated: "in addition any special order relating to the proceedings for that day will also be in effect".
Is that an indication that some special order is being planned at this point in time, or is it just keeping the options open in case something arises in the interval?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, that is to keep the options open and, of course, it relates to the last few days of the month of June.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion relates to consultations held between the Parties. We are prepared both to give leave to the presentation of the motion and to its acceptance.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Kamloops satisfied at the moment?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, more than satisfied and certainly prepared to give support to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 279 constituents of Kingston and the Islands who protest the closure of VTA Rail as contemplated in the cuts announced by the Government in the recent Budget.

Petitions
The petitioners indicate that they believe the railroad was established as a national system in the last century and has played an integral part in the growth of Canada, that the loss of jobs will be a significant loss for the countiy. Many communities rely on rail service as their primary means of transportation.
They call upon Parliament to urge the Government not to cancel in whole or in part VIA Rail passenger service across Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 regarding the Government's intention to close down all or part of VIA Rail.
The petitioners from western Canada point out the very critical role that VIA plays in the development of the economy of western Canada, particularly the development of the tourist sector there.
They are asking Parliament to maintain, improve, and modernize VIA Rail service as opposed to cutting it back and give a whole set of reasons as to why it would be in the best interest of the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I also have another petition on a different topic. Again it is certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36.
It points out the Government's involvement in ARMX '89, the arms bazaar currently being held in the nation's capital. It illustrates the Government's support for the growing militarization of our Canadian economy.
The petitioners also point out that the potential customers at this exhibit, those who have received special invitations, include countries which have habitually violated the human rights of their citizens. They point out that military spending of course diverts material and human resources from more important economic activities and social programs.
They call upon Parliament to cease all government involvement in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment, particularly the Government's support of ARMX '89.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present from people in my riding. The first quotes the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which said: "The federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that rail passenger services in Canada be retained, modernized, and expanded as an important part of our national transportation system".
The petitioners point out that the Government has failed to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail. They call on the Government to abandon its plans to cut back VIA's budget and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a modem, effective transportation company rather than as a museum.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, my second petition calls upon the Government not to sign the Order in Council which would remove oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, and to place oats and barley under the Wheat Board Act in such a way that in future farm organizations and the Parliament of Canada must be consulted before changes are made to the marketing of these products.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present several petitions which have been duly certified by the Clerk.
The first is a petition from a number of residents of Newfoundland who point out that in Guatemala bombing, torture, disappearances, and murders of the civilian population are increasing.
They call upon Parliament to direct the Government to stop all government to government aid to Guatemala and not to renew it until there is a genuine end to the war between the Government of Guatemala and its own citizens.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from about 300 persons mainly in the City of Toronto who are concerned with the uncertainty about the Government's programs for dealing with the refugee backlog that came about in the last few years.
They point out that there will be a great many of them who may be denied the opportunity to stay in Canada through inadequate hearings of the merits either of their
May 23, 1989

refugee case or of their plea for humanitarian consideration.
They ask the House to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will ensure that those who have notified Canada Immigration of their intention to make a claim will all be considered eligible for immediate employment authorizations and a case by case review of their claims.
The review should include humanitarian and compassionate grounds traditionally used by Canada Immigration, including the presence in Canada of relatives, the successful establishment of refugee claimants in Canada, and special consideration being given to those coming from war zones, oppressive Governments and natural disasters.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I also have about 70 names on a petition from people mainly in Metro Toronto who remind the Government that it is now four years since the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs prepared a report on equality rights, which recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
Three years ago the Government promised to take whatever measures were necessary to ensure that this would be done. It has not been done.
Therefore, they pray that Parliament will ensure that the Government and Parliament act to bring such an amendment in as specified above with all due haste and speed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Finally, Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people who are concerned about environmental hazards on the coast of British Columbia. They point out that in 1988 when the South Moresby Park agreement was signed the federal Government committed itself to expending $20 million or more to explore for minerals and hydrocarbons within what it was calling a national park.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to recognize that there should not be any more hydrocarbons exploration
Order Paper Questions
activities in the coastal waters. They do not want the Government to pay for any such activities from this date on.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to submit a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 with in excess of 1,400 signatures collected at the annual peace walk in Victoria on April 22.
The substance of the petition is the concern of the petitioners of the great danger of accidents when nuclear armed or powered ships are in Canadian ports. It was asking prior to the Budget that the Canadian House of Commons not purchase nuclear powered submarines for Canada.
Now that this request has been approved and there is not going to be nuclear powered submarines for Canada, I would just like to point out that there are over 1,400 signatures on this petition, which demonstrates the degree of concern in the lower island of the regular visits of United States navy vessels that are nuclear armed and nuclear powered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2, 3, 50 and 51.


Mr. Milliken: 1.	What is the (a) number of PCB storage sites in the constituency of Kingston and the Islands (b) frequency with which these sites are checked to ensure they comply with health and safety guidelines?
2.	Have any of these sites failed to pass such inspections and, if so (a) which sites (b) on what dates (i) did they fail (ii) will they be tested?
3.	Are the PCBs in Kingston and the Islands being transferred for destruction and, if so, (a) to what location (b) by what means?
4.	Is the organic chemicals section of the National Research Council receiving funding to develop its "Chemical Transformation Process" and if so (a) in what amount (b) at what time will this process be ready for wide-scale use in the field?

Order Paper Questions


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by the Department of the Environment and the National Research Council as follows:
1.	(a) There are 15 sites (2 federal, 13 private).
(b) The owner of each site is responsible for a monthly inspection of its premises. Environment Canada inspects all federal sites at least once a year. The Ontario Ministry of Environment inspects all non-federal sites at least once a year.
2.	(a) Federal Penitentiary (federal), Dibblee Construction (private).
b) (i) Environment Canada inspected the Federal Penitentiary on March 30, 1989. A warning letter was sent advising them to take corrective action with respect to the following:
Some containers were not on pallets; the emergency response kit was not available; and some containers were in an unacceptable condition.
The Ontario Ministry of Environment inspected Dibblee Construction on October 30, 1988. The material was being stored in a wooden building and the company was asked to provide another suitable storage building.
(ii) Environment Canada will re-inspect the Federal Penitentiary in May, 1989. The Ontario Ministry of Environment will re-inspect Dibblee Construction in May, 1989.
3.	There are currently no plans to transfer PCBs stored in Kingston and the Islands for destruction.
4.	(a) This process was developed using the budget established for the Organic Chemicals Section of NRC's Division of Chemistry further to NRC'S annual parliamentary appropriations.
(b) Negotiations continue between NRC and the industrial partner chosen to develop this process. Once these negotiations are complete it will be possible to provide an estimate for wide scale us of the process.
1988-89 DROUGHT PAYMENT


Mr. Althouse: Were the provinces of (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba (d)
Ontario asked to contribute funds toward the $850 million crop
component of the 1988-89 drought payment and, if so, in each case (i) was a contribution made (ii) in what amount?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, the provinces were asked to contribute funds toward the 1988-89 drought payment. Negotiations are continuing, but no contributions have as yet been finalized.


Mr. Gardiner: Since January 1, 1989, has the government collected money from the tax on long distance telephone calls and, if so, for each province, what amount?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes. The Excise Tax Act imposes a telecommunication service tax on long distance telephone calls and on instruments, devices, equipment or apparatus provided by the telephone companies. When filing monthly tax returns, the companies do not segregate the amount of tax applicable to long distance calls. Accordingly the amount of the tax remitted on these calls is not available.


Mr. Gardiner: Has the government taken steps to ensure that the movement of funds between sub-programs in its Direct Delivery component of the Canada -British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement receives ministerial approval and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Under the Canada-British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement (FRDA), the two governments established three management committees based on the delivery stream (cost-shared, federal direct, provincial direct) which are responsible to the provincial Minister of Forestry and the federal Minister of State (Forestry) for implementation of the Agreement.
The re-allocation of funds between programs requires ministerial approval and an amendment to the legal agreement. However, the legal agreement further stipulates that each of the three Management Committees may move funds from one sub-program to another, but only within the same program. In the present case, the management Committee for the Agreement has the authority to move funds between sub-programs in the direct delivery component and does not require ministe-
May 23, 1989

Starred Questions
rial approval. As this Management Committee has the authority to make these adjustments as required, ministerial approval has not been necessary.
The intent of this provision is to provide the Management Committees with sufficient flexibility to respond to operational constraints as well as opportunities. This flexibility in management helps to ensure the most efficient use of government funds, while at the same time guaranteeing that Ministers retain absolute control.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions nos. 6, 23 and 26?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreed?
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned questions are as follows:\


Mr. St-Julien: On November 25, 1988, the day landslides occurred on the St-Maurice and La Ibque subdivisions, were ore-carrying cars or freight cars from the Chapais and Faribault subdivision routed by the Canadian National Railway Company via Ontario Northland, to the towns of Rouyn-Noranda, Val-d'Or, Senneterre, Barraute, Lebel-sur-Quevillon and Matagami and if so, what was the (a) distance covered by these trains (b) number of trains routed to Abitibi- Temiscamingue and La TUque (c) number of cars in these trains carrying dangerous materials (d) number of days necessary to effect such transportation?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: The
Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows:
On November 25, 1988, the day of the landslide, the St-Maurice and La Tuque subdivisions were impassable. CN was unable to move any cars of ore and/or other goods originating on the Chapais Subdivision via the ONR to Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, Senneterre, Barraute, Lebel-sur-Quevillon and Matagami.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have the answers to these questions, but rather than reading them into the record because of their length maybe we can have them printed as though they were read.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Is the House in agreement?


Mr. Gauthier:: Just on a question of interest, Madam Speaker. The answers to the questions seem to be extensive. Is the Parliamentary Secretary proposing that these be printed as read in today's Hansard'! If he is doing that, then I agree.


Albert Glen Cooper: Yes, that is the case, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Angus: For each year since 1979, has the government an estimate of its subsidization of passenger travel by (a) air (b) rail (c) road and if so, what is the (i) total amount of subsidy (ii) subsidy per passenger-kilometer travelled?


Benoît Bouchard: Transport Canada advises as follows:
(a)	for air transportation, net expenditures and net expenditures per passenger-kilometre are as depicted in Appendix I;
(b)	for VIA Rail, subsidies and subsidies per passenger-kilometre are as depicted in Appendix II; and
(c)	an estimate of the subsidization of passenger travel by road is not readily available because all three levels of government are involved both in the financing of roads and the collection of revenues from users. Furthermore, no definitive methodology exists for the allocation of costs between automobiles, buses and trucks.
Net Expenditures for Airports and Aviation 1979/80-1987/1988
1979/80	1980/81	1981/82Net Expenditures by Transport Canada ({Millions)	309.8	328.3	442.2Direct Subsidies administered by the Canadian Transport Commission ({Millions)	2.0	1.7	1.6Total net expenditures ({Millions)	311.8	330.0	443.81982/83	1983/84	1984/85	1985/86	1986/87	1987/88514.8	647.7	865.2	741.1	666.2	514.11.5	1.5	1.5	0.6	1.6	0.0516.3	649.2	866.7	741.7	667.8	514.1
May 23, 1989
Estimated Revenue Passenger-Kilometers Flown over Canada (Millions)
Net Expenditures per Revenue Passenger-Kilometer (Cents)
26,795	28,147	28,1241.16	1.17	1.5825,796	25,197	26,7382.00	2.58	3.2427,959	29,336	30,5002.65	2.28	1.69
Note: Net expenditures represent total expenditures (Operating, Capital and Grants and Contributions) less revenues (user charges concessions, Air Transportation Tax). Operating expenditures includeanallocationofDepartmental overhead. Costsof accommodation and services received without charge from other Departments are not included. Revenue passenger-kilometers include domestic and international services (portion flown over Canada).
Source: Net expenditures are from the Public Accounts and adjusted to reflect Departmental overhead. Revenue passenger-kilometers are estimated based on statistics collected by the Aviation Statistics Centre.
Via Rail Subsidies *1980-1988
	1980
Total Subsidy (SMillions)	423.0
Passenger-Kilometers (Millions)	3,103
Subsidy per Passenger-	13.63
Kilometer (Cents)	
1981	1982	1983	1984524.0	549.8	571.3	619.43,115	2,538	2,411	2,37916.82	21.66	23.70	26.041985	1986	1987	1988607.1	556.7	533.3	641.72,482	2,261	2,092	2,29824.46	24.63	25.49	27.92
Note: Total subsidies comprise operating subsidies, capital payments and payments under the Labour Assistance Program. Revenue passenger kilometers include domestic and international services (portion carried in Canada).
Source: Transport Canada, Policy and Coordination, Surface Policy and Programs.
Information is not available for the full year 1979 because VIA Rail did not take over full responsibility for all passenger trains before 1980.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Butland: 1.	For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the government tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for all tax deductions available to corporate tax filers in each Canadian province and, if so, what is it?
2.	For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the goverment tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for the tax deduction of capital cost allowances by corporate tax filers and, if so, what is it for the average corporate tax filer employing (i) fewer than 10 individuals (ii) between 10 and 20 individuals (iii) between 20 and 40 individuals (iv) between 40 and 60 individuals (v) between 60 and 100 individuals (vi) between 100 and 300 individuals (vii) over 300 individuals?
3.	For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the goverment tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for investment tax credits claimed by corporated tax filers and, if so, what is it for the average corporate tax filer employing (i) fewer than 10 individuals (ii) between 10 and 20 individuals (iii) between 20 and 40 individuals (iv) between 40 and 60 individuals (v) between 60 and 100 individuals (vi) between 100 and 300 individuals (vii) over 300 individuals?
4.	For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the goverment tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for the tax deduction of capital cost allowances by corporate tax filers and, if so, what is it for the average corporate tax filer employing (i) fewer than 10 individuals (ii) between 10 and 20 individuals (iii) between 20 and 40 individuals (iv) between 40 and 60 individuals (v) between 60 and 100 individuals (vi) between 100 and 300 individuals (vii) over 300 individuals?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) (b)
(c) (d) (e) No. Only taxable income is allocated among provinces. Particular items of business expenses or tax deductions are not identified by province.
2.	and 4. The annual amount of capital cost allowance (CCA) claimed by corporate tax filers is available for 1984 and 1985. The values can be broken down on the basis of whether the company is eligible for the small business deduction rather than by the number of employees of the corporation. In 1984, those firms eligible for the small business deduction claimed $5.3B in CCA and, in 1985, $7.9B. Large corporations claimed $16.7B in 1984 and $15.0B in 1985. The net federal revenue cost depends upon the statutory tax rate of the firm and whether it is in a fully taxable position.
3.	The most recent complete figures available for the amount of investment tax credit (ITC) claimed are for 1984 and 1985. The values are available broken down as to whether the corporation was eligible for the small business deduction rather than by the number of employees. The amount of ITC claimed by businesses eligible for the small business deduction (SBD) in 1984 was $162 million and in 1985, $282 million. For large corporations, $1,371 million was claimed in 1984 and $1,231 million in 1985. The net federal revenue cost would be reduced to the extent that the ITC claimed reduces amounts that are deductible as capital cost allowance in determining taxable income.
May 23, 1989


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its destructive policies affecting Canadian farmers, that have particularly devastating impact on the dairy, grain, horticulture and tobacco sectors, that undermine supply management agencies such as the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing boards at both the federal and provincial levels, and that break government promises relating to 1988 drought payments; and
That this House calls upon the Government to fulfil immediately its promises with regard to drought payments for the 1988-89 crop year, to implement a contingency plan for the current crop year, in view of indications of another drought in Western Canada, and to reverse its policies that are destroying the Canadian supply management system.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to attempt to address the Government's record in agriculture and the uncertainty resulting from that record, an uncertainty which the Government should address immediately.
This record shows a catering to big agri-business, a catering to foreign interests, and a real failure to address many of the concerns facing the people they should be serving. These people are tilling the land as we speak in
Supply
this House of Commons, the Canadian farmers who are involved in their spring planting at this point.
The primary producers are the first but not the least important link in the food chain. It is sad that in a world where millions of people are starving farmers are being forced off their land because they do not make enough return to pay their bills.
As I examine the agricultural record of the Government, I notice that there appears to have been a shift away from the proven and traditional marketing systems, systems that may have been of a different ideology than that of the Government. However, that shift is a shift in priority. No longer does the Government take the farmer as its number one priority.
The Government is wearing horse blinders, running wild, oblivious to those whose policies are being trampled and those whose concerns it is passing.
By examining sector by sector today, by myself and my esteemed colleagues, this side of the House will make it clear to the people of Canada what too many farmers already know, that agricultural concerns are being sacrificed for the FEA.
Last summer farmers across Canada were hit hard by a severe drought. Now they are being hard hit by the Tory Government.
Farmers were promised by none other than the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds that they would be compensated for their losses at a rate of $40 to $45 an acre of wheat in Western Canada and $50 to $57 per acre of com and beans in the East for a total pay-out of roughly $850 million. Further, the Minister promised that this $850 million was simply an estimate and not a ceiling.
When we have seen and heard about all of the hardships that Canadian farmers have experienced these last few years, we would think that it would be a top priority of any Government to lessen the blow. As Canadians we pride ourselves in taking care of our farmers through the use of such mechanisms as marketing boards, compensation programs, and stabilization.
However, where is the compassion of the Government? Where are its priorities? They are certainly not with the Canadian farmers.

May 23, 1989
Supply
I have good reason for questioning the sincerity of the Government and its commitment to farmers. Just look at the Estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for drought relief, Madam Speaker. They do not read $850 million. They read approximately $378 million plus another $30 million in Governor General warrants.
What has happened since the election? Does this Government believe it was given a mandate to change the rules of the game so that immediately after an election it could force the provinces to come up with an extra $425 million to pay for a federal election promise? I am not sure how the provinces could be expected to pay for an election promise of any kind. What do I tell the farmers in my riding and across Canada who are planting their crops, who have their bills to pay and were counting on drought compensation cheques from the Government?
I just hope the Government is not delaying its payments scheduled for July. The farmers were promised that money. They have bills to pay and their need is desperate.
The Minister set a deadline of 13 days from the announcement for returning applications for assistance under the drought relief program. What if an appropriate number of those producers are still attempting to receive applications? What are they going to do? This action, however, fails to surprise me any more than the continuing delays in the program. I cannot overemphasize the gravity of the situation. Farmers hit hard by drought do not need this kind of delay treatment by government. They need the help they were promised, and they need it now.
I would like now to address the concerns of the wheat producers of Canada. We know from the United States trade representative's report to Congress that it is the intent of the U.S. Government to eliminate the licensing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is not hard to surmise that Canada's Wheat Board marketing will be eliminated to appease the U.S.
Last Thursday I read that the United States Department of Agriculture will approve further subsidies on 1.5 million tonnes of wheat destined for the Soviet Union. These subsidies amount to about 28 cents per bushel. This will subsidize the United States grain exports to the tune of almost $13 million U.S. For the benefit of those Members across the floor, that is almost $15 million
Canadian. The Americans are continuing on with their subsidies through the Export Enhancement Program.
In view of the fact the U.S. President has reauthorized the Export Enhancement Program, I ask that the Government tell us when the producers in this country will get the much heralded level playing field.


An Hon. Member:: Never!


Ralph Ferguson: According to the Ontario Wheat Producer Marketing Board if a foreign importer buys United States wheat the final price is reduced by $30 a tonne. At the world price of $180 per tonne, the Ontario farmer must offer his wheat for sale at $150 per tonne in order to attempt to sell to that buyer on equal grounds. That is not taking into account the loss due to the lower value of our dollar.
In addition to this reduction of $30 per tonne, a farmer in St. Clair County, Michigan, can get up to three tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertilizer free if he has 40 acres of wheat. That is 150 pounds per acre free from his local supplier. Of course the United States says that this is not a producer subsidy, but it is an indirect subsidy to the producer and we as Canadians must compete against it. Yet, the Government has unilaterally disarmed our wheat producers and has thrown them to the vagaries of the market-place and the laws of the jungle.
There is another problem facing the wheat industry that to date the Government has refused to address, namely, the policy of end user certificates. End user certificates will be required when the level of subsidy between each country reaches a level that will permit the free flow of grains across the border. The difficulty of which I am confident the Government is aware is that end users certificates will not require the grade of wheat to be identified. This allows for the import of low grade wheat at lower prices than that of Canadian wheat. This is due to the quality of the control disparities which breed unfair competition, and believe me a few truckloads of low quality, ungraded wheat can destroy a stable price structure such as we have in Canada.
I would like to leave Canadian wheat for the moment and turn to oats. Again, we find the Government's record to be questionable. This past Wednesday the Canadian Wheat Board admitted what Members on this side of the House contended all along, that the lower initial prices for wheat are due to the Free Trade Agreement and the Government's fear of being placed

on the U.S. trade representative's Super 310 list, about which I will say more later.
Last in this area we have the Government's decision to remove oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board arbitrarily. This action broke the Government's own Citizen Code of Regulatory Fairness. This code was established by the Members opposite with much fanfare in March 1986, and the Government claims that it consulted with the producers. The polls show that 63 per cent of the producers were against the removal and 75 per cent were upset at not being consulted. Given the substantial list of pools and others who have voted to condemn the action, I wonder how the Government managed to come up with a consultation process that was selective enough to get the response it wanted. Perhaps it was the same source that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) used to determine that VIA Rail ridership was only 20 per cent.
While only about 1 per cent of oats are handled by the Canadian Wheat Board, this is the thin edge of the wedge. I should clarify that. Only 1 per cent of the volume handled by the Canadian Wheat Board is made up of oats. Because the level of subsidies on oats will be equal between Canada and the United States this year, the Minister removed oats from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board as called for under the Free Trade Agreement. Forecasts are that wheat and barley subsidies will be equal in about a year. Will they also be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board when that time comes?
I ask the Government to tell Canadian farmers just what will be the role of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Board when free trade in wheat takes effect next year. A major end-user of grains told me less than a month ago that the Canadian Wheat Board will be out of business within two years. That is shocking. It is unacceptable to the farmers of Canada.
Another agricultural sector that was hard hit just a few weeks ago was the pork producers. During last fall's election campaign, Canadians were told time and time again about how the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was supposed to guarantee access to the United States market. We on this side of the House argued that this access has not been guaranteed and that the United
Supply
States can still hurt us with countervailing duties whenever and however it sees fit, because its trade remedy laws are still intact and Canadians are not exempted.
Listen to some of the words of a Conservative advertisement which appeared last fall: "The Free Trade Agreement guarantees that Canadian farmers will have an open U.S. market for beef and pork". Another candidate from southwestern Ontario said: "the Free 'Trade Agreement is making sure that we are able to trade in the United States and not have to worry about countervailing of products that are moving right now". Canadian farmers would not have to worry about countervail. I am afraid those are famous last words because on May 3, 1989, a headline in The Globe and Mail stated that the United States attacks Canadian subsidies and ups the ante for imported pork. On May 4, 1989, another headline stated that pork duty troubles Canadian farmers.
Why are Canadian farmers troubled? I thought the Government, clutching to its Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, was supposed to eradicate these kinds of worries for farmers. The facts lead us to believe that this is not the case. Not one week after the Free Trade Agreement was put into effect, the U.S. pork industry filed a petition maintaining that according to the United States, Canadian pork producers benefit from more than 20 potential subsidy programs, including market price guarantees and drought payments.
Subsequently, a duty of 7.7 cents per kilogram was slapped on Canadian pork exports. I realize that this money is placed in bond pending a final decision, but the fact is producers' prices dropped immediately this announcement was made. This is money out of the pockets of pork producers.
A final decision will be made by the United States Commerce Department on July 17 as to whether or not the 7.7 cents per kilogram duty on Canadian pork will be maintained. I urge the Government to defend the interests of Canadian pork producers and to refuse to allow the U.S. Government to call into question some of the most essential and vital aspects of agriculture in Canada today.
The Government has been slashing programs left and right, mostly to the right, and giving in to the United States Government to such an extent that pork produc-

May 23, 1989
Supply
ers are not only getting fried by the Government but are getting burned.
Of course, we have to look at what is happening to the Canadian dairy industry. The recent response by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) to the GATT-Dunkel Agreement has confirmed what we on this side of the House have suspected ever since we first read the Free Trade Agreement. The Members on this side know what it says. We realize that the Government does not recognize the simple fact that once the cows are out, it is too late to close the bam door, that one should always negotiate from a position of strength and that one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
First, the intent of the interim GATT agreement that will go down in infamy as the Dunkel Agreement was to limit and decrease the incentives that subsidies create that result in over-production. At the same time, the Government continues to claim to stand by and to be defending producer-controlled marketing under GATT Article XI. What then was the Government's response to Dunkel? It was to place a cap on the very mechanism that the Government announced last January as the saviour of the industrial milk industry.
As anyone who can see could tell us, it is as plain as day that support prices on Canadian products have no impact on exports and certainly no effect on the intent of Dunkel. Indeed, the dairy producers pay for the disposal of over-production themselves. These support prices are totally permissible under GATT Article XI. Clearly, the message is that either the Government does not know how to negotiate and does not understand Article XI of GATT, or does not care about producer-controlled marketing.
If milk prices rise, this program will bring about the type of pricing that is the goal of the Government's Advisory Council on Adjustment. Second, the Government is currently under fire at GATT for including ice cream and yoghurt on the import control list. The United States Government is trying to argue that ice cream and yoghurt are not products like milk and that it is not necessary to have border controls in order to support a producer-managed marketing system. I understand that we have only a 50-50 chance of winning, but if we do not win this case, the precedent will be set and it
will open a floodgate for other products and other commodities.
Both you and I, Madam Speaker, can clearly see that ice cream is like yoghurt and like milk. The only logic that can support this decision is the same logic the Government used to argue during the election campaign that chicken parts are not chicken. I have a copy of a section of the Free Hade Agreement that I would like to read. It deals with how chicken cannot be chicken. I would like to read it, because if I do not, I do not believe that the Canadian public would believe it. Annex 706 talks about market access for poultry and reads:
Without limiting the generality of subparagraph 1(a), chicken and chicken products does not include chicken cordon bleu, breaded breast of chicken cordon bleu, chicken Kiev, breaded breast of chicken Kiev, boneless Rock Cornish with rice, stuffed Rock Cornish, boneless chicken with apples and almonds, chicken Romanoff Regell, chicken Neptune breast, boneless chicken Panache, chicken TV dinners, old roosters, and "spent fowl" commonly called "stewing hen".
It goes on to list processed turkey which is not considered to be turkey. How in the world can we believe the logic of the Government when it opens up the borders to such large volumes of products that can take advantage of this clause in the years ahead?
I call on the Government to demand that GATT reject this logic out of hand. More important is the fact that the Government has not acted quickly and decisively to challenge the second United States contention. If the Government allows the United States to enforce the belief that import controls are an unnecessary part of a producer-controlled marketing system, then the whole reasoning behind such a system will become obsolete. How can there be measures to ensure that there is not over-production in one country if its neighbours can export their over-production at will?
It must be recognized that producer marketing is part of the solution to world over-production, certainly not part of the problem. What has the Government opposite done to ensure that this right is not lost, to ensure the future of our producer marketing system, a system that is the best in the world and is envied around the world? Has it stood up to the American negotiators and exposed the multitude of hidden indirect subsidies that are available to United States' farmers through feed companies, grain elevators, fertilizer companies and the Commodity Credit Corporation? Has the Government confronted United States negotiators with the fact that a
May 23, 1989

dairy farmer in St. Clair County, Michigan, with 44 cows, will receive roughly $10,000 worth of free feed, $10,000 worth of Commodity Credit Corporation com? Surely this has to be considered a subsidy.
Finally, I might ask why the Government has not challenged at GATT the U.S.'s own practices in regard to ice cream. The United States has failed for 17 years to file a report on the U.S. quota which is to be established yearly on a proportional basis. Further, the Government should ask why that quota has not been met and why it was not opened to other countries like Canada, as GATT rules stipulate. The answer to all these questions is not very hard to determine.
During the free trade debate Members on this side of the House argued passionately, and now would appear correctly, that the agricultural interests in Canada were sacrificed to get a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, that agricultural subsidies were not allowed but that subsidies in other industries were, such as energy. I have here the final text of the FTA, Article 906. Under Article 906 it states:
Both Parties have agreed to allow existing or future incentives for oil and gas exploration, development and related activities in order to maintain the reserve base for these energy resources.
This deal has imposed a double standard on Canadian farmers. The Government is making them second class citizens and has bargained away their marketing systems and their livelihoods. Did the U.S. Government object to the subsidy? If not, why then did the Government not get the same rights for agriculture? The Americans need our oil and gas. Certainly they are not going to object to our Canadian taxpayers subsidizing something they need. Believe me, the Canadian people will be paying through the nose for their own energy until it runs out.
Recently the Government introduced a Budget that holds title to many firsts. It was the first televised Budget. It was the first Budget to be pre-released. It was the first Budget to spawn an RCMP investigation. It is important to note that this Budget, mishandled as it was, was also the first free trade Budget. This was a Conservative budgetary future, a free trade budget that fingers for elimination the items that our government agreed
Supply
with the United States to be considered to be unfair subsidies.
There have been cuts in stabilization programs, cuts in transport programs affecting farmers, cuts in crop insurance, cuts in farm credit, cuts in fuel rebates, cuts in interest relief as well as the elimination of the special Canadian grains program, despite the fact that there is only a lull in the war, not a cessation of hostilities. This included a $14 million loss to the dairy industry. It has been estimated that this Budget will cost every farmer in Canada at least $1,000 each per year.
The answers to the questions I have raised today are not so much pointing to the FTA, but to the fact that the Members opposite not only negotiated to get a deal at any cost, but now that they have the deal they will do anything to keep it, anything to say we have access to the American market, anything to say that Canada is not being treated like other U.S. trading partners.
On the last day of May, a United States trade representative will present United States Congress with a list of countries that are viewed by them as having unfair barriers to American imports. The countries on the list that do not remove those barriers within 18 months will be retaliated against by the United States with tariffs and sanctions. To date, the trade representative has cited Canadian practices which it considers unfair regarding restrictions on advertising, discriminatory postal rates, plywood, alcoholic beverages, the dairy industry, poultry, and wheat, the dairy industry, poultry and wheat being looked upon as having unfair trading practices. The United States trade representative did not even mention the pork industry, which I discussed earlier and which is currently suffering retaliatory countervails from the United States.
We have a great country, Madam Speaker, made great by the sweat of our forefathers who tilled the earth and cleared the land. We as Members have to ensure that the heritage is not lost and the farmers of this nation have an income commensurate with the rest of society.


Mr. Brightwell:: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the Member's rhetoric on a group of undefined topics. He talked about free trade here, GATT there, and I wonder really what his point is. He talked about Article 11 and the protection of the dairy farmer and the poultry farmer in Canada. I am wondering what he has got against

May 23, 1989
Supply
negotiations that would strengthen Article 11. Why is he against trying to put this into some order, trying to get some understanding under GATT about Article 11 and about agriculture as a whole which has never been brought up before?
He will know that under this Government, farm income is the highest it has ever been. He will recognize that this Government has supported agriculture in a way that no other government ever has. He spoke himself about 17 years of neglect by the Americans, 17 years that encompassed the period that his Government was in power, three months of which was when he was Minister of Agriculture. We wonder what he did then for the deficiencies in the American situation.
Since free trade, this government have brought in the broiler-hatching egg industry marketing board. We have demonstrated our support for supply management. Now we are with the GATT agreements trying to reinforce it. What does he have against these people that he would want us not to reinforce and to clarify Article 11 of GATT?


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, perhaps I have to go back a few years to when some of the marketing boards were first being formed. They were brought about by the need for a countervailing force in the market place, a countervailing force that is utilized by the producers. Perhaps I had better tell you how long I have been involved. It will be 40 years ago next December when, as a teenager, I was asked to sit as a township committee man on one of the local marketing boards.
I well remember the problems we experienced before that time. There had to be some different mechanism put in place so that the farmer could have a return on investment and labour in order to meet his payments. That situation is not unlike what we have at the present time, as there appears to be a move to tear these apart. But I also want to reflect back on the other marketing boards that I have been involved in at township levels over the years, such as wheat, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, later on with Eggs and then with TUrkeys and Broilers. Over the years we decided there had to be a better way. It is only with the implementation of the legislation to create the National Farm Producers Marketing Act in early 1972 that these mechanisms were
put in the hands of the producers so they could have control over their own destiny and tailor their production to the needs of the Canadian consumer and provide that consumer with a high quality product at a reasonable cost.
These are the things that have been put into place through the enabling legislation and they have proved very successful. We had the Canadian Wheat Board established well before the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies were brought into effect. The Canadian Wheat Board was brought into place to ensure that the farmers had the best possible return in the marketplace.
Now we see those systems being challenged, even though the eggs were challenged under GATT several years ago when the National Egg Marketing Plan was brought into effect. We won that challenge because of the precedent set under Article 11. We want to make sure that that challenge is not brought up again. I am afraid it may be brought up and we will only have a 50-50 chance of winning. So it is in this context that I want to support our national and provincial marketing systems across this nation. With the concentration of power in the market-place, with the huge corporations, with the buying clubs that supply about 70 per cent of food at the retail food level, the farmers themselves have to be able to establish their price at the farm gate, a price that reflects the cost of the production with a reasonable return on investment and labour.


Mr. Harvard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a western voice to this debate. Agriculture is important to western Canada. It is important to all of Canada. I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the Government's Drought Assistance Program. I was in Winnipeg just prior to the long weekend, and I caught a CBC television report-


Mr. Blais:: Is this a question or comment?


John Harvard: I will get to it in a moment. I know that you people have much difficulty in hearing comments from this side. So just give me a moment, please.
There was an interesting report carried by CBC television, Madam Speaker. It had to do with the Drought Assistance Program. After the program was carried, farmers from the immediate Winnipeg area, in fact all from over the province, were invited to call in and
May 23, 1989

give their responses with respect to the way the Government has handled the Drought Assistance Program. It may be germane to quote a couple of the farmers who phoned in. One farmer said this: "I have 240 acres in the light drought area and 800 acres in the severe drought area. As yet I have not received a red cent and I am paying 14 per cent to 15 per cent on money I have to borrow". Another farmer said this: "We harvested no wheat and no rapeseed off 100 acres last year, but we got no payment because they think that our area isn't in the drought area. We really are not very happy about that. We needed that money very badly".
Despite the impatience of the Minister across the aisle, I wanted to point out that farmers in Manitoba and throughout the West are extremely upset with the manner in which the Government has handled the Drought Assistance Program. Not only does it appear that the Government has not set aside enough money, that is, enough of what was promised, but the manner in which it has been handled is a disaster.
Does the Hon. Member realize how steamed up the farmers are, particularly those in western Canada?


Ralph Ferguson: I do indeed realize how steamed up the farmers are in western Canada, and rightfully so. On my last trip out there I interviewed a lot of farmers and members of farm organizations. I also flew over some of the prairie areas and noticed that the dugouts were empty. Even though there seemed to be an adequate snow cover, the subsoil moisture reserves were simply not there. Such is the case at the present time in many areas of southwestern Ontario.
I do want to indicate the immediate and essential need for those payments to be put in the hands of the farmers. A farmer is an eternal optimist. He always looks ahead to a good crop every year, regardless of the returns last year. When the Government decides that a rain stops at a township or county line and does not go across the border and one fellow gets it and another does not, that indicates there is something dramatically wrong. There has to be something better. If this situation occurs again, there has to be a different type of administration or a different way of administration so that we can have more accurate records.
Supply
I was delighted in my own constituency when I contacted many farmers to see how they were being impacted upon. They volunteered to go up and down the concessions and call on the farmers to ask them who had proper yield records and moisture records and, in turn, were able to determine new areas that should have been included in the initial maps.
I certainly concur with my hon. colleague from Manitoba that it is essential that this money be put in the hands of producers as quickly as possible.


Mr. Stevenson:: I would like to make a few comments on trade and ask the Hon. Member a question.
During the election period we had great discussion on the Free Trade Agreement. When members of the Liberal Party were asked to come forward with some other suggestion on how markets could be secured for Canadian producers and processors, the few times that any suggestions were made they talked about multiple-Party or multiple-nation discussions. For the first time, when we have a tentative agreement under GATT to move forward to discuss some of the agricultural problems, then the Hon. Member sounds as though he is opposed to those as well.
The Hon. Member mentioned the problem with Canada not having preferred access under U.S. law. Would he like the U.S. to have preferred access under Canadian law? Clearly the pork producers of Canada were in favour of the Free Tirade Agreement. Their laws are in place, but we also want our laws in place so that we can put countervail against U.S. com, which we have now. We want to take anti-dumping action against the United States in relation to Red Delicious apples, onions, cut flowers, or whatever action that we might wish to take, as we have in the past, or may well wish to do in the future. When the Hon. Member mentions that Canada should have preferred access, I assume he means that he also wants preferred access for the Americans into the Canadian market.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May we have a short answer from the Hon. Member for Lambton- Middlesex?


Ralph Ferguson: Perhaps the easiest response to my hon. colleague from the other side is the following: if we already have those things in place and they already have the trade remedy laws in place and we are not exempted from them, what do we gain from the Free Trade Agreement other than to give them unlimited supplies of energy that we have to bid against them for, energy that is developed by Canadian taxpayers through development subsidies and which does not have an infinite

Supply
supply? There is alarm being raised now about it being depleted in the not too distant future.
I do not see what we have gained under this agreement, because the U.S. trade remedy laws are still in effect. We have to have our countervail still in effect. I would strongly support that we should have looked at GATT with a multilateral agreement among other countries.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) has a short or selective memory. He has forgotten that when he was Minister of Agriculture in 1984 that the dairy farmers of Canada had waited four to five years for a long-term dairy policy that was put in place by this Conservative Government. The Hon. Member was in office as a Minister, and he has forgotten. We do not have any lessons to learn from that Member on the drought. There was a drought in Quebec in 1983. As a Member of Parliament from that area, Madam Speaker, I am sure that you were aware there were rough times during the drought in 1983. The dairy farmers and all the farmers of Canada remember that.

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on Canadian agriculture. I am convinced that at the end of the day, Canadians will realize once again that this Government defends the interests of the agri-food industry. Madam Speaker, I think that this Government, more than any other, has given farmers a helping hand during the past four years and is still doing so at the beginning of its new term.
We realize how important the agri-food sector is to Canada and to the economy of this country. We have always been prepared to defend this sector in the past and we continue to do so. Every time farmers needed a helping hand, we have given them that helping hand. I can prove it! During the past four years, Madam Speaker, we have invested over $17 billion in Canadian
agriculture, and we have taken the necessary steps to protect the basic mechanisms of that agriculture.
For instance, quite recently, we added yoghurt and ice cream to the items on the Import Control List, for the purpose of protecting the dairy supply management system in this country.
Madam Speaker, also quite recently, we introduced import controls for broiler hatching eggs. We would never have done so if we were not willing to strengthen this country's agricultural roots.
Some people, however, are inclined to doubt that. Strengthening the foundation of a sector that often leads a troubled existence, with fluctuating market prices and fluctuating weather, is not particularly easy. It is a daily challenge, both for farmers and for governments.
However, Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do that challenge does not necessarily mean difficulty. However, that is what some people would have farmers believe. Others go even further to suggest that the present Government has been destructive in the measures that it has taken with respect to agriculture, as reflected in today's motion and in the comments we have heard during the last few weeks.
There are also those who try to scare farmers by claiming that some sectors will be sacrificed for the sake of the survival and development of others. Nothing could be farther from the truth, Madam Speaker!
This confusion, augmented by many Members of the Opposition, makes it incumbent on me, Madam Speaker, to set the record straight, especially with respect to dairy supply management, a subject to which I am very close and on which I have worked for a number of years.
On April 7, member countries negotiating at the GATT talks agreed on a framework for negotiations that will make it possible for them to complete these difficult talks by December 1990.
To keep the international trade situation from deteriorating during the next 20 months, all member countries-not just Canada but all member countries-have agreed to a truce, in other words, a short-term capping
May 23, 1989

in the agricultural sector. This means, Madam Speaker, that member countries have agreed that subsidized prices, which are set above international prices, will not exceed present levels.
For countries like Canada who want changes in international trade in agricultural products, it is a first step that was long overdue, considering the urgency of the situation.
Most Hon. Members will recall the fervour and intensity with which our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) defended, at all economic summits in recent years, the need for ending this senseless agricultural trade war. So this ceiling to which the countries have agreed is in keeping with our Government's clear, unwavering commitment to maintain supply management, because we believe that continued cooperation with our trading partners will give more weight to Article XI, which was mentioned a few minutes ago.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, that is how I think this agreement reached on April 7 must be considered-as real progress for the Canadian dairy industry and all the country's farmers. The short-term agreements reached in Geneva have somewhat broken the deadlock that was blocking multilateral trade negotiations and prevented significant progress from being achieved at the meeting in Montreal last December.
This cease-fire is an undeniable advantage for Canadian dairy farmers who want GATT Article XI maintained and strengthened. Since we can now deal with the actual reform of international agricultural trade, we can specify the types of commodities, under that famous Article XI, which can be subject to import controls as part of supply management. For example, for the dairy sector, we will make rules to allow import controls for some dairy products. We did not hesitate in the past, Madam Speaker, to add products to this list, in the interests of Canadian farmers, and if the need arises in future, we will never hesitate to do so.
I believe that we shall also try to specify the minimum requirements to be met by a supply management system so that clear import controls can be imposed under Article XI. Canadian dairy farmers will thus obtain protection from potential misuse by some of our trading partners of provisions of Article XI such as import restrictions.
Supply
Canadian dairy farmers, Madam Speaker, have helped us maintain Article XI by working with farmers from other countries and explaining to them the advantages of such a mechanism.
I hope they will continue their efforts in this respect and thus help to strengthen our position in trade talks at the international level. I know Canada's dairy producers understand this process and this policy and that they appreciate its merits. Because of international tension and the kind of trench warfare being waged by certain countries in the international arena of agricultural trade, it is so important to provide information instead of succumbing to scare tactics and closing our minds to reason.
Madam Speaker, there are those who ridicule our efforts and criticize our actions, claiming that Canadian dairy producers should not be bound by this international agreement since they only produce for the domestic market.
However, even if our supply management system is such that our dairy producers contribute very little to world dairy surpluses, the fact remains, Madam Speaker, that a certain amount of our dairy products is exported.
Last year, for instance, we exported $191 million worth of dairy products, and most of those sales were at prices below the price on the Canadian domestic market. For the dairy year 1988-89, production is expected to exceed the market-sharing quota by 4 per cent, which surplus will be entirely exported, in addition to the 3 per cent of intra-quota production already earmarked for export.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, incomes of Canadian dairy producers are also partly determined by international price levels. For instance, the world price for skim milk powder has tripled in the last five years, which has helped to reduce levies on payments to producers. Canadian dairy producers were thus able to absorbs more easily the cost of marketing skim milk for export.
In fact, the increase in world prices brought about by the changes certain countries made in their domestic policies, as a result of pressure for international reform of agricultural trade, exercised by Canada, for instance, has helped Canadian dairy producers save more than $70 million last year alone, compared to 1986. This represents about $1.50 or even more than or per hectolitre. This is money in the pockets of agricultural producers and Canadian dairy producers! And this shows that taking positive action on the international market for

Supply
greater discipline among those concerned has a direct effect on the Canadian dairy fanner's pocketbook. This must be recognized by all partners.
Our dairy farmers, like all Canadian farmers, have everything to gain from fair trade rules that permit reduced export support by other countries and thus strengthen world market prices.
I know that the Government is accused of not keeping its 1986 commitment on the long-term dairy policy. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, we implemented this long-term dairy policy because our friends, and my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) who was just speaking was Minister of Agriculture in 1984- He had every opportunity. He was part of a government that could have implemented a long-term dairy policy, but it remained in limbo for many years. What did he do? Nothing! We implemented it in 1986, and the $6.03 per hectolitre for domestic consumption for processed milk producers remains in place and is worth $275 million a year for Canadian farmers. That is a lot of money, Madam Speaker.
Once again we are being accused of abandoning dairy producers because the short term capping of farm support would not make it possible for us to live up to the production cost formula. Now, Madam Speaker, let us look at facts. For the time being, whether we like it or not, we just cannot determine what the production costs will be as per the formula the next time we use it this summer. We must collect all the data concerning production costs, producers' efficiency, so that later on this summer we will have the correct figures. This is somewhat an hypothetical issue. We just cannot determine for the time being the impact of the truce on the targeted revenues from industrial milk and cream. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, clearly indicated that should the current situation dramatically change when the production costs are calculated, the Government, which has always held a responsible position, will do again the right thing and consider appropriate measures, just as it has always done in the past.
Canadian dairy producers, something our hon. colleagues in the Opposition should acknowledge, are well aware that on two occasions, in August 1988 and February of this year, the Federal Government decided not to lower the targeted price for industrial milk in spite of the expected results had the formula been applied. This would have meant a reduction of $1.89 the hectolitre of milk in August 1988, and a further reduction of 14 cents in February 1989. The Government had then recognized that last year's drought had had a fairly direct impact on the increase of feed price in a number of regions. We had therefore done the right thing for which we have yet to receive praise from our colleagues opposite, by maintaining the targeted prices for industrial milk at the levels reached at the time.
It is clear, therefore, that when all the facts are taken into account and analyzed objectively, this Government's commitment to dairy producers is beyond question. The facts are undeniable. They easily stand up to any partial or biased review. Therefore, those who believe that our supply management systems, especially in the case of dairy products, are being bargained away so that other Canadian farm products can more easily gain access to export markets are totally wrong. The truce applies to all countries, all farm products and all policies. And it is certainly not, Madam Speaker, as some dare claim, a scheme to use new international commitments as an excuse to cut Canadian farming support. All these allegations that have been heard these past few weeks are pure speculations and do not bear any resemblance with reality.
I would like, Madam Speaker, to end my comments on the motion being examined by discussing the Budget and its impact on agriculture. I said at the beginning of my speech that the federal government tried to reinforce the foundations of Canadian agriculture. The last Budget does not defeat this purpose. Essentially, the Budget reduces government expenditure that affect a series of programs from national defence to government operating activities.
We had to make difficult choices. In fact, we tried to ensure that the budgetary measures as a whole were balanced, that they reflected regional realities and that they transfered a part of the debt burden to those who were in a position to assume it. These are difficult choices, but as a government, as the managers of this
May 23, 1989

country, we had to make them. Even though modest Budget cuts will have only a slight impact on the agri-food industry, the federal Government's commitment to Canadian agriculture remains firm and most programs and services in that sector are still in place.
Certainly, essential elements of our long-term dairy policy remain. The $1.5 billion five-year program we adopted in 1986 is still in place and it is a permanent commitment of our Government. However, farmers must now take over from the federal Government the administration cost of marketing their products. But it is not an exceptional requirement. Other sectors, even some that operate under the supply management system, pay the total cost of developing and marketing their products. For example, wheat producers pay all their marketing costs through the Canadian Wheat Board. In addition, federal funding of skim milk powder marketing costs, including part of the Canadian Wheat Board operation costs, will be eliminated, after discussions with the industry. Subsidies provided under the special export program will also end on August 1, 1989.
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, some milk products, in particular milk powder, have increased in cost, prices on the international market have tripled- We now believe that the milk industry is in a better position to meet its obligations. We are not asking that industry to carry the entire burden of deficit reduction; we are simply asking it to do its share. For example, the provinces, the producers and the federal Government are renegotiating crop insurance agreements in order to better distribute the cost of these programs. In Quebec, among other areas, the federal and provincial Governments pay each 25 percent of premiums and share administration costs equally, whereas producers pay the balance.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate the firm commitment of our Government towards the Canadian agri-food industry as a whole. Even after my speech, if some still have doubts about this statement, whether towards the dairy industry or the farm industry as a whole, they just have to consider existing facts and figures. Those data we have already made public in the last few weeks speak for themselves. The Progressive Conservative Government has always been, here in the House of Commons, and will remain unequivocally in favour of Canadian farmers.
Supply


Mr. Foster:: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to make a couple of comments on the Hon. Minister's speech, since I cannot believe what he had to say when he bragged about how his Government had brought into effect the long-term dairy policy in 1986.
He did not mention that it carved out of the policy last year a few million dollars for storage of dairy product. He did not mention that $10 million more will be reduced from the Canadian Dairy Commission's budget in the next year.
He went on to say that he was waiting for the congratulations of opposition Members. I think he will wait a long, long time for that. Perhaps that is significant. However, he also went on to state that farmers understand what is being done. If they do, there are some farmers in Ontario, at least, who do not understand what the Government is doing with regard to dairy policy. I have a letter in my hand from Grant Smith who is the Chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, in which he wrote on May 5 of this year that the Canadian dairy industry was facing a very serious crisis. He stated in his letter: "It is urgent that all dairy producers respond".
He goes on to say: "Supply management with its underpinnings must be preserved. Clearly the federal Government does not understand all aspects of supply management despite repeated reassurances of complete support."
He also says: "I urge every milk producer to write these letters-", that is to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade, "-and make these telephone calls. This battle must not be lost through default-One final comment, remember, it is your individual livelihood that is at stake."
Obviously, the Minister does not know what he is talking about. If he knew what he was talking about, and if he had seen letters like this from the Chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board-and I am sure that similar letters have been sent by the Milk Marketing Board for the Province of Quebec-he would not stand up and blithely say: "Well, farmers understand what is being done here, that their livelihood is being destroyed,

May 23, 1989
Supply
that their whole supply management and marketing board system is being destroyed."
They understand exactly what is going on. I think it is very instructive what Mr. Smith has to say in his letter to the producers. He points out: "Increased costs cannot be recovered through the cost of production formula. Industrial milk prices in the Canadian market are not trade distorting on the export market." That is exactly opposite to what the Minister just said here this morning. Mr. Smith also writes: "Canadian supply management for milk has not contributed in any significant way to world surpluses of daily products."
That is because we have a supply management system which only puts into production that which can be sold within the country. He further indicates: "This action is contrary to the Government's own long-term dairy policy which includes a complete commitment to supply management".
The Minister is saying that they support this, but the chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board is saying that the action is totally contrary to the Government's own long-term dairy policy which includes a complete commitment to supply management.
He goes on to say: "The price of fluid milk has no connection to international trade. The price of raw milk to processors is a provincial responsibility."
I think that there is a great deal of concern in the dairy industry. The Minister has not really done anything this morning to allay those concerns.
Those representations are being made to the Government because of what it has done, not only in the free trade deal but the commitments it made at the GATT. Even more important, since I raised this with the Minister of Agriculture a week or so ago, I would be interested in what the Government is doing with regard to farm credit. Perhaps the Minister could respond. The Royal Bank of Canada sent out a memorandum to its Ontario branches saying that the value of dairy quotas has been discounted by 50 per cent when calculating debt equity ratios. The Royal Bank believes, and it has a lot of good friends on the Treasury benches, that the whole supply management and marketing business of quotas will be sacrificial lambs in the GATT negotiations. It also says that in the future there is not to be any deals over five-year loans for the purchase of dairy quotas. As well it says that if farmers' quotas are to be reduced by 50 per cent in value for a calculation of debt equity, interest
rates will have to rise where their risk factor is increased. It goes on to say the increased risk is real and change in policy is called for.
Could the Minister say what the Government is doing to try to keep farmers on the land whose debt equity ratio has been destroyed by this polity of the Royal Bank of Canada? They believe that the Government is selling out at the GATT and through the free trade deal on the value of quotas. What action is being taken by the Government to ensure that farmers are not put off the land because of this change in bank policies?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I can just say to the Hon. Member that we do not really need congratulations from him. We received them from the people of Canada on November 21, and that was enough for us.
I was a little surprised when I heard the Hon. Members speaking about the dairy policy, because they do not know what it is. They left the dairy policy in limbo in 1984. That is what they have done all the time.
What we have done is put a long-term dairy policy in place in consultation with farmers. In other words, they do not know or they do not remember. They do not know what it is. We have put in place that dairy policy.


An Hon. Member:: We started the process.


Pierre Blais: Did you start a process? Maybe they started the process which destroyed the farm community in Canada. What we have done is put in place a dairy policy after a consultation process with the dairy farmers of the country. This is what we are going today. We still have a consultation process to address the question of indexation formula for the milk target price. It is an ongoing process.
The Minister of Agriculture said in January that we were still looking at this because it is important for dairy farmers.

I think, Madam Speaker, that in that regard we acted when it was necessary. Somebody referred to "underpinning" a moment ago. We understand, for example, that the import control list is very important for Canadian farm producers. Which government used it? It is this Government, Madam Speaker! It is this Government which put ice cream and yoghurt on the import control list, and we just put hatching eggs on that list, and we are consulting on restrictions to be put on ice cream. We are the Government that did that, Madam Speaker, and we
May 23, 1989

do not have any lessons to take from the Official Opposition in that regard.
It happens that we do go through difficult times once in a while. But we have done what had to be done to defend Canadian milk and agricultural producers on the world arena. We believe that they are doing well presently. There is no point to scare them off now.
Madam Speaker, the Canadian agricultural producers have the right to know the facts and they are perfectly capable to judge for themselves. I am sure that the majority are. I meet them in all parts of Canada. I meet them every weekend when I return to my riding or go to other parts of Canada. And I realize that what they need the most is to separate facts from the bogeymen of the opposition which brandish figures that have nothing to do with reality, Madam Speaker.
It is our duty to present the truth and the facts to Canadian and Quebec agricultural producers. They are intelligent enough to understand the reality.
[English\


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I was hoping to be able to ask a question of the Hon. Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais), but I guess I am going to have to wait for another time when he is making a speech.
I am pleased to be able to speak on the topic of agriculture today in the Liberal opposition motion. I think there are a great many questions being asked in agriculture which are raised by the farmers, by the Government, and by the Department itself.
One of the questions that I was about to ask the Hon. Minister who has just completed his time concerned the following: if the Government is so concerned about keeping producers informed and sending out the right signals, why did its Department just complete a study done by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells by a Mr. John Groeonewegan which concluded that it had wasted its money, in effect, providing the $1 billion pay-out to
Supply
farmers in western and eastern Canada who are producers of grains.


An Hon. Member:: Is that what you think?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, it is not what I think. If the Department and the three Ministers were certain of where they were going, why did they commission such a study? Why did they pay taxpayers money to have a study to tell them that they did not need these kinds of programs? Why spend money on a study like that three or four years after the fact?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I cannot understand why a Government would spend taxpayers' money on a study three years after the fact for something which was needed and which it had already decided to do. Why waste the money on it? That was the question. I hope that the Hon. Members who are shouting at me will have an answer when their tum comes because I see no justification for the expenditure of the money. I do not see any justification for sending out a signal from the department under the aegis of three Ministers when expenditures of such money under such circumstances are not warranted. I think the Government is running hot and cold with that kind of study and that kind of signal.
As well, we did not hear from the Minister what the future will be of the dairy policy. Yes, there is a so-called long term dairy policy in effect. As was seen by a lot of people, that was really a grandfathering of the existing dairy policy for another five years. The Hon. John Wise, who was the then Minister of Agriculture who believed in the long-term dairy policy, appeared to have been able to get a five-year further commitment out of his Cabinet colleagues and sometime in 1991 that runs out. What will happen after that? In the international negotiations the Government has been sending out all sorts of signals that would indicate that its commitment to the supply managed price guarantees through the formula pricing kind of dairy policy that we have had are up for grabs. That was not addressed clearly by the Government nor has it been addressed clearly by the Government.

May 23, 1989
Supply
In resuming the remarks that I had intended to make, Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) put forward this motion because it gives us all a chance to review the agricultural policy before the country today.
I was a little taken aback, I suppose, when I did not hear in the Hon. Member's remarks any off-setting solutions to the farm problem. In fact, during the election campaign I did not hear from the Liberal Party any proposals that would solve the farm problem. I have to admit that during the election campaign we did not hear anything from the Government either. The only policy it had was, "If you need it, we will provide it. Just trust us". Trust us, trust us, trust us became the focus of the whole agricultural policy.
There are an awful lot of farmers in farm communities in rural areas of this country who are finding that "trust us" is not good enough. TTiey want to know what the long-term direction is from the various parties and they want to know it now because they are making plans to either leave agriculture or stay in it.
In my part of the country, the Prairies, we have seen 28,000 farm jobs disappear under this "trust us" policy in the last year. Market towns that have been market towns since the coming of settlers to Western Canada are at the point at which it is impossible to get farm machinery supplies, parts, services and new equipment because they can no longer support that particular service in a town with a population of 1,500 to 5,000. The City of Melville in Saskatchewan, a town of 5,000 souls, no longer has a farm equipment dealership. Apparently, there is not enough money in the area to support a farm equipment dealership. That situation has arisen under this Government, even with the assistance that has been given.
Farmers and their lenders and the community that provides supporting services have to have more assurances as to where they stand in the scheme of things in the Government's economic order. The New Democratic Party proposed that it was time to institute the kinds of programs that we see in a lot of competing countries. Even though the focus of international talks is to reducing subsidies, our country is in a very vulnerable position by going into a reduced subsidy kind of mode.
Our subsidies are mostly up front in the form of ad hoc payments, which can be easily dropped. We do not have that many long-term commitments to subsidize farmers or to provide economic underpinnings to them. So, when you start deregulating agriculture and pulling the subsidies away, if that is not done very carefully on a proportionate basis we will find ourselves operating with no support from the rest of the country and still competing against countries like the United States and the European Economic Community that are still using a great deal of taxpayers' money to keep their farmers and rural communities in business.
I know there are ideologues in the Conservative Party who say, "If the market will not support them, then there is no reason for farmers in rural communities to exist". They have started down the road to complete market orientation with their deregulation program they have picked up from the Liberals and carried on throughout the Government's last mandate. That means that transportation costs in rural areas will no longer be cross-subsidized with those in the metropolitan areas. It also means that we in the rural areas will be paying more for services such as delivery' of parts, postal service and moving our grain and livestock because rail and trucking rates have been deregulated. It means that institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board and other marketing boards are now under scrutiny by the Government. The Government says this is not a true market economy, that boards are a form of near monopoly and do not reflect the kind of market that this Government thinks should exist. So it is deregulating those marketing boards.
Western Canadian farmers will understand this because as of August 1 this year oats will no longer be part of the Canadian Wheat Board system. Farmers will be taking slightly less money for their oats in the coming crop year. That is borne out not just by my analysis but the analysis of Canadian processors. I have discussed this issue with several of them. They say it was a good decision because they can buy oats cheaper. When I asked the processors if this means farmers will get less money, they said, "Of course. How else do we get oats for less money?" The Government thinks it is good for farmers to take home less money. But I do not. Most Canadians who look at it fairly do not think so either.
May 23, 1989

But because it is a form of deregulation and leaves more product to the open market, this Government has decided to pursue that particular policy.
We have seen changes to the taxation system that are supposed to be more market oriented. This last Budget which was leaked all over the place before it was finally presented to the public in general has a provision which states that at the end of this calendar year the rebates on farm fuel taxation will stop. This will cost farmers considerably more money for fuel. Farmers have to cover great distances, most of them being located quite a long way from metropolitan areas, so the increase will add not only to the cost of farming operations but to the cost of moving product to markets as well. This leaves less for the family on the farm to spend on expansion, maintenance and living expenses.
I think that points out the need for some guidelines or rules to provide a certain amount of assistance that will be there in good times or bad times, a program that will exist decade to decade so that rural areas will know what the rules are vis-a-vis their subsistence and government funds.
During the election campaign, we proposed a system of providing minimum guaranteed prices on a certain level of production so that farmers and their communities would know that there would be a certain level of money coming in for the first units of production. We proposed that it be about 8,000 production units which would be equivalent to about 8,000 bushels of wheat or a little over 10,000 bushels of com. The idea was to provide a price guarantee in the neighbourhood of $40,000 per farm family so that regardless of how bad the market was, farm families could rely on at least that much for the first units of production. When prices would rise, it would not cost the taxpaying public any money because the market would take care of the problem.
We do not have very many of those kinds of systems left in place because we have deregulated and have become more market oriented. What is the rationale for our kind of program? It is very simple. We have done comparisons of rural economies in various parts of the world and have found that where we can keep active units in the rural economy at the small family level, the local economy thrives. When the production in an area is carried out by large corporate entities, the community dies and production drops. The small farm is more
Supply
efficient, not only in an economic sense but in a social sense.
A landmark study was done of two California valleys, and this study bears that out. One valley was settled on the basis of small family farms which continue to exist to this day. It supports several small communities. The total output of the area is quite a lot larger than a very similarly blessed valley some 100 miles away that was settled on a corporate structure. The corporations bring in paid workers and when they are finished with them, they send them away. There is very little infrastructure in the area for community activities. There is very little health care and very few educational facilities. The number of families supported is very small and the amount of total economic output does not even begin to compare with that of the other valley which was settled on a family unit basis.
In provinces like my own province of Saskatchewan, our very existence depends on the continuation of relatively modest sized farms that will contribute to the communities and will keep the communities growing and viable economic and social units. The kind of policy the Government seems intent upon pursuing, one of letting the market decide, of pulling away all subsidies, of taking a Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan type economic stance, I contend will decimate not only rural Saskatchewan but all of Saskatchewan. The population of that province has once again been falling for the last three years. As Conservative policies begin to take hold, populations fall. People are leaving because the Government's economic policy has been aimed at supporting very large economic units that do not hire people.
I would also point out that middle-sized agricultural units are, by all studies, virtually as economically efficient as are very large corporate farms. Middle-sized units have the advantage of providing more spin-off jobs and benefits to the surrounding community and provide more overall employment and activity to the whole region, province or country. We think this is the kind of economic policy that should have been proposed during the last election campaign, and we proposed it.
It is notable that in the rural parts of some parts of Canada at least, this proposal was picked up and we are now stronger in rural British Columbia and rural Saskatchewan and are holding our own in rural Ontario. Gradually the message is beginning to be heard and gradually rural Canadians are beginning to see that if they want to continue to be functional, modem communities, ready to go into the 21st century, the kind of policies the New Democrats are advocating for rural Canada are the kind that will include them in the future of Canada. They will not be left out in the hinterland,

Supply
watching metropolitan areas receive the advantages of deregulation, cheaper airfare and relatively cheaper services while they have to pay proportionately increasing costs to stay up to date in our modem world.


Mr. Holtmann:: These guys from Ontario living high off the hog, eh?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, the guys from Toronto living high off the hog, the guys from Winnipeg living high off the hog.


Felix Holtmann: Come on, not Winnipeg. I knew I would get some excitement out of you.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, Winnipeg. I cannot let this pass. In Winnipeg, the Hon. Member and his Government are attempting to bring back to life the Grain Exchange, an institution that would have died a natural death if it had not received the kind of support his Government is prepared to give it, an institution with almost a dozen members under intense investigation for misdealings, an institution that resulted in farmers selling grain that they have not been paid for. These are the kinds of things that my grandparents and my parents attempted to overcome, but now my children and my grandchildren will be put through the same experience just because we had the misfortune to have a group of Conservatives gain control of the Government with 43 per cent of the vote.
In conclusion, I want to say that Canada needs a rural policy and a farm policy that will provide an underpinning for the incomes of rural Canadians. It needs the kind of program that we proposed during the last election campaign. It needs an updated crop insurance program, one that will provide coverage for crop loss.


Felix Holtmann: That's provincial.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It cannot be just provincial because agriculture is a federal and provincial shared jurisdiction. We cannot have one province providing higher coverage levels than another province, so it has to be handled by the federal Government with some sharing by the provinces, but the current Government proposal is to make it more and more a provincial responsibility. I predict that the result will be that some of the provinces
that think they have money or are coming into an election in which the farm vote will matter, will end up boosting coverage levels in their provinces higher than those in surrounding ones. We have seen many examples of that. Recently, Alberta has been paying a so-called pro-benefit to entice the feedlot industiy into that province. It began at some $22 per tonne and had a very predictable effect. It sucked feeder cattle out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and into Alberta.
When you can get feed grain at $22 a tonne cheaper than the other provinces can, that is a predictable thing for feeders to do. We have also seen the Conservative Government of my own province providing subsidies to cattle feeders trying to keep feeder cattle in Saskatchewan.


Felix Holtmann: And the previous NDP Government.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: There were no subsidies in the previous NDP Government.


Felix Holtmann: There were no subsidies anywhere?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Not for cattle. We had a livestock feeder guarantee program that ran on a premium basis, which was designed to pay premiums in when prices were high and take funds out when prices were low.
That program was skewered a few years later by the introduction of very low premiums when the Government changed. Of course, it then went into the hole and has continued on that basis because of interference with what was an economic program that should have carried itself. However, the need is there. Neither Government Members nor the Official Opposition have proposed long term" programs. They have simply been throwing barbs at each other throughout this debate and throughout the last four or five years. There is no long term program that the Government is willing to lay out clearly, although their hidden agenda is becoming more clear. It seems it is prepared to let the market determine these things. It is prepared to watch as farmers go bankrupt and as rural communities disappear. It is prepared, in the interests of wide international need perceived only by them, to take away all subsidies and
May 23, 1989

direct support to farmers and rural communities in Canada.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to my hon. friend from MacKenzie (Mr. Althouse) who comes from Saskatchewan, as I do. I listened with interest to his remarks in support of the family farm. Support of the family farm is perhaps one of the few things all Parties in this House have in common. We all want to see the traditional family farm continue to prosper in this country. Implicit though in the Hon. Member's remarks, it seems to me, was the threat or the hint of state control or state intervention relative to farm size. I am wondering if the Hon. Member has a comment, or whether his Party has a policy relating to farm size. Is there some maximum farm size for an individual or indeed a minimum farm size? I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member could give his thoughts in regard to farm size relative to this issue of viability and the long term prosperity of the family farm in this country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I do not know what hearing aid the Hon. Member had on when he found implicit conclusions from my remarks. I did not speak about farm size. Our Party does not speak about farm size. We point out that there should be assistance up to certain levels. If the economic theory of efficiency carries in agriculture, presumably the larger funds would have an advantage. We are simply saying that aid should be offered up to a certain size only. If people want to get beyond that, they have all the advantages of economic theory on their side.
I did point out however in my speech, which the Hon. Member may have missed, that once you get beyond the grain farms, beyond about 1,200 or 1,400 acres, there is no longer any great advantage in production costs. The unit costs after that do not reduce enough to really promote farms being much larger than that. Our proposal would have stopped assistance in the neighbourhood of four to five quarter sections. If people want to get bigger than that, they can do so, but they will not get bigger than that with assistance from the Government of Canada. They will have to do that on the basis of their own efficiency. The laws of economics make that possible for an efficient operator. They do not need a further push from the Government and taxpayers of Canada.
Supply


Mr. Karpoff:: Madam Speaker, I would like the Member from MacKenzie (Mr. Althouse) to comment on the impact on the family farm of the high interest rate policy that this Government is pursuing. I know of small businesses in the metropolitan areas where the high interest rate is having a detrimental effect. Basically, family farms are small businesses so I would like his comments on what impact that has on the operation of family farms.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, increased interest rates and high interest rates have had a devastating effect on farmers in this country. The debt load has remained for Canada's farms at about $22 billion to $23 billion. The assets that Canadian farmers have to work with have dropped in value during the four years that the $22 billion debt has been in place. As a result, the amount of debt in proportion to assets has been rising compared with the United States whose debt has actually decreased during that period of time. Therefore, we have been left less competitive than before.
If you used that alone as a method of determining whether government payments have been adequate or not, you would have to conclude that they have been inadequate. This is contrary to the recent paper which has come to light from the Department of Agriculture and which argues that perhaps some of these programs are unnecessary. The effect of increasing interest rates also shows up in land values. The Farm Credit Corporation, the Government's own agency, says that in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan, land prices have declined over the last four years by more than 38 per cent, largely as a result of increasing interest rates combined with low commodity prices.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Madam Speaker, I have a few comments. I noticed from the Member's answer to the second last question that market forces are going to determine the size of farms, but he does not want them involved in determining the values of the commodities coming from those farms. It is of interest that there are figures around showing how much production is coming from family farms. Recently I saw numbers as high as 98 per cent of all the agricultural production in Canada comes from family farms. Contrary to what the Member said, I would like to suggest that a great many of the Government's policies are structured specifically for the family farm. For example, look at the stabilization programs and the thought now of altering them somewhat, as we have witnessed in the hearings regarding the

May 23, 1989
Grains 2000 Program. There have been discussions among farm groups and government about stabilizing or ensuring the incomes of farmers. Clearly that thrust is for the family farms and certainly not for large corporate operations.
Considering the assistance to farmers, and particularly looking at prices of commodities in the market-place around the world, we have seen great concern for the impact of government policies on the values of various commodities. We only have to look as far as the CAP program in Europe, where there is a government-supported pricing system that has caused tremendous problems, I wonder if that is the sort of system that the Member is suggesting for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will have a few minutes left to answer the question after the adjournment.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, the Government talks a lot about the deficit of the country in budgetary terms, but we know that the deficit it is really ashamed of and concerned about is its deficit of ideas, its deficit of a vision, and the deficit of solutions to the challenges facing us today and in the future.
Nothing makes this deficit more evident than how the Government responds to the needs of our post-secondary education system.
I share the concerns expressed by the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Association of University Teachers that stated that the federal Budget
will cut approximately $900 million over the next five years for post-secondary education.
How can the Government block the major artery to Canada's future? If the future of our post-secondary education system were to solely depend on the Government's policy, and if our future as a nation were to depend on the future of our post-secondary education system, then I tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that he may as well cancel tomorrow. I ask the Minister to reconsider his economic policy and allow Canada's youth-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday, May 28, has been designated AHEPA Day by Archbishop Iakavos of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America, and the Bishop of Canada, Bishop Sotirios.
AHEPA stands for the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, an organization that plays an important part in the lives of all Canadians and Americans of Greek descent, as well as being active in the civic and philanthropic affairs of Canada.
Since its founding in Canada in 1928, AHEPA programs and activities have helped to strengthen the historical ties which have marked the close relationship between Canada and Greece. AHEPANS have succeeded in combining the best traditions of our two nations whose histories have been marked by dedication to human justice, to freedom, and to our democratic way of life.
AHEPA Day also gives us the opportunity to express the thanks of all Greek Canadians for the privilege and honour of being citizens of our great country Canada.



IMMIGRATION


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on May 23, 75 years ago, the S.S. Komagata Maru, carrying 375 Sikh passengers entered the Port of Vancouver. All were

British subjects and had the right to enter Canada but were not allowed to disembark.
Immigration officials used fictitious health problems and processing delays to deny landing rights to the ship. B.C. government officials severed communications to the shore and denied permission to replenish food and water.
After two months of struggle, fear, hunger, thirst and disease, the ship was ordered to leave. On July 23 the Komagata Maru was escorted out of Canadian waters.
My New Democratic colleagues and I consider this to be one of Canada's darkest moments. The unfair and humiliating treatment received by those Sikhs wishing to enter Canada should never have occurred.
By commemorating this past event of racial intolerance, we let Canadian Sikhs know that their suffering has not been forgotten, that we are dedicated to a truly free multicultural Canada where incidents such as this can never again happen, and that this recollection works to ensure that Canada continues to be a better host to all peoples of the world.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Drummondville Industrial Management Club has held its fourteenth Industrial Olympiad evening event to pay tribute to the manufacturing sector. This is a wonderful opportunity to underline the essential contribution of businesses to our economic and social life. The gold medals went to IBC Enterprises and Venmar Limited and the bronze medals to GTE Sylvania and Multifoam International Products. The silver medallists were Soprema Etancheite and Cascades PSH.
These results stem from the motivation, perseverance, agressiveness and know-how of the region's business people, from their eagerness to take risks in search of excellence and from their reliance on competent employees. It is our duty to emphasize their vital role in the economic growth of our community.




Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo the words of Quebec Government Minister Daniel Johnson who said last Friday that the Conservative Government does not seem to be in any particular hurry to promote the Montreal East economic recovery. Mr. Johnson singled out specific cases, including the Soligaz project for which the Conservative Government still has to honour its promises made during the last election campaign. This project would entail investments of $1 billion and thousands of new jobs in Montreal East. Mr. Johnson also raked the Conservative Government over the coals for failing to give priority to the endorsement of Montreal East funding propositions to upgrade facilities and create jobs. I dare hope the new Minister responsible for the Montreal region will prove to be more efficient than his predecessor.



COPYRIGHT ACT


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadian teachers live in fear of lawsuits because the copyright legislation proposed by the former Minister of Communications contained no exemptions for educational purposes.
Teachers must be legally permitted to utilize modem technology to provide current examples for students of various techniques of communication in the media. Easy access to those materials is essential.
Without reasonable exemptions the proposed legislation would revert Canadian classrooms to the era of slate and chalk and make them black holes in the global village.
I urge the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to provide reasonable exemptions for educators, and to ensure that in the quest for creators' rights the rights of students and educators are not erased.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the year 1986 saw the restoration of democracy in the Philippines under President Corazon Aquino, a triumph of the ultimate authority of the Filipino people. The Government of Canada and Canadians of all cultural origins welcomed that event.
Late this morning the Philippine Ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Ramon A. Diaz, presented his credentials to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada. Mr. Ramon Diaz is a man of high intellect and impeccable integrity. He graduated in law summa cum laude and was chairman of President Aquino's Commission on Good Government. With these credentials, he will prove more than equal to the task of continuing the close, cordial relationship between the Philippines and Canada.
I salute him on his appointment, take pride in welcoming him to Canada, and I hope that Members of the House share my sentiments.



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, national unity has been a priority of the Government. Recognizing that Atlantic Canada is not only a major pillar in the Confederation of Canada and that its regional and economic isolation places it in a fragile position, I urge the Government to ensure that the vital link, both symbolic and pragmatic-VIA Rail's Atlantic Limited-be left intact.
To that end, I have a petition with more than 1,880 signatures of the residents of Sussex and surrounding area in my riding which I shall be forwarding to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government recently announced the closure of bases at Portage la Prairie and Summerside,
residents of Moose Jaw breathed a sigh of relief, thinking that their air base was secure.
However, this may not be the case. In the same manner as the first level of flight training now carried out at CFB Portage will be privatized and moved, so may the second level of flight training CFB at Moose Jaw.
On Friday, May 18, the office of the Associate Minister of Defence admitted that just as Britain has privatized its first and second level of flight training, so may Canada, if the right economic offer comes along. Further, the Government has also admitted that regional job security will not be a factor and training could very easily be conducted elsewhere.
This knowledge, together with the fact that the Government has shown virtually no compassion for the plight of the people in Summerside and Portage la Prairie, will be cold comfort to residents of Moose Jaw.
I call upon the Government to repledge itself to regional economic development and guarantee the residents of Moose Jaw and Portage la Prairie that flight training programs will remain in their present location, regardless of who is conducting the training.
Let the Government finally begin to demonstrate the type of responsibility that the Canadian public expects.



FISHERIES


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the economic crisis descending on coastal Atlantic Canada resulting from the downturn in the groundfishery.
Sound measures presently being put in place by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon), together with those already in place, will lead, with adequate enforcement, to a recovery in our fishery over the next three to five years.
However, during the interim, we will need assistance from the Government of Canada. Just as the Government has come to the rescue of communities stricken by agricultural problems in recent years, so do we in Atlantic Canada look for appropriate assistance for families and communities dependent upon the Atlantic fishery for their livelihood. Such special measures should be taken not only to assist fishermen, but also plant
May 23, 1989

workers and operators, boat builders, and boat yard workers.



PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a matter of great urgency and concern both to Nova Scotians and to all Canadians.
Two legal education pamphlets have been distributed in Nova Scotia. One is bigoted and racially discriminatory. The first pamphlet entitled "Criminal Law" has a picture of three black children on the cover. The second pamphlet entitled "The Young Offenders Act and You" has a picture of a white boy. The three black children on the first pamphlet are not criminals, and their families did not give permission for their children's pictures to be used.
I find it disconcerting to think that someone would put the picture of three black children on a pamphlet entitled "Criminal Law", without portraying a group of children of various racial backgrounds.
In light of the fact that those pamphlets were produced with funding assistance from the federal Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and as a joint project of the Public Legal Education Organizations of the Atlantic Provinces, I expect an apology not only from the head of this organization, but also from the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and, more important, the federal Solicitor General. I also expect these pamphlets to be pulled immediately, and this contemptible situation must never be allowed to happen again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



FOREST RESOURCES


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial forestry development agreements are about to expire. These are five-year cooperation agreements to meet the forestry needs of each province. The agreements now in place provide total funding of approximately $1.1 billion over their lifetime: $571 million from the federal Government and $520 million from the provincial level.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament for a forestry region, I ask the Government of Canada to renew these federal-provincial agreements because they really have an impact on forestry development. Renewing these agreements is essential to the continued development of Canada's forests, so as to reach publicly supported environmental objectives and to maintain their important contribution to the regional and national economy.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20, it was reported that the federal Government has quietly implemented a new policy of allowing government advertising to go to agencies not fully owned by Canadians because existing Canadian agencies have been purchased by Americans.
On May 9, the Minister responsible for government advertising appeared before the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Committee and said that his Department uses only Canadian owned agencies, even if that meant excluding some 20 of the largest 25 agencies in this country because they are foreign owned.
At that time did not the Minister know that his Department was in the process of changing its policies to

May 23, 1989
conform with the terms of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade deal? If so, why did he not tell the committee that he knew what was going on in his Department and that the policy was being changed?
Government advertising worth millions of dollars every year is awarded without tender. The Minister must stick to his statement in the committee and instruct his officials that only Canadian agencies can advertise for the Canadian Government.



EXTERNAL RELATIONS


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, May 23, 1989 marks the fortieth anniversary of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Since 1949, the Federal Republic has experienced dramatic economic reconstruction and has become one of the leading industrial nations of the world.
Canada's cordial relations with West Germany flow from our collective defence of western values of democracy and freedom as part of the NATO Alliance.
Of the thousands of United Empire Loyalists who came to Canada following the American Revolution, a significant number were of German origin. Together with Mennonites from Pennsylvania who settled in Waterloo County, these German speaking people founded the City of Berlin, now known as Kitchener. Today, Canadians whose mother tongue is German comprise Canada's third largest ethnic group.
I invite all Members of Parliament to join with me and the constituents of Kitchener in extending our congratulations on this fortieth anniversary and in expressing our hope for continued good relations and prosperity between our two nations.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's Budget is devastating to agriculture. Some farm organizations estimate this Budget will cost an individual farmer up to $2,000. Even the Government's own officials say that it is at least between $700 and $1,000. No other sector in this economy has been hit so hard or asked to give so much.
Many farmers in Haldimand-Norfolk are living from milk pay cheque to milk pay cheque. It is time the Government woke up and realized that agriculture is the foundation of our economy. Our agriculture industry is very complex. Does it not realize that success in food production is based on long-term planning? Without warning it has taken away the programs our farmers have planned around, have been counting on, and set them adrift with nothing to take their place.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that his Budget will do irreparable damage to our agriculture industry. It is just one more step in the many his Government has taken which will inevitable increase our dependency on the United States, this time for our food supply. These actions are irresponsible and unacceptable and I ask the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



AGRICULTURE


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, until recently members of the NDP were telling farmers that their policy of taxing 100 per cent of all capital gains would not apply to the family farm. We now learn that this policy has its limitations.
To quote the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan (Mr. Stupich) on May 11:
The party position is that if the farm is staying within the family and is being passed down in the form of an inheritance or a transfer, then there should be no tax at all, at least not on the first half million. However, if it is being sold to someone else, then why should it not be like any other asset of industry or business?
It should not be treated like any other asset of industry because the farm is the farmer's pension plan and because the capital gains exemption rewards farmers for their years of sacrifice, risk, and labour.
The NDP wants to bring farmers back to the capital gains rules that existed before the introduction of the $500,000 exemption in May 1985. That is simply not acceptable to this side.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in 1975, the Grand Council of Crees won an important recognition of their role, status, and culture in the form of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
The federal Government's responsibilities include the protection of health and the environment. The Government has done very little to live up to its part of the agreement. The lakes behind the dams are contaminated with mercury, depriving the Cree of fish on which they depend for their livelihood.
The Minister responsible, in his 1988 annual report on the agreement, ignores the mercury problem. Now we learn that the administration of the agreement has been assigned to the federal environmental assessment and review office, adding a new work-load to an already overburdened staff.
We urge the Government to discharge its responsibilities to the Grand Council of Cree by providing the administrator with the funds needed to do the job. The James Bay Agreement cannot and should not be treated lightly by the Government.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Timer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my questions about human rights are directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
The ARMX show which is currently taking place has grown over the years from a show intended to supply Canada's defence needs to a show promoting the international trade of military equipment. Representatives of countries which routinely violate human rights meet with international arms suppliers.
This is not the international tulip show that we have here in Ottawa, or an international auto show; it is an international arms show.
Oral Questions
If ARMX is supposedly an exhibit to provide equipment to Canada's military, why are representatives from countries which violate human rights attending this display? Why are representatives from countries which are not our allies attending this international arms bazaar? What is the role of non-NATO countries at this exhibit?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we had the debate on ARMX in the House on Friday. I would like to assure the Leader of the Opposition once again that ARMX is a trade show. I was there this morning. It provides an opportunity for companies to display and provide goods and services which are used by our Department.
The participants with the displays are members of NATO countries. Of course, there are many Canadian companies as well, and many companies from British Columbia. I am sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would enjoy an opportunity of visiting those displays.
It is organized by a private sector company, and the private sector company has advised us that it had sent invitations to members of the diplomatic community, to the military attaches, to certain members of that community. It also sent an information letter to the various embassies in Ottawa.
But the purpose of the exhibition is to provide the information about potential goods and services to be supplied to the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that we can operate as cost effectively and efficiently as possible.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: The Minister says this is sponsored by a private sector outfit, but she was there this morning on behalf of the Department of National Defence, supposedly, and this outfit would not exist without sponsorship from that Department.


LIST OF COUNTRIES INVITED
Right Hon. John N. Timer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, Canada is acting as a shopping centre for arms for human rights violators.
Last week the Secretary of State for External Affairs made an non-credible statement to the House of Commons Committee on External Affairs. He said: "Your question was specifically about South African participation in this private event. If they are there, they have a right to be there".

May 23, 1989
Oral Questions
No thanks to the Minister, South Africa apparently is not there, but the Minister was ready to roll out the red carpet.
As far as he is concerned, South Africa can use Canada as a venue for making arms deals. Why will the Government not tell Canada who has been invited, and under whose auspices they are there at this international arms bazaar?
Is Iran there? Is Panama there? Is Chile there? Is El Salvador there? Will the Minister produce a list of participants?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was not listening when I answered the earlier question or during the debate here on Friday. Let me reiterate once again for his information and for the information of Members of the House that this is a private sector exhibition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mary Collins: The company involved looks after the invitations for those who come to the exhibition. They have advised us of who they have invited. I have relayed that information to the House of Commons. They have advised us that they have invited military attaches of various embassies here in Ottawa of the NATO countries, and a limited number of other countries, but not including South Africa. They also sent out an advisory to all the embassies, to the diplomats as a courtesy about the ARMX show.
Let me assure my colleague that ARMX is not an arms bazaar.
Sonne Hon. Members: Oh, oh!


Mary Collins: If he would go for himself he would find that out. He would find out that there are companies such as Mesotech from British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Tkirner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians must realize that the Minister has not answered the question. Furthermore, she even endorsed this exhibition with her presence this morning.


DENUNCIATION OF ABUSE COMMITTED BY CERTAIN MEMBER COUNTRIES OF FRANCOPHONIE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is reducing foreign aid but encouraging international arms sales to countries that violate human rights. The Government pretends to respect human rights as long as they do not call into question the Government's commercial interests or diplomatic relations. I therefore ask the Minister or the acting External Affairs Minister why the Government has not announced in advance that it intends to denounce vigorously the human rights abuses of some Francophone countries at the Francophone Summit now being held in Senegal.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Secretary of State (for External Affairs) has indeed placed a resolution for debate at the Dakar conference. I believe and hope that this will be a beginning of the improvement he desires.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he will know, foreign overfishing off Newfoundland's coast has reached crisis proportions. For example, in 1986 the European Community which had been assigned a catch quota of 19,000 tonnes by NAFO actually caught 110,000 tonnes.
Did the Prime Minister in his Friday meeting with Francois Mitterrand enlist the support of the French President to beat some sense into the European Community, including France, to get them to stop the wilful destruction of our fish stock before 100,000 fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia see their livelihoods disappear forever?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International D-ade):: Mr. Speaker, this serious problem that we have experienced since 1986 with reference to overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is a matter the

Government is addressing and has addressed now and ever since it started to occur.
However, if my hon. friend wants to ask the questions in this manner, the fact remains that his own Government gave 9,500 tonnes of northern cod every year for a period of five years to the European Community. It was not forced to do that. It was a voluntary action it took. That was in excess of 45,000 tonnes of northern cod. That was inside the Canadian 200-mile limit of which 1,575 tonnes went to France.


Ms. Clancy:: When was that?


John Carnell Crosbie: These were the years, Mr. Speaker, from 1983 to 1987, if the Hon. Member opposite wants the years.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Were you not in power then?


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to President Mitterrand, the Government is pursuing this issue with all members of the European Community.
On June 2, I will be pursuing this issue with Mr. Andriessen who is the Commissioner for External Affairs of the European Community. We hope to persuade the European Community to be conscious of the need for conservation and proper care of the environment with respect to fish, as well as with respect to everything that pertains to the environment.


MANDATE OF CABINET COMMITTEE
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about a gift. He will know of course that it was a trade-off which had the effect of preventing overfishing. Why does he not tiy something that would prevent overfishing?
The announcement of the cabinet committee on the fishery on Friday I suggest pandered more to Mitterrand's presence here in Ottawa than it did to Newfoundland's need and vital interest in the matter. Does that committee have the mandate to recommend economic sanctions against those international bandits who are out there thumbing their noses at NAFO and Canada? Will the committee consider extending our fisheries jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks to give functional control to Canada over these transboundary stock?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's use of this type of language does not help in this issue.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: The European Community and other nations are fishing in international waters outside the 200-mile economic limit recognized by most countries of the world and within which Canada has some control. To use this type of language with respect to those who fish there is not helpful.
Canada is not the world's policeman for areas outside the 200-mile limit. What we are attempting to do is to persuade the countries that fish into the northwest Atlantic that they are spoiling the fishery for themselves as well as for others. We are going to attempt to pursue whatever rights we have as a coastal state with respect to straddling stocks that cross to and from the 200-mile limit.
A unilateral extension of boundaries was not attempted by our predecessors. All they did was give fish to the European Community. I do not think it will serve us well to try the same on it again.


ARMX '89 SHOW-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
A Chilean colonel was window-shopping this morning at the ARMX military flea market, a shopping opportunity to which South Africa had been invited as well. The Government denies any arms sales were concluded with governments with a reputation for failing to respect human rights, despite the fact that these countries were represented.
If the Government has nothing to hide, why doesn't it publish a list of all transactions involving strategic military equipment with countries that do not respect human rights?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, if I could once again try to explain the purpose of ARMX, it is to provide a forum in which companies that provide goods and services to the Canadian Armed Forces can come together to provide this opportunity and display. Many of the people in our Department who are responsible for procurement attend ARMX to see the latest in training, the latest in

Oral Questions
simulation, and the latest kinds of weapon systems that are available.
The purpose of ARMX is not to provide a forum for the sale or information about weapons to Third World countries.
As the Hon. Member knows, we have a policy through the Department of External Affairs which limits the sale of military weapons to any countries with human rights violations.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we all go window shopping to watch other people buy things.
If there is this policy that prohibits the sale of arms to countries which abuse human rights, then surely the Government ought to be able to come clean and tell the people of Canada and Parliament just what arms are sold to what countries that are noted for abusing rights.
Why does the Government not come clean? It is a simple thing. If it is honestly pursuing a policy of an embargo of arms shipments to human rights abusers, then tell us what is being sold.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Bail her out, John.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the policy with respect to the export of arms from Canada has been explained by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on many occasions. We closely control the export of military goods. We do not export military goods to countries which pose a threat to Canada or its allies. We do not export goods to those countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities, or countries under UN Security Council sanctions, or to countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens. That policy is administered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There has never been a person in that position who has been more scrupulous and more attentive in that direction than the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have nothing to apologize for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR STUDY OF SALES OF GOODS FOR MILITARY USE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is also a great advocate of freedom of information. There were many who witnessed a Chilean colonel window shopping at Lansdowne Park who would bring Canadian policy into serious question. I would ask the Government this: why will it not make the list available, if necessary to a special all-Party parliamentary task force, to study all aspects of sales of all goods that could be used for military use? I would ask the Government also to support a United Nations initiative for an arms trade register. What does he answer to that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a victim of controlled hysteria. Canada closely controls the exports of all military goods. The total exports in 1987 were $1.8 billion, of which 71 per cent went to the United States of America. A further 19 per cent went to other NATO countries. Only 10 per cent was exported to non-NATO countries. That was very, very carefully controlled.
Are the hon. gentlemen saying that they do not want a military or defence industry in this country? Do they want to do away with the tens of thousands of jobs that are involved?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. JAN VAN HOUWELINGEN, STATE SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE, THE NETHERLANDS.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the Members' attention to the presence in the Gallery of Mr. Jan Van Houwelin-gen, State Secretary for Defence, The Netherlands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 23, 1989


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the last Minister who spoke that there are more than men on this side, or in the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: (South West Nova): That is not my question. I could not resist.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the drastic measures in the Government's Budget, such as the reduction of regional development programs, the closure of six military bases, anticipated cut-backs in VIA, the changes in the Unemployment Insurance Program, the cuts in federal Government transfer payments, and now, the drastic reductions in the groundfish quotas, did the Prime Minister order last week a special committee of Cabinet be set up to study the effects of his Government's Budget on Atlantic Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are sort of getting mixed signals from across the way. I take it the Hon. Member is in favour of air bases and defence procurement in the defence industry. Perhaps they may want to get their act together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. She raises a very important point about economic considerations for the Atlantic region, and particularly as it relates to the fish stocks. That is a very important and urgent matter that has to be dealt with. Of course, Cabinet will be looking at it and taking whatever steps necessary to ensure that the fishermen and industry in the Atlantic region can in fact adjust to this difficult issue. We will be looking at exploring various options, plus taking a very strong stand internationally in terms of dealing with the issue of over-fishing, as my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has alluded to.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE REQUESTED
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would just tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I certainly understand the need for defending our Atlantic coast, as we have always done on the East Coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: You cannot hit anybody on this side on your defence closures because I think they were ridiculous. However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer. We had one Minister on the weekend saying a committee was set up. We had Premier John Buchanan in Nova Scotia saying that he welcomed the Prime Minister's order to set up a committee to take an "in depth look at the problem of Atlantic Canadians associated with many things, including the federal Budget."
Is it not ridiculous that this Government is going to set up a committee naming the same people on the committee who are responsible for the drastic cuts in Atlantic Canada? Did the Prime Minister order a select committee of Cabinet to study the problems of his Budget on Atlantic Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the concern about Atlantic Canada extends from the Prime Minister right through the whole Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Could have fooled us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As the Hon. Member realizes, if she were to look at the figures in a factual way, support for regional development programs is going up, not going down, as it has over the last four years, compared to the previous four years. Of course, Cabinet is seized with this very important issue and will explore a number of options. If there are any announcements to be made they will be made in the usual manner.


FINANCE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of

Oral Questions
Finance. It is now clear that there was more than one Budget leak at the time of the April Budget. The Minister knows that he has security personnel right in his own Department to help him with this most important question.
I would like to ask the Minister the following very concise questions: When did he know about the other Budget leaks? What did he do about it? Why did he not tell this House about it?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what we did know quite clearly was that there was the leak on the Global television network on the Wednesday night of April 26. The following morning there were a number of allegations. I might remind the Hon. Member that people on his side, and people in the New Democratic Party, referred to these allegations in the preamble to their questions in Question Period that day. I remind the Hon. Member that these are allegations. They are allegations that are subject to an inquiry by the RCMP. I am advised by the RCMP that all of the allegations are the subject of that inquiry. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on any of those allegations at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I did read some statements that were made in Hansard on Thursday and Friday. I want to assure the House that I read very carefully all things that I have said about this matter. I stand by those statements. There is no way that I have misled this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RCMP INVESTIGATION
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the Minister still feels it is inappropriate to speak to this House on a matter of crucial importance to the House and to the people of this country. He maintains that. On April 27, the Solicitor General advised this House that the RCMP was investigating possible profit-taking on the Budget leaks by investigations through the four concerned provincial securities commissions. A press report this past weekend suggests that the Ontario Securities Commission had not yet even been contacted. Can the Minister advise the House in which provinces the investigation is taking place and why officials in Ontario knew nothing about this when the
Solicitor General told us on April 27 that these securities commissions had been contacted?


Mr. Peterson:: No doubt it is under investigation. [Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned earlier, the RCMP Commissioner informed me today as well that the RCMP is continuing its investigation.
However, contrary to allegations made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East on Friday, I have been informed that the Ontario Securities Commission was contacted on April 27, as was mentioned, and as were other organizations in the course of the investigation, as necessary.
Since the investigation is still under way, Mr. Speaker, I think we should all refrain from commenting on the case.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Last week, when the Minister was not in the House, it was confirmed that his Deputy Minister, Mr. Fred Gorbet, was telephoned on the morning or the afternoon of April 27 to say that a Toronto company had access to Budget information for three days before the Budget was to be presented in the House.
I want to know from the Minister of Finance when his Deputy Minister contacted him regarding the second Budget leak? Was the Minister of Finance aware that this Toronto company had information three days before time when he rose in the House on the afternoon of April 27 at 5.40 p.m. to deliver his Budget Speech?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have responded to the elements of that question in my response just a minute or two ago. What I have said very clearly is that these are allegations. I am advised by the RCMP that these allegations are all part
May 23, 1989

of the investigation which the RCMP is currently carrying on.
In response to what I think the Hon. Member is getting at with the last part of his question, I repeat, I have read everything I have said in this House about that matter. I stand by the statements that I have made. I repeat, I have not in any way misled this House.


SECURITY OF BUDGET QUESTIONED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons on April 27, the Minister rose on a Question of Privilege and said, as reported in Hansard at page 1005, that what happened was: "a wilful criminal act". What I want to know from the Minister today is whether or not he still stands behind his opinion that it was a wilful criminal act in the singular or was it, instead of that, perhaps sloppy security by the Minister and his Department?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member has taken what I said somewhat out of context. Let me quote, "The premature release of details of the Budget appears to have resulted from a breach of trust"-"appears to have resulted from a breach of trust, a wilful criminal act-"


Mr. Tobin:: Backing off now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says I am backing off now. That is precisely what I said on April 27.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is when the Bamum and Bailey Circus was in town.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member could possibly read what was said, that is what was said on April 27.
I repeat exactly what I said to him one minute ago and to the Liberal questioner a few minutes ago. I have read carefully this and other statements which I have made in this House about this matter. I stand by every word that I have said.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We
Oral Questions
have 2300 haemophiliacs in Canada and 950 are now testing positive for the AIDS virus due to contaminated blood supply. Of these 950, 50 have already died and approximately 50 will develop full-blown AIDS each year in the next ten years. It has been several months since these people have applied to the Government for relief because of the catastrophic financial strain upon them. Could the Minister tell us today just what position these people are in and how soon they can expect the financial support requested?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, one of the first groups with whom I met after becoming Minister of National Health and Welfare was the Canadian Haemophilia Society. I am very much aware of the human tragedy which is involved in so many of these cases.
Since that meeting we have continued our discussions with the Canadian Haemophilia Society. We are working on a program designed to provide assistance to them and to other groups who have asked for compassionate assistance from the Government. We are making good progress on that and as soon as we are able to inform the House of further progress we will do so.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of Defence. A few moments ago we heard the Minister say that she was in attendance this morning at the ARMX trade show. Can the Minister tell us who else was there?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: For example, would representatives from Iran have been there? Were the military attaches from Panama, Chile and El Salvador there as well? Did the Minister expect that they, too, would purchase from B.C. manufacturers of arms and will she tell us what these countries with deplorable human rights violations records are doing at a Canadian arms manufacturing show?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would indeed invite the Hon. Member to visit ARMX during the week because I think he will find that it is an extremely interesting opportunity

May 23, 1989
Oral Questions
to learn the newest in technology and training devices available to assist our Armed Forces.
This trade show is for Canadians and our NATO allies. It is not for Third World countries. Third World country representatives from outside the country have not been invited, nor would they be welcome at this show. I want to assure the Hon. Member that that is not the purpose. Sales are not going on as a result of ARMX to any of those Third World countries.


CONTROL POLICY QUESTIONED
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, first, I can assure the Minister that I will not accept an invitation even if she does mail it to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Who cares?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Second, the hyprocrisy of this Government is just beyond comprehension. The Minister's Government and the Prime Minister are travelling world-wide saying that they deplore human rights violations everywhere, yet the Minister cannot assure us that these countries will not be in attendance. The Government is turning a forum-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister give us guarantees of regulations that she will have put in place to ensure that none of the materials on display will end up in the hands of such countries with human rights violations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs appeared before the House Committee on that subject a few days ago. There were questions asked him about our export control policy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has invited the committee to look into our export control policy and its implementation if it is serious about this question. Rather than simply roaring and ranting in the House of Commons in the silly and jejune manner we have seen today, would the Hon. Member's Party like to look seriously at the control policy? If so, we will co-operate.


FINANCE
Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up a question put this afternoon to the Minister of Finance in similar terms to that put to the Deputy Prime Minister Thursday and Friday.
When did the Minister's Deputy Minister or his officials learn of a second leak, other than the Global leak, of his Budget? Did they inform the Minister and, if so, when? Did he know of the possibility of a second leak when he stood on his feet in the House of Commons on the morning of April 27 on the issue of privilege and later the same afternoon when he presented that Budget?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I will be presenting precisely the same answer. These are allegations that have been made. They are allegations that were referred to in four or five questions in the House that day. I have said that I am advised by the RCMP that those allegations are the subject of the RCMP investigation and they have advised, according to the long-standing practice of this place, that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to comment on the details of any of the allegations that might be the subject of that investigation.
In response to the precise question the Right Hon. Member has asked about things I said in the House, I have reviewed very carefully everything I said that day. I stand by it fully. I have not misled the House in any way.


MINISTER QUESTIONED AS TO KNOWLEDGE OF SECOND LEAK AT TIME OF PRESENTATION OF BUDGET
Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, that is an evasive answer. When the Minister of Finance rose in the House on a question of privilege, he referred to a single leak. He told the House on that question of privilege, in his argument before Your Honour to go forward with that Budget, that it was a single leak, that it had been contained, that no damage had been done and that no one would have profited from it. Did he, at the time he made that statement, know of the possibility of a second leak? Had he been informed of such possibility by his Deputy Minister or other senior
May 23, 1989

officials? If so, why did he not be specific on that leak as well as the leak he mentioned in the House of Commons?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have been as precise as I can possibly be.


John Napier Turner: Did you know or did you not know?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have said with great precision that I have read everything that I said in the House that day-


John Napier Turner: Did you know of the second leak?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member is not willing to listen to the answer. I will give the Right Hon. Member an answer. Let me be very precise with him.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why are you hiding something?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to give that answer to the question if I am allowed to give it. Let me be quite precise. I have read everything that I have said in the House on that day including the reference I made to one event. I stand by that statement. I have not in any way misled the House.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Did he and his departmental officials, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, thoroughly investigate all the possible alternatives to keeping Base Summerside open other than the purely military one for which the base apparently is not cost-efficient.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's recognition that the main criteria of this Department is that of providing military security, and that was the rationale for the closure of Summerside. I have not had discussions with the Minister of Finance, but we have had discussions as a Government and as colleagues as to what assistance could be provided by the Government of Canada to the people of Summerside and to those of
Oral Questions
other bases as we progress through the down-sizing and closure of bases that no longer have military merit.


THREAT OF ECONOMIC RUIN TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the Government has condemned Summerside and indeed a big chunk of the Province of Prince Edward Island to economic ruin unless something is done for Summerside. Has the Minister considered the feasibility of actually increasing activity with respect to the protection of the fishery, protection against toxic waste dumping, surveillance against illegal immigration and increased surveillance against drug smuggling, all of which activities will increase as the years go by, rather than decrease, and for which Base Summerside is eminently suited and situated?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I take the Hon. Member's suggestions as being constructive. All the suggestions that have been put forward, of course, are suggestions that would be the responsibility of other Cabinet colleagues of mine. However, I am sure I will have discussions with those colleagues and with interested Members in Summerside as to what will take place as Summerside is phased out.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week, the Minister of National Revenue announced that he would be allowing tax deductions for those corporations that contributed to the free trade campaign. At the same time, National Revenue has rejected similar applications from businesses which made contributions to the anti-free trade campaign. This is a clear case of political favouritism and an unprecedented violation of the fairness of the tax system. Will the Deputy Prime Minister see to it that the order issued by the Minister of National Revenue is rescinded in order to restore a sense of fairness to the tax system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with any of the conclusions the Hon. Member has suggested, I will certainly take the question as notice and raise it with the

May 23, 1989
Oral Questions
Minister when he returns to the House. I am sure that he will be back this week. Obviously, he is away on government business. I will give it urgent consideration and report back to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR REFORM OF ELECTORAL ACT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his offer, but I would ask him a supplementary question. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that if this order is allowed to stand, it will lead to a massive intervention in the democratic system and really destroy the electoral Act? Is it not time for the Deputy Prime Minister to bring forward immediately legislation correcting and reforming electoral law to prevent such contributions in the future and to prevent the distortion of the electoral Act such as we saw during the last election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is raising a number of serious allegations, some of which, without checking into the details of them, I would not want to associate myself with. As was indicated in the Speech from the Throne, electoral reform is an urgent priority and I hope that in the very near future we will be announcing a process under which that evaluation can take place to its fullest. I am sure the points the Hon. Member has raised will be taken into consideration at that time.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Earlier, the Minister failed to answer the question put to him by my Leader. The question is quite simple: When he rose in the House on Thursday, April 27, was the Minister of Finance aware of the possibility of a second leak, yes or no?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question three times
already. Let me refer the Hon. Member to the longstanding practice of this House whereby Ministers do not comment on matters that are the subject of RCMP investigation. I will quote words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition on November 30, 1984. He referred-


Mr. Thmer (Vancouver Quadra):: Why did you mention the first leak then?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Right Hon. Member asks about the first leak. The first leak was a fact. It was there on television. It was there in black and white. Everything else has been an allegation.
The Right Hon. Member was asking the Solicitor General a question and said: "Would he review the practice by reinstating the practice that used to apply in this House, and I believe still should, reflecting the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty? He must realize the reflection that announcements of investigations may have on private reputations and should refuse to reveal whether an investigation is in progress by the police unless and until charges are preferred". That is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition.


INSISTENCE OF MINISTER
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. We are telling the Minister that he will not be able to hide behind parliamentary procedure. What we want to know is this: Was he or was he not aware of allegations about a second leak when he rose in the House on Thursday, April 27? Was he or was he not aware?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the response is the same. I have read each and every statement that I made on this matter in the House. I stand by each one of those statements, including the statement that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to a minute ago where I referred to one matter, one leak, one incident here. I stand by that. There is no way that I have misled this House.
May 23, 1989


TRANSPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister will remember that the Government of Canada decided not to give VIA Rail the money to replace its ancient rolling stock. Instead it gave it the money to refurbish the existing trains.
The Minister of Transport is listening if nobody else is. I want to ask the Minister of Transport if it is true that VIA Rail is about to cancel the refurbishing of the VIA Rail cars, throwing into jeopardy 1,950 direct and indirect jobs in Montreal and other parts of this country? Is it true that VIA Rail is about to cancel that project?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, with regard to VIA Rail, I already have said that we have referred to the corporation the new reference levels. We have asked that proposals or recommendations be made to the Minister within the corporate plan which will be done some time in June. When my friend referred to a decision, there is no decision to my knowledge which has been communicated to me by the corporation or the board of directors of VIA Rail, particularly in that sense.


FUNDS REQUIRED BY VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. In the event that VIA Rail comes back to the Government and says that the only way that it can make money operating VIA Rail is by getting new equipment, will the Government of Canada give prior indication that the money will be available?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we already gave to VIA Rail the new reference levels. It is 545 and so on for the next five years. There is no question about changing those reference levels. Any proposal which will be made by VIA Rail will have to take into account the new reference levels which were given some time in April.


VIA RAIL-CONTINUED SERVICE OF ATLANTIC LIMITED
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport responsible for
Oral Questions
VIA Rail. The Minister's Department has assured those living in isolated parts of the nation that they will not lose their rail service. Can the Minister now assure the over 250,000 VIA Atlantic Limited users from Atlantic Canada who not only use but depend upon this service annually that they will not be cut off from central Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we already have said that nine lines that we call remote communities will not be deprived of any service by VIA Rail. I cannot give any other guarantee unfortunately for any other Canadian. It will depend on what the VIA Rail Board will recommend having in mind that they will try, I believe, to help Canadians who have not the best service at the present time. But any guarantee will be given after the report by VIA Rail.


PRIVILEGE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period where the Solicitor General suggested, as I understood him, that I made a statement in the House which he said was not true, a false statement. The reason I would like to rise on a question of privilege is because I stated in the House last Friday, and I stand by my statement, that the director of investigations for the Ontario Securities Commission had not been contacted with respect to the Budget leak by the RCMP. I further learned today from Louise Labelle-Chevalier, Secretaire-General of the Quebec Securities Commission that in fact the Quebec Securities Commission has also not been contacted by the RCMP. Louise Labelle-Chevalier is an official of the Quebec Securities Commission. The information that I imparted Friday was from an official of the Ontario Securities Commission. If the Minister is going to insist in the House that somebody is speaking a falsehood, I think he owes it to the House to try to ascertain the truth of the matter. I would put the statement made by Louise Labelle-Chevalier or the Chief of Investigation of the Ontario Securities Commission up to his word any day.

May 23, 1989
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: This may be getting well beyond an application of privilege. However, I will hear the Minister.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier. Contrary to the allegations made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, I have been informed that the Ontario Securities Commission was contacted, as were other organizations, in the course of the investigation being conducted by the authorities that are investigating at this time. I then said it was inappropriate, considering that the RCMP was still investigating, to comment further on these events, Mr. Speaker, because I believe we should let the police do its work.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) may have a grievance but it is not a question of privilege. This is more like a disagreement between the Minister and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East concerning the situation that arose from a conversation between the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and perhaps an official or the Minister. It is a difference of opinion that is not up to the Chair to resolve. This is not a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to review the "blues" because I believe that during Question Period, the Minister said that I was guilty of a misstatement saying that the Ontario-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but, since the Chair has handed down a decision, the case is now closed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on a less serious but important matter. Yesterday marked the Tenth Anniversary of the class of '79. Many of us were elected 10 years ago. I would like to point out this momentous date for the House and to say that those of us who have survived the 10 years, and there are many on both sides of the
House, are eternally grateful. I point out that Tenth Anniversary.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that was a point of order, but it certainly was an announcement. I am very pleased that all those who.came here 10 years ago are as happy as the Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ferguson:
That this House condemns the Government for its destructive policies affecting Canadian farmers, that have particularly devastating impact on the dairy, grain, horticulture and tobacco sectors, that undermine supply management agencies such as the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing boards at both the federal and provincial levels, and that break Government promises relating to 1988 drought payments; and
That this House calls upon the Government to fulfil immediately its promises with regard to drought payments for the 1988-89 crop year, to implement a contingency plan for the current crop year, in view of indications of another drought in Western Canada, and to reverse its policies that are destroying the Canadian supply management system.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock, there were two minutes left in the question and comment period. I believe the floor belongs to the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Just before we closed for the luncheon recess, the Member for Durham (Mr. Stevenson) asked me two or three questions which I would like to respond to quickly. First, he asked if the program that I outlined on behalf of the New Democratic Party for agricultural support was a program like the Common Agricultural Policy in the European community. It is not. If it is modelled after any program, it is probably closest to the United States. What we did was divide the amount of production that is produced within the country and decided that we could provide some price guarantees for the production that is in fact consumed within the country. Initially we said we would set the price guarantees equivalent to the guarantees established south of the line, that eventually we would move to cost of production based on costs for the medium-sized farm. The Hon. Member for Durham asked what type of economic impact our program would have in comparison to the programs that have been brought in ad hoc by the Government. They would have
May 23, 1989

less economic impact to the extent that the programs that were introduced by the Government were aimed at farms much larger than the median size. I would remind Members of the House that the median size is where half the farms are larger and half the farms are smaller. By targeting that size, there would be virtually a neutral economic impact. Rather than focusing less dollars on the average and smaller-sized farm, which our program would do, the Government's approach has been to encourage largeness only for the sake of maximizing the amount of subsidies that the Government has tended to make available. Our program would not provide that type of counter-incentive to the system. It would be virtually program-neutral, and would have permitted economic forces to make the decision as to whether or not a farm should be larger. That decision would not be subject to doing it in order to maximize the amount of government subsidies that would be available.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Algoma.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate knowing if the order is two opposition Members and one government Member, then two opposition Members and one government Member. I am not in any way questioning Your Honour's judgment. I am curious as to the order, because the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Alt-house), who is an opposition Member just spoke, and I assumed that a government Member would follow.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do appreciate the Hon. Member stating that he was not putting my judgment in question. I think that he will also understand that this being an opposition day, it is quite normal that we would hear at first one Member from each of the Parties, which we have had, and now we are going back to the Official Opposition that has brought about the
Supply
motion. If the Hon. Member rises afterward he will be recognized.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment you on your decision with regard to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson). It was a very wise judgment that you made.
When the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) spoke this morning, he did not respond to the questions that I directed to him regarding the very serious concerns of the dairy industry across the country with respect to the decision made on the domestic pricing of milk. That is unfortunate. I have never seen the dairy producers as concerned as they presently are about what will happen to the whole supply management and marketing board system that we have in the country. I put the argument to the Minister, and he did not respond as to what will happen to the whole supply management question. This is amplified by the decision of the Royal Bank, and I am sure other banks, to withdraw half of the value of the quota in calculating the value of a farmer's assets for loan purposes when making loans to farmers, in other words the calculation of debt to equity ratio.
These are extremely serious matters which should not be sloughed off by a Minister of the Government as they were this morning. We know that the price of fuel is going up this year. The dairy industry wants to know what will happen if the price of other input costs also go up such as feed or fertilizer. Will they be prevented from having a pricing increase in either the target price for industrial milk or for the formula price for fluid milk?
No one questions the decision of GATT to freeze the price of commodities at the international level during the negotiation period for the next 18 months. If we are going to move down from the trade war which has been going on, then obviously the international price is caught up. As Mr. Grant Smith, the Chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board has pointed out, for fluid milk supply management, the marketing board does not affect the international price, and so they are very concerned.
This morning I asked the Minister what action could be taken with regard to the decision of the Royal Bank of Canada to limit the value of quotas, to cut them by 50 per cent, to raise interest rates to those producers, and

May 23, 1989
Supply
to limit the five-year loan period. It would be very interesting to know exactly what was meant in the memorandum of April 17 where it stated that the increased risk is real and a change in policy is called for as a result of the Government's announcement on April 14 by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski).
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of State for Agriculture will come clean and clarify the exact status of the supply management industry across Canada, especially as it affects the dairy industry. There are similar concerns being expressed by poultry, egg, and turkey producers who are also under national farm marketing regimes.
It seems to me that as the Official Opposition put this motion today, we are seeing a country whose agriculture industry is facing perhaps the most uncertain time in history. It is not only the uncertainty of what is happening at the GATT or with the free trade deal, but also the uncertainty as a result of broken promises. There was an ironclad commitment made last fall during the election campaign that marketing boards would be preserved, that they were safe, and nothing was going to happen to them. Yet, we see what has already happened. Banks are withdrawing their credit support. In the first few months of this year marketing boards have lost their ability to raise prices where input costs rise. There is great concern about what is happening.
This weekend there was a report in the Ottawa Citizen about a young couple who farm in Manitoba. In the article Nancy Drul was quoted as stating:
"It's hot, it's dry, it's windy, and they're broke. This is a very scary situation."
The article further states:
Farmers like the Druls were stunned this spring when, in the course of one week, they watched the federal government cut and slash at programs that carried many through the tough times of the late 1980s.
In that black week of late April, the government:
Reduced the subsidy it pays for hauling grain to ports;
Said there would be no interim payment from the Western Grains Stabilization Fund. (Last year farmers received $695 million);
Announced initial prices farmers are paid for wheat and barley at the elevator will decrease;
And introduced a budget that will remove some interest-free cash
advances to fanners and, next year, remove a fuel-tax rebate farmers
have received.
The family points out that last year they had $100,000 in revenues and $68,000 in costs. They point out that one-quarter of the revenue came from Government payments and that most of that will be gone in this crop year. There is extreme hardship and extreme concern out there.
The food processing industry across the country is saying that the Government must make up its mind about marketing boards within one year. We expected that if the Tories won the election and implemented the free trade deal, with its commitment to the Americans which considered farm marketing boards to be subsidies, that the removal of subsidies would take several years. Now we see the grocery products manufacturing industry saying that there will be chaos in one year unless the Government caves in and gets rid of the marketing boards. There is extreme concern about exactly what will happen and what is the Government agenda.
Nothing has destroyed dreams more than the Government's Budget, with the elimination of credit by banks to those under supply management systems, as well as reduced interest rate support.
I want to refer to a group that usually supports the Government. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers point out that since April, 1988, the Bank of Canada's prime rate has climbed from 9.6 per cent to 12.6 per cent, resulting in a potential drain of more than $350 million from the western farm economy. They state that the second blow hits when farmers take their crops to market because high interest rates artificially deflate the value of the Canadian dollar, resulting in lower grain receipts on international markets. They say western Canadian farmers cannot absorb this two-way cash squeeze.
If that is what the Government's friends are saying about it, one can imagine what those who are less enchanted by the Tories are saying. They are in complete disarray as to how they will cope.
I believe that the Agriculture Committee of the House did a monumental piece of work last year in looking at one of the most important aspects of agriculture, the cost of financing. We worked for several months on a report
May 23, 1989

entitled "The $22 Billion Problem", which pointed out that some $6 billion worth of funding could not be adequately serviced. Since then, interest rates have risen dramatically.
The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek- Assiniboia, the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse) and other Members in the House who served on that committee looked to the Speech from the Throne with great interest.
There were three lines about agriculture in the Speech from the Throne. One statement was that the whole agriculture situation was too much of a drain on the economy of the country.
There were a number of recommendations in our report on innovative ways to finance agriculture, especially for new farmers. Not one of those recommendations was implemented in the Budget. In fact, the Budget is designed to add some $500 million in extra costs to farmers over two years. Crop insurance is being cut back by $200 million. The transportation program is being cut back by $60 million. The rail branch line rehabilitation program is being cut back by $48 million. All of these programs were promises made by the Government.
Others include the dairy export program which is cut by $12 million; the Canadian Dairy Commission which is cut by $10 million, the commodity based loan program which is cut by $15 million.
The grain and crop advance payments program will be cut by $54 million over two years.
There are two main subsidized interest rate programs. One is the crop advance payment program under which the Government provides some financial interest rate support so that farmers do not have to sell their crop immediately in the fall but can hold it until the price is better or transportation and other factors are right in order to get maximum benefit. That program is being cut in direct violation of a campaign commitment in 1984.
The other subsidized interest rate program is the commodity based mortgage. While I was not entirely in favour of this program, the Government fully supported it. In some instances it did provide lower interest rates,
Supply
although the farmer would have had to pay more if the commodity value rose. That program was also cut.
When one considers these measures, we can see that farmers will face much greater difficulty than they have in the past, at least as far as interest rates are concerned.
It is also interesting to look at the Budget itself to see how many of the cut-backs listed therein were listed as subsidies in the free trade deal. It will be interesting to find out from the Minister the results of his meeting today with Mr. Yeutter to see how many of the subsidies in the United States that are listed in this agreement have been cut out.
The cut-backs in the Budget include agricultural stabilization, the At and East transportation subsidy, ARDA, the Prairie Branchline Rehabilitation Program and the Farm Credit Corporation Commodity Based Mortgage.
While the domestic price gap of the Canadian Wheat Board will not be removed, clearly the Government is indicating that it wants to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. It has already removed oats, and it will be interesting to see if Mr. Yeutter is putting the pressure on the Minister today to remove barley.
While it is clear that the Government is attempting to remove most of these subsidies, I do not understand why it would do so. It was my belief that the Government would negotiate with the Americans over the next five to seven years a code of subsidies that would not be subject to countervail or dumping, as well as negotiate an arbitration procedure when disputes occur.
However, the domestic price of wheat has been removed and at least six or maybe more of the subsidies outlined in this agreement have already been given away. As far as agriculture is concerned, all the subsidies will be removed before the negotiations. I only hope the Americans are doing the same thing as the Toiy Government. There will be little to negotiate with regard to an agricultural subsidies code because most of these subsidies are being wiped out unilaterally.
Usually you get something when you give something when negotiating. According to this procedure, the Government is unilaterally cancelling most of the items which are identified as subsidies. I read with great interest the Minister's speech which he gave in Toronto

May 23, 1989
Supply
at the National Agrimarketing Association Conference. The Minister said in his speech:
The trade agreement provides for a dispute settlement mechanism that will overcome irritants and help enhance market access. It's going to ensure anti-dumping and countervail actions are applied fairly.
I thought that that was very interesting. Then he went on to state: "The law, not political self-interest, will govern the trade process."
It is very interesting that a couple of weeks ago the United States slapped a countervail duty on our pork going into the United States. I could not believe the Minister's words. It seems to me that if there ever was political self-interest, the fact that the United States is to impose countervail duty on pork is it. The reason the Americans were able to do it is because after the trade deal was passed last October the Omnibus Trade Bill was brought into the United States Senate. Senator Bachus proposed an amendment stating that a countervail when applied to a primary product could be applied equally to a secondary phase of that product. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that in 1936 the United States imposed a countervail duty on our hogs going into the United States. Immediately that amendment was passed in the Omnibus Trade Bill to the countervail duty law, the United States pork producers petitioned the International Trade Commission for a countervail. It is being applied on an interim basis.
I really do not think that the Minister was thinking about the application of that countervail duty on our pork when he made this speech in Toronto in which he talked about the beauties of the situation, since our pork producers are already facing extremely low prices. Now there is a countervail duty as well.
In the same speech given to the National Agrimarketing Association conference the Minister talked about the quality of our beef products going into the United States. If there has ever been concern expressed it is with respect to what is happening in terms of our grading standards in beef. What is happening is that we are not harmonizing through negotiations with the United States, but the United States is shipping larger quantities of no-rolle or ungraded beef into Canada. Our producers are having to compete with that. Our whole grading system, which is one of the best in the world, is being
destroyed. That is regrettable. If we require beef produced in this country which is going into interprovincial trade to be graded then the same should apply to beef coming into Canada from the United States.
I have set out a number of our concerns. Our agriculture industry is facing extremely difficult times and great uncertainty. This is seen when one talks to western farmers who are not sure whether the Government will come through on its payment for drought assistance since in the Estimates there was only half enough money to pay for it. We do not know whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board will be destroyed because of pressure from the United States. The Government has already knuckled under and taken oats out from under its control.
I believe we are facing a very difficult time and great uncertainty. At the same time we are facing this great uncertainty, the Government seems to be withdrawing all types of programs not only to assist the Minister of Finance but to implement the free trade deal.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to my hon. friend from Algoma. He made reference to the $22 billion problem, the report rendered last year by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Indeed, he was generous enough to refer to it as a monumental piece of work. Perhaps he was overly generous in his description of it.
What I recall in particular about the hearings that went on before the report was written and in the preparation of the report was that there were really no quick fixes, no easy solutions out there. All of them would involve taxpayers' money. I think there has been perhaps a universal desire to see lower long-term interest rates for the agriculture community. However, I want to ask my friend what criteria he would propose be set out for such a program if indeed he favours one. How would it be paid for?
During the course of those hearings on farm debt we heard over and over again from various responsible farm groups that imposing an artificially low interest rate in agriculture really did not do anyone any favours because the interest rate concession inevitably becomes capitalized into higher asset values, higher land and machinery prices and, in effect, exacerbates the problem. It does
May 23, 1989

not really help the young fanner. It does not do anything for him.
It seems to me the key is not to seek special concessions for one sector but rather to try to get interest rates down across the board in the country.
Does my hon. friend agree with that? Or does he adhere to the idea that there should be special interest rates for the farm community? If so, how would he structure them? How would he propose to pay for them?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises two very interesting points. Clearly, there are a number of programs to which he agreed when our committee reported. I will not try to go into the details of that half-inch thick document.
Interest rates in the country are very high. We are about 3.5 points above the United States, as I understand the rates right now. That imposes a great cost on Canadian producers. Mr. Harvey McEwen, the President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, has pointed out that the increase in interest rates by almost 3.5 per cent in the last year is costing western Canadian agriculture some $350 million per year. That is a great cost to our producers. It is something that is set by the Government. Whether or not it is an under the table deal by the Government of Canada as part of the free trade deal, we do not know. Certainly, when Congressmen, Members of Parliament and Senators meet all the talk is about the veiy low exchange rate by the United States officials. Whether there is a deal between the Government of Canada and the United States to keep our interest rates 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent above the United States, nobody knows for sure.
The Government does not have many programs. It is not wise enough to choose some of the programs such as the shared appreciation mortgage program, the stabilization fund, or some other of the programs which the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson) and other members of the committee recommended. As a matter of fact, the Government did not do anything. It did not provide any assistance even though as Harvey McEwen said in the letter he sent to every Member of Parliament, interest costs have gone up by $350 million in western Canada alone. I am sure if
Supply
that is applied right across the country we are probably looking at $700 million or $800 million.
The Government brought in the commodity based mortgage which, as far as I know, is the only subsidized program around. It even cut that out. It was not a very large program but the Hon. Member and others have said that it was very good. It involved some $15 million over a several year period. Even that was cut out.
It seems to me that programs like the Advance Payment Program really gets the farmer two ways. Not only does he not have that support to market at a more convenient time or a time when he can get his best price, but it tends to push everybody, especially those who are in a financially hard-pressed position, to market as soon as the crop comes off. That only exacerbates the situation and drives prices lower. The net value of that program is probably way above the cost, which I think is $27 million a year. We have the crop being marketed over a period of time, rather than everybody, especially those who are in a difficult financial position, marketing as soon as the crop comes off.
I hope I have been able to clarify these important matters for the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Further questions or comments. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, may I say I appreciate clarifying the matters earlier, and I certainly appreciate your advice.
I would like to participate in this debate from the perspective of a prairie Member of Parliament. My riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia contains some 23,000 square miles of farming and ranching area, across more than half of southern Saskatchewan. My riding would be more dependent or certainly as dependent on the prosperity of the agricultural sector, especially the grain sector, as any constituency in the nation.
This opposition day motion purports to criticize this Government for its actions toward agriculture. I must say at the outset, I am rather surprised that the opposition Members would pick a topic like this. I recall they did so a couple of years ago and the debate went on for several days around the clock. It was a most successful opportu-

May 23, 1989
Supply
nity for Members on this side to be able to outline and explain the enormous response which our Government has made to Canadian agriculture during its term of office.
During the 1986 Throne Speech, the statement was made that the Government would spare no effort in protecting the interests of the Canadian farmer. I suggest that that sums up the policy upon which our Government has embarked.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski), and the Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds) (Mr. Mayer), have consistently pursued that policy in support of Canadian producers. They have done it in two ways: externally, through negotiations, seeking order in agricultural trade. They have done it through the Cairns group, the group of grain exporting nations. They have done so through the latest multinational round of GATT. They will continue to pursue that elusive goal of trying to bring order to agricultural trade world-wide to try to reduce and ultimately bring an end to a disastrous round of production and export subsidies which have been so harmful and destructive to grain prices internationally, and which have so seriously affected our grain producers.
Domestically, the policy has manifested itself in a number of programs which Members in this House, and certainly those in the farm community, will be very familiar with. This Government has cushioned farmers hurt by those external problems that I mentioned, the external trade wars, as well as the drought problems here at home. There have been a whole series of programs, amendments to Western Grain Stabilization, improvements to crop insurance. There was a 1985 drought program. There was the Canada Special Grains Programs, 1 and 2, which contributed respectively $1 billion and $1.1 billion to Canadian farmers in order to overcome the hurt that was inflicted on them as a result of the the grain war between the European Economic Community and the United States. Last year we had the drought problem. This was not just in Saskatchewan but across many parts of Canada.
I want to briefly address the grain sector, the impact of the drought, and perhaps make some comments in
regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly those are areas which impact strongly on the Prairies and western Canada generally.
My Province of Saskatchewan is one which is very dependent on grain export dollars. Regardless of the much needed diversification that is taking place across Saskatchewan and western Canada, there seems to be little question but that agriculture will continue to be the force that shapes the prairie economy.
Against a backdrop of historically low grain prices occasioned by trade wars beyond our borders and of poor yields occasioned by weather related disasters which are beyond the purview of Government, it is remarkable that the Province of Saskatchewan, so dependent on agriculture and especially the grain export sector, has been able to virtually maintain its population. It has been able to survive the most difficult times certainly since the 1930s. I suggest it is because the ravages of low prices and drought have been in large measure cushioned by a number of federal and federal-provincial programs which were designed to ameliorate the situation, indeed programs which were unprecedented in their magnitude.
I would like to make a few remarks relating specifically to the 1988 drought. I believe that that is in part the subject matter of the Opposition motion that is before us today. The federal Government has proved its commitment to the agricultural industry since it was elected in 1984. The help given to producers hurt by the 1988 drought is no exception.
The Government announced in May, 1988 a $12 million program to assist in water development. That was over and above regular moneys that were allotted to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. This $12 million was to help producers to develop water supplies. The program was an enormous success. Indeed, I am told it has been over-subscribed. In June, there was another $153 million program announced to assist western livestock producers who were hit by a drought. There were payments of up to $60 per head.
In addition, there was the green feed program to help alleviate a feed shortage. For the first time ever a there was tax deferral on the forced sale of livestock. This is something that The Cattlemen's Association and western cattle producers have requested over several genera-

tions, and it seemed eminently reasonable, and I am happy to say that our Government was able to respond.
Last fall, the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program was announced. This is a program that would provide approximately $850 million to producers who suffered crop damage because of the drought. As the impact of the drought started to affect cereal crops last summer, the Government focused its efforts on finding solutions to the problem. There were discussions with federal-provincial drought committees. Producers were heard at meetings in Guelph and in Saskatoon last August. There were some things that emerged from those meetings. There was agreement, I believe, that any assistance should compliment the existing crop insurance programs and the integrity of these programs should be maintained. The integrity of crop insurance was preserved and will continue to be maintained. Crop insurance is, after all, the producers first line of defence against disaster. Crop insurance works well.
As a result of the 1988 drought, crop insurance paid out a record $900 million. It is clear that crop insurance can be improved. There is work ongoing at the present time between the federal and provincial Governments, and with the input of farm organizations toward trying to make some meaningful and useful changes to make crop insurance more responsive to the needs of producers. In the summer and fall of 1988 the extent of the damage was great. It was beyond what the existing safety net of crop insurance and stabilization was able to cope. Some crop insurance prices reflected depressed prices which were brought on by the U.S.-common market trade war, so producers needed better protection. With the assistance of producers the four cornerstones of the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program were set.
First, the program had to be national in nature. Second, it should apply equally to all commodities. Third, the program had to be targeted because there were certain portions of five provinces where there was drought and where producers were affected.
Finally, the program should be crop specific. The drought program was designed to provide the most assistance to those who were hurt the most and there has been extensive research and data collection required to accomplish that goal.
Supply
The Government consulted farm organizations which told the Government that drought assistance should be targeted very carefully in order to reach those farmers who were hit hardest. Statistics have been obtained from provincial crop insurance offices in order to obtain crop information on areas right down to the township level.
This program covers five provinces, more than 100 different crops from wheat to apples. More than 4,500 townships have been designated as drought areas. I would like to outline how the program works. It was recognized that farmers in the most severe drought areas would need assistance quickly to help them put in a crop this year.
Provincial crop insurance figures were used to designate three types of drought areas; severe, moderate and least affected. These areas were preliminary and were designed to show where interim payments would be made and for those purposes only. Further areas could be eligible for assistance later when final provincial crop insurance figures become available. Interim flat acreage payments were directed at farmers who were in the designated areas initially identified as severe or moderate. Final payments will be made, according to the officials, in July to all eligible producers.
The payment formula will target the assistance to those areas which were hardest hit. The assistance payments are, of course, in addition to crop insurance. All grains, oil seeds, special crops, vegetables and fruits produced in drought areas are eligible for assistance. Producer review committees have been established in each of the provinces to handle appeals under the program.
The program is on track. To date, interim payments have been processed, cheques valued at over $211 million have been mailed out to over 56,000 producers. More than 121,000 applications were mailed directly to producers and over 114,000 completed applications have been returned to the drought program administration.
A process is being put in place to handle requests from producers whose areas may not initially have been designated for assistance. The fact is that in regard to this program the Government is keeping its commitments, is living up to its promises, as it has every step of the way over the preceding four years.

May 23, 1989
Supply
The drought presented problems to producers that are as varied as the crops produced across this country. The drought program, if it is to be successful, has to recognize the complexities and it must deliver assistance accordingly.
The final program calculations will be completed when the provinces provide us with final data. This data will allow the administrators of the program to provide yield and price coverage above what has already been provided by crop insurance.
The federal Government recognized the need to get as much money as possible to producers without the benefit of the final yield data from the crop insurance offices. To that end application forms were mailed out to producers on the basis of the data provided to the administrators of the program by the provincial crop insurance agencies. On the basis of this data forwarded in late January, interim payments were made. These payments were as high as possible without risking over-payment.
The program was built on cornerstones of being a national program, of being crop specific, and being targeted to those who need help the most. It is very easy to criticize a program like this because we all know from past experience that any program which is a substitute for the market-place involves the designation of some artificial criteria. You have to start drawing lines on maps. Whenever you do that some people feel good because they are on the right side and other people feel badly because they are on the wrong side. It does not matter because you can erase the line and move it, but, there will still be an equal number of people who feel aggrieved. So, no one is suggesting that this is a substitute for the workings of the market-place. What we are saying is that it is an attempt on the part of the federal Government to redress the problems which arose as a result of that unfortunate 1988 drought.
If we contrast this program with the Special Grains Programs of the previous couple of years, it is easy to see why it does take some time. The Special Grains Programs were designed to address the price shortfall occasioned by the shoot out in the trade war between the Europeans and the Americans.
Moneys were paid to all producers on the basis of prices having been affected as a result of the trade war. It was a universal program. All producers in the country qualified.
This particular Crop Drought Assistance Program is infinitely more complex and complicated because it attempts to target those producers who are in the affected drought areas and then it goes beyond that to a further degree of fine tuning and attempts to gauge the amount of assistance to the severity of the crop damage suffered by the producer. This is an enormously complex task and if nothing else, it points out the need for reform of the basic programs.
We are trying to strengthen the farm income safety net so that hopefully, in the future, it will be possible to get away from the programs which we have to come forward with which involve the drawing of lines, setting up of criteria and all the difficulties that come with them.
In other words, we would hope to get away from the ad hoceiy and, of course, to this end there are some very meaningful discussions ongoing. The Grains 2000 group from Winnipeg has put forward some positions for discussion as well as the Department of Agriculture. There have been consultations with the provinces and with many of the leading farm organizations across the country. Certainly it is expected there will be some serious proposals tabled this year with a view to reform of the basic safety net programs, a measure which I am sure Members on all sides, and indeed, all those associated with agriculture will welcome.
I want to just say something in the time remaining in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Board is a trusted and valued institution for producers in western Canada and it is not being undermined in any way. The Wheat Board recently celebrated its fiftieth year in the service of producers within its jurisdiction in what we call the Canadian Wheat Board area in the wheat-growing areas of western Canada. The Board is responsible for export marketing of wheat and barley. It will continue to perform that goal. The Board has helped Canadian producers to establish a reputation for quality grain in the world's market-place.
During the height of the trade war, which I referred to many times, the Board has continued to be able to market grain successfully and to maintain Canada's share in the world market. During the 1987-88 crop year
May 23, 1989

the Board exported a record 31.7 million tonnes of grain, oil seeds and other products. That broke the old record for exports set in the previous year. So, it is clear that the Government stands behind the Canadian Wheat Board.
Last year Bill C-92 was passed which had the effect of strengthening the Canadian Wheat Board by giving greater powers of borrowing and investment to the administrators of the Board. The Government of Canada over the past several years has acted as a backstop for the Board. There was the unfortunate situation of several years ago. The Board basically set the initial prices some 16 months in advance of the end of the crop year of August 31. These were established based on information available at the time which turned out to be overly optimistic with the result that over $300 million of taxpayers' money had to go to the Wheat Board to supplement shortages in the Wheat Board accounts as a result of over-payments made to Canadian producers.
There is also the matter of the sovereign loans made by the Canadian Wheat Board, loans to importing nations, loans which are guaranteed by the Government of Canada. At this time, there is in excess of $3 billion outstanding, and of course, in the event of default, it is not paid by producers but would come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
There is as well the matter of initial prices that are set by Government but on the recommendation of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is the Wheat Board which is in the industry and has sensors around the world. It gives advice on the proper range in which to set the initial prices. Initial prices, of course, are the moneys the farmer receives when he initially delivers his grain to the elevator on the Canadian prairies.
If prices strengthen, there is what is called a final payment. That comes at the end of the crop year and represents the difference between the amount for which the grain is sold by the Canadian Wheat Board and the initial payment which the farmer receives at the elevator. There has been some criticism of the Government because these initial payments are considered too low. I should point out that the Government is relying on the
Supply
advice and expertise of the Canadian Wheat Board when establishing the initial payment levels.
It is the job of the Opposition to criticize, that is fair enough, but surely to do so in a constructive way. Again I have to express some disappointment in that thus far in the course of this Opposition day debate, we have heard a litany of criticism, some warranted and some not, since we do not live in a perfect world, but absolutely no alternatives. I would like to hear, during the course of the Opposition debate, some suggestions as to how things could be made better.
The Government has co-operated and consulted with the producers of Canada as no other Government has before it. We on this side would like to have that same degree of co-operation in an attempt to work together to help Canadian agriculture. I urge Hon. Members opposite to put away the rhetoric and instead to come forward with solid and substantial alternatives in order that we can work together to build a better agricultural economy.
Finally, the Government made the undertaking several years ago to stand solidly behind the farm community of Canada and will continue to do so. The Government is committed to building a strong and vibrant agricultural economy and I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) has consistently demonstrated the leadership required to accomplish this end. The Government will continue to show the leadership necessary to fulfil the goals of Canadian agriculture.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson) and I was pleased to hear him extol the virtues of and to support the Canadian Wheat Board. He spoke of co-operation and of the consultation the Government has engaged in. He exhorted opposition Members to display greater co-operation. Of course, we displayed that co-operation in the last Parliament when practically every government Bill went through in record time or at least all of those that were good Bills. There were a number of bad Bills that took several months or in some cases a year or so to pass. Clearly we are on record as being co-operative with all those good measures and we have already passed one Bill through the House since April.

May 23, 1989
Supply
I would like to question this whole business about consultation. Clearly the dairy farmers of Canada do not think that the consultations they had with regard to the GATT arrangements were adequate. If they did not think the consultations were inadequate, the Chairman of the Ontario Dairy Milk Marketing Commission would not have sent out an urgent letter to every producer demanding its members to immediately get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), to try to forestall the crisis which is facing the agricultural industry. If these people had been consulted, they would not have to send out letters like this demanding that the Members call upon the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade as well as federal and provincial MPs. I would question that consultation. I also question the consultation that took place with regard to the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Clearly, the Government had the authority to do that and I do not say that oats needs to be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board at all times, but clearly no one to whom I have spoken, and I have met with members of all of the prairie pools, feel that they were consulted. I am not simply talking about the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board which may tend to be more supportive of the Wheat Board than those who attend community meetings.
A survey conducted by Decima Research, the polling organization of choice of the Government, the group that tells the Government what to do, shows that 63 per cent were opposed to the decision with regard to oats and only 32 per cent were in favour. As well, 76 per cent felt that there should be more consultation. In spite of what my hon. colleague says, I think there has been a drastic decline in consultation on these issues.
There is one question I would like to put to the Hon. Member. In discussions in the Agriculture Committee, there has been a great deal of support and encouragement for and interest shown in the idea of the production of ethanol from surplus grains or damaged grains, both in eastern Canada and in western Canada. It is very interesting that the executive secretary of the Ontario Com Producers points out in a newsletter to the producers that even though mega-bucks have survived for upgraders, natural gas pipelines to Vancouver, Hibernia and the tarsands project involving many billions of
dollars, there was nothing in the Budget for fuel ethanol development. This is obviously a good method of diversification for the agricultural sector, both in western and in eastern Canada.
The Hon. Member is very close to the Minister of Agriculture. They consult regularly, and I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of the Minister's every idea. Perhaps he could tell us why, in spite of the $5 billion reduction in programs this year and the $9 billion reduction next year, the mega-buck projects survived while there was no incentive provided for fuel ethanol development. Perhaps the Hon. Member could explain exactly what the Government's thinking was in that regard.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to unravel further the series of comments on the question. First, I want to say, yes, I do consider myself close to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, I suspect considerably closer than the Hon. Member might be to some of his front benchers. I am proud to be associated with a Minister of Agriculture who, I believe, has an unsullied reputation of co-operation and consultation with the farm community. I am amazed that the Hon. Member would question the commitment of this Government and indeed its leadership to that sort of consultation and co-operation. Perhaps part of the problem is, as the Member from Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) expressed in an unguarded moment when he said, "From this time forward every sparrow that falls out of the sky will somehow be laid at the feet of the Free Trade Agreement". We are seeing more and more manifestations of that sort of thing. The sparrows are falling out of the sky, and regardless of the cause, they are laid at the feet of that agreement.
I believe that the Hon. Member made mention of the decision taken by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) with regard to oats. I can do little other than perhaps repeat to the Hon. Member what the Minister in charge of Grains and Oilseeds said some two weeks ago in the agricultural committee. He said that over the last 40 years oats has become very much a specialty product. It has gone from second or third to something like eleventh in terms of export importance out of the country. It has become very much a special
May 23, 1989

crop because of the volume that we produce, the way it is produced, et cetera. I quote:
We firmly believe that there are more opportunities for individuals out there, smaller companies, the co-operatives, individual seedcleaning plants, farmers-.to process and sell oats to the United States by themselves.
It goes on to talk about the survey that the Hon. Member referred to. I believe it was a Decima survey and apparently on page 12 of that survey it says:
The highest proportion, 41 per cent, believe the pricing of oats through other means will provide higher returns to farmers, 37 per cent believe it will provide lower returns.
That is an interesting commentary. Perhaps you can read anything you like into the results of that type of opinion survey. But the fact is there is a time to consult and there is also a time when a Minister has to make a decision. I know that the Minister in charge of Grains and Oilseeds has criss-crossed western Canada. He has been from one end of the country to the other consulting constantly with producers. It was his judgment, as he has indicated many times, that there was a split decision as far as the removal of oats is concerned. For the reasons that he has outlined many times, he took the decision. I believe that history will prove that he took the right decision.
Finally, I believe the Hon. Member asked the question about ethanol. It came, I believe, from the Member of a Party which has been kind to agriculture over the last 18 to 20 years. This is a Party which visited capital gains tax on Canadian farmers in 1971 at the same time it took away Part 17 capital cost allowance, a Party which brought the LIFT program to western Canada, the Party whose leader said: " Why should I sell your wheat". This is the Opposition who now stand across there purporting and attempting in a feeble way to criticize the outstanding record of this Government over the past four years toward Canadian agriculture.
I am over time, Madam Speaker, and I want to close by saying that there has been a western diversification initiative. Interestingly enough, it is now headed by the same individual as the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds. I am not familiar with every single program and every approval in there, but I would be surprised if there were not initiatives within the western diversification initiative that did not relate to ethanol.
Supply
I close, Madam Speaker, by saying that I do not think that the Government needs any lessons in how to deal properly and respectfully with Canadian agriculture. I believe that there has been a record put forward in the last four years which is unmatched in Canadian history. The commitment remains. This Government will continue to stand fully behind the farm population and producers of this country.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I must say it is one of the great privileges of being a Member of Parliament from in the Province of Manitoba to have an opportunity to speak on the question of agriculture, an industry which is so dear to the hearts of its people and the one that has traditionally been the mainstay of its economy. In the spirit of the previous speaker, although I think he fell off the wagon near the end about the spirit of goodwill in discussing the problem of agriculture, I remember he too showed frustration with the Government when he stood up a few weeks ago and asked a question in the House about rail abandonment in his constituency. Therefore, it is not only a case of non-partisanship being worried about Government policy, but it us fundamental to the concerns of the people, and it is also about free speech.
My concern as a politician from the City of Winnipeg is in looking out over the countryside and watching year after year the ability of rural Manitoba to stay in existence, to strengthen itself, to build up a strong economy, in gradual decline. Although one would be remiss in simply pointing a finger at one particular Government, the fact that this particular Government has not responded to their needs should be pointed out to the House and discussed by all the Members.
We have heard a lot of facts and figures tossed about today related to the state of our farm economy and the lack of action that this Government has taken. The problem is that this is not an issue that can be dealt with solely in numbers. In fact, we have to take into account some of the human concerns. We have to begin to understand what it means to the people left behind when they see their schools close, when they see themselves lose their health institutions, when they see themselves lose another doctor, lose a dentist, when they see another bus route disappear, a senior citizens home not being built because lack of public money. All these concerns weigh heavily on the people of rural western Canada. Although it is hard to say that one particular program is going to turn things around, it is fair to say that the national agricultural policy continues to

May 23, 1989
Supply
abandon these people. This is a story of people who are struggling against incredible odds and a commodity economy where right now the prices have left them very vulnerable to international trade practices, and therefore has caused a great deal of grief. This is the story of people left behind, of the closing down of rural Canada.
Earlier this year, this Government left 70,000 prairie farmers in limbo over federal drought assistance because they could not get the application forms in in time to prepare adequate submissions before the original deadlines. This is an example of a specific action not taken by the this Government which has created a lot of grief in western Canada. The complexity of this program has not only resulted in delays in getting the forms out. It is also costing an extra $9 million in administration costs over the previous year's program.
This followed an announcement in January by the Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) that initial drought payments would be only 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the total amount due to the farmer. This is in direct contrast to the 70 per cent that this Minister promised during the election last year. One of the great cynicisms that has settled in western Canada is that the Party that has always played up to them, the Party that has always preyed upon the protest somehow finds extra money in an election year. We estimated, for example, the Minister for Western Diversification found $400 million last year. Yet this year he cannot find anywhere near that amount of money. It makes people very cynical of what is happening in western Canada.
These reduced payments have arrived three months later than usual. In the Throne Speech, this Government expressed its concern that agricultural producers were causing "undue pressure to bear on the nation's Treasury". That has become a phrase which has haunted western Canadian farmers since they heard it. As a result of that phrase, they are wondering what does it mean to be an undue pressure on the nation's Treasury. What does it mean to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)? What does it mean to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) to be an undue burden? What we are finding out year after year-or week after week in this case, but we will find out in the next few years also-exactly what it means to be an undue burden on this
particular Government. It means that the western Canadian farmer is about to suffer.
In the Budget we discovered exactly what kind of measures this Government was prepared to take to relieve this pressure. It has eliminated interest-free commodity-based loans. It has removed $200 million over the next two years from the crop insurance program. It has set higher freight rates while cutting support for branch line rehabilitation. It has attacked the dairy commission. This is on top of a lower initial price for grain, a high interest rate policy maintained by the Government and a declining Canadian market share created by ever-increasing subsidies for producers in Europe and the United States.
What does the future hold for the Canadian farmer? This is the question in front of the House today. The Government on page 65 of its Budget papers has indicated that it will no longer rely on ad hoc programs to aid disaster afflicted farmers even though these programs have the immediacy and the flexibility to best deal with crisis. If there are to be no more ad hoc programs, what plan does the Government have? We feel that the Canadian farmer, and in particular the western Canadian farmer, deserves to hear what these plans are.
Not only has the Government failed to maintain an income- support structure for the Canadian farmer, it has also faded to provide a solution to the farm debt crisis that presents the greatest long-term danger to agricultural production in the country.
One of the greatest hidden statistics in the country, and one that we would like the Government to reveal, is how much acreage in western Canada is now owned by the Canadian banking system. One of the changes that has taken place, and which no one wishes to talk about, is the number of bankruptcies and the inability of Canadian farmers to refinance their operations.For example, the debt of an average prairie farmer in 1986 was thought to be approximately $88,000. That was an increase of $30,000 since 1981. The income available to pay that debt has been dropping. The projected loss in realized net income for a Manitoba farmer will drop by 27.5 per cent. Because of these and other factors, a study done by the Westarc Group, a group working out of
May 23, 1989

western Manitoba, predicts that 4,600 farms will be lost in Manitoba alone over the next seven years.
In Saskatchewan and Alberta, the realized net income will be reduced by 15 per cent. The Saskatchewan pool estimates that 17 per cent of that province's farms are in financial trouble with more than one-half of that number in a non-viable state.
Last year, western farmers paid $7.27 per tonne of grain as their share of transportation costs to get their product to port for export. This year, this share will increase by 24 per cent to an average of $9 per tonne.
A few weeks ago, in various national news reports, the entire country saw the clouds of dust blowing off the fields in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta. This is no longer an isolated phenomenon on the Prairies, because it has become widespread and is feared in every comer. A visible dust cloud means a loss of five tonnes per acre of topsoil through soil erosion. This used to be a localized problem in the southern part of the Prairies, but now it is shared by everyone.
Without a strong farm economy, the viability of small towns and even larger centres such as Winnipeg is susceptible to increased pressures and decline. If farmers leave the land, the businesses they support will close or relocate. For example, in St. Anne, Manitoba, there is an unemployment rate of 29.6 per cent; St. Rose du Lac, 21.2 per cent; Neepawa, which is located in the riding of the Minister responsible for western economic diversification, has an unemployment rate of 12.1 per cent. Those rates would be higher if it was not for the sad fact that many young people, who see no future for them in their home towns, leave for places such as Winnipeg, and now beyond to Toronto and Vancouver.
There are community leaders in those towns who have attempted to get assistance from the Government to create jobs, but there has been no help forthcoming. They are not interested in creating megaprojects, but they have realistic plans to employ several people in the manufacturing of unique products that would aid in diversification of the western economy, particularly in small towns. They went to the Department specifically created for that purpose, the Department of the Minister responsible for western economic diversification, but
Supply
they have come back empty handed time and time again. It seems that the Government is more interested in giving millions to multinationals like Boeing than several thousands to a small group in a community such as Roblin.
The Government has not done a proper job in making these programs available to people in rural Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. An extensive survey of communities and farmers in Manitoba revealed that 50 per cent of people were unaware of any program which offered assistance to those who wanted to start small businesses. In other words, the very people the Government states it wants to help have no idea of the programs available to them. A total of 83 per cent of those surveyed stated that there was a need for the Government to provide better access to information about Government grants and programs available to individuals and communities.
At a series of community meetings held by the Westarc Group in its study of labour market needs in rural Manitoba, it soon became evident that program eligibility requirements that "may be appropriate for urban applicants may be entirely unsuited to the realities of rural Canada and thus thought to discriminate against rural utilization". This was stated by a group that works in Brandon, Manitoba. It is not a group from Winnipeg, Toronto, or a research group from Ottawa. These are the people the Government states it is attempting to help who are speaking out against the Government programs.
They also stated: "The CJS criteria of 42 weeks of unemployment is not applicable to rural areas-traditional unemployment conceptualizations do not have relevance for farmers and thus prevent the needed utilization of CJS benefits in much of rural Manitoba".
The report also stated: "Existing criteria preclude many small businesses having less than the required number of employees from participating and training grants. The majority of rural businesses fit in this category".
Another issue of concern relating to the applicability of Government programs to the rural area is that there are no programs related to the service industry. In urban areas, supporting the service industry is not as much of a

May 23, 1989
Supply
problem, but in the country there is a real need to service the producers who already exist. The same study stated: "The view was expressed that existing programs are geared to manufacturing and processing. Since the majority of business in rural communities is in the service sector, the result is that very little Government programming is available for the small business sector in rural Canada".
How can a farmer survive in rural western Canada if there are not businesses around to deal with, to support, and to give service needed to make a farm a successful enterprise? If those services do not exist, the farmer must travel farther in order to get needed supplies and services. Good weather will not wait while a part is shipped from a regional distributor far away from the farm.
The western Canadian agricultural economy is also affected by the way that international markets have changed in the last 10 years. The United States has decided to pursue an aggressive marketing strategy to get rid of the agricultural surpluses created by its subsidy policy. For example, through the export enhancement program, American exporters receive a free bushel of grain for every three that they can sell. The exporter can do what he likes with this extra bushel, but usually it is built in to the over-all price, giving an automatic subsidy of 25 per cent. At the height of this program, the Americans were giving away one free bushel with every two sold for a subsidy of 33 per cent.
Who is in charge of this system in the United States of subsidies and giveaways? None other than Clayton Yeut-ter, the same U.S. dignitary who is now the Secretary of Agriculture and better known in this country as the architect of the "level playing field" and the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. He did us a great favour.
The European Economic Community is also involved in the subsidy battle. Neither the United States nor the EEC are concerned with managing farm output in the best interests of the producers. They have an open cheque-book policy. The more you grow, the more subsidy you get. This has created a surplus that both these economic units are willing to give away at fire sale prices.
In the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement there is a provision that both countries will sit down to discuss what constitutes a subsidy and what does not. There are 15 specific programs and agencies listed in the Free Trade Agreement as being up for discussion. The Government, more like an admission of guilt than any negotiating strategy or policy position, has already started to eliminate nine of our programs.
Aside from the cuts I have already mentioned, the Government has cut over $396 million from the Estimates for the Agriculture Stabilization Act, Special Grains Program, and the Advance Payments Program. Even though no definition of subsidy has been agreed on, the Government assumes that it is the guilt party. It is not Canada that is subsidizing agricultural exports to the greatest extent in the world, it is other countries. Ministers across the way might try to remember that once in a while. Even if they do not know where they are going, they might think about where they came from.
In conclusion, the Government has failed the western Canadian farmer in many important ways. It has failed to build up the infrastructure needed to ensure production and that support services are there. It has failed to provide job-creation programs of relevance to young people in western Canada. It has failed to maintain income stabilization programs across the West. It has failed in its transportation policies to support the western farmer. Finally, it is failing miserably in negotiating an agreeable situation among our international competitors.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate with a great deal of pleasure. It is not that I agree with the substance of the motion, but I believe it is important to talk about agriculture, and particularly to hear what the Opposition has to say on this very important issue, because it is indeed an important issue and one that we have spent a great deal of time and effort on, in addressing some of the most important issues. Let me preface my remarks by quoting from the motion:
That this House condemns the Government for its destructive
policies affecting Canadian farmers -


Robert (Bob) Speller: Hear, hear!
May 23, 1989


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The record clearly speaks for itself. The young gentleman opposite is saying "hear hear". I know he had some association with a previous Minister. If that Government had come within a quarter or a tenth of the support that this Government has provided agriculture then he could stand up and clap. But I can say that their performance in terms of support for agriculture was so dismal that it is disgraceful. It is disgusting.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Talk to the fruit farmers and vegetable farmers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. gentleman from Willowdale, and have always complimented him. If he could cut through the fog sometimes and get to some very salient points about agriculture, I would probably tend to listen to his rational judgment more than I would to some of the other so-called experts over there.
Let me begin by dealing with The Globe and Mail story that occurred yesterday, I believe, which suggested that the $1 billion grain subsidy was not necessary. It must have been a Liberal who was involved in making that kind of assertion.
I do not know whether other Members have addressed this particular issue, but I think it is worthy of comment.
The article states:
The billion dollar federal subsidy payment to the Canadian farmers in 1987 may have been unnecessary, a report to Agriculture Canada suggests.


David Walker: We didn't pay them to make that study. It is your own study.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That does not preclude me from criticizing it. I am fairly open and blunt about things. I want to take issue with this particular conclusion because, quite frankly, if you were to go back and look at the average income in the grains and oilseeds sector from the market-place, the average income was approximately $2.4 billion between 1981 and 1984.
Because of the commencement of the trade war that occurred in 1985, receipts to the grain and oilseeds farmers from the market-place dropped to $1.2 billion, a reduction of approximately 50 per cent. In 1986, it dropped to $945 million and it dropped to $475 million in
Supply
1987. Need I go any further? I am sure hon. colleagues in the House will recognize that that was a very dramatic decline, which was triggered not by this Government but by the vagaries of the market-place and the price war which existed out there.
That brings me to the very important and fundamental point that many Members in the House and others overlook. It is the reliance upon the export market for the viability of our agriculture industry. This country's agriculture industry relies on export markets for about 50 per cent of its sales. That is probably higher than most other countries, and compares to about 20 per cent in the United States.
For example, the Province of Saskatchewan probably gets some 85 per cent of its income from the international market-place; about 80 per cent in the case of Manitoba; and 60 per cent to 70 per cent for Alberta.
What happens in the international market-place is of vital importance to Canadian agriculture, a factor that we sometimes tend to overlook. Whenever there is a price war, wherever there are export restraints, excessive subsidies or quotas, restrictions or trade distortions, our agriculture industry hurts. We must respond to that.
Today we are engaged in that scenario in terms of the approximately $200 billion paid in over-all subsidies toward the global agriculture community. A nation like Canada simply cannot afford to sustain that level of support for an unlimited period.
It is very important to do whatever we can to bring about some order and stability in the market-place. That is why the activities in Geneva, and at the Uruguay Round are very important for the long-term vitality of Canadian agriculture.
We must address the issue of the European common agricultural policy and take what steps we can to bring about a greater degree of reduction in subsidies and export enhancement programs. I think Members opposite should think twice when they suggest that we are selling the shop because we are engaged in dialogue and discussion that will hopefully bring about this kind of order. We know that there are problems.
Reference has been made to the drought situation. Approximately $847 million has been paid out of the crop insurance program, and half of the premiums, about $200 million, are funded by the federal Government. We

May 23, 1989
Supply
are engaged in discussions now with the provinces to try to bring about another formula so that we can achieve two things: a better balance in terms of the equitable cost-sharing program, but also an improved program so that we have a better penetration of the crop insurance program.
When we talk about the need for establishing longterm policies and programs, that is precisely what we are thinking about. We want to establish the kinds of safety nets that will eliminate the necessity of those types of ad hoc programs, whether it be drought assistance to the grain farmer or to the livestock producers.
These are very difficult things to administer, especially when one tries to do it in a fair and equitable way. On every occasion, whether it was the Special Canadian Grains Program or whether it was drought assistance, we have always tried to sit down with the producer groups to work out a mechanism for the payment and distribution of these moneys in a manner that would be consistent with the over-all objectives which they advanced.
That is precisely what we did in the case of the Special Canadian Grains Program. We have done it with respect to the current drought payment which is presently being distributed. If there is any criticism, it would have to be levelled against us for trying to design a program that meets the needs of the producer, to ensure it has sufficient flexibility so that those who are really in need receive and those who are not really in need do not receive. In the past, the programs have been distributed on a broader basis and some who have had good crops still received the drought payment.
We must also consider the importance of recognizing those individuals who buy crop insurance each and every year. Surely there should be some advantage for those who tend to look after themselves.
I am happy to report that we have seemed to reach an all-time high in crop insurance enrolment. Some 85 per cent of producers have enrolled in the Province of Saskatchewan, about 70 per cent in the Province of Manitoba and 50 per cent in the Province of Ontario, which I believe is higher than usual. Some 60 per cent of producers have enrolled in Quebec, 75 per cent in Alberta, and 65 per cent in British Columbia, for a total of 144,000 producers who have enrolled, an average of 68
per cent across the country. That compares with 132,250 in 1988.
It is also important to note that in terms of precipitation and temperature, the accumulated precipitation deficit taken at the Lethbridge, Alberta Station shows that the deficiency in rainfall was much more severe in the last period, 1979-88 than between the years 1929 and 1939. As well, in terms of average mean temperatures, the temperatures were higher between 1979-88 than they were between 1929-38. That really tells us that the drought conditions were much more severe during this period of time than they were during the so-called dirty thirties.
I would like to return to the drought payments and refer to the latest statistics that we have. There are 57,730 cheques in the mail for a total of $214 million. As my colleague the Minister responsible has indicated, the payments are going out. We expect that the final payments should be in the mail some time during the month of July.
When we look at the level of assistance that has been provided by the Government and when we look at the realized net income, we see that in spite of all the hardship-the drought and the collapse in commodity prices-we still end up with some rather interesting figures. In 1988, the realized net income for farmers across Canada reached $5.2 billion. That is the highest on record. In 1987, that figure was $4.7 billion. In 1986, it was $4.2 billion. In 1985, it was $3.8 billion. There has been a steady progression of roughly around 30 per cent to 35 per cent.
We recognize that in some quarters that may not be seen as enough. However, when we consider that the federal Government alone put in $6.1 billion of income support to the farm community in 1988, and when we consider that the over-all net realized income was $5.2 billion, we quickly realize that the federal Government has put in more than has been realized in terms of net income. That does not strike me as a Government that is uncaring. It does not strike me as a Government that has turned its back on farmers. The fact of the matter is we have not turned our back on the farmers. When it comes to supporting Canadian agriculture, the Government's record is unsurpassed by any other Government since I
May 23, 1989

have been around this institution. The figures will bear me out on that.
There can be criticisms of whether we were effective enough, or whether there was fair and equitable distribution. Whenever we look at ad hoc programs we see that the difficulty is that there is a tendency from time to time, because all the elements may not be weighed, for charges to be made of discrimination between commodities. There are charges that one region is being treated better than another. That is what happens when we get into the responses to individual problems that occur. This is one of the reasons we are going through the policy review.
We are trying to establish a new policy framework based upon the success or failure rate of any existing policy. We also want to put in place, hopefully, a regime that will provide some permanence, some confidence, some stability and some security, whether it is in the area of safety nets, stabilization, crop insurance, farm financing, research and development, marketing or the strengthening and modification of our agriculture marketing boards. This will ensure that the farmers can take advantage of the opportunities out there. All these things are under review based upon the experiences that we have had over the last four or five years. I think that is eminently sensible. It seems to me that that is one of the things that should be done from time to time.
We have a situation, whether we like it or not, where our international trading environment is in a bit of turmoil. That is a fact of life. However, we hope that this will be resolved at some point in time. We have to be positioned in such a way that we take advantage of those new trading opportunities. Our goal is to maintain and secure what we have today in terms of our market penetration, but also to try to ensure that we can position ourselves in such a way that we can further enhance the opportunities for international trade, given the importance that we place upon trade and the future of Canadian agriculture.
I heard a great many things about the Budget. We are all aware of the difficulties we have, as a nation, in terms of our fiscal position. We have heard it said many times that the cost of servicing the debt consumes about 35 cents of every taxpayer's dollar that we collect. So it is an issue we must address.
Supply
While there has been some criticism, some farm organizations have come out very positively in terms of supporting the Budget. The Canadian Agricultural Policy Alliance-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Who are they?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will qualify that. On Thursday, May 4, the Canadian Agricultural Policy Alliance stated that it is supportive of the federal Government's initiative to reduce the current deficit. It went on to state: "Canadian Agricultural Policy Alliance members are prepared to face reduction in farm spending so long as matching reductions are taking place elsewhere in the economy". I think that is a very important key. What has happened in this budgetary process is that there have been cuts across the board. We are still looking at other areas that may have to undergo the knife, so to speak. I think that is a very responsible position.
Who are they? For my hon. friend from Kingston, who I invite to come out West, these are basically western organizations. If nobody will invite the Hon. Member I will invite him.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Thank you. I would be glad to come.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is made up of the Alberta pork producers, the Canadian cattlemen, the Manitoba Farm Business Association, the Manitoba hog producers, the Saskatchewan Pork Marketing Board, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, the United Grain Growers, western barley growers and Canadian wheat growers.
I have something else here put out by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I think most Members in the House are familiar with them. They said this:
The federal government, like fanners, must pay its debts. It isn't always pleasant, but the day of reckoning has come! The federal budget is a start. Agriculture has tremendous potential in Canada, but we cannot do it saddled with a heavy national debt. Government spending must be curtailed. The national debt must be addressed by all Canadians. In our generation we set out to mortgage our children's future, in the process-we mortgaged our own.
That is what the President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association had to say. Members of that organization realize that in controlling the deficit we can look forward to a progressive reduction in our interest rates. I think that has been indicated since the Budget has been introduced. While there have been modest declines I

May 23, 1989
Supply
think we are on the right track. Let us hope that that continues.
As I said, when it comes to supporting Canadian farmers and the agri-food industry, our Government has a proud record which I believe is unsurpassed.
During the previous four years the federal Government invested some $17 billion in agriculture. That is more than double the previous four-year period.
We have stood behind agriculture, behind farmers and the industry associated with it, because it is an important industry. It is about a $22 billion megaproject in terms of direct gross income to the farmers across the country. Those are big dollars and the multiplier effect, depending on who we listen to, is four or five. It does generate about 10 per cent of our GNP. It earns billions of dollars in export earnings, and it is a very important way of life.
We have extended a helping hand to the agriculture industry when it was in need. I do not think that farmers expect so-called hand-outs when they can fend for themselves. What we are looking at now are programs and policies that would allow them to become more self-reliant.
We are looking at programs and policies that are in place so that they can make market decisions based upon the reality of the market-place, but at the same time, on a set of policies and programs that are announced and that are clearly established. I believe it is very difficult for them to make decisions on the basis of not knowing for sure whether they are going to get a drought relief program, or whether they are going to get a special Canadian grains program. Or when the stabilization program goes belly-up, whether the Government of the day can provide the necessary money to replenish it. Those are some of the challenges that we have had to go through. It has been a very serious time but we have responded in a period where we have been attempting to bring the deficit into line.
When we look at some of the facts, there are a lot of myths about the state of our agriculture. I am not underestimating the difficulties that are there. Clearly, there are difficulties. When we look at some of the facts, the family owned farm enterprise is quite alive and well in Canada, contrary to the views expressed here in this House. The allegation that they are being gobbled up by
huge large-scale agri-businesses is not true. The family farm business still represents about 99 per cent of Canada's agricultural production units. When we look at farm finances, debt loads have increased, but the value of farm assets has kept pace. They have gone down but they are coming back up again. The ratio of debts to assets is marginally higher than it was just 25 years ago.
As a matter of fact, in terms of equity, our statistics reveal that farmers have about 80 per cent equity in their holdings.
The other charge is the aging farm population. There is a slightly higher percentage of farmers over the age of 35 today than there was in the sixties. Everyone has not given up on agriculture. One of the reasons that everyone has not given up on agriculture is because they know that they have a government in office that stands behind them in a time of need. They know that we will be there to help them through the adjustment process. They know that we will be there to help them in sorting out the trade issues in the United States and throughout the world. They know that eventually they will have a brand new set of policies that will inspire confidence, optimism and hope for the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Willowdale.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I have no doubt about the sincerity of the Deputy Prime Minister when it comes to helping the farmers in his region of Canada. I just wish, however, that he had been at the negotiations with the United States on the free trade deal on behalf of the farmers of my part of the country, southwestern Ontario.
Take for example, the snap-back provisions which are designed to protect Canadian growers of fruit and vegetables from a sudden price decrease on goods coming in from the United States. As the Minister knows, we are now rid of many of the protections that those farmers in southwestern Ontario have had through the marketing board and things like that. In terms of protecting our vegetable and our fruit farmers, these snap-back provisions are absolutely unworkable.
First, the price has to fall below 10 per cent of what it was in a five-year average. Second, that price must be down a full five days before this tax can even come into effect. Third, the sum average of Canadian acreage under vegetables or the soft fruits must not have
May 23, 1989

increased during that particular period. So much for who controls Canadian farmland.
This snap-back provision which gives the illusion of safety and protection to southern Ontario fanners is nothing more than that, an illusion. As the Government of Ontario studies have pointed out, had this snap-back been applied in any of the major cases over the past two decades, it would have helped Ontario farmers in only about 1 per cent of the cases. This is why I wish that the Deputy Prime Minister had been there at the trade table negotiating the best interests of Canada in the agriculture sector.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a slippery question to answer. First, I have to compliment and thank the Hon. Member for the very complimentary remarks he made about me. I have known him for a long time and he is that way. He is a very nice gentleman and then he tries to use the spear. I say that with the greatest of respect.
As in so many other cases, what we have are the opponents of the Free Trade Agreement spreading fear about all the bad things about the free trade deal. It is rather interesting that even the Hon. Member's own brother is standing up now on platforms in Ontario and the United States and around the world, preaching the benefits of the Free Trade Agreement. His Ministers are doing the same thing. Mr. Nixon's speech in London is a real model. I use it. I quote it all the time. It is really very, very good. It is rather amazing how that flip-flop has occurred. I appreciate the fact that they now recognize that the trade agreement has been good for all parts of Canada. In particular, it has been good for Ontario.
He talks about the snap-back. He is partially right. In terms of the acreage, there can be an increase in acreage of fruits and vegetables to offset what may be taken out of grapes. I think that should be clear. The details of the snap-back decision are being worked out and the implementation process is moving along very well.
The comments that I have received are that this is going to be a much more effective mechanism than we had before. That is coming from the growers and the industry. The Member shakes his head in the negative. I can assure him that the comments of those people who
Supply
are involved with our people in terms of putting in place this provision-and we are working with the industry-are very, very positive. It gives them an inventory of prices which they never had access to before. They are more accurate in terms of whether in fact there is an undue reduction in pricing which would constitute dumping.
When we look at the totality of it, I think the Hon. Member when he sees it in place will probably change his mind, just as his brother has changed his mind. I look forward to that day.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) in his response to the Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) has talked about slippery politicians. I listened with care to his remarks where he talked very carefully about the horrors of the vagaries of the market, which all of us who have lived and died in agriculture in western Canada know very much about. Yet, out of the other side of his mouth, he was talking about the need for order and stability whereby I think he justified the actions of his Government in the last few years. He met this morning with Clayton Yeutter, the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States. I presume they had their usual friendly meeting. We are very concerned in this House and beyond this House in the agricultural community as to precisely where this Government is trying to take us in its friendship with the United States and in the international discussions that have been held on trade and agriculture.
Does this Government really believe in the Bush-Rea-gan theory that they espouse so clearly at all international trade talks on agriculture, namely, that agriculture can only function better if there is absolutely no Government assistance and absolutely no Government interference on price and trade in agriculture? Is the Government really moving in that direction when it is trying to appear on the international stage as being very friendly and helpful to the United States, or does the Minister have another agenda? If so, would he please tell the farmers of this country what it is because there is no way they will survive if there is absolutely no room for Government assistance when times get bad.

May 23, 1989
Supply


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there again is a clear example of the distortions of what I have said and what I have been saying. No one has said that we are going to pull out of agriculture support completely.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The U.S. has.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I just met with the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States and he said the same thing. What licence do you have to say that in this House? What is really bothering me around here is that we have Members opposite who have about as much respect for the truth as a tomcat has for a marriage licence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Hon. Member is an experienced Member. He should know enough to address his remarks to the Chair. He should also know enough that there are rules in this House with regard to calling Members careless with the truth and so on. He will know if he was a careful Minister of Agriculture, that it has indeed been the policy of the President of the United States and the two presidents-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not true.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member is now getting into debate. I am sure that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture will want to make sure that his remarks are consistent with the rules of this place.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: And are consistent with the facts.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Again, when it comes to subsidies the Americans have been subsidizing. As a matter of fact, their wheat which we-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is not the position they are taking in the talks.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If you want to answer your own question, why don't you stand up and answer it?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You are avoiding it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Madam Speaker, I am not avoiding the question. I want to try to put some facts before the Hon. Member so that he can go back home and tell his people the truth. As a result of the Free Trade Agreement we now have full access to the American figures on support for wheat, oats and barley under the Free Trade Agreement. May I tell the Hon. Member that the U.S. supports its wheat growers to the tune of $93.97 per tonne and Canada supports ours at the rate of $67.05 per tonne. On barley the American support is $80.44 per tonne and Canada's support is $41.69 per tonne. What we are really talking about here is the need to lower the level of subsidy and support and to gain more out of the market-place because the treasuries of all countries collectively can no longer continue to afford the huge bill.
The Hon. Member has no respect whatever for the taxpayer's dollar, whether he be a Canadian, an American or whatever.


Mr. Epp:: It is spend, spend, spend.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think that all agriculture communities throughout the world recognize that this has to take place. But, Madam Speaker, I can tell you quite frankly that it is going to be very difficult for this Government or any other Government to continue to support agriculture to the tune of $6 billion per year. That has been a dramatic increase in the last five years and we are not suggesting for one minute that we are going to withdraw. That is where I take issue with the Hon. Member. He knows better than that. We are there to bring about some orderliness and stability and to do our part in bringing about trade reform and the removal of trade distorting subsidies so we can, in fact, continue to capitalize on the important markets we have throughout the world.
May I simply put this on the record, Madam Speaker. Of the top five markets for agriculture exports, the United States is one of our best ones followed by the U.S.S.R., Japan, the European Community and China. It is important for us to ensure that we can maintain those avenues of markets. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to preserve what we have, enhance our access and thereby our markets so our agricultural industry can continue to grow, and we can continue to build upon that 50 per cent. Without it we will not have a very strong agricultural industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, it is not exactly every day that we have an opportunity to put questions to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski). I wonder if we might get agreement to put a few questions to him? I
May 23, 1989

am sure there would be unanimous consent for a few more questions-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would need unanimous consent.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there have been a number of opposition days, and the Opposition has finally come to the conclusion that agriculture has some importance. We have had two Ministers and we will have three Ministers and I just invite the Opposition to put another agriculture day down. We will be glad to debate the issues.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. This is one Party that has always considered agriculture veiy important.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Laporte: We have been involved in agriculture matters for quite some time and in fact we have put forth a very practical and veiy logical agricultural policy during the last campaign.
Agriculture, as the Hon. Minister indicated, is an important part of the economic fabric of this nation. It contributes some 10 per cent of the GNP in this country, it employs well over half a million people, and at this time there are some 300,000 family farms in Canada. Unfortunately, that number is down from a high of 723,000 farms in 1941.
I would like to widen this debate slightly if I could. While agriculture is important, there is also the entire rural infrastructure of this country that is also important. We have not only family farms but we have small towns and communities that are an integral part of the agriculture community. We have small businesses, everything from implement dealerships to general stores. We have services such as doctors, hospitals and lawyers who are part of the whole rural infrastructure. We have services such as senior citizens' homes. Infrastructures are interdependent upon each other, each facet is interdependent upon the other.
The problem with this whole rural infrastructure is that since World War II it has been coming under increasing pressure and stress. Certainly the size of the
Supply
average family farm has increased dramatically. We have less than half the number of family farms that we had in the 1940s and part of that, of course, is due to technological advancement. Certainly the days of the 160-acre farm are gone, and so they should be with the horse-drawn days and the long hard days of back-breaking work which has been replaced by significant technological advancements. However, there is another aspect to this entire demise that is starting to take place with respect to the rural infrastructure in Canada. Successive Governments since the Second World War have done little to encourage the survival of family farms and rural infrastructure generally.
The fact that Governments have done little says a lot about the Government's overall attitude toward agriculture. This care-not attitude has been clear since the Government was elected in 1984. Government Members talk of the billions of dollars the Government has put toward agriculture and that is true, it has, but unfortunately, the money has gone largely to ad hoc programs, programs that are ill-conceived and do not promote the family farm and rural infrastructure generally. These programs have been designed to promote election victories for successive Conservative Governments.
The Government's win-a-vote policy is best exemplified by the so-called drought relief program announced some 11 days before the last federal election. As early as August of last year, farmers knew that drought was a serious matter in rural Canada and the Government promised a drought relief program. In fact, in 1985, it promised a permanent drought relief program but it has yet to deliver on that promise.
Just 11 days before the election, the Government announced that $850 million would go to support farmers suffering from drought. This program was announced for political purposes. There was no indication of how it would be paid out. It was simply announced that $850 million would be provided, and government Members proceeded to state that farmers in the extensively hit areas of drought would receive up to $45 per acre. Doing the calculations, it becomes pretty obvious that if all farmers in the severely drought stricken areas would receive $45 per acre, the final amount would be far in excess of $850 million.

May 23, 1989
Supply
I felt sorry for my Conservative opponent during the election campaign. Ele had extreme difficulty, with justification, trying to explain the program. He could not do it because there were no details announced.
When the House reconvened in December, Members on this side of the House asked the Government when we could expect a drought payment. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated that we could expect forms out within 10 days. Government Members had indicated earlier that final payments would be out in early January. January came and went and there were no forms and no payments.
Then government Members said that they would have the final payments out by seeding time because farmers needed money during seeding time so they could put their seed in the ground. Seeding time has come and gone and the final payments are not out. The application forms are out and money is starting to come in. Now government Members are saying that funds will be out in July because farmers need money to purchase the chemicals that they spray.
At an agriculture committee meeting not too long ago, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) was present. One of the Minister's experts indicated that in fact, final payments would come some time after July. Now I suppose government Members will be saying that the payments will come out during harvest time because farmers need money during harvest time.
It is clear that this program was ill conceived. It was simply announced for political purposes. The unfortunate part of the program is that it was ad hoc and ill conceived. The Government is now promising a permanent program. I hope that it will finally come through with that program. Certainly, it has been saying it would since 1985. The other concern of Members on this side of the House is that when that program is finally unleashed on the Canadian public, we hope that it will be aimed at maintaining family farms or rural communities and will not simply be a product of big agri-business with its interests at heart.
The Minister indicated earlier that there have been increased profits in agriculture in recent years, and that is true. That cannot be denied. The other fact is that there are record debts in agriculture. Over $24 billion in farm debt exists in Canada today. Communities are
closing and the Government is about to inflict a neoconservative policy on the nation.
While there have been record returns, there have also been record numbers of farms going bankrupt. What is happening is very clear. We are starting to develop an economic class structure within rural communities. There are a few farms that are becoming larger and more successful and a great many family farms that are struggling to survive. Despite the amount of money that has been thrown at past programs, it has not fallen in the right places. The programs have not been well thought out.
It is clear that the Minister will come through with a program for agriculture, but we on this side of the House are concerned about what kind of program it will be. This Government prides itself on consultation. It says it consults with all groups and listens well. Unfortunately, it listens better to certain segments than to others. We can best see that with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Back in February, the Government announced that oats would be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Government said that farmers wanted this and had been consulted on it. The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds indicated that he had received hundreds of letters from producers across Canada who were in favour of removing oats from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, and he said that he consulted with farm groups. The reality is that some consultation was undertaken but it was not wide consultation.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture passed a unanimous resolution calling on the Government not to remove oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board without allowing western Canadian producers to vote on it. The Government has ignored that. It has ignored calls from the prairie wheat pools. Certainly the Saskatchewan and Manitoba wheat pools have called for no removal of oats without a producer vote.
The Government has ignored the comments and advice of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board. The advisory committee is composed of members duly elected by some 135,000 permit book holders from across western Canada. These members were elected to advise the Government on Wheat Board matters but the Government ignores them.
May 23, 1989

Who did the Government listen to? The Government will say that the United Grain Growers and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association agrees with the policy and that is fair because these groups include oats producers. However, government Members will go on to include the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the Alberta Pork Producers, the Saskatchewan Pork Marketing Board, the Western Barley Growers Association and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I am not sure how many of those groups are composed of actual producers, but those associations do not produce oats. The advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board should have more to say about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board than the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission.
When oats was removed from the Canadian Wheat Board, it was indicated there was only some 1 per cent. That 1 per cent represents $300 million to the Canadian economy, and more particularly to wheat board producers. We can see that the Government did not listen, that wide consultation did not take place. The Decima poll has been referred to here today which was released by producers. In fact, the Decima poll is the polling authority that the Government uses all the time. It indicated that some 62 per cent wished oats to remain on the Canadian Wheat Board and that some 31 per cent were opposed to it, and a full two-thirds were producers.
The Government will respond that approximately 41 per cent of producers believe that oats produced outside the Wheat Board will receive higher returns. The producers who believe that oats inside the Wheat Board will receive high returns is 37 per cent. It is a virtual saw. If Government Members would look at the poll, they would see that it states that prairie farmers are unwilling to give up the security of marketing oats through the Wheat Board. While they recognize that there may be other means of marketing which would provide higher returns, they appear to sense a comfort level with the Canadian Wheat Board which will be lost as a result of the federal Government's decision. There is a risk attached to change, and respondents are not convinced that the risk is worth-while even if it means higher returns. The reliability and security which the Wheat Board provides is an important factor for farmers when considering the removal of some grains.
Supply
It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that producers in western Canada want the Wheat Board, and this Government simply has refused to listen to the majority of those producers. Another example of this Government's attitude toward agriculture in this country is clearly seen with respect to the Budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated earlier that agriculture in this country is improving. Perhaps the Minister of Finance should have a chat with the Minister of Agriculture who just a moment ago indicated that average rainfall is now less than it was in the thirties. Perhaps if they exchanged some information, the Minister of Finance would not make those remarks. Perhaps the Minister of Finance should take a trip to Saskatchewan. Maybe he should take a trip to the Estevan area where recently there have been high winds of such an extent that farmers are having to re-seed, some for the second time. Perhaps he should visit the community of Rosetown where there is a severe drought or how about Davidson or Watrous where producers are suffering.
The Finance Minister says that the West is recovering. Certainly the drought is still in existence. Certainly world prices have not come up. Yet we have a Minister premising his remarks with respect to cuts in agriculture with the fact that agriculture is on the mend. The Government will be coming forth, we believe, with proposals this summer, with a plan, and it will be a wide, extensive plan with respect to agriculture and with respect to the whole infrastructure of rural Canada. It is going to affect everything from transport to seed production to purchase of grains. It is going to be a program that will have a tremendous affect on the future of this nation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated that the Government is not turning its back on family farms. He indicated there was more to agriculture than simply growing grain and the economics of agriculture. In fact, it is a way of life, and that is true. I certainly hope the Minister in putting forth the proposals will consider that way of life. I, and those of us on this side of the House, have real concerns with respect to that. We have concerns that in fact the Government has the ear of companies such as Cargill and Canadian Pacific, companies which are not concerned with the future of the family farm, companies which are concerned simply with making a profit, companies which are concerned with the bottom line. That bottom line does not measure into the way of life for rural Canada. There are factors that simply cannot be measured. This is a Government that

May 23, 1989
Supply
has to philosophically decide whether it wants to simply look at the bottom line or whether it wants to maintain a viable rural infrastructure that includes not only family farms but businesses and all the services that exist within that entire structure.
When that program comes out, and hopefully it will come out this summer, we look forward to having a good opportunity to address it, to put forth observations. We hope that the Government will in fact take a wide range approach.
Certainly thus far it has not. When the Government talks about the number of groups that are in favour of its program so far, there is one thing these groups have in common. This is certainly true with respect to groups that were in favour of oats being removed from the Wheat Board. As I indicated before, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission has had very little to do with the production of oats. But what the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the hog producers and the Cattlemen's Association have in common is that these are the very groups that agree with the Government's position. These are the very groups that sponsored an ad during the recent election campaign in support of free trade. These are the groups that have one mind. This is one aspect, one view of the future of agriculture. The Government should open its ears and eyes and pay more attention to the rest of the producers. Certainly it should not be taking such a narrow view. Certainly it should be listening to the producers. It is very clear from the Decima poll and from other groups in this country that there is another view.
It is our hope and concern that when new programs are developed, and we welcome a permanent drought relief program and new measures in agriculture, that producers in western Canada, and across the rest of this nation, should have a say as to which direction this Government is going and simply not listen to the big agri-business and the Cargills and the Canadian Pacifies of this world.


Mr. Jordan:: Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if my colleague would like to react to a position that the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) has stated in the House and what he would read into this kind of comment. He stated May 12 that the Canadian Government will honour its commitment to maintain marketing boards. I assume that he included there milk marketing
boards. I assume my colleague is aware that industrial milk, one leg of a dairy farmer's livelihood, has now been capped. The price on industrial milk has been capped in this country for the next 20 months until December, 1990.
As a matter of fact, someone says it has been frozen. It has not even been frozen because it can come down under certain conditions. A freeze would be better. A farmer probably would have accepted a freeze. But under certain conditions, the price of industrial milk could come down. That would leave the farmer, like no other individual in this country to my knowledge, no segment of the society, with a cap placed on his wages or pay cheque imposed by this Government. Would my colleague comment on that treatment? I am sure those opposite would say, with all the salve that we have had poured out to the industry today, that that is not a fact and it is not going to hurt the farmers. The farmers are very concerned. They will be in a crisis situation unless they can see some program introduced to counter this attack. It is an attack on their livelihood.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Laporte: This is a Government that is not the friend of supply management. That is for sure. This is a Government that is going to undermine supply management where it can. Unfortunately, it will use international trading negotiations as an excuse. Certainly, the problems with industrial milk are only one example.
There is another example with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board. When the initial prices came out recently for the Canadian Wheat Board, they were lower than most producers expected. Prices for grain were very low. Ihking into account the fact that the world price of grain is still low, the amounts of grain that are in reserve are down. As a result, grain prices were expected to rise dramatically. Yet, the announcement by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) indicated that initial prices were very low. The reason is simply that the Americans do not appreciate the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not like the benefit it brings to the Canadian producers. They are trying to effectively handcuff the Canadian Wheat Board. By making prices lower they are taking money out of the pockets of producers when they deliver the grain to the terminals. It is strictly the result of American pressure to bring lower initial prices with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board. There
May 23, 1989

is example after example with respect to that in supply management.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Cardiff:: I would like the Hon. Member to take a moment and comment upon the things that the Government has done. I am sure he would have to agree that what the Government has done sends a very strong signal of the support the Government has for supply management. In particular, I would like him to comment on the implementation of quotas for hatching eggs and chicks.
I would also like the Hon. Member's comments on the dairy industry. In particular, last year there was a time when the price of milk could have been reduced. That happened again in February this year. The Government, in consultation with the dairy industry, did not do that. In the wisdom of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Government it was decided not to lower those prices. There is nothing to say that when those prices are reviewed again that the prices should increase. That does not mean that the Government is not supporting the supply management sectors. As a Government we have done many things in support, in the last Parliament as well as since we have returned after the last election. We have shown strong support, in particular with respect to the implementation of the quotas on hatching eggs and chick marketing imports.
I would like the Hon. Member to comment on those two items.


Rodney Edward Laporte: With respect to dairy products, the Government has frozen industrial milk prices for some 20 months. That action, coupled with $14 million in budget cuts, will hurt dairy farmers. The National Association of Dairy Farmers of Canada has expressed its concern in news releases and in personal communications with the Minister. The current price of a hectolitre of industrial milk is approximately $47. It is often expressed as $47.06, if carrying charges are included.
Supply
When the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) appeared before the committee on May 10, he stated that even though the formula should have triggered two decreases in the past year, the Government did not lower the industrial milk price. I have seen this same argument expounded in information that the Government released. The DFC refutes this. First the Government states that last August the formula should have triggered a decrease of $1.89. That is the formula without indexation. DFC has stated that the Government contention is irrelevant because the costs have not been indexed forward. If it had been indexed, the price would have been unchanged at $46.93 at hectolitre.
Second, the Government stated that the formula should have triggered a 14-cent decrease. The Government is using an average of the last four quarters when DFC states it should use the last quarter only. If that had been done, the formula would have triggered an increase of 2.9 cents. Besides, the whole matter is irrelevant because there has to be at least a 2 per cent change in the formula to trigger an increase or a decrease. The DFC and the Government's calculation is very clear. Mark Twain had a saying that figures don't lie but liars figure. It is simple to take figures and programs and use them for one's own purpose. This is what the Government has done in the past.
I am not denying that the Government, has not had some programs which have benefited agriculture. The problem is to a large extent programs have been put forth with a feeling not for the future of agriculture, but simply with political opportunism in mind. That is the aspect we have been checking when looking at the programs of the Government.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: I would like to pick up on the thought of the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff). I would like to suggest that the Government has taken every opportunity to support the supply management system here in Canada.
First, in looking at the dairy industry, last February yoghurt and ice cream were put on the import control list. That was clearly to support the dairy industry in this country. As the Member for Huron-Bruce stated, more recently the broiler chicks and hatching eggs board was established and the borders were closed for those panic-

Supply
ular commodities. Again, that is a significant step to support the concept of supply management here in Canada.
We are now at a stage in the GATT discussions where the importance of Article 11 in supporting supply management is under discussion. As I said, that is at a very critical stage. The Canadian Government and the negotiators for the Government want to go into those discussions in the strongest position possible. It is important that Canada appear to be clean in these discussions.
I would ask the Member what he would suggest, or what his Party would do to strengthen the position of the Canadian negotiators involved in these multilateral trade negotiations. Certainly, the cap was put on for one reason only, and that was to strengthen the Canadians' bargaining position for the long-term support of supply management; to maintain, to clarify, and to strengthen Article 11 which is one of the major underpinnings of supply management here in Canada. If we do not appear to be clean, what would the Member suggest we do?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A very short answer from the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Basically, the Hon. Member has been espousing his Government's support for farm marketing. If the Hon. Member asks for a proposal, I would suggest that we open up the National Farm Products Marketing Act. At this point there are no other marketing agencies permitted under the Act. If the Member is sincere, perhaps he would agree to second a Private Member's Bill and perhaps we could convince the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) to put this Bill in place. That Bill would allow for new supply management boards wherever the majority of producers wanted a supply management board. If the Member is serious about that, that is one direction in which we can head.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Elgin.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk about something veiy close to my heart, Canadian agriculture. I especially appreciate the occasion to look at the farm situation in Ontario, the province with the largest and most diversified agricultural sector. I particularly relish relating to the House the Government's record in supporting the industry and in
laying the ground work for its long-term prosperity both in Ontario and across the nation.
Too often over the past few years the House has heard how bad it is down on the farm; depressed grain prices, bad weather, financial difficulties, drought. I should not need to remind Members that this Government has responded in an unprecedented way. We came forward with a program to buffer grain and oilseed producers across the country from the savage effects of an insane international trade war.
We have been working hard at the international level to put the brakes to this subsidy. There has been significant progress and Canada has been no small partner in that effort.
On the home front, we have helped individual farmers faced with financial difficulties come to new arrangements with their creditors. Innovative farm debt review boards have been a resounding success, helping many producers and their families stay on the farm.
Unfortunately, the weather has played hard ball these last few seasons but this Government has gone to bat for Canadian farmers. In 1986 we paid out over $200 million to help western farmers through a serious dry spell. In late 1987, the signs were back of severe drought in several parts of the country, including Ontario.
In early 1988, in co-operation with provinces, we announced assistance programs for green feed and livestock. Last fall we announced a major Canadian crop drought assistance program. First payments have been made and final payments are being determined.
It is true there has been bad news in agriculture these past years, but the federal Government has done more than its fair share to assist farmers.
The long-term dairy policy announced in January, 1986, ensured stability to an important agricultural sector, one that is worth $1 billion a year in Ontario alone. This Government's commitment to the dairy sector and the concept of supply management remains as firm as ever.
One area of particular interest to the Province of Ontario is how we have helped the tobacco industry adjust to new times and the decline in domestic demand. Working with the province, we set up several assistance programs. The federal Government has committed $45 million to the Ontario Assistance Program. This pro-
May 23, 1989

gram has two objectives. The first is to assist producers wishing to leave the tobacco growing industry. The second is to help rationalize the industry so that remaining producers can become more viable.
In addition, there is the Alternate Enterprise Initiative. This is another joint program with the province, worth almost $14 million. The program is designed to provide start-up funding for tobacco growers wishing to leave tobacco production for another crop.
The initiative focuses on alternate market development, alternate crop development and research.
Funding has been for projects involving a variety of crops including peanuts, cash crop hay, ginseng, evening primrose, onions, garlic, sweet potatoes and strawberries.
Over-all, it is an excellent example of how this Government has taken seemingly bad news of depressed prices and markets and turned it into a success story. Time and time again, we have managed this by working closely in partnership with the provinces and by relying on the initiative and drive of Canadian producers to adapt and compete.
It is that initiative and competitiveness which gave us complete confidence in reaching an accord on trade with the United States of America. The signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was good news indeed for Canadian producers. I know that our agrifood sector is eager to take on the Americans on their home turf.
We have provided Canadian farmers with an extraordinary opportunity, the chance to compete unfettered in a market of over 240 million consumers.
A recent trade seminar at the University of Michigan heard that Canada and Ontario stand to gain the most from the agreement. Ontario farmers can expect to ship more products across the border, and will likely sell more vegetables in major markets like Detroit.
For example, opportunities will be created with the reduction and elimination of the 25 per cent tariffs on broccoli and brussel sprouts and the 12.5 per cent duty on cauliflower entering the United States. Enhanced
Supply
access to the American market will also benefit floriculture, a growth industry that is in an enviable position to exploit the new market. Ontario $5.5 billion agriculture sector can only get bigger and stronger with opportunities like that at its doorstep. It is one major reason why there is renewed optimism in the crop and pasture lands, in the feed lots and packing plants, the greenhouses and berry fields. Things are not nearly as bad as yesterday's sensational headlines would have us believe.
Just look at the latest results from the Reid monthly survey. In April, Reid looked at how Canadian farmers assess their financial situation. The pollster found that there has been a marked improvement in Canadian farmers' outlook since the last such survey was undertaken two years ago. Farmers are feeling confident and upbeat. Reid noted that Ontario farmers are feeling particularly positive about how their operation did last year. This may be surprising to some, especially those who would believe that our agriculture sector is weak and not able to compete. But I am not surprised.
I believe the Canadian agri-food sector is more vibrant and resilient than it is often given credit. In fact, the present real picture in agriculture is considerably different than that painted by the media and those interested in portraying the family farm as a thing of the past.
I think it is important that we begin to set the record straight on a few current notions about the state of Canadian farming. It is true that our farm population has declined over the years. It was 11 per cent of the population in 1961 and was just 3.5 per cent in 1986. But rural Canada is still alive. The non-farm rural population has been stable at around 20 per cent. Total employment in agriculture has remained fairly constant since the early 1970s.
Although farm numbers are down, those farms with sales of $50,000 and more have actually increased. In fact, since 1981 there are 29,000 more farms with annual sales over $50,000.
Larger farms tend to be more viable. Almost two-thirds of farms with annual sales over $100,000 show little risk of failure.

Supply
In spite of the trend to larger farms, the family-owned farm remains the basic unit of agricultural production in Canada. Non-family corporations account for less than one-half of 1 per cent of Canadian farms.
We hear a lot about the farm debt situation. It is true that high levels of debt have been seen as a major problem facing agriculture. Farm debt grew from $2 billion in 1961 to $5 billion in 1971. In the next ten years, it jumped to $18 billion as a result of increased capital borrowing in the mid-1970s, in response to strong commodity prices.
When interest rates rose to historically high levels in 1981 and remained there for several years, many highly leveraged farmers found themselves in financial difficulty. But while farm debt shot up, so did the value of farm assets. In 1988, the ratio of debts to assets was only slightly higher than in the early 1970s.
Low commodity prices in some sectors, high input costs and the world trade situation would lead most of us to believe that farm incomes have been seriously affected.
The evidence cited for this is the decline in aggregate real farm income, which is well below the levels of the past two decades. However, aggregate income does not not take into account declining farm numbers and increased income support earned off the farm. When you compare income earned by farm families to that of other Canadian families, Madam Speaker, you will see that they are about the same.
These things suggest that the financial position of farmers may not be as bad as many people assume. I have of course spoken about aggregate numbers. I did this to indicate to Hon. Members that the over-all current financial state of Canadian agriculture is good.
Of course, there will always be exceptions. In those cases the federal Government will continue to provide the tools necessary for the survival and prosperity of viable operations. The Government believes in the farmers of Canada. It believes in their ability to compete in Canada, in the U.S. and offshore as well. It believes in their initiative, their self-reliance and their perennial optimism. We believe in their desire to succeed and to hold on to their rural values as they take up the latest in technological improvements.
Finally, we believe in the farmers of Canada because the farmers of Canada believe in themselves. We as a Government look forward to working with the farmers of Canada in the future to improve the future of agriculture in this great country.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Hon. Member would like to comment on the price discovery mechanism in the world grain markets in view of the scandals that have taken place in New York markets and the Chicago commodity markets and also in regard to the investigations going on in the Winnipeg grain market as outlined by the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse) in this debate today.
What are the Hon. Member's thoughts as to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board when the subsidy levels between Canada and the United States become level and there is free movement of grain between the two countries.


Ken Monteith: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the Wheat Board. There seems to be a myth that the Government under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture is attempting to harm the Wheat Board. We are not attempting to harm the Wheat Board. We are attempting, as we do in all areas of agriculture, to strengthen the position of agriculture in Canada thereby allowing Canadian farmers to compete all across Canada, the United States and the world. The Government is out to protect Canadian farmers and to strengthen their position in this country.
The Hon. Member asked about Winnipeg grain futures and world prices. When we look at world prices we realize that that is what we as a Government are attempting to look at through the GATT round of negotiations. That is to say we wish to consider the support that other countries are giving their farmers which makes it impossible for us to compete. The Government is attempting through negotiations under the GATT round to see that in the future subsidies in agriculture will not make it impossible for Canadian farmers to compete.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned subsidies being used by other countries. He will be aware that moments before the initialling of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement the U.S. administration of the day extended the use of its export enhancement program some time into the 1990s. In spite of clauses in the agreement which appeared to protect ourselves and the Americans from each other's programs like the
May 23, 1989

export enhancement program they interpreted their action as having been taken before the agreement was signed and therefore should continue on for some time.
This morning our Minister of Agriculture met with the American Secretary of State for Agriculture. Can the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Monteith) perhaps qualify why it is that we now hear our government Members in the form of the Minister of Agriculture appear to approve of the American use of export enhancement subsidies into traditional markets of Canada in spite of what we thought was an agreement whereby they would not do that to us and we would not do it to them?


Ken Monteith: Madam Speaker, we in Canada recognize that we have to compete worldwide in agriculture. We hope to promote not only trade with the United States but trade with many other countries. We hope that all our commodity groups look to increased trade with the United States. That is what the bilateral agreement with the U.S. promotes. The opportunity for Canadian farmers and business to continue with the amount of trade that we have with the United States is an opportunity to enhance that trade by going into more markets. They will be assisted by Governments helping them to market their product throughout the United States and other countries.


Mr. Hughes:: Madam Speaker, it is clear from the debate today that the Government is keeping its commitment to Canadian farmers, and continues in a number of ways to keep that commitment. One way, of course, is by continuing to support the role of supply management agencies. In addition to that no Government in history has done as much for agriculture as has this one since 1984. There is heartfelt, sincere and determined support for agriculture. The Government remains open to constructive suggestions and comments that will help us together build Canadian agriculture.
In terms of the job assistance program, no government program is perfect. There can always be improvements. The Government has responded as quickly as reasonably possible in a manner that is fair. It has listened to producers in preparing the program.
Borrowing Authority
I suggest that if there is to be condemnation today in the House, which the motion calls for, then that condemnation should be reserved for those Members opposite who seek to scare Canadian farmers about their own future. Canadian farmers have a tremendous future. The Government continues to stand behind them in many ways through drought assistance and other programs. We continue to fight on their behalf in international marketplaces through GATT and other measures. I suggest that the Government, unlike any other Government in history, has stood behind Canadian agriculture.


Ken Monteith: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has indicated that Canadian farmers support the Government. They support us because of the fact that we have supported agriculture. We support supply management. We have been there when the farmers were in need.
The fact that there has been an increase in graduates and enrolment in agricultural colleges and universities all across the country of 150 per cent tells us that there is confidence in agriculture. That confidence has come about because of the policies of the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1989-90 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Thursday, May 18, of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed with the defferred recorded division on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
Call in the Members.

May 23, 1989
Borrowing Authority
++NAYS


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 24,1989