1990-05-16

Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the government to act on the disastrous housing shortage in the greater Metro Toronto region.
With high interest rates, the GST, increasing job losses, and an inadequate infrastructure, we are condemning our youth to lives of poverty and fear.
Some politicians in the Toronto area recognize this tremendous need and, in fact, are using the Olympic Games as a lever to gain 5,000 badly-needed houses.
There are other prospects such as the Queensville development where almost 50 per cent of the total
10,000	homes are in the $150,000 range. Yet, construction cannot begin because the government is lacking the political will to pressure the province to move forward on shelter that is affordable.


THE GREAT HOSPITAL BED RACE OF THE FONDATION DE L'HOPITAL CHRIST-ROI
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an unusual event organized by members of the Fondation de l'hopital Christ-Roi, a hospital in my riding.
On May 27, residents will either watch or take part in a big hospital bed race through the streets of Quebec City and Ville Vanier, to raise money to upgrade the hospital's medical equipment.
This is a very important and also very unusual race. The method has been tried before, with great success, in New York, Boston, London and Vancouver.
I would like to emphasize the generosity of our sponsors who have already made a commitment, and the enthusiasm of all racers who are already in training, and finally, on behalf of present and future patients of the Christ-Roi Hospital, I wish to thank the organizers of this "great race".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CABLE TELEVISION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been paying a lot of money for cable television. The viewers who watch the House know that.
The cable industry has been making lots and lots of money. The rate of return on fixed assets is between 24 per cent and 30 per cent-twice as much as the phone companies which are regulated. The cable people are not regulated.
The CRTC, the body that makes the decisions on rates and other matters, yesterday, finally had some good news for consumers. Instead of giving the cable companies a Rolls-Royce this time it just gave them a Buick or a Toyota, and it capped the increases for consumers.
We, in the NDP, believe there is an alternative way. The government in the House of Commons should pass legislation so that the rate of return of cable companies is regulated as are the telephone companies. Cable fees would go down, not up.


NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Tourism Awareness Week in Canada. Knowing how important tourism is to every single riding in the country, I am sure all members will want to join

May 16, 1990
me in congratulating 630,000 Canadians who work in this vital, $24 billion a year industry.
The government recognizes the vital importance of tourism which is why we released, on Monday, an important research study into the travel intentions of our most important tourists, our friends from south of the border. The valuable information gained from this study will enable us to continue to attract increasing numbers of U.S. and foreign visitors.
In addition, the government announced yesterday that foreign tourists will be able to collect cash GST refunds at duty-free shops when leaving the country. This extremely efficient and simple process will encourage more tourists to visit Canada and will also be a major boost to business at Canada's duty-free shops.
Canada grows with tourism, courtesy of your Progressive Conservative government.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to confirm what everyone knows already. First-class mail does not mean anything under the Tory government.
Just recently a Canada Post manager confirmed that first-class mail had been held back an extra day in Vancouver so that advertising flyers could be delivered in its place. What was the feeble excuse given for such unmitigated gall? Simply that first-class mail could be delivered the next day and still be within the accepted, so-called, delivery standard.
Canada Post should be renamed "Ad Mail Canada", or better yet "Canada Junk Mail".


HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the pleasure of celebrating Canada Health Day with the people of Mountain View Home in Yarrow, B.C.
Mountain View Home is a psychiatric facility that enables people to live in close proximity to their community. Pat and Kathy Newby and their staff at Mountain
View are committed professionals who work with residents, enabling them to lead active, dignified and therapeutic lives.
No longer are people shut up in massive impersonal institutions far from their homes. Now people with psychiatric disabilities are living their lives as part of the community.
The theme of Canada Health Day this year was Health Services: Our Community Resources. With facilities like Mountain View Home assisting people and helping them to be all that they can be, there can be no doubt that in the Fraser Valley health services are, indeed, a very valuable community resource.


MINING EXPLORATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, a research bulletin from the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec has again pointed out that mining exploration, financed under the flow-through shares system, is a profitable investment for governments.
Mining exploration financed under this system from 1986 to 1989 will produce tax revenues of over $700 million for both levels of government, Canada and Quebec.
The results of the past ten years of exploration have started to come into focus. The 90s should be a time for developing this potential further, provided the political will and the human and financial resources required to fully develop this potential will be forthcoming.
Furthermore, these new mining entrepreneurs may play a leading role in developing the industry in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the present financing mechanism has proved its worth. Maintaining that system would make it possible to reassess this mechanism with a view to making it part of an integrated system, ranging from support for individual prospectors to the ultimate production stage, a system that would be adapted to the new context of the 90s. Today, the federal government supports flow-through shares 100 per cent.
May 16, 1990

[English)


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, ACCESS Education is a made-in-Manitoba program for particular groups that are not well represented. It is funded jointly by the federal and provincial governments.
This program has produced doctors, nurses, teachers, and lawyers. It has been a great success, particularly for women's groups and our aboriginal people. Our first aboriginal doctor in Manitoba came from this program.
It has been a model not only for Manitoba, but for other provinces and for the territories. In fact, other countries have also looked at this model because it has been so successful.
It is now being threatened by the federal government because of its refusal to sign the Northern Development Agreement and, therefore, it risks being lost. It is not just another blow to Manitoba, but another blow to education. We all know that there have been many, many such blows.
I urge the minister to make a commitment today and to renew that agreement now.


CHALLENGE 90
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise so that I may inform our colleagues in the House about an exciting new partnership venture between the police and youth of our country.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship and the Minister of State for Youth jointly announced this co-operative community initiative yesterday. During the coming summer, 90 young Canadians from visible minority and aboriginal communities will be offered a unique opportunity to work with 16 police forces across Canada.
Entitled "Challenge '90", this summer employment project will give these young men and women a chance to become more familiar with law enforcement work.
They will also have the opportunity to decide if the police force might be their own calling.
This $326,000 initiative is an expansion of a pilot project initiated through the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police with the Vancouver Police, which was sponsored last year by Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada.
Several students have since expressed a keen interest in law enforcement, and we can again look forward to much success this year with these minority youth/police employment programs.


NICARAGUA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, recent events in Nicaragua are cause for concern that the United States is not satisfied with democracy having been achieved in that country.
Dissatisfaction remains in Washington with the fact that the Sandinistas are still a major political force and that Violeta Chamorro has had the intelligence and judgment to treat them with the respect that they are due.
Elements within the Contras and within UNO, the anti-Sandinista coalition, seem bent on totally destroying the Sandinistas and their achievements in social and agrarian reform. To this end, it seems they may have succeeded in moving President Chamorro from her original wise and conciliatory approach toward a situation in which, by presidential decrees, she is provoking a kind of unrest that can be used by some to justify further anti-Sandinista strategies and perhaps even American intervention.
In the meantime, promised American aid for Nicaragua is still on hold. There is lots of money for the military in El Salvador, but none for democracy in Nicaragua.
Mrs. Chamorro has committed the real sin of Central American politics. She has had the audacity to have a mind of her own and to put Nicaragua first.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the United States has decided to drop duties levied on

Oral Questions
Canadian red raspberries. Our raspberry exporters had challenged the imposition of U.S. duties as allowed under Chapter 19 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, this case demonstrates the value of the dispute settlement mechanism. It provides for fair application of trade laws on either side of the border.
We can be assured that other cases under review will also be given fair and equitable hearings under this binational dispute resolution process.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Small business has rightly complained that the goods and services tax would be an administrative nightmare.
Bruce Flexman, the senior GST expert at the national accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Thorne, recently told a Senate committee that the government has been looking into allowing small business to pay an annual tax on revenues instead of collecting the 7 per cent GST.
Is the government planning to do this? If so, how will it live up to its commitment to consumers that the tax would be visible and not apply to basic groceries?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Do you want an answer or not?
The objective of this government is to try to make the system as simple as possible, which of course is something that the Liberals do not understand. That is why we have been working very hard to come up with simplified methods.
Whether it is what was announced yesterday for the tourist rebate centres to be utilized by duty free shops, or the streamlined accounting system that is already in place in the technical papers, we are constantly consulting and communicating with the business community, particularly the small business community, in an effort to work with them to bring in a system that will build on the streamlined accounting procedures already in place. This will make the system even simpler and fairer, not only for small businesses but for all Canadians.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has not stated categorically that the government is not considering moving from the GST to a revenue-based tax. The move to a revenue-based tax would be a major change from the GST as presented to this House.
Can the minister assure the House that any changes to the GST or the way it is collected will be brought before this House and Canadians for full and open consideration, and not imposed in secret by Order in Council, by regulation?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time we have brought before this House changes that we have proposed to the GST. Every time we have had discussions on this, the Liberal party is strangely silent, having absolutely no alternatives, no ideas, nothing that it is proposing as to how to deal with the various considerations on the GST.
As my colleague has said, we are continually looking at ways in which we can simplify the system to make it more effective to meet the needs of Canadians, whether they are small business or consumers, and we will continue to do that.
However, I would call on members of the Liberal Party of Canada to get off their fannies for once and take part in this debate because it is good for Canadians if they do take part in that debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have already said no to the government's GST.
My question to the Minister of Finance is: When will the government really consider the opinion of small businesses and the great majority of Canadians? When will the government give up its proposed GST and proceed with a real tax reform that is fair and comprehensive?
May 16, 1990


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what could be more reformist than moving from one system of taxation which simply is not working to a new system of taxation which by all accounts is going to be a far better system than what we have today.
I remind my hon. friend that there have been five-count them-five different Royal commissions or committees that were appointed in 1940, 1956,1963, 1976 and 1983. These five commissions have all said: "Change from the existing tax. Reform it and bring in a new type of sales tax".
It is not fundamental reform because there are 48 other countries that have this type of tax. Forty-eight other countries have proven that this type of tax works.
It is certainly reform in removing the bad tax that we have had for the last 65 years and moving to a good tax, the goods and services tax.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, this week the government launched a series of radio advertisements on the GST.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Marleau: One of the ads which I listened to states that the GST is not an additional tax.
I ask the Minister of Finance this. Will the GST not be an additional tax on all services previously untaxed? Will it not be an additional tax on home heating fuels and hydro? Will it not be an additional tax on clothing, especially children's clothing? Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the hon. member's question.
We are eliminating a tax that raises some $18 billion. We are replacing it with a new tax which will also raise about $18 billion. So there will be no additional tax burden to Canadians as a result of the reform from the federal sales tax today to the goods and services tax after January 1, 1991.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same matter and is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Oral Questions
Affairs. It concerns the same misleading and untruthful radio ads on the proposed goods and services tax.
If commercial or private businesses were doing the same thing as this government is now doing, they would have their ads yanked off the aid today. Will the minister immediately instruct his officials to investigate this very serious matter? Or has he also chosen to support this deceitful attempt to mislead Canadians and to use taxpayers' money to do so? Which is it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure to what the hon. member is referring. If he has a specific reason for saying that the advertising is incorrect, then let him say so. I would like him to be more specific.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue. Yesterday, the national director of the accounting firm Peat Marwick Thorne, who was appearing before the Senate committee, informed us that the government was changing the GST by lowering the rate for small business.
If this information is correct, will small businesses pay less tax or is the government just giving them the impression that they will pay less?


Otto John Jelinek: No,
Mr. Speaker.
First, we are not in the process of modifying or changing the GST as proposed.
Second, what is being discussed in the other place and what the leader of the New Democratic Party is talking about is strictly speculation.
The facts are that we are working with the small business community. We are working to try to enhance and improve, wherever possible, the simplified accounting procedures for all Canadians, but particularly for small businesses.
This should not come as news to anyone. We have said that in this House on many occasions. I said in front of the finance committee on a number of occasions that we are working on simplified procedures. Because we have worked with the business community we have been able

May 16, 1990
Oral Questions
to develop a simple, one page registration form and businesses are now registering.
I can let the House know that because of the simplicity factors that this government is committed to that over
200,000	businesses have already registered in the last couple of weeks. The registrations are pouring in with no complaints.
Therefore I can only conclude that since there are no alternatives and no suggestions coming from the other side of the House, at least we can depend on the business community to help us simplify the system the best we can.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance admitted that he is making changes to the GST in private, without consulting either the members of the House or those who will be directly affected.
The Minister of National Revenue has just said that the Minister of Finance and he are consulting. It took an unelected Senate hearing to make public what the government is considering.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business confirmed this morning that the government refused to show them its proposed changes. What kind of consultation is this? Why does the government not consult with those who will be directly affected? Why will it not listen to the 80 per cent of Canadians who say scrap this tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more open process of tax reform that any government in the history of Canada has ever conducted.
Let me take my hon. friend back. We first started talking about sales tax reform in 1986. I have the document here that refers to it. I have the white paper of June, 1987. I have the technical paper of August, 1989.


Mr. Gauthier:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is a document of the House of Commons. Surely, I can hold that up, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are demonstrating.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We had draft legislation in early October of 1989. We had the committee
hearings of the House of Commons that went all last fall. We brought in the final legislation in February of this year, after we had made a number of changes that related to the consultation process following the report of the finance committee.
We have had continuing consultations, as my colleague and I have both referred to today, simply to listen to Canadians to get their ideas. Once we have a specific proposal, then we will put that proposal on the table.
As my colleague has said, we are still consulting and we are still listening before we make a final decision.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is concerned that the kind of proposals this government is trying to shove down the throats of Canadians on the GST is what it is going to get.
Last year the Minister of Finance said that the GST would improve the over-all fairness of the tax, and that the GST would be visible. Now the Minister of Revenue has floated an idea that in fact basically changes the premise of what was presented in this House, as the Leader of the Opposition has said.
As early as this morning the CFIB said that the changes that it understands might be forthcoming would be: "No panacea. It does not solve the problem".
When will the minister realize that no amount of changes can change this tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess my hon. friend is saying: "Let's go back to the old tax". The old tax is a hidden tax. It is totally invisible as far as the consumer is concerned.
Is my hon. friend saying that the GST is not visible? It is 7 per cent. People will see it on cash register slips. They will see it on signs in the stores. They will hear it in advertising. How can she possibly say that it is not visible?
She then went on to say that my colleague floated an idea. My colleague did not float the idea. It was discussed in a Senate committee hearing, the Senate committee that my hon. friend is supporting. This is the Senate that members of the NDP have said that they have absolutely no use for. Yet she turns turtle on this and says: "We like the Senate now".


May 16, 1990

Where is the NDP on this? What sort of policies do the NDP have? Where are the principles of the New Democratic Party?


TOURISM
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Tourism who is just going to hop in his seat.
In the 1989 federal budget the government announced that it would not be renewing the ERDA subagreements for tourism development. Yet, recent newspaper reports out of Newfoundland say the province will be getting a new tourism subagreement with the federal government.
Will the minister finally tell the House what the government's position is with respect to the ERDA subagreements. If one province gets one, will the same courtesy be extended to every province?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friend to follow a little more carefully the developments in Ontario.
We have through the FedNor program in northern Ontario, which is his part of the world, brought forward a very important new program which we hope will be co-ordinated with the provinces to some degree. Also, we have just announced a new tourism component of FedNor of $14 million which is going to help Ontario enormously, so I do not know what the hon. member is complaining about.


Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
The minister this week said and I quote: "We gain much more than just economic activity and monetary benefits from tourism." In light of the fact that Canada's share of the world travel market has been cut in half over the last decade and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada has called for a promotion budget of at least $50 million, why has this government slashed the tourism promotion budget from $35 million to $20 million?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. From the middle 1970s to 1985-
Ora/ Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: The hon. member should hear this. Part of it he will find interesting and some might disappoint him. From 1975 to 1985 Canada's market share of world and American tourism dropped to half. In 1985 we decided to ask the American market first what was wrong? The Americans told us: "You have no image. We know about your moose, we know about your mountains, we know about your Mounties but after that, we don't know enough about you."
For the last four years Tourism Canada has promoted the image of Canada as an interesting and exciting country with good value for the dollar. We revealed a study last week from Longwoods International which indicates that Americans now believe that Canada is a more interesting and exciting country and better value for the dollar.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister met with the President of Spain and received vague promises to study fish stocks which have been heavily overstudied and heavily overfished.
I would like to know why the Government of Canada is satisfied with promises of study from Spain and why it is afraid to take tough and effective action against a nation that is overfishing important fish stocks off the Atlantic coast. Why is that?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman could cite any firm decisive and tough action that was taken in the years prior to 1984, we would be delighted to hear it.
All he did was give 9,500 tonnes of good northern cod within the 200-mile limit to the European community. We have stopped that. We did not renew that.
With respect to yesterday's meeting, The Toronto Star says: "The PM fails to secure a pledge from Spain to stop overfishing."
The Ottawa Citizen says: "Spanish PM agrees overfishing must end."

May 16, 1990
Oral Questions
The Globe and Mail says: "Fish stocks needs studies, Spain says."
No wonder the hon. gentleman is confused. What in fact happened was that the President of Spain agreed that conservation must be the central principle governing fishing in the northwest Atlantic. They would like to have joint scientific studies and co-operation so that they can have confidence in our figures just as we have confidence in them.
We are making solid progress with the Commissioner of Fisheries of the European Community. We are undertaking some joint studies and, before the year is out, we hope to see substantial progress.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of International Trade.
We could make substantial progress if the government would do something about what is in its own hands. Why is it that the Government of Canada refuses to act unilaterally to extend Canadian jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, as has been recommended in every credible study that has come before it? Why does it refuse to do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, previous governments of Canada never acted unilaterally in these matters.
Previous governments never acted unilaterally when the fish stocks of the northwest Atlantic disappeared. They worked in international circles and in the UN for a number of years before finally, after 10 or 12 years, the Law of the Sea Convention was agreed upon.
We cannot breach international law by unilaterally extending the 200-mile limit, which no other country of the world will observe.
The hon. gentleman may not mind making a fool of himself, but we do not want to join him in that position.


COMMUNICATIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications.
UNITEL announced today that it is going to apply to compete with the phone companies in the long distance
telephone system. If this bid is successful, it will mean higher phone rates for 90 per cent of Canadians. Traditionally, long distance in this country has subsidized local rates.
Given that government policy has consistently favoured the business agenda in this area as in other areas, will the minister give a commitment to ordinary Canadians that for once he will stick up for the average consumer and ordinary Canadian against these big interests?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's question because he himself said in the preamble that a telecommunications company has applied to the CRTC for a hearing. Fie would have me intervene instead of the CRTC. I think that would be breaking the laws passed by this House.
An application was made to the CRTC; the CRTC will hear proposals and counter-proposals and render a decision in due course, without any partisan demagogy such as we just heard. Canadians will then know the position of the CRTC, which is the official agency that is independent of the government in these matters, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, pardon me if I am a little suspicious of the government.
Ted Rogers, one of the principals behind UNITEL, gave more money to Conservative cabinet ministers in the last election than I could possibly count.
The country is moving toward one unitary fibre optic network which will be to the 21st century what railways were to the 19th century. I want a commitment from this government that it will not only make telephones but fibre optics and communications in this country available and affordable to average Canadians, not just to its friends in big business.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, with all his eloquence, the hon. member could go to the CRTC and express his point of view.
May 16, 1990


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for job losses in Montreal, the Minister of Labour.
There have been more job losses in Montreal! The closing of the Gattuso plant in Saint-Laurent will have a disastrous effect on the employees. Why does the government continue with its policy that results in the total or partial shutdown of factories, like Gattuso, VIA Rail, Domtar, Gillette, Vickers and Kraft, to name only these?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the government does not make this kind of decision in the place of private enterprise.
However, Catelli has acquired the Campbell Company in the area mentioned by my colleague and as part of the streamlining process-and the pasta market in particular is undergoing a streamlining right now-the company, like other companies, decided to streamline and to make itself competitive in the market, nationally and internationally.
I understand that this concept was not so popular when the hon. member's party was in power, but we are in the situation we find ourselves today because of that, Mr. Speaker.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, that answer is not going to help 9,000 employees-or their families for that matter-at more than 80 plants in Montreal, who lost their jobs during the past year. When will the government finally act to help thousands of Quebecers who have lost their jobs as a result of this government's disastrous policies?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am surprised. Although I trust the hon. member, I certainly do not trust the figures she is providing. She should also mention the $250 million contract Canadair obtained today.


An hon. member:: In her own riding!
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, she should mention the amounts we invested in Southwest and East Montreal. Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member's colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace last week that thanks to the Conservative government's policies, the Montreal region is now recovering from a situation created by the gang of Liberal ministers from Montreal, when they were in power.


An hon. member:: The Liberals wanted to close Canadair!


SCOTIA SYNFUELS PROJECT
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for ACOA. It concerns the Scotia Synfuels coal liquefaction project in Cape Breton. The project, as the minister knows, will generate up to 2,000 permanent jobs and ensure an environmentally sound future for Cape Breton coal. It has the strong support of the Premier of Nova Scotia and the mayors and wardens in the area. The only delay in proceeding with this vital project is approval by the federal government of a Cape Breton tax credit application and the incentives provided in the Atlantic Enterprise Program.
My question to the minister is this. When will his government give its long awaited approval to this application?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a meeting of some wardens and municipal leaders in Cape Breton, as the hon. member knows. He is correct. There is a very strong unanimous feeling that this project should be studied closely. I am not in a position to give him a commitment today, but the matter is under consideration. When I or my colleagues have something to announce, we will make that announcement in due course.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister.
The minister will know that the downsizing of the coal and steel industries, coupled with the fact that our fisheries in Atlantic Canada are in terrible shape, leaves the Cape Breton economy in a very serious and somewhat precarious situation. The minister also knows that

May 16, 1990
Oral Questions
on April 18, 1990, a unanimous resolution was passed by the Nova Scotia House of Assembly approving of this particular project.
Can the minister explain to members of this House, and in particular to the people of Cape Breton, the delay in approving the investment tax credit which has been on the minister's books and those of his government colleagues for quite some time? Would he explain to the people of Cape Breton the delay in approving this investment tax credit, thereby denying Canadians in that region of the country meaningful employment?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, if delay is indeed the deadliest form of denial, no one practised that more effectively than the gentleman opposite when the Liberals were in power.
As the hon. member knows, our government has provided extraordinary means of assistance to Atlantic Canada, and to Cape Breton in particular, with the Cape Breton investment tax credit, topping up and other arrangements. It is nothing to be complacent about, but it is something we have done with a great deal of deliberation. This particular project is one which is under study. It is a good project. If there is an announcement to be made, we will make it in due course.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, if I can attract him back to his seat. He seems to be a travelling salesman today.


An hon. member:: Every day.


Steven W. Langdon: Every day, perhaps.


An hon. member:: And a damn good one!


Steven W. Langdon: I am not quite so sure I would agree with that.


An hon. member:: Is that a traveller or a salesman?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, high interest rates have forced the government to finally raise the rate of return for Canada Savings Bonds to 11.5 per cent. This, once and for all, shoots down the credibility of the government's own budget, because it was based on interest rates of 11.1 per cent.
I want to ask the minister if he will admit his high interest rate policy has torpedoed his own budget? I want to ask him, too, if he will agree that as economic managers his government now looks like the Three Stooges?


An hon. member:: Whatever you say, Moe.


Mr. Fontana:: Which one are you, Mike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that uncharacteristically colourful language of the hon. member does not take away from the fact that the record this government has demonstrated over the five and a half years we have been in office that we worked very hard and hold very close to the projections we have set out.
The hon. member has referred to one element of a broad budget projection. I should say to the hon. member that with the higher levels of inflation we are experiencing now, personal income taxes are higher. While interest rates are putting some upward pressure on the deficit, higher personal income taxes have resulted in lower pressures on the deficit.
We are only one and a half months into the fiscal year, so let's not jump to conclusions too quickly.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. In fact, this decision which affects Canada Savings Bonds goes right to November. So, we are not talking about just the start of the fiscal year.
I ask the minister-
My question for the minister is as follows. The government's Budget is a dead duck as a result of rising interest rates. Will the minister change his economic policy and reduce interest rates, not just for the sake of his own Budget but for the sake of thousands of small businesses across Canada that are feeling the impact of this Budget and high interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me set the hon. member's mind at ease. The change in the CSB rate of one percentage point has the effect of increasing our interest costs by about $120 million. There are offsets, as I have indicated, in higher

May 16, 1990

personal income tax revenues which fully offset that amount of money as it relates to Canada Savings Bonds.
The hon. member is asking if we are going to change our economic policy. No, Mr. Speaker, our economic policy has served us very well since September 4, 1984, and we will continue to follow that policy because it has produced a healthy economic environment in this country.
The hon. member wants us to snap our fingers and drop interest rates. I, too, would like to see interest rates down. But I know there are underlying pressures in the economy. I will give the hon. member one example. Unit labour costs at the end of last year were rising at the rate of 7 per cent. That increase in unit labour costs is the best example I can give the hon. member of a loss of competitive position. As we lose competitive position, we lose business; as we lose business, we lose jobs. Surely, the hon. member can understand the importance-


Mr. Crawford:: Whoa, Mike!


TOURISM
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. The tourist industry has been telling me that they see themselves as a potential loser under free trade. A report that just came from the Conference Board of Canada states, in fact, that the GST will lead to growth in the tourist industry. I suspect the minister agrees with the latter rather than the former. I would ask him if he would explain how the GST will lead to growth in the tourist industry in Canada.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for not asking an unfriendly question about the GST.
The reason why the Conference Board, not the government, says that tourism is going to be helped by the GST is, as I think my hon. friend understands, that the economy of Canada will be greatly increased during the first year at $9 billion extra productivity, which leads to more tourists.
Oral Questions
Second, we have input tax credits. We give back the GST to business travellers, which is great news for the tourist industry. Third, the low income credits will help low income Canadians travel as well.


ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Last August, the minister said that Canada should lead by example in an international effort to cut carbon dioxide emissions. In March, the minister shifted gears and said we should go slowly. Now the environment minister has also changed his tune and is saying: "Go slow," to the European countries that want to set C02 limits.
Why are the minister and his colleague changing their minds, and why is this government not leading world opinion on energy and the environment?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's comments interesting.
I can refer to comments similar to what my colleague, the Minister for International Trade said today. Here is one headline from the Toronto Star that says: "Canada Attacked for Blocking Gas Limits". If you look at the Ottawa Citizen, a paper very loyal to this government, it says: "Canada-U.S. Split on Warming".
Mr. Speaker, you will find that it was exactly that split on which Canada was taking the very lead that the Minister of the Environment said Canada would take. There has not been a shift at all. In fact, there has been reaffirmation of leadership.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, this is a government that has cut the budget on energy efficiency and diversity by 90 per cent.
It will take a major announcement before Canadians believe that the government is sincere about cutting energy waste in C02 emissions. I want to ask the minister to make a commitment today that the new spending that he promised for this fall will restore the 90 per cent of energy efficiency and diversity spending the government cut since 1984.

May 16, 1990
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know from the debate we had in committee that I said part of the package, as we look to The Green Plan which the Minister of the Environment will be unveiling later this year, will be energy efficiency. In terms of that package, the hon. member will have to wait.
I say also to the hon. member I will not restore the type of programs the former government had which were funded out of the National Energy Program, over $50 billion which it took out of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and redistributed it through the the CHIP program, for example. It was money that was lost.


Bill Rompkey: Hibernia.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was not Hibernia, my friend. We'll help you with Newfoundland another way.
Another example is having civil servants in different provinces in CREO offices telling people in the public what the industry already had in place.
What we will do instead is R and D. We will do replacement of energy, for instance alternative energies. Those are the kinds of things we will do. We will not replicate. We will not duplicate.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Since this government came to power, U.S. Steel has doubled its share of the Canadian market. We learned today that the same U.S. steel has been subsidized by some $35 billion over the last 10 years. So I ask the minister how his government could stand idly by while the Americans were forcing Canadian producers to restrain their exports into the American market, while at the same time they were flooding the Canadian market with subsidized steel.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member is referring to a study just released by the Canadian Steel Producers Association which outlines all types of U.S. government assistance, federal, state and local, addressed to the steel sector during the 1980s.
Now I do not need to remind the hon. gentleman that in the early part of the 1980s we had the dubious misfortune of having the hon. gentleman's party in power. In any event, this is a study of the assistance that was given to the steel sector during the 1980s. To be fair, I want to point out to him that it outlines programs that may be deemed to be subsidies within the meaning of U.S. and Canadian legislation. But it also examined a whole broad list of generally available programs which under trade law would not be considered to be subsidies but general assistance to an industry.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this is a most valuable study and we will be using it when we start to negotiate with the United States on the question of subsidies and countervail, which we intend to do under the FTA at the end of the year. This is a valuable and informative survey and we will certainly be using it in our negotiations with the United States.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Be nice to the United States.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the minister sold out the steel industry when he signed the free trade agreement.
My supplementary is for the same minister. This government has spent the last year unilaterally disarming itself of subsidies and putting Canadian workers and farmers in unemployment lines and bankruptcy proceedings.
Will the minister tell his U.S. counterpart when they meet this week that Canada considers the U.S. subsidies an unfair trading practice and will he make a commitment to this House today to stop unilaterally disarming Canada of these subsidies?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with Mrs. Hills on Friday at a meeting of the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. As a matter of fact I am going to present her with a copy of this study that has been done by our steel producers. I am glad to see them take the initiative and I hope that other Canadian groups will do the same. We have our own research under way as well.
With respect to the free trade agreement, everywhere I look I see evidence of progress under the agreement. "Dupont unit sees rise in exports". "Canadian firms see
May 16, 1990

global opportunities", executive survey says. I listen today and Ford is going to invest a billion dollars-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Forestry, I have today a question, I suppose for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


An hon. member:: He comes prepared!


Ross Harvey: Why, Mr. Speaker, the pipes, the pipes are blowing!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister of Forestry said and I quote: "Under the new regulations the industry will be required over the next three years to invest another $5 billion to $7 billion, the result of which will be a complete elimination of the emission of dioxins into the river systems". A complete elimination, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare confirm that it is the government's intention and belief that at the end of the next three years a situation will exist whereby there has been complete elimination of the emission of dioxins into Canada's river systems.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member I get the sense he is blowing more than his pipes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I did not know what I had started yesterday. Perhaps the minister could answer the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to do everything we can to reduce the levels of these chemicals. Our goal is obviously to have zero amounts of these chemicals in waters.
Routine Proceedings
I will take the question as notice for my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, however, and he will be able to respond more fully.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot confirm-as obviously he cannot-that the goal and the anticipation is a complete elimination, and if he is thus refuting the words of his colleague, the Minister of Forestry, uttered in the House yesterday, how can any Canadian have any faith in anything any of those ministers say about the environment?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues. I have already indicated that I would take the question as notice for my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. He will be pleased to give a full explanation to the hon. gentleman.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the refugee claimant backlog clearance.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on the Status of the Artist.

Routine Proceedings


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



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Gloucester.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I think it is clear that the name of an electoral district should reflect the people, communities and geography of that district.

The county of Gloucester has had a very long and colourful history as a federal riding. It has been known as a municipality, but much has changed since it was originally named. I propose in this bill, and I hope that it will have the support of the House, that we change the name of the electoral district of Gloucester to the name-

-Acadie-Bathurst, because Acadie-Bathurst represents the communities, linguistic groups and geography of this part of New Brunswick.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, questions 231 and 270 will be answered today. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hovdebo: 1.	In the period January 1, 1989 to February 8, 1990, has any department or agency of the government received requests for a plebiscite to be held among canola producers in western Canada to determine if they want canola marketing placed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?
2.	Has the government or the Canadian Wheat Board undertaken any study or review of (a) the impact on canola prices to farmers which would result if canola marketing were under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board (b) the possible outcome of any plebiscite to determine if producers want canola marketing placed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Charles James Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: 1. Agriculture Canada has noted infrequent requests mainly from individual producers, to hold a plebiscite among producers to determine their position on the inclusion of canola under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Simultaneously, requests have been received from producers and farm or commodity organizations which call for a continuation of the open marketing system.
2. (a) and (b) No.
A Task Force has been created to examine a range of factors affecting the Canadian canola industry, including canola marketing. This group, which is small but representative of the industry has been mandated to make
May 16, 1990

Supply
recommendations to the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds by November 1990.
CFAO 19/20


Mr. Robinson: 1.	In each year from 1984 to 1989 and 1990 to date, have many members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) been released under Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19/20 and, if so (a) what number (b) at the time of their release (i) where were they serving in the CAF (ii) what base were they on (c) what was the gender of each?
2.	Are any such cases pending currently and, if so (a) what total number (b) what number have been offered release under CFAO 19/20 (c) what number have refused and are being retained in the CAF pending final review of the policy (d) what is the (i) rank (ii) gender (iii) present location of each such individual?
3.	Are any questions asked of potential recruits which deal with sexual orientation and, if so, which ones?
Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National
Defence): 1. From 1984 to 1989 and 1990 to date, members of the Canadian Forces have been released under Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19/20:
(a)	1984-0 released; 1985-18 released; 1986-13 released; 1987-6 released; 1988-8 released; 1989-12 released; and 1990-1 released.
(b)	(i) This information cannot be released in order to protect the identity of the individuals.
(ii) This information cannot be released in order to protect the identity of the individuals.
(c)	1985-13 males and 5 females; 1986-11 males and 2 females; 1987-4 males and 2 females; 1988-7 males and 1 females; 1989-6 males and 6 females; and 1990-1 male.
2.	Yes.
(a)	19.
(b)	12.
(c)	12.
(d)	(i) This information cannot be released in order to protect the identity of the individuals.
(ii)	6 females and 6 males.
(iii)	This information cannot be released in order to protect the identity of the individuals.
3.	No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry on a point of order.
The Public Service Commission's annual report was to be tabled today in the House. Sometimes, it is the habit to have what is called back-door tabling. I wonder if the Clerk could tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the report has been tabled. The member for Ottawa West would like to pose a question to the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, the report has been tabled at the back door.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, could I inquire if this report is automatically referred to a standing committee of the House, or if there is some process by which I can ensure that it is so referred?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is referred to the standing committee.


Marlene Catterall: Which one?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It goes to Government Operations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre) moved:: Thai this House recognize that Canadian farmers face dire financial circumstances from successive years of drought, low 1990-91 initial prices, escalating interest rates and the international grain trade war's price depressing effects, and call on the government to endeavour to

May 16, 1990
Supply
strengthen the economic position of Canadian producers with a cash
injection, with or without provincial participation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, rural Canada today is in a severe state of crisis, a crisis that has been developing for some time now. It is something that we in western Canada are extremely concerned about.
In western Canada, family farms are disappearing. Small businesses in rural communities are closing up. In fact, whole communities are disappearing.
To outline its seriousness, I would like to highlight Saskatchewan as an example and put forth a few facts. Every year approximately 1,000 farm families leave the land in Saskatchewan alone. There are approximately
60.000	farms, so every year we are losing 1,000 out of the
60.000	that presently exist.
Over the last three years, the annual number of business bankruptcies has increased more rapidly in Saskatchewan than in any other Canadian province, and other western provinces are not far behind. Today, over 16 per cent of Saskatchewan families live below the poverty-line and over 64,000 Saskatchewan children are growing up in poverty. That is the reality. That is what is happening.
Since 1985, more than 60,000 people have left Saskatchewan. That is a net loss in a province that now has a population of less than one million. Of the communities, 70 per cent have had a population decline since 1986. These are staggering figures. These are shocking figures. These are represented throughout the prairies in western Canada.
As the fishery is to the Maritimes, agriculture is the economic base for the prairie provinces. Commodity prices are down. In fact, they are at 80 per cent of what farmers were receiving back in 1981. One of the main reasons for this is the trade war that is going on between the Americans and the Europeans which is having a devastating effect on Canadians. At least the Europeans have a goal of maintaining their family farms. In fact, that is their underlying objective. Unlike the Americans, they have said that their underlying goal is to maintain family farms in Europe.
There was a recent announcement by the president that the Export Enhancement Program was going to be increased by several hundred million dollars. What has been the government's response to all this? It has been
very disappointing. In fact, it has been embarrassingly disappointing.
Under the Export Enhancement Program, Section 701.4 of the free trade agreement allows the government to file a complaint pursuant to that act when the United States is dealing with a third party that affects our traditional trading districts. Certainly, the have with respect to grain and the Export Enhancement Program. Russia is one of the key examples. The government is subsidizing grain sales to it and that has affected our sales to that nation.
The removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board has simply removed one more tool and one more marketing ability for that institution that is in place for farmers.
Producers have suffered high input costs. Statistics Canada has stated that costs for fertilizer, chemicals, and fuel are up approximately one-and-a-half times since 1980. That is why farm income has dropped by some 20 per cent.
Interest rates are volatile. What has been the government's response to interest rates? The Farm Credit Corporation, the farmer's bank, in 1990 alone has increased its rates four times. In fact, to get a shared-risk mortgage, a farmer has to pay 14.78 per cent interest. That is some sharing of the risk. It is a risk that is shared almost entirely by the producer.
As farmers suffer and as farms disappear, rural communities suffer. Businesses in rural communities have no money. They are suffering through high interest rates. In fact, there is a loss of businesses through low inventory and businesses unable to maintain their level of inventory. It is a problem that perpetuates itself. When a farmer goes into a business to buy some goods, if those goods are not available, he will go to a larger centre. When he is in that larger centre, he, she, or the family often buy other goods they require. Therefore, when one business suffers, the whole community suffers. It is an ongoing effect that is multiplying and eating away at the whole heart of rural Canada.
As far as small business in rural communities is concerned, the government's response has been very disappointing as well. Last year, the New Democratic Party introduced a motion for the Federal Business Development Bank to aid small business. It was passed through the House, one of the few opposition motions
May 16, 1990

that actually went through. Elowever, the government has done nothing with respect to small business.
I was in my own riding yesterday talking with businessmen. Business people are concerned. They say they would like to have lower interest rates.


Mr. Bjornson:: And higher inflation!


Rodney Edward Laporte: They would like to have lower interest rates for inventory, for example, or for capital expansion. If they could increase their inventory, then people would stay in those communities instead of driving to a bigger centre.


David Bjornson: Ask the businessman who paid 20 per cent back in 1982 what he thinks of this.


Rodney Edward Laporte: These interest rates are killing small business and the government has done nothing, despite a motion passed by this very House. That was a direction from Parliament for government to act. It has done nothing.
The other item they have been blessed with by this government is the goods and services tax. I wish to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a quote which I think is very appropriate. It talks about the GST and its effects. As reported in The Financial Post of May 14, 1990, it states:
Our view is that the timing of the GST could not be worse. A lot of analysts tend to treat the GST as if it fulfills the criteria of a theoretically well-constructed, broad-based visible and equitable consumption tax. The truth is, that the GST fulfills none of the above.
Clearly, the implementation of this tax will be horrific, and the bulk of the responsibility falls on us. And if you look at nuts and bolts of the GST, it is too complex from a small business point of view. The government has said it will streamline the accounting process, but if they had a simple tax, we wouldn't need streamlined accounting.
If they did not have the GST, they would not need the streamlined accounting.


David Bjornson: All businesses need accounting.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Business is concerned about implementing the GST. It is one more load that they have to bear, one more expense that small business has to carry and which the government has blessed small business in the country with. Small business in rural Canada simply cannot afford it.
Of course, the other option is to leave the land. Producers cannot even leave the land. They are tied to it
Supply
because of the policies of this government. According to the Farm Credit Corporation, the prices of farm land between 1984 and 1988 dropped almost 40 per cent in Saskatchewan, 29 per cent in Alberta, some 25 per cent in Manitoba, and 30 per cent in all of Canada. Therefore, farmers have a huge debt load, their equity does not meet their debt, and they are stuck in this position, not knowing where to turn.
This spring has really topped things off. There have been three or four years of bad weather and drought in western Canada. This year looks like there may be some good moisture for a change. If things stay as they are, this year we are going to have a decent crop. Yet we have producers unable to put seed in the ground because they cannot get a loan.
This government recognized that by making an announcement that it was putting up $500 million. It said that it knew farmers needed this money, but it was not going to give it to them. The government is holding out a carrot and saying: "We know you need this, but you try and grab it". The government has recognized that, at the very least, it is only half of what the producers need this year. But instead it is playing political games with the provinces and other Tory governments in the west. The loser is the producer. The producer is the one who suffers the loss in this whole thing. It is a sad commentary on this government's lack of compassion. It does not have a caring attitude toward's rural Canada.
The money is needed now. In fact, it was needed last week. There is a desperate need for those funds, but they will only help in the short term. The money that was needed last week is simply the beginning. It is a shortterm measure that the government has proposed for only this spring. It has to bring forward a long-range program. Since 1985, it has been saying that it is going to be putting in a federal agricultural policy. It still has not done it yet. It has all kinds of studies, reports and green papers, but there is still nothing for producers.
We in the federal New Democratic Party have an alternative. We have had it for some time now. We have suggested to the government, and do so again right now, that the government should make an honest commitment to save farming families and rural Canada. That is what the commitment should be. It should not be to agri-business, but to the farming family, to the small community, to the small business people in those com-

May 16, 1990
Supply
munities and to the people who want to live and retire in those communities.
The government should follow that commitment with some policies that have some teeth in them. First of all, through the Farm Credit Corporation, they should be providing loans at lower interest rates.
We are not asking for this commitment for all farms. As I and other members of the party have said, taking western Canada as an example, if you want to farm 10 sections, 15 sections or 50 sections of land, go ahead and farm it, but do not expect the government to assist you. However, we would like to see some assistance provided up to the level of a viable family farm. There should be lower interest rates for that. It should be universal up to a maximum amount.
Taking into account the high input costs that farmers suffer, there should be a commitment to lower costs. There has to be alternatives to chemicals. Biotechnology is very important and there should be money for research and development, which is a whole other speech on what this government has and has not committed to.
While the government is putting money into research and development for biotechnology, there should be a lower price for chemicals. The patent that these chemical companies have on chemicals is really outrageous. It is a licence to print money. There is no need for that type of legislation. It certainly hurts the farmer when he or she is putting in the crops.
We have also said that there should be a minimum price on grain. Not open-ended, but to a maximum. We said in 1988, 8,000 bushels. That would be approximately what it should be, 8,000 to 10,000 bushels, a maximum perhaps geared on the U.S. target price. For spring wheat, I believe that would be something in the area of $5 a bushel. There should also be an option for the producer to buy an insurance policy to ensure a further
8,000	or 10,000 bushels.
Then the producer could sit down in the spring, make a budget and know what he or she is going to grow and what he or she is going to receive for that crop. If they grow that number of bushels, they are going to receive the price for that grain.
I have talked to farmers in the area who have said: "I know I need another granary. I need another facility here. But I do not dare buy it because I do not know what is going to happen with any of the support programs. Those things come out helter-skelter at odd times so I have no way of planning". I have been told that by a number of farmers.
This is a logical approach which would help the family farm maintain itself.
There should also be a commitment to the Canadian Wheat Board. This government is slowly chipping away its mandate. Oats were removed, despite what the government said. There was no consultation with those producers who really counted. A poll came out and while I forget the exact figures, close to 70 or 80 per cent of the producers in western Canada said they would like to see oats remain under the Wheat Board. All the producers were asking to have a vote on the matter. The Canadian Wheat Board is a body that functions on behalf of the producers, by the producers for the producers. The least this government could have done was give the producers that option. The government talks about consultation. Well, it should have consulted with the very people who use the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been those kinds of votes in the past.
It is the same thing with canola. Canola is now a rising product. I know the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds has appointed a committee to look into that area and will be reporting back. But one of the things that should be suggested is the possibility of putting canola under the Wheat Board. If the Wheat Board had control of the sale of canola, it would open up markets, because it can garner large amounts of canola, if it is under the board's jurisdiction, to sell to corporations in the States that are looking for a guaranteed supply and right now they cannot find it. In fact, it is a very good opportunity for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a very good opportunity for the western producer.
These are some of the things that this government can do. What we need is a short-term solution and a long-term commitment. The short-term solution is to provide the $500 million, and put it out where it can do some good. Instead of sitting on it, the government should be utilizing it.
The argument that the Minister of Agriculture has made many times is that he cannot give the money out
May 16, 1990

because he has to negotiate with the provinces and they are not going to come across. Well, the time for negotiation is over. He can simply put the money out and say: "We have done our part. Here it is. This is not enough, but it is something". To hang on to that money is showing a callous disregard for the lives and the welfare of families living in rural Canada. That is simply what it is doing. There are families who are suffering in western Canada. They are suffering economically and this government is sitting on $500 million while that is happening.
In Saskatchewan, 16 per cent of the people are living below the poverty line and the government is sitting on $500 million. There are 60,000 people who are leaving the province because they cannot find work and the government sitting on $500 million. People do not understand that because it does not make any sense.
The motion is very simple and straightforward. Let us put the money out where it will do some good, and at the same time let the government make a commitment. We do not need rhetoric. We know that it has put billions of dollars out into the agriculture economy. That is not denied, but it has been misappropriated. It has not done the good that it could have done. It has been basically thrown around during election times to get votes and it had some effect there.
Make that commitment to the people. Make that commitment to rural Canada. Make that commitment to the people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and right across the country, as far as that goes. It is needed and it is needed now because we have a rural Canada whose infrastructure is disappearing, it is collapsing, and it is going to be gone. If we do not do something and do it very quickly a whole way of life is going to disappear. The government can say that the bottom line is important. In fact, that is what this government does say: "We have to look at the bottom line on this issue".
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people's lives. There is more to life than simply the bottom line. That may be the Conservative attitude, but this is a different Tory government sitting here than the Tory government of John Diefenbaker. It is a new type of Tory. This is a neo-conservative government, that is what that is. It is a bottom line government that is paying no attention to the lives of Canadians.
Supply
The Minister of Finance can stand in the House, or in other forums and state: "We have come through economic times and now is time to tighten your belt". I would like him to go out to Saskatchewan or to rural Manitoba and tell some of those people that it is time for them to tighten their belts. They have tightened their belts and there are no notches left. In fact, it is so tight they are leaving for other areas.
I would suggest to the minister that when they talk about the bottom line there is another line there too. As the rural infrastructure collapses, instead of having a viable economy where there are many people working and many people living, we are going to have a barren rural area, with people crowding into urban centres competing with other people who do not have jobs themselves.
There is a fundamental problem with the policy that this government is following. The problem is that the government is not committing itself to the future of a way of life that is important to us all.
I would simply like to close by calling upon this government to make an announcement today concerning its $500 million. The money is needed right now. The government must make the commitment that not only will it spend the $500 million, but that it will make a long-term commitment to rural Canada.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member on a fabulous speech and a great motion. When I heard the cynicism from the government side when they were heckling during his speech I re-read his motion and I could not understand why he was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is accusing the government of heckling. I want the record to show that nobody on this side heckled the member when he was speaking.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, there was heckling on the other side and there were other people who heard it.


Mr. Friesen:: Hansard will show you are wrong.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the point that I am trying to make is that the member's motion is something that we

May 16, 1990
Supply
on all sides of the House should get behind. I do not see why the government cannot support this motion.
We are all concerned about the family farm and we all know that the government is playing poker with the provinces in terms of the releasing of this money. I would like to ask the member a question about possible diversification.
In my riding right now we are selling a product from the member's home province. It is an environmental product; briquettes made from distressed cereal grains. It is an attempt by a corporation in that province to get on to another mode of production and generating income.
The member is obviously very conversant with his community. Are there are other opportunities for industrial growth there, not unlike the selling of these distressed cereal grains that have been made into briquettes which are much more efficient and environmentally friendly? Do other such opportunities exist there?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Yes, Mr. Speaker, diversification in rural Canada is a very important issue. One of the problems that we have in rural Canada is that farming has become such a specialized area that grain farmers are having difficulty. There is a need for secondary industry. There is a need to provide opportunities in order that family farms can maintain themselves. There is also a need for diversification for rural communities because in the west we have such a dependence on agriculture that when it is suffering, the communities suffer. In those areas where there is secondary industry, the communities are in a much better position.
Yes, there are opportunities. There is a need, though, to provide an environment. In fact, one of the things the government could be doing quite easily is providing some incentives for the smaller businesses to locate in other areas by providing some tax breaks and other opportunities. If the government would provide the milieu for that, they could survive. There are lots of opportunities and that would be well received.
I have talked to many people in my riding who were making suggestions with respect to various opportunities but who say that they cannot get funding and that it is just not viable to locate in some of these small communities. There are many opportunities and if the government would provide the milieu it would do an awful lot of good for rural Canada.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member from Saskatchewan. It relates to the Canadian Wheat Board, an institution to which farmers are emotionally attached. I shudder to think where farmers would be today without the Canadian Wheat Board. We know that in the past year the government took oats away from the Wheat Board and there are concerns about the future of the Wheat Board. Would the member from Saskatchewan like to comment on what he thinks is the immediate future of the Wheat Board?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for that question. The Canadian Wheat Board is under a lot of stress. With the removal of oats, the Wheat Board is now relegated simply to wheat and barley. The prognosis for the Wheat Board is not very good. One of the main problems facing the Wheat Board is as a result of the free trade agreement. In the free trade agreement there is a clause that says that if at any time the subsidies on wheat, or barley, which affects the Wheat Board, are equal to or higher than those in the United States, American grain can start coming across the border. That almost happened this year. We came within a few fractions of a percentage point of that happening with respect to wheat.
If that happens, American grain will start coming across the Canadian border and there will be pressure from the Canadian side. Farmers will say: "Look, Americans are bringing grain across. Why can't we take grain across to the American side?" Then the government will say that it has consulted with people, that farmers want this to happen and that it is going to allow Canadian grain to go across the American border. That is a scenario that has been put forth a number of times.
I do not know why the hon. member is looking perplexed, but it exists. When that happens it will mean the end of the Canadian Wheat Board because people near the American border will be hauling their grain to the American side when the prices are high there. When they are low, they will be hauling it to elevators in Canada which will mean that the Canadian Wheat Board will not have the ability to market its grain in the world market and will be relegated to the lower selling price of grain.
May 16, 1990

When that happens, farmers who live 200 or 300 miles from the American border who cannot haul their grain across are going to complain that they are not getting the pooling price they were getting before because some Canadian farmers who are close to the border are hauling grain across the border. There is then going to be a call to remove the whole Wheat Board.
That is a viable and possible scenario. The free trade agreement would have allowed that to happen this year and it came very close to happening this year. It is going to happen in the future. That is in keeping with the government's lack of commitment to orderly marketing in this country. This is a real scenario.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to ask the member if he is against Canadian grain farmers exporting their grain to the United States. Do you want to pick and choose and markets you ship to?
I notice that the motion says: "That this House recognize that Canadian farmers face dire financial circumstances" for a number of different reasons. It seems to pretend that nothing has happened since this government came to office, that there has been no attention paid to farmers.
I would like to point out to the member that between the years 1985 and 1988 this government paid out about $3 billion in western grain stabilization payments. In 1987 it paid $1 billion in special grains; in 1988 it paid $1.1 billion; and in 1989 it paid $850 million in drought assistance, which is one of the things to which he is asking us to pay attention. In five years the government has paid out about $6 billion to the grain farmers in western Canada, not counting all the other farmers.
Would it not have been a slight measure of honesty to have put something on the record or in the motion recognizing that this government has, over the past five years, recognized some of the problems that western farmers have faced and given credit for the $6 billion that it has already invested in western farmers?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, that was two questions. With respect to the question of marketing grain in the United States, the New Democratic Party is not opposed to farmers selling grain to the United States, but we
Supply
would like to see it go through the Canadian Wheat Board. When it goes through the Wheat Board, through the pooling system, we believe that the farmer, over all, gets a better price for his or her grain. When the farmer sells it independently, the large American grain companies are able to pick them off. That is pure and simple.
We want to see a strong, viable Canadian Wheat Board marketing grain in the United States and throughout the world. The poll that was done last year indicates that so do about 80 per cent of the producers in western Canada.
With respect to the payments made by the Tory government of the last few years, what the member said is true. If the member had been listening to my comments, he would know that I did make note of that. I did say that this government has put billions of dollars into the agricultural economy, but it has been misappropriated; it has been misdirected.
That money could have been used much more wisely and much more efficiently if this government would have been committed to maintaining the family farm instead of throwing money out at election time, which it does. In fact, the $850 million came out 10 days before the last election. Ten days before the election the government was scrambling around for an announcement on grain. It knew it was going to lose seats in the west, and it did lose quite a few, but it came out with a $850 million announcement of a drought aid program. It did not have a clue where the money was going to go, it just knew it had $850 million, $45 an acre.
The point is that the government has put money into agriculture, yes, but it could have done it more wisely and more efficiently if it had the commitment of maintaining family farms and maintaining a viable rural economy and a viable rural infrastructure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On a point of order, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Butland:: Mr. Speaker, I think we should point out that the hon. member who asked the question of my colleague did not stick around to hear the answer to the question.

May 16, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that is necessaiy. The hon. member is probably answering a phone call or watching it on television.


Mr. McDermid:: Do you want us to stand up and say there isn't a farmer in the NDP here?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear what goes on across the way. I noticed that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood got up. I think it is fair to say that the only thing he knows about agriculture is the fact that he has something green in the name of his riding. When I hear him talking to the hon. member from-


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member from an urban riding, I would like to object very strongly to the opening comments of the minister. All of us who represent urban ridings care very much about farmers in this land.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would never, ever want to claim that I knew as much about agriculture as the minister, but I must tell the minister that I have been actively farming for close to 26 years on a full-time basis. I resent his shots. I think they are really cheap and I think that his attitude is such-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. That again is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. All hon. members will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments.


John Horton McDermid: What nonsense. You bought the farm for an investment.


Dennis Joseph Mills: You're so smug, John, you don't see what's going on.


John Harvard: So now the Tories are against investment. What a bunch of hypocrites.


John Horton McDermid: Who woke you up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was just saying that all hon. members will have an opportunity to question or comment on the minister's speech if we can get to it.
The hon. Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.


Charles James Mayer: Thank you very much again, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to impugn anybody in terms of their attitude toward agriculture. What I was merely doing, when I referred to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, was commenting on the observations he makes about agriculture. All I can do is judge people by the way they comment in the House. On the basis of those comments I have to assume, and unfortunately conclude, that he does not know very much about agriculture. When I hear him saying that the member from Moose Jaw gave a fabulous speech, it reminds me of the old saying that what we don't understand we explain to each other. That seems to be what was going on between these two.
The hon. member from Moose Jaw talks about the Canadian Wheat Board losing sales to the Soviet Union. Let me put the hon. member's mind at rest on that. That is not the case. We are in the fourth year of a five-year long-term grain sales agreement with the Soviet Union that calls for a minimum purchase of 25 million tonnes. The hon. member would like to know, I hope, that before the conclusion of the fourth year we will have sold over 20 million tonnes, so we are not losing sales to the Soviet Union as a result of EHP. That is not to say that we are not losing prices, which we are, but we are not losing sales.
The member talks about the Canadian Wheat Board being relegated to selling only barley and wheat. Let me tell you what that means. The hon. member should know that of the three grains that the board handled a year ago-wheat, oats and barley-oats made up one-quarter of 1 per cent of all sales. By volume it is less than one-quarter of one per cent.
In addition, as a result of us removing oats from the Canadian Wheat Board, there has been a considerable amount of investment in western Canada and some jobs have been created. In Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, there is an oat facility going up which is going to process about
100,000	tonnes of oats a year. They are going to spend $17 million. There are three reasons they are building in Portage. First, it is a good location, close to the U.S. The second reason is free trade, better access to the U.S. market. This is a $17 million investment. They are going to process 100,000 tonnes of oats, close to a quarter of Manitoba's annual production, in one facility. The third

reason they are building there is because they no longer have to go to the board to buy oats.
There are similar investments going on in Alberta presently and there are also similar investments being contemplated in Saskatchewan. So when you talk about the Canadian Wheat Board and oats, there is another side to it, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member referred to a survey which he said found that 70 per cent, and then as he got on in his speech he said 80 per cent, of the producers wanted the board to handle oats. That is true. But in that same survey the producers were asked who they thought would get them the most money, the board or private trade. A majority, I think about 60 per cent, said that the non-board selling of oats is going to get them more money. So, while a lot of people wanted the board to handle oats, a majority said that other than the board would get them more money for their product.
Let me talk a little bit here about the problem in this motion. The motion refers to drought, low initial prices, interest rates, and the international grain trade war. It suggests that we can solve all those things by putting $500 million into the farm economy. By the way, they are not low initial prices, they are low initial payments, if you want to really get technical about it. If the member is a farmer he should know that.
I grew up in the area which the member represents. I lived in Township 28, Range 5, west of the third, so I know a little bit about the member's riding.
Five hundred million dollars is not a lot of money to solve those problems. The hon. member says that we should pay out the money regardless of whether we are going to get the provinces to contribute. That is a little bit of a contradiction. If he worried about getting money to farmers, he should be worried about getting additional money from the provinces. You would think he would have included in his motion the ability to lever, if you will, additional cash from the provinces to give to the farmers. If we are going to put up the money which we have had on the table since the end of March and we are going to be able to get the provinces to contribute some additional cash, you would think that would help the farmers.
Edmund Burke defined a conservative as somebody who believes that nothing should ever be done for the first time and I have to think that that is the hon.
Supply
member and his party and his policies. They do not want us to try to gain access to a rich market in the U.S. with better rules. They do not want us to go to GATT and negotiate to get better rules. They do not want to be part of the review process. We live in a changing world. The Minister of Agriculture has a major review under way with about 200 people in the industry involved from coast to coast. The hon. member and his party do not want any of those things. They are against all of those things. They are against the GST. The GST is going to benefit farmers to the tune of about $250 million.


Rex Crawford: You've been off the farm too long, fellow.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles James Mayer: I got their attention, Mr. Speaker. The crows were back on the prairies and they just arrived in the House.
How can somebody, in all good conscience, stand up and ask that the federal government give farmers $500 million, when he should know, if he does his homework, that because food is exempted farmers are not going to be paying the manufacturer's sales tax or the GST, when it is replaced, on agricultural products. They are not going to pay it on bearings, belts, pulleys, sprockets or antifreeze, on any of the agricultural parts that they now pay it on. They are not going to pay it on half-ton trucks.


Rex Crawford: Is that a promise?


Charles James Mayer: They don't want to hear, Mr. Speaker. With due respect to the hon. member from Vancouver who made the point that she resents being talked about, there is not a farmer over there so they do not know what they are talking about.
The point is that with the removal of the manufacturer's sales tax and the application of the GST, food items-


Rex Crawford: Repeat that: "Farmers will not pay GST."


Charles James Mayer: If the hon. member wants to get up on debate, we would be more than happy to hear him rather then have him yelling from his seat like he is. If he does not like what I am saying-


Rex Crawford: I'm not going to have you stand up there and misquote.

May 16, 1990
Supply


Charles James Mayer: At the end of the day there is going to be no GST paid by farmers. It is going to save them $250 million. Why is the hon. member not supporting us in that? I do not understand this. What they are doing is totally political. We know what the NDP did in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. It put in a land bank and proceeded to buy 1.3 million acres of land when it was in power in Saskatchewan. We know that record. We know what the Liberals did. They had their Prime Minister come out to western Canada to give us the finger and tell us to sell our own wheat. We know what their record is. What is the record of this government?
He talks about the over-all problem-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend, the Minister responsible for Grains and Oilseeds, referring to the situation out in the west. I wonder if he could confirm that the most recent projections are that 10,000 farmers in Saskatchewan alone will likely lose their farms this year?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have an opportunity on questions and comments to ask the minister a question.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have with me projections done by Ag-Decision for the United Grain Growers which have just been released today which show seeding intentions. That might be a little more interesting. The hon. member in whose name the motion stands says that farmers are not going to get a chance to put their crop in the ground because of lack of credit or lack of finances. He might be interested in these figures.
In Manitoba over-all seeding intentions for wheat are up 8 per cent. They are up 3 per cent in Saskatchewan for wheat and up 6 per cent in Alberta. Over-all seeding intentions on the Prairies are up by 2 per cent. In other words, farmers are going to seed 2 per cent more land this year than they did last year.
To say it another way, summer fallow is going to be down. When you summer fallow you do not seed crop. Summer fallow is down 2 per cent and over-all seeding intentions are up. That does not sound to me like an industry that is going out of business.
Admittedly there are problems, there is no question there are problems. But also bear in mind that the motion only refers to grains and oilseeds and a little less than half of the industry is based on grains and oilseeds. It is roughly a $20 billion industry in Canada and a little over half of it is livestock products and other special crops. So we are talking about half of the industry.
I will give you some more interesting figures, Mr. Speaker. The member spoke about the FCC. There is no doubt we are concerned about interest rates. These are loans approved by region to the end of March this year. They are up this year over last year and I will give you the numbers for Saskatchewan. The number of loans is up from 558 last year to 751 this year. In other words, farmers are borrowing money to buy land, to increase their operations.
In Manitoba the number of loans a year ago was 156, this year it is 315. So over-all seeding intentions are up. Moisture conditions are a little better, and moisture conditions are a big part of it, there is no question about that. They are much better, although not universally. There is an area in the southwest corner of Manitoba and the southeast corner of Saskatchewan that still has problems with the weather. But over-all the industry is starting to turn around.
Second, there is no mention at all in the motion about what is going on at GATT. The grains and oilseeds industry is largely dependent on exports. We have to deal with what is happening at GATT. I happen to think that we have reasonable prospects for reaching an agreement at the GATT, for a couple of reasons.
First, this is the first time ever that agriculture has been on the main agenda as far as the GATT is concerned. That is a significant event in itself. These over-all discussions have been going on now for about four years.
Second, we saw a year and a half ago that if we could not get a proper deal in agriculture it was likely to jeopardize the whole round. Those, to me, are two reasons why there is room for optimism that we are going to settle some of these things at the GATT. If we can do that, we will know probably before the end of the year at which time the GATT negotiation period runs out, that is going to be a positive signal as far as the over-all industry is concerned.
May 16, 1990

So while there are concerns, which there is no question about, to signal that the whole industry is in dire straits, as this motion does, belies the over-all situation of agriculture.
What concerns me as much about the motion as anything is that there really is no over-all indication of what the hon. member and his party would do. We know they would spend more money. I do not know where they would get it. They would, I assume, print or borrow it, but they would spend more money. We have already pointed out that if that is their sole purpose they should be encouraging us to deal with the provinces to get additional money rather than simply saying that we should spend the money federally and hope that the provinces will kick in later.
The reason we should be concerned about this is that in his own province in the last four years, of every $100 of assistance that has been provided to a Saskatchewan farmer $87.75 has come from the federal government. That is not a particularly good record. In Manitoba, my own province, it is even worse. The number is $88.08 according to Agriculture Canada numbers.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we should simply send the money to the provinces and they will to kick in and give additional money to farmers, the past record does not indicate that is likely to happen. That is why if he was really concerned about getting money to farmers he should have indicated in his motion that we should be dealing with the provinces to get them to kick in additional money for farmers.
If the hon. is interested in interest rates I have some more interesting numbers here for him. These are FCC figues and he will know that a big part of the business done in Saskatchewan is with the FCC. Out of 64,000 accounts, 60,000 have interest rates of 13 per cent or less and 52,000 have interest rates of 12 per cent or less, the point being that there are a lot of locked-in interest rates. So as soon as interest rates go up there is not automatically an increase in the interest rate that everybody pays on all of the money they have borrowed.
I will tell you what operating credit amounts to. It is going to be pretty tough for a person to spend much more than $50 an acre this spring. I can go through how much will be spent for nitrogen, for phosphorous, for seed, for chemical for weed control, and for fuel. I think that $50 an acre would catch most farmers. It is certainly a ballpark figure. Knock that down by 10 per cent. Ten
Supply
per cent on $50 an acre is $5 a year. For six months that is about $2.50 an acre.
I should also point out that fertilizer prices are down a little bit this spring. On my own farm we are buying nitrogen cheaper than I bought it for four or five years, and I think the same is true for phosphorous. So there are some things that are a little cheaper this year than they were.
So there are some thing that have changed in terms of operating costs. In talking about the immediate effect of what is going on with the interest rates you have to take those numbers into consideration. We are talking about lines of credit for immediate cash cost to put a crop in. In a six-month period, which is how most of that is rolled over, we are talking in the area of $2 to $3 an acre. That is a certain amount of money but not enough to put everybody in dire straits.
Let me conclude by laying out what this government has tried to do in terms of agriculture. It is really, if you will, a three-pronged attack. We live in a changing world. We produce some very high quality products in this country. We are taking advantage of those.
They want to talk about the Canadian Wheat Board being threatened. I have never heard such a bunch of nonsense in all my life. This was the government that stood behind the Canadian Wheat Board when three years ago it ran over a $200 million deficit in the pool accounts, contrary to what the previous Liberal government did in the early 1970s when it instituted the Lift program and took our farmers right out of the international market.
With the high-quality products and the changing markets that we have, we are looking to use some of our strong points to continue to sell. The member talked about selling to the United States. Just ponder this for a moment. The U.S. is the largest exporter of wheat in the world. It exports somewhere around 40 million tonnes per year. It has been down to 30 million tonnes and up to 45 or 47 million tonnes, but just take 40 million tonnes as an average. Forty-two million tonnes per year, that is what they export.
Canada used to be the second largest exporter. The Europeans have overtaken us now for subsidy reasons that I will get into in a minute, because that is my second point. We are probably now going to be third. We export somewhere close to half that, a little less than 20 million

May 16, 1990
Supply
tonnes. We do not buy any wheat from the U.S. A little bit comes into southern Ontario, but very little.
Why would the U.S. buy from us if it is the biggest? The U.S. was our fifth largest customer last year. If oilseeds are included, it is fourth largest customer. That says something about the quality of the product we produce. It does not buy from us because it likes us or because we happen to be neighbours. It buys from us because it likes quality of product and the way we perform on contracts and deliver.
For someone to suggest that the Canadian Wheat Board is under threat because of the free trade agreement does not make any sense based on past performance. I would argue that the other way around. It will be more difficult for the Americans to use Section 22 of their ag adjustment legislation, which lets them shut the border literally on 24 hours' notice, with the free trade agreement, than it was previously. It gives the Wheat Board a better chance to sell into a high-priced market.
Second, we are doing our very best to deal with what is going on internationally. In my view, the Europeans amount to international bandits when it comes to agricultural products. They have stolen our markets with subsidies.
Everyone talks about the Americans. The hon. member talked about the U.S. and the president increasing their Export Enhancement Program. I said the Americans are the largest exporters. They export between 80 and 90 million tonnes of all grains per year. They are likely to spend less than $500 million this year, and perhaps considerably less. They have more appropriated, but they may not spend it all. They have $500 million of export subsidy to export over 80 million tonnes.
The Europeans will export about 30 million tonnes and they will spend about $3.5 billion. We have every right to be angry with the Americans. We send them notes to let them know we are unhappy every time they do those things. But, if one is angry with the Americans on what they do with their Export Enhancement Program, we should be 15 times as angry with the Europeans because that is how much worse the Europeans are. That is why
we have to get a resolution to this at the GATT process. That is why we are putting so much emphasis on what is going on internationally.
Our Prime Minister has not given western farmers and Canadian farmers the finger and told them to sell their own wheat. He has been leading the charge at discussions to get some of these things resolved internationally. That is a measure of leadership: to take one's responsibilities seriously and to do something about it. When one thinks about how high some of these subsidies are and how reliant we are on exports for markets, the international market is very, very important to us. For example, in the hon. member's province, producers have to export over 80 per cent of the wheat they grow. So, the second thing we are doing is negotiating as toughly as we can internationally.
Third, we have been supporting our farmers through this difficult time. The hon. member mentioned the money we have spent. They can say it was spent wisely. It is not an easy task to distribute 200,000 cheques and we admit the program was not perfect. But, by and large, it was a well-run program. We got a lot of money to producers when they needed it. We have been doing that.
Another thing that is going on is an over-all review of agricultural policy in the country. It is interesting to note how we are doing it. The Minister of Agriculture is not doing it himself, or with the bureaucrats of the department. The producers and the industry itself are involved. We have seven task forces in place involving approximately 200 people: producers, processors, university professors, people who have been involved in the industry and have a stake in the industry. They are the ones who are doing the review. The part of the review that is the furthest advanced is the one on safety-nets. That is what we want to get at as quickly as we can.
Our record on agriculture is a good one, and I say that as a farmer. We are taking advantage of our strong points as far as selling to keep our markets. We are negotiating to have fairer and more even access to international markets because we do not believe that might is right when it comes to international trade in agriculture.
May 16, 1990

We have increased the amount of direct support to our producers by approximately 600 per cent in the last six years as a measure of confidence in the industry. We believe there are better days ahead if we can solve some of these problems and I believe that we will.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to correct the minister. The former Prime Minister-and he mentioned this three times during the course of his speech-never, ever gave his finger to the farmers of western Canada. He was on a private holiday with his three boys and he was heckled and harassed-


An hon. member:: Salmon Arm, B.C.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is right, it was in Salmon Arm, B.C. His former presence here seems to really rattle members opposite at times.
At any rate, I always thought the purpose of this national government was to lead and to take over when disadvantaged regions or problems could not be met by the provinces. The way the minister talks, it seems as if there is absolutely no problem with the farming community in the country. Agriculture Canada is predicting 39 per cent decreases in agricultural income. He almost comes across as if everything is okay.
At what point does the national government move to help these farmers, regardless of whether of not the province comes in? By the way Premier Devine is acting and speaking on national television, it looks as if he is not about to put his cheque on the table. As a national politician, not a provincial one-and I know that the minister tends to put things off onto the provinces-at what point in time does he act, or does he just let the whole thing go?


Charles James Mayer: I have a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker. Our record has been pretty impressive when it comes to dealing with the provinces of western Canada in support of agriculture. I just gave the hon. member the numbers.
Our responsibility for agriculture is a shared jurisdiction under the BNA Act and our Constitution. I do not have the section in my head, but it is in the same section that refers to fisheries. It is a shared responsibility between the provinces and the federal government. In the last four years, the over-all average for the Prairies
Supply
has been slightly over 80 per cent direct support from the federal government. It would seem to me that that would indicate our record is pretty good and that would be what we could expect.
We are trying to get as much money as we possibly can into the hands of farmers. If we can get a little extra money from the provinces to distribute, that is going to help the farmers. Our responsibility is there, our money is on the table, and we are going to have to act eventually. In the meantime, we want to get the provinces to own up to some of the responsibilities that they have for agriculture which is a shared jurisdiction.
I did not in any way suggest that it is all rosy in agriculture. What I try to do is put some balance on it, and there is some balance. The cattle markets are not that bad. Hog prices are up a little bit, especially in the last two weeks. If one follows what is going on in North America, it does not look that bad for the livestock industry. A big part of our industry is supply managed. They are not doing too badly. It is a $20 billion industry. About $9 billion of it comes from agriculture and about $11 billion comes from the other parts of it. That other part, by and large, is not that bad.
There are sections in the grain and oilseeds industry that are not that bad. I was trying to put it into perspective. Seeding intentions are up. Farm Credit Corporation loans are up, not significantly but that is better than having them down. I was just trying to put some balance on it. Things are not good in a big part of the grain and oilseed area, but there is a part of it that is doing reasonably well.
We will come good on our responsibility. Our money is there. Again, if through some negotiations with the province we can get a little extra money to the farmers, which is what this motion is about, it would seem to me that the opposition and the NDP should be supporting us in our negotiations with the provinces to get a bigger financial package to present to farmers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, in anticipation of the motion today, I made a point of dropping into a number of cattlemen's operations in my constituency over the weekend. In talking to them and, today, talking to relatives of mine from Saskatchewan who are farmers, they acknowledged that there are various programs they find helpful from time

May 16, 1990
Supply
to time, but they said it all pales when one considers what the government is doing in terms of interest rates.
Looking at the facts, one finds that the Farm Credit Corporation has had to increase its interest rates four times this year. My hon. friend is a farmer. He will know that at the present interest rates it is impossible to maintain a farm for any length of time. It is absolutely impossible.
I want to ask my hon. friend if he could comment on what efforts he is making on behalf of the farmers of Canada to convince the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada to get those interest rates down. If they continue as they have been doing for a number of weeks or months, he knows, as I tried to ask earlier, that literally thousands of farms will go by the board. Thousands of farm families will have to leave the land.
Farm families in my constituency are leaving the land primarily because of interest rates and through no fault of their own. They are hard working and committed. They have the expertise, but they have no control over interest rates. They say they cannot meet their interest rate obligations at these very high levels. Could my hon. friend comment on what efforts he is making to try to convince the Minister of Finance to do the right thing and to move those rates down before we drive everybody off the land?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a point that the NDP contradicts every day in Question Period.
One of the best ways to get interest rates down is to reduce government spending. The motion calls for us to spend money. I suspect that it would not be bashful about asking us to spend more. The federal government cannot spend more money when it has to go and borrow it. At the same time, the hon. member stands up and says: "Get interest rates down." If he wants interest rates down, he should tell us not to spend the $500 million. The hon. member should make up his mind. He cannot have both.
I know what is going on as far as interest rates are concerned. I farm. I have farmed all my life, and I know what interest rates do to us. I also know that, if we do not deal with inflation, there is a good chance we will go
through the same experience of the early 1980s when the hon. member and I were both in opposition. We saw interest rates go up over 20 per cent. If he thinks they are bad now, they are going to get worse if we do not deal with this properly. He will be up again to criticize the government for letting the rates get out of hand.
Dealing with the problems of getting inflation down and our deficit is the best medicine I know in terms of getting interest rates down on an over-all basis. Just to say it again, interest rates are high. Everybody wants them lower. Most of all the Minister of Finance wants them lower because he has to pay the interest on the national debt. That is an incentive for him to keep them down. There are no magic solutions, but bear in mind what I said.
If one is buying livestock, it is a different story. It will be bought on a short-term basis. I follow the feeder market. The feeder market for light cattle in our country is up $1.15 or $1.20 a pound. Prices are not that bad. If cattlemen were scared by high interest rates, they would be backing off on the prices. They factor that into their decision-making process; the more they pay on interest, the less they can pay for cattle. But the price of light feeder cattle is not that bad right now. I sold cattle about two weeks ago for more money per pound than I think I have ever sold cattle in my life.
Second, I make the point that with FCC loans, 60,000 out of 64,000 accounts have interest rates below 13 per cent. The hon. members says the rate should be even lower. Nobody will get locked into higher interest rates simply because they are up for three, four or five months. If the rates go up and stay up for a period of a year or two years, it is a different story. Hopefully, what the Minister of Finance is doing will cause the rates to come down and we will be in a position in which they can come down and stay down, contrary to the experience we went through in 1981-82 when we saw them get close to 25 per cent.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of clarification to the hon. minister.
The hon. minister has stated that farmers will not be paying the GST. Am I right? Will farmers not be paying GST?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that the hon. member's question?


Rex Crawford: There is more.

He also was elated that the Farm Credit Corporation is lending out more money. In my riding, this would worry me because that is the last resort for a farmer who cannot get money from the bank. It would tell me farmers were in trouble. Instead of going to the bank or mortgage company, they are going to FCC to get their mortgage money.
Also, regarding high interest rates, the hon. minister is quoting $50 an acre netting out at $2 to $3 an acre. In our farming in southwestern Ontario, we are talking about hundreds of dollars an acre. We cannot afford 2 per cent or 3 per cent higher interest rates. They are killing the farmers in my riding. The three questions are these. In the future, will farmers pay GST. Why do you feel that more farmers are borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation instead of the banks. Last, would he break down the interest rate on farming so that I can understand it because an increase of 3 per cent in my operation would put me under. The average gross for farmers in our riding in Ontario is $120,000, with a net of $4,400. How do you live on $4,400?


Charles James Mayer: In regard to the GST, I said at the end of the day that farmers will not be paying GST on all their inputs that they pay taxes on now. That includes bearings, belts, lumber, hardware, paint, all of those things. They will pay it and they will get a refund. At the end of the day they will not be paying it. I did say there was going to be some exemptions and I think that list is close to being public. You are not eligible now for a refund of manufacturers' sales tax on all the things you buy when you go to a hardware store.
You can smile if you want but a lot of farmers would think that that is not a bad deal. For instances, when you buy a new half-ton truck, you pay the manufacturers' sales tax on it. I do not know what that would amount to but I would expect $1,500 or $2,000. If you use that new half-ton truck in your business, or on a farm, you are going to get the GST back.
I said at the end of the day there will not be any GST paid. This means on some items you will pay it up front and you will apply for a refund. For some of the big ticket items you will be exempted at the start.
The second question the hon. member asked was about FCC. I acknowledge that it is not a great item, that it is not something to be elated about. But I guarantee
Supply
that if FCC loans were down, members opposite would be standing up criticizing the fact that FCC is not lending money.
Farmers are making a business decision. If they do not like the interest rate at the FCC, and FCC does not think it is a good business plan they are not going to lend money. But it is a little bit of a positive signal at least that arrears are down for FCC and some of their loans are up. I have the numbers here and can share them with the hon. member after.
The third item he talks about is interest. He is absolutely right. I was referring to $50 an acre on the prairies which would be an average variable or input cost for putting a crop in. You go to southern Ontario and I suspect the numbers may be closer to $200 an acre with potatoes and some of those specialty crops. But again if you are talking $200 an acre, let us say you took off 10 per cent of that, which is $20 an acre. For half a year it is $10 an acre. On a crop like potatoes where you may gross $600 or $700 an acre, $10 an acre is no more in terms of a percentage, a factor to you, than $2 or $3 an acre is if you are going to gross $120 or $130 an acre.
But the point is that because interest rates go up immediately farmers do not pay those increased interest rates on all of the money they borrow. It affects livestock producers when they have to buy every time they turn over their cattle. It affects farmers immediately when they go with a line of credit to put their crop in in the spring. But by and large that is not the majority amount of money that is borrowed by farmers. So there is a delayed effect there.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister with great interest and noted that he said that he tried to give a balanced presentation, that he tried to put some of the farm issues in context. I appreciate that effort, although I think that he failed miserably at some stages.
I felt as I listened to the minister that there was a touch of unreality to some of his remarks. When he celebrates-and I choose the word carefully-celebrates the taking out of more loans by farmers, whether it is from FCC or from the banks, it is an absurdity with a touch of unreality. I do not think farmers are ever happy to go to the bank or the FCC to borrow money. I am astonished that the minister would use loan figures and

May 16, 1990
Supply
put them in a positive light as if it were something to celebrate. I am astonished.
He also told us about the use of less summer fallow. I was born and raised on a farm. In fact, I lived the first 19 years of my life not too far from the hon. minister's farm. I lived in exactly the same riding that he has represented for a number of years. I think I know a little bit about farming.
When farmers plant more and rely less on summer fallow does not suggest that there is confidence in the air and that farmers are exuberant and enthusiastic about the future. I will tell you what it is. Farmers are human beings, they have a human nature. When they feel the crunch and the pressure is building they will resort to almost anything to increase their revenue. That means planting more and taking more land out of summer fallow. That is exactly what they will do.
There really is a touch of unreality about some of the minister's remarks. He pooh-poohed the remarks of the member from Saskatchewan when that member expressed concern about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. There is a concern in western Canada about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister was sort of suggesting that we should not worry, it is not going to be taken over by private interests or it won't be abolished or anything. I have a quote here from the Commissioner of the Wheat Board, Mr. Jarvis. He said recently that an "open border", that is, open between Canada and the United States, "could happen as early as next year, partly because of the 1988 drought. Subsidies are currently $40 and $50 a tonne above Canada's, that the drought of 1988 sharply reduced Canadian crop reduction increasing Canada's per unit subsidies on wheat and barley in the process".
Mr. Speaker, you do not have to take the word of the member from Saskatchewan or my word. Take it from the chief commissioner of the Wheat Board. Things could dramatically change in the very near future.
The other thing, and again I think it has this air of unreality, the minister says with some vehemence and great emotion is that farmers will not pay the GST. I appreciate the fact that they may get GST back that they have paid on inputs but at the same time, farmers are consumers. If the GST is on haircuts, farmers have
haircuts and they will have to pay the GST. If the GST is on a pair of trousers, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that farmers will have to pay the GST on trousers. Somehow the minister is implying that farmers are not consumers, they never buy anything outside of trucks and tractors and cultivators. That is what I mean when I talk about the minister's remarks having a touch of unreality.
I would like to point out a few other things because I am mindful of the fact it is May 16. Here in the capital and back in my home city of Winnipeg, we notice that the sun is getting stronger, the temperatures are getting higher, the landscape is getting greener, kids are thinking about final examinations and getting out of school and having a fun time during July and August. Families and parents are thinking about their vacation plans as well. But what about down on the farm at this particular time, on May 16, 1990? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers are in a frantic period. Farmers are in a scramble because this is seeding time. The deadlines for farmers are very tight. They do not have the luxury of planting any old time they want. Of course, the weather can always be a problem. When the farmers have that moment to put the grain in the ground, they do exactly that. We appreciate what farmers are going through at this time, but that is a normal thing. It happens every spring and it goes with the trade, if I can use those words.
It is hardly normal on the farm these days because farmers are being hounded on so many fronts from so many directions. In this debate earlier this afternoon, we heard about the high interest rates, low commodity prices, low initial prices and about the subsidy war between the United States of America and European countries. Canadian farmers on the prairies are still feeling the effects of the 1988 drought, and the 1990 year is still in doubt. We do not know how it is going to be. Is it going to be another dry year, or is there going to be adequate precipitation?
While I am talking about farmers being assaulted on a number of fronts, another assault is on their support programs. I will touch on that if I can in a few moments.
A combination of these factors spells disaster for farmers. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the figures before, but I think they are worth repeating. Farm income will plummet this year. These figures do not come from
May 16, 1990

Supply
opposition members or from someone off the street. They come from Agriculture Canada.
In Saskatchewan, the province that is going to be the hardest hit, it is expected that farm income will drop 87 per cent. In my home province of Manitoba, farm income is expected to drop 57 per cent. In Alberta, the figure is around 46 per cent.
What is the main reason for this expected diminution in farm income? It is the reduction of the farm support programs of the federal government. In fact, the reduction in farm support programs, which is in the neighbourhood of $400 million-a lot of money-accounts for 57 per cent, more than half of the expected drop in farm income this year. That is devastating.
Of course, there is this big hassle that has been going on for weeks about the federal government's so-called $500 million farm aid program. I want to talk about it a little bit more.
I mentioned earlier some of the problems facing farmers including high interest rates. I want to touch on that, because I think you and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the interest rates are skyrocketing. The latest announcement from FCC indicates that some of the rates are now over 14 per cent. That is an enormous burden on farmers who are already in a very difficult situation.
Let me allude to some figures from the province of Saskatchewan. The provincial land security board in that wheat province received 246 notices involving 204 farms in March alone, while the federal Farm Debt Review Board received 193 applications in February. Both of these boards have dealt with more than 7,000 farmers since 1985, and the trend is expected to continue. That is one figure from the province of Saskatchewan which is very disturbing.
How costly and how burdensome are these high interest rates? According to calculations of experts, every 1 per cent of interest cost takes over $200 million in annual debt servicing costs out of the pockets of Canadians farmers. Every time the interest rate goes up one digit, it is tantamount to taking $200 million out of the Canadian farmers' pockets. They just cannot afford it.
The Manitoba Debt Review Board recently reported that it has dealt with farmers facing $300 to $400, or even $600 a day in interest charges alone. Can you imagine up to $600 a day in interest charges, Mr. Speaker?
Since 1985, the Farm Credit Corporation has entered into 2,900 recovery actions, and has captured a total of 2,719 farms.
In 93 per cent of its recovery actions, the FCC has settled by taking the land from the farmer. I find that extremely disturbing.
I know that the minister might accuse us of distorting the issue and putting it in darker terms than warranted. But we have to tell this side of the story because we know we are always going to get the rosy picture from a minister of that government. We have a responsibility to give this side of the story. If we do not, we are going to let a lot of farmers down. They want Canadians to know that they are suffering, and of the vicissitudes that they face in every day life.
I spoke about low commodity prices. The Wheat Board announced this spring a reduction of about 12 per cent to 15 per cent. I wanted to mention something about putting some of these commodity prices in context.
There was an interesting piece written by a gentleman by the name of Murray Fulton, an Associate Professor of Agriculture Economics at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Speaking of putting things in context, this is what he said about low commodity prices that farmers have to live with. I will read only one paragraph from his piece which appeared in the May 7, 1990, edition of the Financial Times of Canada.
To set the record straight, the problem is very severe indeed. Grain prices, when adjusted for inflation, are the lowest they have ever been-even lower than during the 1930s. Poor crop quality and yields in recent years have made the problem worse. Agriculture Canada forecasts that this year, Saskatchewan farm income would be one-seventh the average over the last five years.
That gives us some idea of what farmers are facing.
When farmers heard about the lower prices this spring, they were of course shocked. While I am in the mood of quoting people, I would like to pass along a quote from a farmer in my province of Manitoba, upon hearing about the lower wheat prices. He said: "What

May 16, 1990
Supply
terrible news for farmers. It's a deeper cut than I expected". Those are the words of the president of the United Grain Growers.
I would like to say just a few words about this unmerciful subsidy war that is going on between European countries and the United States. It is helping to kill agriculture in Canada because the farmers, beyond their own control, are caught in what you might call a cross-fire. They are almost pawns in a deadly game.
Unlike their counterparts in the U.S. and European countries, Canadian farmers, I must remind you, Mr. Speaker, are not guaranteed a support price. The best they have is a floor price, which is usually well below world prices.
There are programs such as the Western Grain Stabilization Program. Of course that kind of a program helps, but it is far from perfect. The level of support is not known in advance. Worse still, there can be no payments in any given year. This year is an example. That is because payments are based on a moving five-year average. So there can be no payments even after several years of bad crops.
What about the cuts in farm support programs? I mentioned earlier these reductions amounting to about $400 million. Just to enumerate them, they are these. Crop insurance was slashed by $200 million. The grain and flour program was cut by $60 million. The Rail Branchline Rehabilitation Program was reduced by $48 million. Grain and crop advance payments were cut by $54 million, while the dairy export program was cut by $12 million. Commodity based loans were reduced by $15 million, and the Canadian Dairy Commission by $10 million. That amounts to a total of $399 million.
Now I come to the most recent controversy having to do with the federal government's offer of a $500 million farm aid program, a program I suppose designed to get money into farmers' pockets right now. I wish it was happening right now. But all we find is confrontation from the federal government, a bid by the federal government to somehow divide and conquer over the provinces, to break down an understandable common front, particularly put together by the prairie governments.
It has been said over and over again that farmers need the money right now, although somehow or another I think the federal government is not listening. I think it is unwarranted and unfair-it is brutal-that the federal government would say: "Here is the $500 million on the table, but we have all kinds of strings attached. Unless the provincial governments come through, you ain't going to get the money. You're just not going to get it".
I do not think farmers deserve that kind of treatment. If the federal government is really sincere, if it wants to help farmers this way, and it is just one way of helping- it is not the whole ball of wax, and we know that-it would forget about these strings, sever them and release the money because the money is needed now.
Again, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to take my word or the word of the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Perhaps you would like to listen to the prairie premiers. They do not agree with the federal government.
The prairie premiers, you will note, Mr Speaker, belong to the same political party as does the hon. minister. They are all Progressive Conservatives.
What did they say just a few days ago about this offer? Let me quote what was said because I think it is notable what they said. It is notable because it supports what we have been saying on this side of the House for a long time. This is what the prairie premiers stated in their press release:
Premiers demanded that the federal government's offer of $450 million of assistance to Canadian grain and oilseed producers and $50 million of assistance to other agricultural producers should be paid immediately and without any strings attached.
The western premiers also stated in their news release:
The Western premiers noted that the 1990 income deficiency is a direct result of international trade subsidy wars and, as such, must be addressed by the federal government. Provincial treasuries are simply not equipped to take on the treasuries of the United States or the European community.
It is also notable what members of the legislature in the Province of Saskatchewan did. They are totally dissatisfied with the federal government's arguments with respect to withholding the moneys until the provinces come through.
May 16, 1990

What did this motion that was passed 41 to 0 in the Saskatchewan legislature state? I guess there is a preponderance of Conservatives in that House.
The motion states:
- this assembly condemns the Government of Canada for failing to provide adequate assistance to Saskatchewan farmers at a time when a sharp drop in the initial price will mean a loss of $500 million to $600 million to Saskatchewan farmers. And, further that this assembly calls on the Government of Canada to provide an immediate direct federal cash payment of $500 million to Saskatchewan farmers, as advocated again by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on May 2, 1990, and to implement a sound long term farm income stabilization plan.
In conclusion, the time now is for action and not for rhetoric. That is what the farmers are demanding. It is the least that they deserve.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, there are many things I could take issue with, but I will pick just three.
Farmers are people. To the extent that that means they are consumers, they are going to pay the GST. When I was talking-and I hope no one misunderstood me-I was talking about farmers as businessmen. That is what I meant when I said that a farmer is a businessman and at the end of the day is not going to be paying the GST. I assumed that that would have been obvious, but apparently it was not.
Second, I would like to give some figures with respect to what has been happening with FCC, and they will give more of a picture. Of all the land that FCC owns, it has leased back about 55 per cent of it, and about 95 per cent of that land has been leased back to the original borrower. If we put it in that kind of a context, over half the people who have had financial difficulties with FCC have ended up, through the Farm Debt Review Board system, leasing that same land back. So all those people are not put off the land.
If we look at the number of hearings that have been held, hearings of the Farm Debt Review Board where FCC has been involved, we see that there have been
6,000	hearings. Some 73 per cent of the farmers in all those cases have continued farming. So there is a little bit of a success story there. Again, I am not painting it as
Supply
all being rosy, but to get up and say that the FCC owns all this land and by implication the people who did own it no longer farm is not the case.
The last point I would make has to do with the hon. member saying that the decrease in summer fallow is not a good sign. In this business if you do not sow, you do not reap. That is what it is all about. Summer fallow means just that. You fallow it for the summer; you do not seed. I do not see how anybody with some common sense can take a decrease in summer fallow acres as anything but a positive sign. It costs less to look after an acre of summer fallow for a year than it does to crop. It means that farmers are exhibiting a little bit of confidence in the industry because they are seeding more this year than they did last year.
I could go on. There is pretty good evidence around that in some areas summer fallow adds to salinity as far as farm land is concerned. There has been some pretty good work done at the University of Saskatchewan on this subject. It is an indication to me as a farmer, and someone with some common sense, that when summer fallow acreage goes down that is a positive sign for the industry. As I said, if you do not sow in this business you do not reap. What it is all about is producing something so that you can harvest it.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I really think there are more important matters to be talking about than summer fallow acreage.
Let me just try this once again because I think the hon. minister did not hear me very well, or that he misunderstood me.
First, he was the one who mentioned this figure of a 2 per cent reduction in summer fallow acreage. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that 2 per cent is probably within a margin of error. Two per cent is not a lot. I find it astonishing for him to suggest that by taking a small figure of 2 per cent it implies confidence in the agricultural community. At best, it may say nothing at all.
I would also suggest, and this by way of repetition, that my experience on a farm suggests that when farmers feel under pressure they will sometimes take land out of fallow that they perhaps originally did not intend to. They do it because they are going to use every available piece of soil to make a buck, even when in their ideal

Supply
moments they would like to take a plot of land, a field and put it in fallow for a year and give it a rest.
For the minister to take this 2 per cent figure having to do with summer fallow acreage and turn it into a confidence factor is absurd. It fits in with my comments related to his. His remarks, in my opinion, have an air of unreality about them.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. I want to make a comment and ask a question of the hon. member.
The minister spoke in his speech in glowing terms of how much this Conservative government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I suggest that the hon. member concentrate on the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James since it is his speech that he is commenting on.


Rodney Edward Laporte: In the past members of the government have made many comments-and this was referred in the hon. member's speech-to the effect that the government has made a major contribution to agriculture in this country and in fact that it has supported agriculture and that agriculture is doing veiy well. I would just like to throw in a couple of figures here, if I could, and I will focus on Saskatchewan.
From the time that this Conservative government came into power in 1984 the level of farm debt in Saskatchewan rose from about $4 billion to almost $6 billion. Today, the level of farm debt in Saskatchewan is over $6 billion. One-third of the farmers carry 70 per cent of that debt.
As well, since 1984, since this government took power, foreclosures have tripled in Saskatchewan. This year farmers are faced with something like 10,000 foreclosures in Saskatchewan.
Contrary to what the government is saying and contrary to what has been said today, I do not see where the farmers of Saskatchewan are doing so well. I would just like to ask the hon. member if he knows of anywhere in the province of Manitoba, or anywhere else in this country, where the farmers are doing well and where rural Canada is doing well.
Surely, based on what the minister is saying, there has to be some areas in this country where farming is doing
very well. I would like to know where that is. Does the hon. member have any idea of where that might be?


John Harvard: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that an uncle of my wife who lives in the Humboldt, Saskatchewan area feels-


Benno Friesen: That's heavy research.


John Harvard: That is heavy research. I do not want the hon. member from British Columbia to trivialize my remarks because farmers know what they are talking about. There is an old expression from where I came that goes this way: You didn't come down the river on a bale of hay. I know a lot of farmers and most fanners did not come down the river on a bale of hay. They know their business and they know it well.
What I was going to say about my wife's uncle who lives near Humbolt, Saskatchewan, is that he feels that he is one of the lucky ones. He is a man probably near 70 years of age. He is up there with some other people in this hallowed Chamber. He is lucky because he has been on the farm a long time and is not heavily in debt. In fact, I suspect that he does not have any debt at all. He is in the sunset years of his farming experience.
But what about the young people? What about the young men and women who would like to take up a life on the farm and they are in their early twenties? What do they face?
I do not think I have to tell my good friend from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the proposition that they face. It is almost impossible, what with the cost of land, the cost of machinery, the cost of loans and these low commodity prices. As I said earlier, when you take inflation into account, these prices are lower than those that prevailed in the 1930s.
It is true that you can find happy stories. You can find successful stories. They are here and they are there. I am happy for that. I am delighted. I wish every Canadian farmer would show a profit. I wish every Canadian farmer could take a vacation two or three weeks every year and feel that he could afford it. But those farmers are few and far between.
The reason I say that is because all we have to do is look at the indicators, look at the statistics. The information is absolutely overwhelming. The farm story is a disturbing one-farmers are in a terrible dilemma. The
May 16, 1990

future, if anything, is perhaps even worse than what they face right now.
I go back to what I said earlier, that is, farmers deserve something better. Haggling, bargaining and confrontation has been going on between the federal government and the provinces. The farmers deserve better than that.
I do not think there is any doubt about it, but that the federal government has to take almost all the blame. As far as we know it has the money. It says that it is prepared to give it. It says it is on the table, but it will not release it despite the need of the farmers. It will not release it unless the provinces meet certain conditions. That is unfair.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to join the debate today and to have this opportunity to express to the House the plight of many of my constituents in my constituency of Regina-Qu'Appelle.
Over 50 per cent of the voters in my riding live outside the urban area of Regina. Many of them are farmers or living in smaller communities that are very dependant upon the farm economy. Most of them are dry-land farmers. There is some mixed farming and some cattle operation in my district, but most are grain farmers.
As I have travelled around my riding and gone through the coffee shops and talked to farm people in the garages, the town halls and up and down Main Street in the many small communities that make up part of Regina-Qu'Appelle, I have never seen such a depressed mood as I have found this year. There is a sense of hopelessness and of helplessness. There is a sense that nobody is listening to them. They see the value of their lands decreasing year after year. They see the value of what they are so proud to produce, some of the best grain in the world, decreasing. They are some of the most efficient producers in the world. Yet when they sit back and add up the costs of production and what they will get for the produce, it just does not make sense.
When you look at the statistics, Mr. Speaker, particularly for the farm economy in Saskatchewan, you begin to see the dimension of the problem. Saskatchewan has the fastest growing rate of poverty in the country, second only to Newfoundland.
Supply
A total of 303 communities in the province have lost population since 1986. A thousand farm families leave the land every year in Saskatchewan and are not replaced.
In 1989, Saskatchewan recorded the highest level of bankruptcies in the history of the province.
Since 1984, more than 60,000 people have left Saskatchewan.
Between September, 1988, and September, 1989, Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures in Saskatchewan on farm families increased by 60 per cent.
Over 10,000 notices of intent to foreclose on land or seize machinery, crops or livestock have been served on Saskatchewan farmers by lending institutions.
Today, agricultural lenders hold over 850,000 acres of Saskatchewan farm land, compared to 121,000 acres in 1987.
Realized net farm income in Saskatchewan is expected to be down some 87 per cent from last year, down $109 million from $910 million in 1989.
The value of farm land in Saskatchewan has fallen dramatically-30 per cent in the last five years.
The depressing statistics go on. People have seen their life savings diminish. The value of the land which was their pension and security in old age has totally dropped. Now, many of these older farmers who want to retire, cannot. Many of their sons, and in an increasing number of cases, daughters, who want to take over the farm operation, cannot, because of high interest rates, the low prices they will get for their commodities and the general insecurity that exists.
The farmers in my district do not want government hand-outs. They want an opportunity to fairly compete with the producers in Argentina, Europe and the United States. The farmers in my district figure they can compete with these countries, that they can produce some of the best wheat in the world. But they cannot compete against the treasuries of the United States and Europe. That is like banging your head against the wall. They cannot win that fight.
They need help. They need a commitment from the Canadian government that it will stand behind them so that Canadian agriculture, particularly agriculture in our

May 16, 1990
Supply
western provinces, will not be destroyed and be victims of the European and American trade wars in agriculture.
This government has failed them. Many of my constituents voted for the Conservative Party in 1984. They ended up voting for me in 1988. In fact I got over 50 per cent of the vote outside of the city of Regina in the last election.
Many of them had some hope and expectation that finally we would get, with a Conservative government, a government in Ottawa that would listen to the needs of western farmers. They had that expectation. Instead what they have received are ad hoc programs that are more motivated by political timetables than they are by securing the western farm economy.
I was talking to a farmer earlier this morning from around Edenwold. He remembered that the Minister of Agriculture announced a program in the fall of 1988 just before the federal election. The promise was that the money would be in the hands of the farmers by that Christmas. Indeed, the money was in the hands of the farmers by Christmas, but it was Christmas a year later.
He reports, as well, that there is some optimism at home because of the weather conditions. We are having a good, soggy, wet spring. Even with the drought that has gripped western Canada for the last number of years, at least by the indications of the spring, there is some hope. There is some possibility of getting a good crop this year. He is telling me that farmers are out there, trying to seed but, of course, they cannot afford the fertilizers and the other input costs because they do not have the cash flow.
We have seen this government and the government of Saskatchewan play political football with each other, trying to get some political mileage without spending a red cent. They are trying to tell the farmers back home that, yes, they will support them in getting some money to them to enable them to put a crop in this year. As the associate minister of agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said earlier in the House, one cannot reap unless one sows. There are many farmers back home who would like to sow, but they do not have the cash to buy the seeds, the fertilizers, and the fuel in order to put the crop in. They are asking this government for help.
The Minister of Agriculture has said: "We are studying this. We are working on it. We are having meetings." Indeed, they have meetings. The Premier of Saskatchewan, in the Speech from the Throne opening the Saskatchewan legislature, stated that he had an agreement with the federal government. Some agreement! Farmers are still waiting today. They need that money. They cannot afford the political games that are being played between Regina and Ottawa. They have to know now what they can expect so that they can plan. Good agriculture and good farming practices mean planning. One needs this information. The farmers are not getting the information; they will still have to wait.
The minister announced, the other day, in answer to my colleague, that perhaps next week, on Friday when the Ministers of Agriculture will meet again, they will have something to announce. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, and then, perhaps not. Perhaps the date of some announcement will not be determined by the cycle of the crop, it will be more determined by the cycle of the political career of the Toiy government in Saskatchewan.
We have heard a lot from the Tories about what a tremendous job they have done for western agriculture. Yet, as I said earlier in my remarks, the farmers back home feel betrayed because this Conservative government failed to produce a permanent program, a program that has been thought through, and a program that they can depend on that would be like a foundation to western agriculture. They have not received that from this government and that is what they need.
In the 1988 election, we proposed a well thought-through program. It was a program that begins to establish some income stability, at a certain level, to ensure that the family farm size of operation will have a guarantee and that they will be protected from the vagaries of international prices. We proposed, in our program, that we would strengthen institutions like the marketing boards and the Wheat Board and that we would institute programs that would help in the intergenerational transfer of farm lands so that this burden would be taken off the shoulders of every generation. What great stupidity it is that every generation has to pay off the banks in interest payments. This is a burden that we must lift off the shoulders of our farm community, so that we can have the intergenerational transfer of land, without all the interest charges. Those were the pro-
May 16, 1990

grams and the policies we announced in the 1988 election.
What we have finally seen from this Tory government is a conference earlier this year. Now, finally, we hear from the Minister of Agriculture that he wants some permanent programs. He is tired of these ad hoc programs. It has been in power now for almost six years, and it is too long. Why did it not introduce such a program in 1984 or 1985? Where has it been?
When we hear the indications, and we see the signs of where this Tory government is going and where it is leading western agriculture, it scares me even further. When it talks about a permanent program, it means a permanent program where the market has a total determining force. It wants to do away with orderly marketing. It wants to do away with the Wheat Board. We saw this during the free trade debate.
We know where the Tories are headed and what their farm program is. They would strip western agriculture of all those institutions that we have built up over the years, those programs that the pioneers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have fought for. These are the programs that the predecessors of my party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, with the co-op movement and the pools have built together. These are what former Tory and Liberal governments, and people such as John Diefenbaker and Jimmy Gardner have made in their days to develop institutions which would provide some protection to our western farmers. The agenda of this government is to strip western Canada and our western Canadian farmers of those institutions that were developed to protect them.
The government says, of course, that it has given all these nice grants. It has given all these nice billions of dollars of bail-out. However, it also fails to mention the increased charges that it has levied on the farm community or the cut-backs to existing programs.
For example, in the province of Saskatchewan this year, farm policy by this government will cost Saskatchewan farmers some $825 million. The drop in initial prices alone accounts for $550 million. The FCC interest rate increases account for $35 million. The loss of two-price wheat accounts for $127 million. The crop insurance premiums account for $55 million. The reduction in
Supply
federal farm-fuel rebates is $25 million. The increase in grain freight rates is $19 million. The elimination of the interest-free cash advance is $14 million. These add up to a figure of $825 million that will be taken out of the farmers' pockets because of the policies of this government this year.
Do not tell me what a great friend of the farmers these Tories are. They might put some of the change back in one pocket, but, my gosh, they have got the hands in other pocket and they are taking it out of the farmers' pockets at the same time as they are taking it out of the taxpayers' pockets all over.
My colleagues have mentioned the goods and services tax. The minister says that in the end the farmer will get it all back. Let us hope that is true. Is it not ironic that the government is now asking the farmers to collect its taxes? Of course, when they collect its taxes and pay for it, they are not getting any interest on that. In fact, the farmers are giving the government an interest-free cash advance while the government has taken the interest-free cash advance away from the farmers. Is it not ironic that the great friends of the farmers, the people who understand the farmers, are now taking the cash advance out of the farm community through the goods and services tax?
We need a government that is willing to make a commitment and that will stand up for western agriculture. We need a government that will indeed recognize that its policies, whether on international trade or interest rate policies, are having an adverse affect.
I heard the minister responsible for the Wheat Board talk about interest rates and how we need to bring our inflation down. Let me tell him, we do not have much inflation in Regina. We do not have much inflation in Indian Head, Strasbourg or Ituna. Houses there cost next to nothing. The value of real estate in Regina and all those communities has continually decreased.
There is no inflation when it comes to the value of farmland. There might be some inflation in Toronto and Vancouver, but we want a government that also knows the needs of prairie farmers and will devise policies that will help them and that will not stop inflation in Toronto

May 16, 1990
Supply
at the expense of prairie farmers. That is what western Canadian farmers want. That is what they were expecting in 1984. They knew they were not going to get it, and that is why many did not vote for this Tory bunch in 1988. I would suspect that in the next federal election there will hardly be a Tory in western Canada left.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly interested in the debate, representing farmers in southwestern Ontario. Indeed, the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle has visited London-Middlesex in his flights from Saskatchewan.
Is the hon. member in favour of the $500 million being spent by the federal government right away? He seems to be in favour of it. I cannot understand why he is not in favour of the GST, particularly in his province. It will save Canadian farmers $250 million. His own province is a major exporter of agriculture with 70 per cent of its product being exported. There is an expected gain with the GST of 2 per cent in the economy of Saskatchewan. I do not understand where he is coming from.
If the hon. member wants the $500 million, why does he not want the farmers of Canada to benefit directly from the $250 million?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty connecting the $500 million, that has been promised and that we are still waiting for as an interim measure needed to allow the farmers to put the crop in this spring, and the goods and services tax.
The hon. member claims that the farmers are going to save some $200 million. Certainly, I would like to see those figures. Much of what the farmer now buys is exempt from the federal sales tax. If he assumed that the farmers were paying tax and they are going to get a rebate, those are new sets of figures. That does not jibe.
The farmer does not pay all that much in actual sales tax on farm input costs, other than the tax on gasoline for which he used to to get a rebate. The government now is cutting back on the rebates. When the goods and services tax comes in, the farmer will get the full rebate back. That is playing political games.
The government has increased the tax. Two years later it will give it back and say: "Aren't we nice fellows?" That will not wash back home. Farmers are not that dumb.
They will see through that number quickly. What the farmers want are commitments right now.
The government knew that western agriculture was in trouble in terms of the cash flow to pay for the input costs necessary to put the seed in the ground. It knew about that last fall. Certainly at Christmas, the figures were out. The projections were out. The government should have sat down and spent January and February with the premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba devising a program, having it out, and playing the political games. By the beginning of March, they should have announced a program.
Instead, we have seen the government waiting until the crisis hit. Now it is busy working and trying to find a solution. By the time it finds a solution, spring seeding time is over. All we have had is sound and fury from the Tories in Regina and Ottawa. There is nothing substantial in the hands of the farmers that would allow them to put their crops in this year.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the emotional rhetoric of the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, dealing with the very serious matter before us, namely, the cash flow problem that currently faces Canadian agriculture.
I heard the hon. member mention the word "betrayed". He said that he felt Saskatchewan farmers were betrayed. If I quote from a document which was prepared by AgDecision in May 1990, which is the United Grain Growers prairie crop report, it shows that as of May 7, which is early in the wheat planting year, in Saskatchewan wheat plantings are estimated to be up some 3 per cent.
I ask myself the question that if farmers feel betrayed, why are they investing more in the system? I question that comment as being nothing more than just emotional rhetoric and lacking in substance.
The hon. member went on to say that the NDP would have programs that would strengthen and help farmers. Mr. Speaker, for your information, the NDP did have a program that removed the burden of debt from the shoulders of Saskatchewan farmers. It was a very effective one. It learned from a political philosophy from across the Atlantic Ocean, which meant that it incorporated a land banking system in the province of Saskatchewan.
May 16, 1990

At the last provincial election, hon. members will recall that agriculture Saskatchewan spoke rather heavily and forthrightly and it told the NDP and the government in the province of Saskatchewan that it wanted to have nothing to do with socialized agriculture. As a result, the NDP were turfed out along with the land bank policies.
There is no question that agriculture is facing tough times in Saskatchewan, but I hardly think that developing a land bank system and having big brother in charge of agriculture is the way to resolve it. Given the experience of the NDP government in Saskatchewan, does the hon. member still think a land bank policy is the policy to follow? If so, why is that not the course that eastern Europe is following?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Regina-Wascana for his questions.
First, when it comes to the matter of more acreage being put into production, that can be expected given the spring conditions. There is some optimism and hope because of the growing conditions. Many farmers are recognizing that they have to put every bit of soil and land that they own into production in order to meet their cash and credit demands.
I am sure if the hon. member for Regina-Wascana would take some time to visit some of the farmers in his riding, he will discover that they are not going to be using the fertilizers they normally would because they cannot afford them. For this government to say that it is a sign of confidence that the farmers are planting more acreage, I think it is fooling itself.
In fact, I would even prescribe a motive to that, but I will not. This government knows that the farmers are not going to be using the fertilizers that would enhance and enable them to get a much richer crop out of the land. Yes, they are going to tiy to press every piece of land that they have into production, but they are not going to be able to invest in fertilizers and so forth, that would ensure a bumper crop.
My hon. friend also talks about the land bank. There were some problems with the land bank. I now talk to farmers who tell me: "I wish the land bank was back." We could have changed some of the administration. Personally, I would like to have seen a dozen or two dozen municipalities forming a larger regional unit and
Supply
having that unit administer a land bank, rather than perhaps the government doing it from Regina.
One thing I will not fault the previous New Democratic Party government of Allan Blakeney in Saskatchewan for is recognizing a problem. It tried to do something about it. I give it credit for the guts and courage. In 1982, we had the Tories come in and they did away with the land bank. Guess who owns the land in Saskatchewan now? Today, agricultural lenders hold over 850,000 acres of Saskatchewan farm land. The Farm Credit Corporation, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia-the banks are the largest land holders in Saskatchewan. That is Tory land banking. And that is something we will not accept, nor will the people of Saskatchewan. Just wait until the next provincial election.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that after one and a half years the opposition has finally taken this time to highlight the plight of agriculture in Canada. It is certainly overdue from their perspective.
It is not the sort of thing that this government has taken lightly. We have attempted to develop some programs in consultation with the agriculture sector which were deemed to be meaningful. However, in terms of a broader agricultural long-term program, I believe that the final resolve to the plight of agriculture still eludes not only this government, but any government. In fact I would suggest that it has a tendency to elude agriculture as well.
There is certainly no question at all that some of our farmers are experiencing great financial difficulties. Their problems are the result of successive years of weather-related disasters, lingering debt and uncertain prices caused, as my colleagues on both sides of the House mentioned earlier, by international subsidy wars.
In 1990, this government has responded to these difficult times by committing $500 million in special assistance. The commitment was made in March along with several other initiatives. This assistance was contingent on provincial participation and as we all know, negotiations with the provinces are ongoing.

May 16, 1990
Supply
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Saskatchewan situation. Our Premier, Grant Devine, faced with a debt burden caused during a disastrous decline in world prices for oil, potash, uranium and agricultural products certainly has a tough role to fulfil as is his commitment to the Saskatchewan farmer.
I believe our conditions for a cost-sharing program caused his job to be most challenging. Saskatchewan agriculture will stand to gain more agricultural dollars than any other province in Canada, but at what cost?
That is the difficult question that remains to be answered. However, given Grant Devine's proven ability and the fact that he certainly is no quitter, I am confident that whatever deal he makes with us will be sound and meaningful.
No one is comfortable with the time that this matter has taken to resolve, hence one should appreciate how difficult this problem really is.
By seeking matching funding from the provinces, this government hopes to put even more money in farmers' hands. If the provinces choose to match our $500 million, a total of $1 billion will be available to Canadian farmers in this crop year. This would bring farm income in 1990-1991 in line with the five-year average. Clearly the federal government is willing to do its part to ease the financial problems facing Canadian farmers.
But as we come to grips with the problems now facing our farmers, we cannot lose sight of the long-term picture. That is one of the reasons why our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture is leading our agri-food industry through a major policy review. It is the most extensive review of agri-food policy ever undertaken in this country and it involves all the facets of this vital and dynamic industry.
Several government industry groups are at work to ensure our agri-food industry is well positioned to respond to an increasingly competitive world marketplace and can keep pace with rapidly changing consumer demands and technological developments. At the same time we want to maintain our record for safe nutritious food and meet the challenges of increasing environmental awareness.
We also want our producers to have the farm support programs they need. We want to establish programs that are more predictable and permanent. We want to establish an agricultural framework that does not require the ad hoc programs that now need to be designed to respond to the crises and difficulties that we experience in agriculture.
Already, for example, we have improved the crop insurance program. Those improvements are in place for this crop year and are the result of extensive consultation with producers and our provincial counterparts.
Both producers and governments need to be operating in a more predictable environment. Canadian producers need security in making their business plans, and governments need security in setting their budgets.
Through the policy review, the grains safety net committee has been working on policy options for a national safety net program for grains and oilseeds. That program has been discussed with federal and provincial agriculture ministers and is being designed to be compatible with a long-term, comprehensive, safety net plan for all commodities and producers.
A federal provincial group is looking at long term safety nets. Its work will be discussed at a meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in Moncton in August this year. The ministers will also be discussing the work of the other policy review working groups. Those groups are putting various policy areas under the microscope. These policy areas include supply management, transportation, competitiveness, sustainable agriculture, food safety, farm finance and management, pesticide registration, research and technology and interprovincial trade barriers.
These groups will be coming up with new policy options which will be weighed against the vision the federal and provincial governments share for the future of Canadian agriculture. That vision rests on four pillars; policy that recognizes regional diversity, increased environmental sustainability, greater self-reliance and more market responsiveness.
These new policy options will take into account regional strengths and advantages. Each region will be encouraged to produce what it can produce and market most efficiently. They will also ensure our food production practices are compatible with the need to protect the environment and conserve our natural resources.
May 16, 1990

We are also looking at policies that will ensure farmers' production decisions are driven, not by government programs but by market signals. This does not mean that farmers have to live without support against sudden changes in markets or weather. Indeed, we need effective support programs to act as cushions against the unexpected and the unpredictable.
Our policies will also ensure that farmers continue to have the right to market their products in a collective fashion. Through the policy review, we want to ensure that the benefits of supply management continue. At the same time, we want to ensure our agri-food industry is responsive to what the market wants and needs. We want all facets of the industry working together to ensure market opportunities are not lost or ignored.
As my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture has said many times, "We are taking this review right from the farmers' gate to the consumers' plate".
This government recognizes that all segments have a role to play in ensuring our agri-food industry grows and expands to its true potential. Certainly, this government's commitment to the industry cannot be questioned. We have always been there in times of need and, through the policy review, we are taking steps to ensure the agri-food industry remains vital and strong. That is a goal I am sure everyone in this House shares and supports.
When I review the motion currently before us, it seemingly comes at us from a non-partisan point of view. It was with that thought in mind that I initially looked at this motion, but after having heard the speeches I began to have my doubts.
The motion in a very honest and sincere way calls upon the Government of Canada to endeavour to strengthen the economic position of Canadian producers with an immediate cash injection, with or without provincial participation.
While I understand where the author of the motion is coming from, it leaves a whole roomful of questions to be answered. The questions and answers do not seem to go together. For instance, if this money is to be made available, to whom will it be available? Will it be made available on a cultivated basis, a crop basis, will it include pasture land, will it consider special crops grown, or will
Supply
a program, in whatever form it might take, be designed to compensate those that have run through a particularly bad period of years in relationship to those that have run through a period of fairly successful years? Is there any provision at all in such a program, whatever it might be, that deals with the capability of the particular acre of land being considered?
While on the surface it seems like a very easy motion to address, we have found in experience that in order to be fair and equitable to all those concerned, the answer to the very elusive question of how best to resolve the cash flow problems in agriculture remains elusive. It remains elusive, not only from those of us in the House of Commons that have permit books-and I think there are more of us on the government side than on the opposition side-it continues to remain a problem for government as well.
The opposition is long on rhetoric, long on desire, but short on suggestions.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate today.
I commend my colleague from Winnipeg-St. James for the very eloquent and understanding speech he made in this debate. His well researched presentation was certainly a credit to one from western Canada who, while he is not an agriculturalist, he certainly understands the problems of those producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. My colleague has outlined that very eloquently. I want to go a little step further and deviate from the problem in western Canada, although it is very serious. My heart goes out to those producers, particularly in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who are losing their farms and their lifetime savings. Because many of these people are in their late fifties and early sixties, a life of retirement that is free of worry and want is not available to them.
I want to deviate for a moment or two and draw the attention of the government to the fact that we also have problems in Ontario at this point. We have been waiting anxiously for the announcement of the initial payments for Ontario winter wheat. The beginning of harvest for this crop is less than eight weeks away. These farmers have to make a very important decision, a decision

May 16, 1990
Supply
caused partly by weather. Fifteen per cent of the winter wheat crop did not come through the winter in very good condition; 15 per cent of it is a wipeout. These producers have to make a decision over the next three or four days as to whether they rip that up and plant an alternative crop, or whether they leave it in hopes of getting some returns, although meagre, from that wheat that was killed over the winter months.
Is the minister to look at this to see if he can speed up the process? Hopefully, he will do that this week. Those producers have to make a decision whether they are going to rip it up in the next few days and plant soybeans, white beans, or one of the other edible bean crops. It has to be a crop that will accept a late planting.
In a letter dated May 16, the Prime Minister has been called upon by the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board to act immediately to make this known. While we realize that the initial payments announced last week apply to western Canadian wheat and the Canadian Wheat Board, this one is administered by the Agricultural Co-operatives Marketing Act. I think it is only fair that the government announce, as soon as possible, what that initial payment is going to be so that farmers can produce their cash flow projections, make their planting intentions immediately and put in those alternative crops.
I also think that the government should be looking a little harder at what it has done and maybe eat a little humble pie and return to looking at the two-price wheat system because the Ontario producers offered to accept a cap on the amount of wheat they would produce that goes into the domestic market. If that cap was accepted by the Ontario producers and they took the export market price for the rest of it, this alone would be a benefit to the farmers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, and Lord knows they need all the help the can get at this time.
I am very disappointed and frustrated about this. I think I should remind the minister of a speech made in this House, when he said: "Whereas the economic problems facing Canadian farmers today are largely the result of government inaction and neglect", and I am sure we all agree with that, "this House condemns the government for its failure to recognize the importance of this agriculture sector and its contribution to the economic growth in Canada, and urges the government to
move quickly to expedite to reduce the farm fuel tax", I say that it should be removed altogether, "reduce the red meat stabilization uncertainties, but to introduce the red meat plan and expedite the passage of legislation respecting advance payments and resist the erosion of initial payments to western grain".
That is an interesting statement and I wholeheartedly concur with it today in this House. It was made on May 13, 1984, by none other than the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. If he thought conditions were bad then, they have deteriorated far more.
A few days ago, the Farm Debt Review Board was in front of the agriculture committee of the House of Commons. One of the provincial chairmen pointed out to us that the equity in the farm sector across Canada has seen a continual erosion over the last five years.
I have no idea of the political persuasion of that hon. gentleman, but I know that he was absolutely right when he pointed that out. He is a very astute Canadian. The government should pay attention to the erosion of equity. That is why we are seeing all the foreclosures in western Canada at the present time and why we are seeing the financial institutions as the largest landholders in the province of Saskatchewan, landholders of land that was once owned and operated by the family farmers, their wives and their children. It is a terrible legacy to leave those people, a terrible legacy to leave to all Canadians.
I also want to point out that this afternoon we met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board in the agriculture committee. There is a level of uncertainty there about what is going to happen to that industry over the next few years. One of the statements in committee was that they feel very apprehensive about the fact that they may be being traded off against other interests in Canada, interests that are closely tied to the export markets. These are markets that do not have the level of stability that the dairy industry or the poultry industry has here in Canada. The producers who belong to those industries certainly have a right to some stability and assurances that those industries will continue to prosper the way that they were intended when those plans were set up by the Government of Canada under Liberal administrations. I would like to extend that to include the Canadian Wheat Board which was established many years ago under the
May 16, 1990

Conservative government. It has done a good job over the years.
Those institutions should be strengthened and enhanced, rather than have the foundations chipped away a little bit at a time. They should be held up as an example to the rest of the world as to how we can produce ample quantities of clean quality Canadian food for the consumers of this country and other members of society.
Having been a farmer for a good many years, this is a time of anticipation. I always make a point of getting out in the fields for a few hours on the weekends. It is a time when life springs up all around us, whether it is the grass that is growing or the wildflowers and the bushes, the birds nesting, or the arrival of new calves. It should be a time of optimism and hope, not a time of despair, apprehension and neglect by governments.
I ask this government to make that initial payment known immediately for the Ontario wheat producers. Let them know that their cash flow projections can be based on the wheat they have left after the winter kill to allow them to go ahead and make alternative planning arrangements.
I ask this government to pay special attention to this major resource industry of Canada whose spin-off effects impact across our total economy.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in this House today and speak on this motion that calls upon the government to endeavour to strengthen the economic position of Canadian producers with a cash injection, with or without provincial participation.
As I have said in this House before, I feel very strongly that as goes agriculture so goes the economy of a country. There are four creators of wealth in the world: fishing, mining, forestry, and farming. The policies of this government do not seem to recognize the importance of those four. The policies of this government have put in jeopardy the future of those involved in those four industries.
I know that there have been ad hoc policies and ad hoc programs in the past few years but like many people, I feel that they are not the answer. They are a short-term bandaid but that is not what we need. We need recogni-
Supply
tion by the government, we need recognition by everyone, of the importance of agriculture to any country.
I do not have to remind people in this House, but I remind those who are watching of the importance of the agri-food business. It does over $45 billion worth of business a year. It is responsible for 10 per cent of Canada's domestic product. It provides over 1.5 million jobs, which is over 15 per cent of the jobs in Canada. Fifty per cent of our agricultural production in Canada is exported and that accounts for over 7 per cent of our Canadian exports. The production of much of that export, a big percentage, is grain production. Many sectors of the farm community are suffering right now, but those who are particularly hurting are our western grain producers.
I wonder when this government is going to realize the importance of that industry and stop cutting the feet out from underneath the industry with the removal of such programs that have been management tools by the industry over the years such as the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the at and east grain and flour transportation assistance, the removal of the fuel excise rebates and other moves that have been made. Sure, they put an ad hoc program in, but now we have an ad hoc program put in place that was asked for, and it was needed, not as big as needed but it is better than nothing, I will admit that, and the government claims it is on the table. Well, that is exactly where it is, on the table.
It is not doing the producers any good when it is on the table. This was requested last fall. The need was outlined many months ago by ministers of agriculture in the west and by premiers in the west, so it was put on the table, but it was not put on the table until it was so late that the producers could not get their hands on it. The supposed purpose was to assist the producers in their seeding expenses this spring, but here we are in the third week in May when the seeding decisions have been made, when the cash flows at the bank have had to be established, when the credit has had to be established and no one knows whether they are going to benefit from this program of $500 million that has been offered to the provinces with the words: "If you match it, you can have it".
The buck has been passed from the federal government to the provincial governments. The provincial governments have to decide what program it is, and the provincial governments in conjunction with the federal

May 16, 1990
Supply
government have to get all of that information out to the producers. The long and the short of it is that the banking and the lending institutions have lost faith because of the way similar programs have been handled in the past with uncertainty and the producer thinking he was going to get a certain amount of money and then finding out later that he did not get that much or it was not coming. The lending institutions are saying: "Show me, then I will assist you in your financial arrangements for another crop year". But the producers cannot say, and they cannot show them, because all they say is that it is on the table. They want to know how they are going to get it in their hands, and they cannot. It is a very frustrating position.
The government is being told, and I wonder if it is listening, that by far the majority of Canadians recognize the importance of agriculture. By coincidence, today in my office I received a letter from a lady in my riding who I believe was born on a farm but who has not lived on the farm in many years. This is from a lady in Prince Edward-Hastings riding, a long way from the Prairies, but I would like to read it:
I do not make it a practice to write to members of parliament, but I feel very strongly that I should do so. I ant quite concerned about our western farmers, feeling that they need more help that our government seems willing to give them. The price of wheat is very low and should be subsidized so that farmers will get a fair price. I am sure that they had expected a fair price and were dependent on that to keep going. The farming industry is one of Canada's most important industries, if not the most important! I would hate to see any more farmers having to leave the land because they cannot make a go of it!
We should listen to that. I hope the government listens to that.
We have seen a high interest rate policy and a weak negotiating ability at the negotiating table, as far as agriculture is concerned. It is very nice to be a nice guy, but I can tell you from experience in negotiating that the nice guy does not always win. I do not mean to say that one has to be belligerent or nasty when negotiating, but the friendly approach does not always succeed. It is all well and good to come away from the negotiating table saying that we were nice and we showed the way, but when the other people at that table walk away saying that they got Canada again, it starts to concern me.
Grave concern has been expressed at the meetings in my riding in the last month over our negotiating ability and whether Canada is being firm enough in its negotiations. That inability to negotiate firmly and the low prices and the low yields as a result of weather conditions in parts of our country, including parts of the western provinces particularly with the shortage of rain and the drought, has placed the economic stability and sustainability of thousands of Canadian farmers in jeopardy.
We keep talking of sustainability in agriculture and sustainability in the environment and I feel that they go hand in hand. I do not think there is a group of people in Canada that understands the importance of the environment any greater than our farm community. They know what has to be done. They know what should be done and they know how to do it. However, with the prices and the returns to farmers at the present time that they cannot afford to do it.
We are all going to suffer and we had better soon wake up and realize that if we are going to have a sustainable environment, we will need sustainable agriculture, which in turn requires a sustainable economy. They go hand in hand.
I urge the government to put the policies in place that are necessary for that to happen. We have a great natural resource. We have a great food producing capacity, but I do not think we are paying enough attention to it. I do not think that we are marketing it properly. I do not think we are explaining to Canadians the importance of agriculture. I do not think the assistance that is given to farmers is adequate. First the government should explain how the way it is dealing with this particular industry is for the betterment and for the good of all Canadians.
There is no comprehensive agricultural or food producing policy in this country. There is work being done on it. I encourage the government to develop that policy quickly so that producers and farmers and therefore Canadian consumers know that we have a food security and an agricultural security program in this country.


David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be asked to speak on behalf of the government on this particular issue.
May 16, 1990

Before I get into my remarks, I would like to say that yesterday I had the opportunity to be down in southern Manitoba in around the Emerson and Selkirk areas. The farmers are really working down there. They are in the fields, doing their best. There are tractors all over the place, cultivators are going and everybody is moving quite well.
They had dry conditions yesterday but it is completely opposite today. It is raining. Farmers refer to a million dollar rain, but in the Brandon-Souris area in southern Manitoba, I think we can hopefully call it a billion dollar rain.
There have been a number of comments made today in debate. Some I agree with and some I do not. I think it is important that I remind eveiybody that the government has been responsive to the various needs of the agricultural community.
Back in 1986-87, we put $2 billion into the agricultural industry via the Special Canadian Grains Program. Also in 1988, we went into the Canadian Drought Assistance Program which was good for $850 million.


Rex Crawford: A real screw-up!


David Bjornson: At least we tried. It was an effort. Not everything is perfect. You know the agricultural industry. You will know the magnitude of the farmers that requested aid. I think the minister did a fine job of putting this program together as best as he could in the timeframe that was involved. It was not for lack of trying. Any criticism like that is unacceptable on this side of the House.
Right now we have $500 million on the table that we want to put into the agricultural industry. The government is doing the best it can, and $450 million of that is directed towards the grains and oilseeds. It is important that everybody understand that we do want to participate.
Throughout the debate so far today, there has been a lot of comments made about international trade. I would like to address my comments to the fact that Canadian agriculture, the grain industry in particular, is very much influenced by international trade.
Canadian farmers have been forced to watch the giants of the international grain trade, the United States and the European Community, beat each other with their wallets, driving down world prices and seriously eroding traditional grain markets.
Supply
At the same time, the huge subsidies paid by the European Community continues to encourage overproduction by the farmers. To protect the European grain industry, the community leaders have thrown up tariffs which effectively shut out our opportunity to get into their markets. We have a significant problem over there. The United States and the European Community have bigger wallets than we have.
We are doing our damdest to support the farmers. We have been doing this by working in GATT. There has been an obvious effort. Probably one of the most obvious efforts was put forward by the Minister for International Trade when he said that we should stop dealing with the past and look to the future. We are trying to deal with the problems of the future.
Once again, it is unfortunate that the Americans in particular said: "No, no we might have to fight with you fellows". Because of their influence, the size of their markets and their wallet, they have said they will stop. So we are back in there and we are trying to be optimistic by dealing with the future and not with the past. The past is done. We are still paying for the past and we are going to do what we can, but we want to make sure that we have a futuristic plan. We have to give the Minister for International Trade credit for some very strong efforts.
There is a lot of inequity caused by the subsidy practice of the Europeans. These examples that I am going to give are based on prices in April, and are in Canadian dollars. At that time, EC producers received $243 a tonne for wheat, while the Canadian farmers received $145 a tonne. Look at the difference. EC farmers received $353 a tonne for their Durum, while the Canadian farmers only received $130. In the case of barley, the EC farmer received $232 a tonne, while Canadians were only getting $97. That is a significant problem.
The Europeans and the Americans eventually have to come to their senses. It is not the agricultural community. The agricultural community in the European countries and in the American states well understand that their survival right now depends on those fat wallets. But what about the consumers, the taxpayers of those countries? When are they going to change? We have to work towards educating those people.

May 16, 1990
Recently, I had the opportunity to sit beside an Australian and he informed me that the Australian government does not have subsidies. They are playing hardball with their farmers and their farmers are in a difficult situation. They have taken the effort to go into the European countries and try to educate them to the fact that these people are actually paying too much for their goods.
I do not know what we can do to convince the marketplace, the European market in particular, that it is time that they grow up and get into this. I would imagine that it is a mindset. If history serves me right, that mindset goes back to after World War II, when they decided that they no longer wanted to be dependent upon somebody else to provide their food. It is time that the whole world community understand that situations like that are quite unlikely to happen. Maybe it is possible that when we have the opportunity to lower these prices and talk about the level playing field, we could possibly be providing food to Third World countries at a cost acceptable to them.


Rex Crawford: We would go under.


David Bjornson: Only by hard work and good common-sense farming we will not go under. We can put the crop into the ground and collect it and put it into the marketplace on a level playing field and compete with anybody in the world. We just have to have the opportunity to do it. You are in the industry. Would you not like to have that opportunity?


Rex Crawford: Certainly.


David Bjornson: Right. I think that is what we are doing. We are going to be open-minded. We are trying to create that. We want the GATT to go forward. That is one of the policies of this government and I think we are reflecting it very well. We are not stepping backward. We are trying to step forward.
We should look at the subsidies for the European countries just 10 years ago in 1979-1980. The EEC was a net importer of 12 million tonnes of wheat and coarse
grains. Next year, it is expected that they are going to be a net exporter of 27 million tonnes of wheat and coarse grains, which is a turnaround of 39 million tonnes. In order to maintain their agricultural sector in the European countries, they are providing more money. As they provide more money, the farmers grow more crop, so all of a sudden they are getting into our markets. It is only because of the subsidies that are doing that. If they had to put their crops in the ground, pay their taxes and do everything that our farmers have to do, I am sure there would be a completely different attitude. They would not be rushing out and doing all that.
I do not know what the answer is to resolve that problem. I am hoping that sometime in the near future the European Community will take a look at that. Maybe when Europe '92 comes into play they will sit down and take a long, hard look at how this is going to come together. Maybe that is the time it will happen.
It is most important, as we are working together with this government and the policies we are putting forward, that we are ready to react. We want to anticipate what is going to happen and when that time comes we will react. We cannot be sitting back worrying about 1990 and 1992 and finding out that we are left behind the pack again.
Once again, the attitudes put forward by the Minister of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds are the proper attitudes. Maybe there is going to be some tough slugging. Right now it is tough slugging. There is a billion dollar rain in western Canada right now and I understand it is coming into Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 17,1990