1991-03-18

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved:: That this House call upon the Government to take immediate action to deal with drastically reduced farm incomes resulting from the 1990-91 crop year and to make required assistance available in time for spring planting to ensure viable returns for grains, oilseeds and horticultural producers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion before the House today calls to the attention of the government the drastic and urgent need for emergency farm assistance this spring. It calls upon the government to provide this assistance in time for the planting season. This assistance should not only be clarified and made concrete, but should be provided to farmers in time for the planting season. We would suggest at least by the middle of next month.
It would be hard to over-emphasize the need for this assistance for the 1990-91 crop years. Clearly, I do not think anybody can remember the price of grains and oilseeds at a lower level than they are in the current crop year. Clearly, this results from a number of factors, mainly the world grain price war between the United States and the European Economic Community. Prices have been below $100 a tonne in many months of this crop year.
In fact, the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board pointed out one sale of United States wheat subject to a subsidy program there, the export enhancement program, where the wheat was actually sold for around $70 a tonne. If you remove the transportation costs, the actual
value of the shipment dropped to something like $35 a tonne.
Clearly, this crop year has seen the lowest prices in real terms since the 1930s, perhaps ever. Those amounts of payment are clearly inadequate. As a result of this, the government's cutback and its support programs for the 1991 calendar year, total net farm incomes are projected to drop by 54 per cent.
In some provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that drops the total net farm income to below zero. There is no net farm income. Other provinces like New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Ontario have a very serious reduction in total net farm income, down by percentages in the upper teens. In the case of Ontario, it is around 20 per cent. Clearly, this is the most difficult year as far as cash flow that many producers have ever faced. The executive director of the Ontario Com Producers Association projected that its incomes would be lower than at any time in the 1980s. That takes in all of those extremely low years of the late 1980s.
In fact, representatives of the Ontario Com Producers told the agriculture committee just last week that farm incomes would be something below $200 million for the grains and oilseeds in the province of Ontario below what they would project or hope would be the portion provided by government if GRIP is implemented in the coming year.
The impact goes far beyond just grains and oilseeds. It affects the whole range of agriculture commodities, but especially horticulture crops. The chairman of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association last week told the agriculture committee that it is in the most desperate situation that he can recall in the 35 years that he has been a fruit and vegetable producer.
He has described the need as something like $70 million of emergency or bridging assistance before some more permanent kind of program of assistance such as GRIP, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, is put in place. He says that it is absolutely essential that that

March 18, 1991
Supply
bridging assistance be provided this spring, before the growing and the planting season.
That was the report from only one producer. It does not take into account the tremendous problems that our potato producers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are facing with the virus problem there. We are told by my colleague that the need for assistance there may be of the order of $25 million.
Prairie Pools has called for assistance in the order of $1 billion in the Canadian Wheat Board area. The Third Line of Defence Committee, which the minister appointed several months ago, has been reported to say that the need is in the order of $1.2 billion as an upper figure.
The important thing to remember here is that not only are we facing a drastic world situation for grains and oilseeds prices, but we are also facing a drastic cutback in government support programs.
Figures released by the government in December show that projections for government support programs, compared with 1988, dropped by $1.8 billion.
More recent figures show a reduction in support programs, between 1989 and 1991, of $1.6 billion. We have coming together here a terrible market situation and a government policy which has reduced those support programs which are necessary if agriculture is going to survive in the current world subsidized global grain warfare which has been going on for the past five or six years.
Why the government has chosen to reduce those support programs during the last two or three years is not clear, but it certainly is causing tremendous hardship. Figures like a 54 per cent reduction in net farm income-in some provinces 100 per cent total net farm income reduction-are only cold statistics; they do not speak of the tragedy of young farmers losing their land, of family breakups, of all kinds of difficulties that are faced in the rural community. Clearly, producers who five years ago were in a very healthy or reasonably successful position are facing difficult times now.
It almost seems like the government's plan was to reduce these support programs from those that were available in 1987, 1988 and 1989 in order to create this crisis, to bring in its GRIP and NISA programs, to bring pressure on the producers. Many producers believe that
a world trade war in agriculture commodity is the responsibility of the federal government. In the United States the federal government assumes the responsibility for most its support program. In any event, whatever the game plan of the government in this regard, the resulting GRIP program that the government has proposed for the 1991-92 crop year will see the provincial governments putting up something like 60 per cent of the premiums for those programs. We have been inundated with talk of the GRIP and the NISA program across the country, but in fact GRIP-and probably NISA, with the exception of Saskatchewan-will not help out in the 1990-91 crop year. In this crop year we will see very low returns.
The crisis is now; the assistance needed is now. If farmers are to know where they are at and what their future is going to hold, they need the government to give a commitment as to the funding it is going to provide, clearly identify what basis that funding is going to be on, and make the payments before the crop season starts. The GRIP is designed for a payout in the fall of 1992. There may be interim payments later this fall and there may be interim payments next spring. We don't know about that. Clearly for the planting season, it is essential that this plan be put before the producers this spring.
When we talk about GRIP we see some provinces, like Saskatchewan, facing tremendous contributions for a province that is predominantly agriculture, with a very small non-agriculture society to pay the benefits. The question is: Can the cost to that government and to those producers be sustained over the long haul, a cost that has been estimated at something like half a billion dollars per year?
When the Minister of Finance presented his budget, he talked about $1.3 billion of assistance for agriculture. If that amount were provided immediately on a basis on which farmers would be able to calculate what assistance they were going to receive before the planting season this year, I am sure that everybody would think that was a very fair and equitable proposition.
However, the Minister of Agriculture has put out a press release stating that the $1.3 billion could be used for a number of things. It might be used for federal government premiums for the GRIP and NISA. It might be used ' for the deficit and the Canadian
March 18, 1991

Wheat Board initial payment. It might be used for the debt in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund.
All those things do not put new money into farmers' hands this spring. What farmers need is an emergency payment or pay-out, assistance now which will provide seed, fertilizer, diesel fuel, equipment repairs, help and so on, in time for the growing season this spring.
Clearly the Canadian Wheat Board account has been variously portrayed, that it will have a deficit of $750 million or a billion dollars. The federal government's share of the GRIP and NISA premiums are large amounts as well. In the Western Grain Stabilization Fund we do not know what the deficit is. We are told that it might be several hundred million dollars. If the $1.3 billion which the Minister of Finance announced in his budget is an interim payment under the western grain stabilization fund, of course that would be immediate help, provided it was made this spring.
What we are saying is that the program should be spelled out clearly, that we should not have this shell game going where there are three or four possibilities where the funds might be used, the funds mentioned in the minister's budget but not spelling out exactly how much funding is going to be made available in the current crop year in time for the planting and seeding period.
We say to the government that it should give up on that shell game. It should make it clear exactly what assistance is going to be made available. Paying off the deficit in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund or the Wheat Board account is of interest and concern to parliamentarians and to farmers, but what farmers want to know this spring is: Are they going to survive? Are they going to be able to put a crop in the ground? Are they going to get assistance on the same basis as they did in 1987, 1988 and 1989, in those years when they were facing similar deficits and similar losses of benefits from the marketplace itself.
We call on the government to provide this assistance to end the uncertainty as to whether or not there is going to be assistance, how much, and how it is going to played.
Supply
Last year the government announced some interim support. I believe it was in the order of $500 million. It called on the provincial governments to come forward and match that amount of money.
The battle raged on for two months. It was not until the end of May that there was actually some kind of an agreement. It was not until late August or some time in September when many of those payments were made, and they were relatively small payments proportionately.
Surely we do not have to go through that spectacle again this year. Surely the Minister of Agriculture can announce what the support is going to be and make it in a timely way, where it will do some good and there will not be this long game of procrastination or the long battles with the provincial governments as to whether or not they are going to match the funds, many of which would be hard put to match, especially for a province like Saskatchewan. They are already facing a premium in the new crop year of something like $160 million for GRIP. They would be hard put to match the special interim assistance that is needed for the existing crop year, 1990-1991.
We are saying that the time has come for the government to provide this assistance. It is needed now. There is no question that we have the worst situation as far as total net farm income this year, 1990, is concerned. The crisis itself has been partly created by the government drastically reducing its support programs between 1989 and 1991, the last two years. It is even lower than those previous years. It is time that provincial governments are facing the off-loading by the federal government because GRIP will require them to put up a sizeable support amount of funds to pay their share of the premiums, as will producers.
We do not think that any assistance is being provided. Many groups made the point before the agriculture committee that emergency assistance for the 1990-1991 crop year should not be coerced by signing up for GRIP.
There is going to be enough coercion because the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds has announced that he is not going to give the initial price until late July or toward the end of the crop year. Producers will not have the knowledge they usually have early in the spring as to what the initial price will be. There will certainly be

March 18, 1991
Supply
enough coercion there. We do not think that assistance should be tied to GRIP, as many producers have already requested and suggested.
We believe that there needs to be equal support for the horticulture industry. I mentioned earlier the requirement of Ontario fruit and vegetable producers who said that their shortfall is in the order of $70 million. The assistance required in the P.E.I. and New Brunswick areas for their difficulties has already been spelled out as well.
We think it is time that the government made a firm decision, announced it; not blame the province but just come clean and tell farmers how much the assistance will be, on what basis, and make it available in time for the planting season so it can do the most good when it is needed.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the motion sponsored by the opposition that deals essentially with the farm income problem and calls upon the federal government to provide assistance to help the grain and oilseeds and horticultural sectors.
I must say I welcome the motion, but I question the timeliness because it comes precisely at a time when we are dealing with one of the most comprehensive income measures in 50 years. To back that up, I am going to quote some individuals who have been quoted in this place before, the five economists who have taken issue with certain parts of the GRIP and NISA proposals: Messrs. Gray, Weisensel, Rosaasen, Furtan, and Kraft. They said in a document that they presented: "The proposed GRIP and NISA programs represent the most significant Canadian agricultural legislation in the last 50 years". They indicate that it makes it the largest agricultural program ever. They go on to say that it represents a number of significant improvements over similar income support programs implemented in the past. They go on to cite that it includes payments on farm-fed grains and, second, that there is not a requirement to sell grain within a particular crop year to be eligible for a pay-out. The range of eligible crops has been expanded. The payments are more predictable and a 15 year average of prices provides more support during periods of low prices when compared to a five-year average of prices.
While they have some reservations, the over-all scope and comprehensiveness of the program is very valid and most acceptable. "GRIP", they go on to say, "has been designed to provide income support for agriculture producers across Canada in response to unprecedented low incomes in the agriculture sector".
We are dealing with it at a time when the very issue the hon. member raised is being dealt with in a very comprehensive fashion. After a series of ad hoc responses, which members on all sides of the House criticized and indeed the industry criticized, it is time now to come forth with some policy framework that provides a future for agriculture and provides some kind of an income safety net which producers can rely upon before the fact rather than after the fact.
The fact that huge amounts of money have been paid in ad hoc assistance, we still have a problem. It does speak to the requirement of having a comprehensive approach to this series of problems. That is what the farmers want and that is what industry wants. I think that is the kind of signal we must send to the international community, that we are going to continue to stand by our farmers, and that is what the safety net legislation is all about.
I am disappointed that I heard nothing new from the Liberal side. It is the same old litany and the same old rhetoric: just send money. There was nothing new. It is basically a collection of all the requests that have been made by various members in the community. There is nothing there, there is absolutely nothing there.
Let us look at the farm income picture, not to suggest for one minute that we are not going through difficulties, and put the whole thing into perspective. It is a problem that is multifaceted in nature. If we were to look at the 1980s, the last half of the 1980s showed that realized net income on average rose by 39 per cent, from an average in the first half of the 1980s of $3.1 billion realized net income to $4.2 billion realized net income. That is a 39 per cent increase in the period 1981-85 to 1985-89.
Western Canada in the last half of the 1980s experienced an 30 per cent increase over the first half, with the average realized net income rising from $1.6 billion to $2 billion. In eastern Canada there was a 47 per cent increase in realized net income in the last half of the
March 18, 1991

1980s versus the first half of the 1980s. Again, those figures were $1.5 billion versus $2.9 billion.
It is true, as the hon. member pointed out, that in 1990 we experienced a drop to around $3 billion, approximately a 25 per cent drop in realized net income. In 1991 we are projecting a further reduction. It is in anticipation of this very fact that the safety net programs were in fact designed, were brought into being and were brought before this House in a timely fashion so that we could deal with this issue not only in the short term, but indeed in the medium and long terms.
The effect of this program will reduce the shortfall by something in the order of $2.5 billion to $3 billion. It is a program designed to help producers to help themselves by providing some predictability, by providing some level of income assurance on an acreage basis, and by providing some security and stability over the long haul.
The important feature is that it has to be looked at as a package, GRIP and NISA together. The Net Income Stabilization Account will provide that long-term stability and security. I am concerned about the fact that we have become too preoccupied with one component of the program. If we go back and look at the recommendations of the task force on safety nets, we find that it was developed as a package. I hope hon. members will recognize the importance of speaking to this issue as a package, because the two are complementary to each other.
Simply put, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program is really a management tool that allows producers to use it in part of the management of their farms. It provides a shield and a safety net from the uncertainty and the disaster that have affected particularly in grains and oilseeds and that have become all too common in the past five or six years.
This government, this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance, my predecessor, the former Minister of Agriculture, and myself have stood by farmers in the past and we are going to continue to do it in the future. There can be no doubt about that.
The bill before us is one of the most comprehensive farm income measures that has ever been introduced in the House. It is living testimony to that fact. We are going to attempt to continue, as best we can, to shield
Supply
farmers from the difficulties and misfortunes caused by circumstances beyond their control.


Mr. Milliken:: Created by this government.


Mr. Cardiff:: Never.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In terms of direct program payments in support of agriculture in the period from 1981 to 1985, let us look at the Liberal record. In the period 1981 to 1985 the average direct program payments in support of agriculture was $921 million per year. The 1986 to 1989 average was $2.7 billion, a threefold increase.
That speaks volumes about the priority, about the compassion, about the concern for the agricultural industry. That they did not need any help when they were paying 24 per cent interest rates as a result members associated with the government in 1980 to 1984 is nonsense. The problems we have in terms of debt and the level of debt is still a carryover from the good old days of 24 per cent interest rates, the 1981 to 1984 period.
In the period from 1986 to 1990 the revenue from the marketplace in agriculture accounted for only 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the realized net income. Eighty per cent of it came from governments, federal and provincial, and 80 per cent of that came from the federal government. In western Canada, particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba, about 90 per cent of government support came from the federal government.
If we take all the support, direct and indirect programs, in 1987-88 federal and provincial support of agriculture across the country was $8.1 billion. In 1988-89 it was $7.5 billion and in 1989-90 it was $6 billion. As a matter of fact, in the last five years, 1985-86 to 1989-90, some $22.6 billion worth of federal government support was provided to agriculture and an additional $10 billion was provided by the provinces.
In the grains and oilseeds sector during that same period of time, $13.7 billion was provided in federal support. If we were to look at it another way, on per farm basis, if we take the average farmer in Saskatchewan for the period 1987-88-89, it worked out to $20,000 per farmer.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They didn't need any help in 1981 to 1985. They were doing that well.

March 18, 1991
Supply


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In 1982 it was $2,600 from the Liberal guys, and in 1983 it was $3,200 from the Liberals.


Mr. Ferguson:: We had $7 wheat, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, $7 wheat for a few. How much $7 could you sell in the international marketplace today? You know you couldn't.
Let us look at Quebec in 1987-88-89, the same period. On a per farm basis, the level of direct program support from the federal government works out to $14,000 per farm. What was it in 1982-83? It was $7,000 per farm. What misery, what cheapskates.
Mr. Speaker, no compassion, no care. Let them sink or swim. That was their approach.
In spite of this massive infusion of support, we still have a problem. It needs a more comprehensive approach and we need to address some of the structural problems that exist. We must spend wiser. We do have fiscal constraints, and we must adjust to some of the realities that exist. Above all, we must provide an appropriate policy framework within which farmers can plan, knowing there is a program in place, knowing there is a long-term policy in place, knowing there is a national perspective on the issue.
The multi-faceted problems we face require multifaceted solutions. The many forces at play have been recognized under the agriculture policy review process. We have to identify them and respond appropriately, and we have, through a partnership process which I think has worked very well.
We recognize there are changing market demands. We recognize there are changes in trading patterns; changes in technology; new emphasis placed on food safety; different emphasis placed on the environment; political and economic reforms occurring throughout the world; military wars. All of these things recognize the importance of agriculture in the international marketplace. Fifty per cent of our farm income is extracted from the international marketplace. We recognize that we have to make the necessary changes. It requires a timely response in an appropriate fashion.
That is why we launched the agriculture policy review and the 11 task forces that have been at work. We are now implementing a number of the recommendations. One of those is the GRIP-NISA safety net proposal. I am not going to go into detail today, because the issue is before the House and I will be appearing before a
committee this afternoon. However, I would re-emphasize the importance of this package as a program that will provide stability, predictability, bankability and some confidence for the future.
It is a national program and it is our hope that it will cover a broad range of commodities. Horticulture has been mentioned. It would be our hope that horticulture would be incorporated into this program as soon as we possibly can. There is nothing to prevent the program NISA being implemented, provided the provinces can see fit to become a party to it.
There has been a suggestion that forage should be included in 1991-92. It is very difficult to incorporate it in the transitional year, but it is our intention to ensure that it will be incorporated into the permanent program, hopefully starting in 1992-93. To the extent that we can accommodate the forage industry, either through a third line or through some add-ons that might make it appropriate for the forage industry, to ensure that there is some semblance of equity in it, we will certainly try to do that.
The potato issue is one that we are deeply concerned about. The eradication program has been outlined, in co-operation with the producers and the provincial government. We are now working on an appropriate compensation program, and that we will be in a position to announce it in due course.
I know hon. members across the way have expressed some concerns and raised some issues with regard to the legislation currently before the House. I will be in committee this afternoon. I will be addressing a number of those areas and indicating some measure of flexibility in terms of trying to accommodate some of the concerns of the members opposite.
To repeat again, this program is fundamental. It is a fundamental building block to restoring strength and vibrance to the industry. Without long-term objectives, we cannot achieve the long-term stability Canadian farmers so desperately need.
We recognize that while GRIP and NISA are good programs for the future, they will not solve all our problems. We have never suggested they would. We have suggested they were a comprehensive approach to developing a framework that would help producers manage more effectively, and provide some stability and security for the future. We also recognize that some bridging assistance will be required until the programs
March 18, 1991

produce the intended results. We have set up a third line defence committee.
The hon. member suggests we should announce our programs right now. We have been getting some criticism from the people we are consulting over the fact that we are rushing into this without giving them a full opportunity to develop options and suggestions.
We have set up a committee of some 41 people, 19 of whom are farmers. Others represent the trade, the provinces and the federal government. On March 1 and 2 in Regina, at our federal-provincial meeting, we did establish a set of principles and guidelines that would govern us in the developing of the third line of defence, (a) that the program be multi-faceted reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the problems; (b) that it be built on the objective of the new safety net program and be linked as far as possible to participation of the new safety nets; (c) that it be directed at providing a transition from income levels attained during the pre-GRIP-NISA period based on those expected with the GRIP-NISA period;
(d)	that it be tied to longer term adjustment measures;
(e)	that it be announced as soon as possible in 1991; (f) that to the greatest extent possible delivered through the GRIP-NISA delivery programs; (g) that there we should respect the need for equity among producers, commodities and the provinces; and (h) that it be funded by the federal government, conditional upon industry and provincial government commitment to address the longterm structural needs.
The committee I referred to has produced a number of options and suggestions which we are now looking at. I will be meeting with farm leaders on March 20 here in Ottawa to further flesh out some of the thoughts and ideas with respect to this.
Our objective is to tie this into the longer term program we are putting in place under GRIP and NISA and also a longer term measure of adjustment necessary to deal with some of the forces of change that are being thrust upon us. It is not a matter of just simply tiding us over until tomorrow, it is a matter of providing something that will carry us into the future. We expect that by mid-April we will be in a position to announce something concrete.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, 1990 was the year of examination and analysis; 1991 is the year for implementation and action. In addition to the launching of the safety nets, which was a priority under the agriculture policy review, we have a number of things that we must do based upon the recommendations that have been flowing from the 11 task forces. They range all the way from strengthening the management capability of our industry and improvements in long-term financing, reduction of production costs; looking at new ways to provide adjustment support when necessary-here we are looking at enhancing the Canadian rural transition program-broadening our agricultural base through diversification and value added; maximizing our trade opportunities; aggressively challenging unfair trade practices; strengthening our regions and rural communities; strengthening our processing sector; taking steps to enhance the industry's competitiveness; and freeing up the system by reforming regulations that have created barriers to competitiveness.
These approaches are all doable in a very comprehensive way because we have had that very major internal examination of our industry. We have had the kind of recommendations brought forward that are non-partisan, and are in the interests of the total industry. We are committed to that process. We are committed to acting upon those recommendations, to give real meaning to the process of the agriculture policy review.
I invited all hon. members to participate in the process, as they have. I must say that over the period of my being Minister of Agriculture I have always found them somewhat partisan but always constructive.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that he seems to have great respect and support in cabinet. Over the years it has been unmistakable that he has always managed to get the substantial funds necessary for the farming community of this country.
He started off his comments by saying that we on this side of the House were not looking for creative solutions, that we were not looking at a new policy framework and

March 18, 1991
Supply
that we were not looking for safety nets. I wanted to ask the minister a very specific question.
In 1989 the general conference of the Agricultural Institute of Canada adopted two resolutions relating to water and the free trade agreement. I am sure the minister is well aware of that institute's concerns. I was wondering what his views were in us making sure that water was, in fact, exempt from the free trade agreement and that maybe it could be used as one of these safety nets he talks about for future negotiation for the agricultural community of this country. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course, I will comment on it. I do not know what the hon. member is fishing for. He knows the policy of this government.
The export of water in the massive quantities he is referring to is excluded under the provisions of the free trade agreement. There is nothing wrong with selling bottled water. I hope we sell a lot more of it. There is provision for that as a commodity, but there is certainly no provision for the export of water under the free trade agreement.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that the government will do something about the bridging requirements for farms for this spring.
In his speech of March 1 and again today, the minister said that those bridging requirements would be tied to enrolment in GRIP and NISA. Is he implying by that statement that farmers who do not sign up in GRIP or NISA cannot expect any help in the bridging period?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines that were developed were couched in terms that would hopefully lead to the enrolment of more rather than fewer people in the GRIP and NISA concept.
For the benefit of the hon. member, I will reread the principle to which I think he is referring. One of the criteria is to:
b) build on the objective of the new safety net program and be linked, as far as possible, to participation in the new safety nets;
With respect to delivery, "to the greatest extent possible," programs should be, "delivered through GRIP-NISA delivery systems". That is not only a set of principles which I think we can live with, but the
provinces have endorsed those principles. I am pleased to note that many of the farm organizations which have commented on those principles have also supported them.
It is very difficult when we are trying to develop the basic three lines of defence. The first is the management and operational capabilities of the producer himself, and the responsibility that he or she must take in that regard. Second, the safety net programs which are funded through a sharing arrangement between the federal-provincial and producer communities. The third line of defence effectively kicks in when the first and second do not apply, and when there are unforeseen disasters or problems that are not envisioned or covered by the first two lines of defence. Obviously, if some people believe that the third line of defence is going to be a substitute for the second line of defence, we are going to be back to square one.
I think the hon. member would agree that what we need is a longer term solution to provide the kind of stability and security we need, and hopefully to re-establish the kind of confidence the hon. member and I both want to see in the agriculture community.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I want to explore the same point a little further.
I can see acceptance of the fact that the GRIP and NISA are the first or second line of defence, but the implication in the speech on March 2 was that if a farmer did not have GRIP then he should not expect any help, even if by not taking GRIP he gave up the opportunity for a certain level of support.
However, what we are talking about here is the bridging period. There may not be any payment from GRIP at the end of the year if the prices are high enough, but the bridging period is here and the need is here for that period of time. Any suggestion that if a farmer does not enrol in GRIP he will not get any assistance for the bridging period eliminates all of the voluntary factor in the particular programs, because they are both considered voluntary. They do not become voluntary if we say: "No money for you for last year if you don't enrol in it this year."


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I could pose the question to the hon. member: What would you do next year if we ended
March 18, 1991

up in the same situation, where a person was not enrolled and he again found himself in difficult circumstances, and a good portion of the rest of the producer community became involved in the GRIP and NISA program and found protection? Would the hon. member expect the federal government to come out with another line of defence just to meet the needs of that individual?
That is the balance we have to weigh. We are not attempting compulsion here. What we are trying to do is invite farmers to become part of the solution. We are giving them a mechanism to help themselves. Every time a producer signs up for the program, the federal government is picking up 41-2/3 per cent of the premium and the province is picking up 25 per cent of the premium. The producer is buying 100 cents on the dollar insurance for 33-1/3 cents. It seems to me that it is a pretty good deal.
If we are going to have the kind of stability over the long term, if we are going to have the kinds of management tools that will allow producers to become more self-reliant, that will allow them to make their decisions in advance rather than put their crop in and hope for the best and maybe the federal or provincial government will come to the rescue, it is important to have these kinds of instruments in advance so they can be used as a management tool, as well as the farmer's own expertise and wisdom in terms of the operation of his farm unit.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words on this resolution.
The resolution asks for immediate action on the part of the government to ensure that funds are in place for planting this year. That is exactly the question I was asking the minister just a few minutes ago in the sense that if this fund is dependent on enrolment, we only have a couple of weeks or a month until the actual seeding begins.
As the minister suggests, if this is to be a tool for survival in farming, then there are a lot of decisions to be made relative to enrolment in the gross revenue fund. If the farmer cannot be sure that he is going to have money to plant this year, there does not seem to be any value in enrolling in GRIP if he is not going to put any seed in the
ground. He is obviously not going to be one of the farmers taking his crop off this year.
What I have been asking is: What kind of assurance can we have from the GRIP or NISA, or from the government outside of GRIP or NISA, that there is going to be something in place this spring?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the citizens' forum is an experiment in the public consultation process in Canada. It is an honest attempt, whether perfect or otherwise, to respond to widespread public demand for broader and more open public participation in the process of constitutional reform in Canada.
Along with other vehicles, such as the Edwards- Beaudoin committee and various provincial task forces, the citizens' forum is trying to do a job to help make Canada work.
Those who seek to destroy the forum and with it the government that established it, without themselves offering constructive, implementable alternatives may in fact be contributing not just to the demise of the citizens' forum but to the demise of Canada.
The future strength and survival of Canada and the quest for unity are legitimate topics for differences of opinion among Canadians. They are not appropriate subjects for partisan politics.
In 1864 a great Liberal leader, George Brown, abandoned partisanship to make Canada work. It is time the opposition in this House did the same.


WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, last week Canada watched as the best figure skaters in the world competed in what has been recognized as the most challenging and artistically pleasing championship ever.

March 18, 1991
All Canadian competitors deserve to be commended. We also salute the new women's champion. Although an American, Kristi Yamaguchi trained in Alberta.
The men's final saw unprecedented prestige for Canadians as three men excelled. Michael Slipchuk was seventh, Elvis Stojko was sixth, and once again we are pleased to congratulate the world champion, the first Canadian to win three consecutive world championships.
Caroline, Alberta, is not where you would expect a world champion in figure skating to come from. It is a pretty small town, but its pride is as big as the Rockies and I join them in congratulating three time World Figure Skating Champion, the pride of Caroline, their favourite son, Mr. Kurt Browning.


LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Tbanscona):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I had the opportunity to attend a rally at Tech Voc High School in Winnipeg, which was attended by thousands of new Canadians who were protesting the cutbacks in funding for English as a second language training in Winnipeg.
They are particularly concerned about funding for the ESL program that has been put on for years by Winnipeg School Division No. 1, that the funding be fully restored and the services which that program has provided to new Canadians continue into the future.
They ask the federal government and particularly the minister of immigration, to reconsider the decision to reorganize the ESL training in the way the minister appears to be doing.
There were members of the government present there, along with the hon. member for Winnipeg South, who made some commitments, but they were vague. We hope that in the very near future the government will take an opportunity to say that it has changed its mind and that it intends to fully restore the funding for English as a second language training in Winnipeg School Division No. 1.


RED CROSS MONTH
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the tradition of dedicating March as Red Cross month
dates back to 1943. In designating this month, the Red Cross Society in Canada is able to focus its public education campaign to remind people about the very worth-while and necessary work undertaken by the Red Cross, its dependence upon volunteer support and its reliance on the generosity of the public in maintaining services.
Last year alone, an estimated 4 million Canadians benefited from emergency response, health, safety and community programs provided by the Canadian Red Cross. As well, Canadian funds went to relief operations in more than 66 countries including funds to help refugees in the Persian Gulf, and victims of famine in the Horn of Africa.
It should also be noted that the Canadian International Development Agency, through its International Humanitarian Assistance Program, will contribute $1.4 million to the Red Cross for use in Kuwait and Iraq for basic health care needs and water purification equipment.
The Red Cross has as its purpose the alleviation of human suffering. When help is needed in Canada and around the world, the Red Cross responds.
Let us salute the Red Cross, a truly humanitarian international organization.


VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, there are many volunteer organizations in this country dedicated to improving the living conditions of the disabled.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the work of one organization in my riding that has worked with tremendous dedication to this cause ever since "La rose bleue" was founded, which was ten years ago last weekend. During that time, the organization has worked very hard, day after day, to promote the cause of the disabled through fund-raising, public awareness campaigns and other means.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the dedication throughout those ten years of the president, Jocelyne Demany, who is herself disabled and the heart and soul of this organization.
March 18, 1991

Her perseverance, typical of many others in her situation, in defending the rights and interests of the disabled was rewarded in the latest federal Budget, because, Mr. Speaker, this government listens and has taken concrete and positive measures to help the disabled.
I urge them to keep up the good work, because that is how we can bring about change to make this a more just society.


MEMBER FOR LAVAL-EST
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the remarks made by the hon. member from Duvemay on CBC's The Journal last week about aboriginal people.
The member's statement has impugned aboriginal people in this country. His explanatory press release of last week does not repair the damage which has been done. Behind his discriminatory and inflammatory comments is an attitude prejudicial to the aboriginal people.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate very much, especially on a subject like this, to interrupt the hon. member. There is a rule that Members' Statements ought not to be used as a personal attack on another member. I understand the hon. member is going to raise this matter later on in the House and that probably would be the place to deal with it. I very much regret, but I am bound by the rules just as all hon. members are. I am sure that if the hon. member wishes to raise this issue further he will have an opportunity to do so.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, today I speak of a memorandum from the Emergency Operations Unit of the Canadian Coast Guard to its personnel sections.
The memo states:
Due to the present Federal Government Budget restraints, we may be forced to operate under present student wage employment programs.
This program is a seasonal rescue program. They work in six separate maritime locations during tourist season.
This program affixes hourly rates of pay to levels of education. For example, a third year community college student in his last year is eligible to only make the equivalent wage scale of a first year university student.
What type of message does this send to the Canadian trades people, the very people who make the country work? A third year community college student warrants only the same wage scale as a first year university student?
This is what the federal government is doing. It is offending and humiliating three-quarters of its population and widening the gap between the rich and the poor.


TRIBUTE TO ISABELLE AND PAUL DUCHESNAY
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my warmest congratulations to Paul and Isabelle Duchesnay, who won the world figure skating championship dance title. These gold medal winners who skated for France are citizens of Quebec and residents of my riding.
I want to congratulate them on their performance in Munich, and I thank them for showing us that we Quebeckers have what it takes to achieve excellence. And what it takes is perseverance and confidence in our abilities.
We often hear about Francophones being disadvantaged in Canadian amateur sport. The Duchesnay's are a case in point. They would have liked to skate for the Canadian team, but according to the coaches they were not good enough. However, their courage, determination and talent showed that they were right and that those who did not believe in them were wrong.
This is one more example that proves we Quebeckers are different. This is one more instance of Canadian federalism stifling our identity and preventing us from developing as we should. This proves once again that sovereignty is in the best interests of Quebec.
Bravo, Isabelle and Paul!

March 18, 1991


TOURISM
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the results of a recent study should bring smiles to the faces of business operators in the tourist industry. According to Sharon Pond of The Saint John Telegraph Journal, reporting on the study "Price, Value and Perception" conducted by Coopers and Lybrand, visitors from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Japan say that they like coming to Canada and do not foresee the country as being too expensive for a holiday.
Debra Beck, Director of Communications for TIAC, the industry's spokesperson, said that this week the results are contained in several huge volumes that will take some time to digest by all of the groups concerned, but she called the highlights of the report very interesting and very positive.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, some have said that this government never thinks of the unemployed, that it does not care about double-digit unemployment in Canada, that it claws back at the benefits that are due to the unemployed.
Some have said that this government does not care about the civil servants who will have to work in the unemployed centres and look face to face with the unemployed of this nation.
None of that is true. The government does think of the unemployed. I was witness to that from yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, a quote from "Government Business Opportunities" that the government is putting out a tender for a crowd control system. It is calling for tenders on the ropes and posts necessary to bring order to big line-ups.
It is true. The poor and the unemployed will have something to hang on to. It will be a rope at an unemployment centre. I am not convinced that it was a really good idea for them to supply the people who are out of work in this country with ropes and posts, but time will tell. Time will tell.


GROSS REVENUE INSURANCE PLAN
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, during recent days I met with many farmers in the riding of Macleod. Of course, right now many questions are being asked about the new GRIP program or the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan.
GRIP was designed to protect grain and oilseed producers from shortfalls in revenue, caused by either poor yields or low prices. GRIP is designed to provide protection in an effective, predictable way by basing coverage on individual circumstances.
The program does not mask long-term market trends. Rather, it provides farmers with a buffer against sudden and drastic price changes. It is a welcome long-term response to the needs of farmers. I will continue to work to ensure that this program meets the specific needs of farmers in southwestern Alberta and other parts of Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis in the agriculture industry today and Canadians do not know about it.
Canadians do not realize that the year 1991 represents a turning point in the Canadian food industry.
The success or failure of this crop year will determine whether or not Canada will have a secure future in agriculture.
Statistics show that there will be a minus 54.5 per cent change in total net farm income in 1991. What industry can sustain such a loss and remain in business?
Yet Canadians demand cheap, environmentally friendly, attractively packaged food on their grocery shelves.
We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. We cannot have cheap food and profitable farms without assistance from the taxpayer.
We as a nation must realize that unless our farmers survive, we will be dangerously dependent on foreign food supplies. Whether it is the grain industry in the west, the horticulture industry in Ontario, the dairy
March 18, 1991

industry in Quebec, or the potato industry in P.E.I., our food producers have to survive.
Immediate assistance must be made available now if our food industry is to survive into the future.



Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture will soon resume in Brussels, as part of GATT.
We hope the European Community will want to start serious negotiations on questions affecting agriculture. The Canadian government is convinced, however, that GATT member countries are determined to resolve their differences.
Canadian farmers need improved trade regulations that apply across the board. We must achieve the following objectives: reduce substantially the subsidies that distort world markets; facilitate access to international markets; and verify and reinforce article XI of GATT, in accordance with the proposal made in March by Canadian and Quebec farmers, including minimum levels for access to the Canadian market, in accordance with international obligations.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we Canadians must defend our position which demands better safeguards for our supply management system. We have made sacrifices, we are disciplined, we have acquired some very valid structures, and we want to keep them.
As far as article XI of GATT is concerned, Canada has so far been able to rally a number of countries to its official position, which is to clarify and strengthen this article.


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as another spring approaches, supporters of Canada's only inland sea port at Churchill are again gearing up for a fight to ensure that a fair share of prairie grain is shipped to our overseas customers through this port.
Oral Questions
With the government's dismal lack of financial and moral support and its willingness to encourage rail-line abandonment in the west, it is a wonder how the port has survived. Churchill has tremendous potential as a transportation staging point for shipping goods to Canada's northern communities. Churchill has a role to play in not only maintaining the north, but also in developing it further. Yet last year the government's air terminal was almost forced to close down completely due to neglect, resulting in it being declared a fire hazard.
Many remember the rocket range in Churchill. The National Research Council's site has had a growing interest in the science sector. We have a government report that indicates that with a reasonable marketing strategy, the range could make a profit. But we need a government that is willing to invest in our north.
I call upon the government to start paying attention to what is happening in Canada's north. The community of Churchill is but one example of how hard it is to struggle with resources but without a government with a vision. How many more Churchills are out there in Canada's north?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the weekend unemployed Canadians were shocked to see government ads in newspapers from coast to coast to coast, distributing an eight-page brochure saying how great the budget is.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why is the government spending millions on propaganda to promote a budget at a time when it says it does not have a cent for people lined up at food banks and when it is actually cutting back on funds for the unemployed?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance in February was a recovery budget designed to get people back to work, designed to get the economy of this country going again.
One of the things that has been made loud and clear to us, as parliamentarians, all of us, is that the public needs more information on what the government is trying to accomplish. That has been shown time and time again.

March 18, 1991
Oral Questions
We hear that in our constituency offices. We need more information.
The government has found that the best way to communicate and the most inexpensive way to communicate with the Canadian public is through the tabloids. I believe that if the hon. member takes time to read it, she will find it to be a very objective piece. I hope that all the citizens of Canada take that opportunity because it is a very important piece of communication with the Canadian public.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think unemployed Canadians across the country are indignant about this waste of money, and I would like to direct my question more specifically to the minister responsible for economic policy in Montreal.
Since the government spent $1.5 million on publicizing a budget that has cut funds for the unemployed by $100 million, does the minister responsible for economic policy in the Montreal region agree with the fact that money spent on this advertising campaign was wasted?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is a waste of money, quite the contrary. As my colleague just mentioned, this is very important information that is intended to help Canadians understand the situation the government has to deal with.
As far as the Montreal region is concerned, if the hon. member is interested, I could make a list of all government investment in the Montreal region over the past years, to raise the economy to a level more acceptable than it was when the Liberals were defeated in 1984.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, not only is this advertising campaign a complete waste of money, it is also factually wrong. If the minister is so concerned about informing the public, why does this ad not mention that there is a $100 million cut in spending on job creation programs? Why does the ad not mention that there is a $1 billion cut in cash transfers for medicare? Why does the ad not mention that the government is completely withdrawing from unemployment insurance benefits?
In fact, if the budget is so good, why do taxpayers have to foot a bill in excess of $1 million to try to sell it from coast to coast to coast?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of selling the budget. The budget has sold itself and has been well received right across Canada.
Second, in research that has been done, 76 per cent of Canadians that have been polled say that this is the most effective way to communicate with the Canadian public.
Third, it is costing 15 cents per household to communicate with the Canadian people. I think that is money very well spent.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this 15 cent per household adds up to more than $1.5 million to distribute what is essentially Conservative propaganda which should be paid for by the Conservative Party and not by the taxpayer.
The ad asserts that the budget itself brings about "direct program spending increases to the unemployed and the elderly".
The minister must know that this is not true and the program spending increases are a result not of the budget but of legislation passed by this House years before the budget.
Why will the minister not admit that the ad is factually wrong and misleading? Why will he not withdraw the ad and the accompanying brochures and apologize to Canadians while he is doing it?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if anybody should apologize to the Canadian public, it is the hon. member who said that he would resign if interest rates go up and he did not resign his seat at all. How can he stand there and make those claims?
I might say that there is an increase of some $1.6 billion going to senior citizens in 1991-92 and some $3 billion more going to unemployment insurance. Factually there is more money going to those people who need help in these tough times. That is factual. That is not misleading at all.
March 18, 1991

Oral Questions
May I also say there is information in the mailer that has gone out regarding the streamlining of government management, the transfers to provinces which have not been cut. There are increases to the provinces that are going next year. There are tough new measures on expenditure control plans. There is controlling spending by law.
Which ones does the hon. member object to? Which ones is he going to fight? Why is he not in favour of better control over government finances? He was in the government that threw it away.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, not only is the government's ad false and misleading when it comes to the elderly and the unemployed, it also says: "The government will channel all GST and privatization revenues to a debt servicing and reduction fund".
This cannot be true, because the government's own budget document says on page 78 that "only any above projected revenues from the GST will make a contribution to deficit reduction".
Why has the government printed something in its pamphlet and brochure which is contradicted by its own budget document? Does this mean that the Minister of Finance and his colleague are in the running for the Governor General's award for fiction?


John Horton McDermid: A flash of humour. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the mailer going out and costing $1.5 million. I can tell the hon. member that the Liberals holding up unemployment insurance and the GST legislation in the Senate cost millions and millions of dollars; a waste of the taxpayers' money, a waste of the taxpayers' money.
I can tell the hon. member that the information here is accurate. It is clear. If people want further information there are telephone numbers to call. The Canadian people have requested that information.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Of whom?


John Horton McDermid: I find it rather amazing that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra says I am history.


M. Douglas Young: He never said a word.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This week Canadians received this very costly eight-page pamphlet justifying the failed economic policies of this government. At the same time we learned that the government is advertising for crowd control measures which it wishes to put in at unemployment insurance offices.
This weekend we saw thousands of unemployed Canadians in Toronto saying: "We don't want unemployment insurance; we want jobs".
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister: When is this government going to respond with a real employment program for Canadians instead of dismantling the Canadian economy? If this government wants to communicate effectively with Canadians, it should get Canadians working.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that she is the one who delayed for a long time Bill C-21 which put 500 million more dollars into training this year.
I think it is time that the NDP woke up and smelled the coffee about what the future is in this country. This budget is a plan for economic recovery for Canada, as my hon. colleague has said. We have learned and learned and learned, time and time again under the brain dead former government and the NDP, that make work projects do not help workers.
What helps workers is training. What helps workers is education. What helps workers is growth in the economy. What helps workers is lower interest rates. What helps workers is lower deficits. I would think the hon. member should have learned that by now.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians who are looking for a job, looking for some hope would wonder then why this government chose to cut $100 million from the Canada Jobs Strategy and chose to cut back on transfers for post-secondary education to get the Canadian population trained.

March 18, 1991
Oral Questions
What we see the government saying in this pamphlet is that the debt is causing many of the problems we have today. The debt is important, but what we hear the government saying is that Canadians should share the burden. Instead it is the Canadian unemployed who are carrying the burden all by themselves.
There are reports of a recent Statistics Canada study which says that 44 per cent of the Canadian debt is caused directly by tax loopholes and letting the wealthy not pay their fair share in taxes.
When is the government going to stop those tax loopholes for corporations and make the wealthy pay their fair share, instead of blaming the victims and the unemployed for the state of this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, that last statement is just not accurate at all. We are not blaming the unemployed and the poor of this country at all for the situation that we find ourselves in, and she knows that. That is a very unfair but typical statement from the hon. member.
I want to remind the hon. member that the Minister of Finance over the last number of years has removed a lot of the tax loopholes. Corporations are now paying their fair share. Banks are paying income tax for the first time.
My hon. friend talks about capital gains. He does not believe in investment in this country. It is the farmer who has the capital gains and the small business people have the capital gains. He proposes that he is a great supporter of the farmers and small business, yet he wants to wipe out the exemption for capital gains for those people. What facetiousness.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this government keeps repeating the economy is already on the road to recovery and that with a little patience it will get there.
Mr. Speaker, people throughout the country know that is not true. It isn't like the situation in 1982, because most of the jobs that have been lost are gone forever.
What will this government do to help all those people who can't find work because there is no work?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, some jobs have been lost permanently through increased productivity, with new equipment, and so on.
However when the economy grows, so does the manufacturing base. We have seen the manufacturing base in this country grow since 1984 by 9.5 per cent, and that will continue. New industries will come and new permanent jobs will be created.
The hon. member says that this government is saying that the economy is back in full swing. We have not said that at all. What we have said is that there are signs of recovery starting, that it is going to take until the middle of this year before we can experience very good signs of recovery, and that we will be back in full swing in 1992.
That is what the Minister of Finance said in his budget, and that is what this government is saying.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that total net farm incomes are slated to drop by 54 per cent this year. In provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba there will be zero net farm income. This will be caused by world grain prices being very low in the 1990-91 crop year and by the cutbacks in government programs.
I wonder if the minister can tell the House and Canadian farmers today if there will be an emergency assistance program this spring to assist those producers. I ask him if he will spell out the details. Will the minister say when that financial assistance will be made available to those producers?
I ask this especially because the Minister of Finance seemed to suggest late last week in Saskatchewan that there would be no more assistance. I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture can clarify the situation for our farmers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the House is currently considering the Farm Income Protection Act, a veiy important and comprehensive piece of
March 18, 1991

legislation that will provide security, predictability and some stability for the agricultural industry, particularly the grains and oilseeds sector because it is primarily designed around that and that has been the priority of the safety net task force.
I am sure the hon. member is aware as well that since the low prices of January 1991 there has been some strengthening in world wheat prices of $10 to $12 per tonne, and that is clearly welcome.
We recognize that while the 1991 transitional Gross Revenue Insurance Program and Net Income Stabilization Account will not have an immediate effect upon producers' incomes. We recognize that the process of a transition or a bridging program is being defined by a third line of defence committee comprised of some 41 people, 19 producers and representatives of the federal-provincial governments.
At the present time we are designing a program that will meet the multifaceted nature of the requirements. I will be meeting with farm leaders on March 20, later this week, to develop further options in that regard.
I assure the hon. member that we are seized with this issue in a very serious vein. We hope we will be in a position to make some indication to the producers prior to mid-April.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I asked that question because last year the government announced a program at the end of March, did not give the criteria until the end of May and did not give the cheques until early in September. I hope that will not be repeated, and I hope the minister can give that assurance.
In view of the presentation made by Ontario horticultural producers last week that their industry needs a $70 million bridging assistance program before a long-term program comes into effect some time next year, can the minister give some assurance that short-term assistance will be provided to horticultural producers right across Canada, not just in Ontario but in P.E.I and other provinces, which are facing a very serious shortfall in their net farm income this year as well?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the problem at hand is multifaceted.
Clearly the horticultural sector is one that is experiencing some difficulties. That as well will be taken into consideration by the third line safety committee.


Maurice Brydon Foster: When?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says: "When?" He just criticized us for announcing the program without the criteria.
We have established the criteria. We have the producers and the two levels of government sitting down with the industry trying to devise a program that will meet the need.
As the hon. member suggested, we are going to take a little more time this year to see that it is done right. Hopefully the hon. member will be on board and support it when we announce such a program, rather than pooh-poohing $500 million which was announced a year ago when he said it was insufficient.
In a period of tight fiscal restraint, we obviously have to spend our money wisely and we have to devise the kinds of programs that will be effective. That is precisely what we are doing.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Today, under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, daily producers receive a subsidy of $6.04 per hectolitre. Is the minister prepared to commit his government today to providing a federal contribution that is at least that high under the new Farm Income Protection Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party when it was in government and provided a one-year dairy policy, we have put in place a five-year policy. When that policy expires, it will be reviewed in consultation with the industry and the provinces, as is customary by this government.

March 18, 1991
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is not the Liberal government that cut back in the area of dairy support; it is the Conservative government across the way.

I have a supplementary for the same minister.
Last week, horticultural producers in Canada said that before the Farm Income Protection Act is passed, at least $70 million in assistance would have to be paid in a given province for the industry to survive, pending implementation of the minister's new program.
The minister said earlier that there would be a bridging program, pending the new legislation. Could he inform the House today when this program will be implemented and when Canadian horticultural producers can expect to receive their cheques?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, before the horticultural producers can expect cheques, they have to become a party to the program. Those discussions are still going on, and there is some concern about whether in fact the horticultural industry will become members.


Don Boudria: Bridge financing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Before there can be bridge financing, there has to be a commitment to engage in the GRIP and NISA programs. Those discussions are ongoing right now. If the hon. member would like to get an update on the whole process, I would be glad to send him, in chronological form, just where we are at in terms of our discussions with the horticultural industry.


MEMBER FOR TRINITY-SPADINA
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It concerns a colleague of mine and a member of this House, the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, who went as a member of this House to observe elections in Mexico and has now had his visa cancelled because of the Mexican government's view, probably, that he was
against the free trade agreement and the fraud in that election.
What does the minister intend to do about this incident? Will he tell members of the House whether or not he is prepared to protect the members of this House?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from our colleague when he returns.
The hon. member knows that Mexico has a right to revoke visas which it thinks are used for purposes other than the purpose for which they were granted, just as Canada does. When our colleague in the House sought a visa, he did not indicate to Mexican authorities the purpose for which he was planning to make use of that visa. He is still in Mexico. He is there with a tourist visa. He is allowed to stay in the country so long as he respects the term of the visa.
That is the kind of treatment that Canada would apply to people from other countries coming here to whom visas apply. Surely we should not complain if that same kind of treatment is accorded to Canadians who go to countries regarding which visas are required of Canadians.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I regret the embarrassment to the minister, but somebody has misinformed him and should be made aware of the fact that on March 4, this year, the member concerned sent, with a copy to his department, a letter to the Mexican ambassador stating as follows: "I am writing to request a visit to Mexico from March 12th to March 19th as part of a delegation to monitor elections in Morelos State. I will be visiting at the invitation of the PRD."
This is why the Government of Mexico gave him the visa, contrary to what the minister says.
I ask the minister to make a commitment to this House to come back and tell us who misinformed the minister. Second, what will the minister do to protect an MP who said clearly what he intended to go there for in the first place?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look at that, but let me make a larger point to the House. If it turns out-
March 18, 1991


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: The little point first and then the larger point.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am glad that the former Leader of the Opposition, the former Prime Minister is back in the House advising us of little points. I welcome him back.
If I was misinformed in my answer, I will certainly advise the House of that fact.
There is the other point I want to make. One of the important developments now in the world is that there is an an increasing willingness on the part of countries whose democratic systems Canadians have criticized, to invite election observers in. Canadians are responding formally to that kind of request.
When we have instances where individual members of Parliament go on their own and undertake the kind of activity in which unfortunately two members of this House have been involved in the last week, that can raise serious questions about the effectiveness and the willingness of Canada to take part in what most of us regard as a very welcome new development in countries whose regimes we have criticized being prepared to invite in observers to oversee their electoral processes. We would not want to see that kind of willingness on the part of-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on. The hon. member for York West.


AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the transport minister, I address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the upcoming negotiations with the United States on the new open skies treaty.
The Deputy Prime Minister is well aware that the Canadian parliamentary committee which examined the open skies question unanimously rejected the inclusion of cabotage for American air carriers, namely the ability for American airlines to freely and fully cover the Canadian airspace and in between points.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question. Why did the Minister of Transport last month give a major
Oral Questions
speech in Washington encouraging a new treaty, including full cabotage rights? Will the Deputy Prime Minister now give the government's assurance that the Canadian negotiators will not accept, under any circumstances, the granting of cabotage rights to American air carriers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that negotiations on open skies have not yet begun, so we cannot have violated the principle of the committee's observation concerning cabotage. The committee stated in its report that it did not want to tie the negotiators' hands. Am I to understand now that the hon. member is asking me to do so?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister who also was a Minister of Transport at one point. The minister knows that the Canadian air industry is already hurting badly; that thousands of jobs have been lost; that the market is in the hands of duopoly; and that Canadians and our regions are paying a price. We should not make it any worse.
Given that the option of allowing the giant American carriers to operate freely throughout Canada would mean the death knell for our Canadian industry because we simply cannot compete on an even scale, why will the Deputy Prime Minister not say no to any deal that would include cabotage rights for American carriers? Before going into negotiations, why will he not make cabotage a bottom line for the Canadian interests?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has given the assurance, as was reported in the media, that we have no intention of signing a new agreement that does not ensure the continued viability of the Canadian air transport industry.
Cabotage, as my hon. friend should know, is a market entry tool just like seats and gates and he should not get off his rocker until we negotiate the two agreements.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Minister of Transport. Given that the quality of air service in the regions has deteriorated due to this government's agenda to privatize, and that jet service has been lost in many regional centres, does the Deputy Prime Minister really believe that American carriers will give a hoot about serving Canadians living Dryden,

March 18, 1991
Oral Questions
Sydney, Timmins, Stephenville, Val d'Or, just to name a few.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly knows that the safety record in Canada is one of the best in the world. A prime concern of the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport has been to maintain that safety. We will continue to do so under any circumstances.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: An artful dodge, but we are not talking about safety. We are talking about cabotage rights, the only bargaining chip the Minister of Transport has when he goes to bargain with the Americans, for gates and for routes. That is the only chip he has-cabotage in Canada.
"All aboard", says the minister of privatization. This whole issue smacks of what happened during the VIA Rail debates. What the minister is now telling Canadians and regional air travellers is that no matter what the cost, they are going to use it or they are going to lose it.
Witness again the government's claw of cost recovery. The regions have already lost their post offices. The regions have already lost their train services and are going to lose their air service.
The question is veiy simple. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister abandoning the regions of Canada?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and this government have no intention of abandoning the prosperity of any of the regions of Canada. We are entering into this open skies discussion to make sure that the prosperity of Canada is insured. Of course, I understand that the hon. member would not want to tie our hands before we start discussions.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
He will know that the Minister of National Revenue held a press conference in Vancouver an hour and a half ago, indicating a new government pilot project, where for a $10 pass, Canadians will be able to travel to the United States, do their shopping and come back across the border without having to stop at customs.
Recognizing the plight of small business and retailers generally in the border areas with the United States, the tremendous loss of business as consumers take advantage of bargains in the U.S., will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how this fast lane back into Canada without stopping at customs at all is going to assist small business and retailers in Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is really quite simple.
We have thousands and thousands of tourists from the United States who want to come to Canada. As a matter of fact, recent research that has just been tabled indicates twice as many Americans plan to come to Canada in the next two years than even the most optimistic Canadian tourist operator thought existed. As a result of that, we are putting in place a system whereby it is easier for American tourists to get into Canada. I think it is a pretty good idea.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I can only emphasize that this is a pilot project, so presumably the government is testing this for all the border crossings in Canada.
May I suggest that rather than facilitate Canadians shopping in the United States, would it not be more appropriate for the government to reduce the GST, reduce the interest rates and reduce the high cost of the Canadian dollar. In other words, make it more attractive to Canadians to shop in Canada as opposed to finding ways and means to facilitate Canadians shopping in the United States of America.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the whole problem in reverse, which is frequently the case for the NDP.


John Horton McDermid: Right on.


Thomas Hockin: The problem is, as Canadian retailers, restauranteurs, hotel owners, resort owners, how do we
March 18, 1991

get Americans to come to Canada? We did two things. We said we would rebate them the GST on accommodation and the things they wanted to buy and now we are making it easier for them to get into the country.


SCIENCE
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Thursday, the Minister of Finance acknowledged he had been unable to persuade his cabinet colleagues to provide adequate financing for training young researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The question is this: If the government is unable to take the lead, how can we convince young people to pursue a career in science?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Science, who is not here today, I have to remind the hon. member that we have 2,000 students a year in the Canada Scholarships Program, one-half of them female. A large number of them are going into the sciences as a result of that program. That is a new program started by our government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Hockin: So that this pool of young people will have attractive, vital scientific opportunities, we have given $240 million to the Networks and Centres of Excellence Program. That is a new project under our government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Hockin: For young people wanting to go into science I remind them of not just those two things, but this government has increased spending from $4.1 billion in 1984-1985 to an estimated $5.5 billion in 1990-1991. This is a real increase of 8 per cent. This government puts S and T above just about any of its priorities.


David Berger: If that is the case, perhaps the minister can explain how it is his colleague admitted that funding for the Natural Sciences
Oral Questions
and Engineering Research Council has declined. It has gone down as a percentage of our Gross National Product since his government took office. His colleague admitted it last week in committee. He admitted himself that he has not been able to obtain enough funding from his cabinet colleagues.
My question to the minister is the following. Will the government at long last commit to providing the urgently needed funding for university research and the training of the next generation of young scientists across Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, in the last six years, until the middle of last year, the Canadian Gross National Product has been growing at record rates. Because of that, government spending has also had to be trimmed back in order to make sure it did not have an inflationary impact to this tremendous growth of the Canadian economy.
The numbers that I quoted have the NRC being increased 5 per cent in this coming fiscal year which is far better than the average spending for government increase across the board.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. An American woman has been awarded $4.5 million by a U.S. court as a result of cancer caused by the foam of a Meme breast implant. This court has obviously decided there is reasonable doubt about the safety of the Meme. In addition, Laval University scientists have also released a study showing this foam to be carcinogenic.
Canadian women demand that the minister pull this device from the Canadian market immediately.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that there is a question-


Mr. Speaker:: There is not a question but there certainly is an issue. If the hon. minister would like to respond he has the floor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the question was: "Is the government prepared to withdraw the Meme from the market in Canada?"

March 18, 1991
Oral Questions
As the hon. member will be well aware, studies have been done in Canada which indicate no threat to the health of women who use the Meme. We are continuing to follow research that is being done in the United States and to ask for further information about breast implants in Canada.
Should we come into possession of any information suggesting a threat to women's health as a result of breast implants, we would obviously take appropriate action.
I should mention with regard to the Laval studies that, as the hon. member knows, we have attempted to replicate similar studies at the University of Ottawa to determine whether or not toxic agents are released under conditions found in the body, and at body temperature. Mr. Speaker, such experiments could not be replicated.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
It seems odd that the U.S. food and drug administration is taking steps to protect women and yet this government is not prepared to do so. The U.S. has already implemented new regulations and the minister responsible for health and welfare has done nothing.
Is the minister more concerned with protecting a U.S. company than he is with protecting Canadian women?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The assertions made by the hon. member are simply false.
First of all, what is happening in the United States is they are examining all breast implants, not just the Meme. We will, in turn, be getting that information from the Americans, and looking closely at anything that comes forward. We will also be looking at the decision of the court in New York city as well.
In addition to that, we have taken independent action in Canada to seek information. We will take any action that is necessary to protect the health of Canadian women. That is the commitment we make and it is one that we have kept.
I have also offered to the hon. member and to all other hon. members in the House that if they would like a full briefing on the subject by the scientists in my department, we would be pleased to make arrangements for that.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River in British Columbia is under considerable pressure from pulp mill pollution, agricultural run-off and the Alcan project. The river will die unless action is taken soon.
In the Green Plan, the Minister of the Environment committed the government to a Fraser River Basin Action Plan. He also promised to double the fish population of the river.
My question is to the minister. Can he confirm news reports that he cancelled an announcement concerning the Fraser River on Friday? Why the delay? When will he make an announcement supporting a complete management plan for the Fraser River?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reconfirm today the government's intention to move ahead with the clean-up of the Fraser River. An announcement had been initially scheduled for last Friday. It was not delayed; it was postponed because there were further consultations to be had. Those consultations will be ongoing this week and I hope to have the announcement ready very shortly.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister of small business and tourism.
I wonder if the minister would like to come down to Windsor and explain to the people of Windsor this idea he has to increase the number of Canadians who are shopping in the United States, how making it easier for Canadians to shop in the United States is going to help the one-third of the downtown retailers who have closed their stores and how it is going to help the people of Windsor who have seen $150 million in retail purchases go to the United States. I want him to explain to Windsorites how this cockamamie idea of increasing
March 18, 1991

Point of Order
Canadian shopping is going to help Windsor businesses or businesses in other border cities in this country.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members knows I would very much like to come to Windsor at any time. He is also criticizing the report from the Windsor Chamber of Commerce which was brought to Ottawa last week and which argued for the very thing that he is arguing against.
The Chamber of Commerce in Windsor wants more business for Windsor. It wants better flow through the tunnel and better flow over the Ambassador Bridge. The way to do that is to have a quick method and an extra lane and that is what they recommended.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Montreal region. Not long ago, we heard that Montreal is the unemployment capital of Canada. Last week, we were told that in January alone, retail sales dropped by 20 per cent in Montreal. Could the minister, who is responsible for the Montreal region in cabinet, put pressure on the Finance Minister to introduce measures to put Montreal's economy back on track and provide jobs for 250,000 unemployed workers in that city?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Leonard for his question, which shows his abiding interest in the Montreal region and especially in East Montreal.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the hon. member that the government did not wait until the last few weeks to take some very concrete measures to improve the economic climate of Montreal Island. We have invested millions and millions of dollars in the Montreal economy in the past two years.
In particular, we developed a measure called Bill C-21 to get more money to the unemployed and help them adjust to the new technology jobs that are being created, and it is too bad the legislation could not have been implemented sooner, because of the Liberal senators who blocked the bill for so long in the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for a supplementary, but a very short one, please.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister says millions of dollars were invested, but I may remind him that in Montreal unemployment rose from 10 per cent to nearly 15 per cent in one year. It is time to act. When will the government introduce policies to deal with this very distressing situation in Montreal?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it seems the hon. member for Saint-Leonard doesn't realize that before creating jobs, and especially with the new technology we have nowadays, we must ensure that people are properly trained to use that new technology. We have been repeating this in the House fore twelve months, Mr. Speaker, to urge the hon. member to ensure that his colleagues in the Senate would adopt Bill C-21 so that we would have the requisite funding. We have it now, and we are on the job, Mr. Speaker.


THE LATE SEAN O'SULLIVAN
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to remind all hon. members of the dedication ceremony for our former colleague, Father Sean O'Sullivan, in the meditation room that has been established in his memory, that will take place today at four o'clock p.m. in room 237-C. That is the Reading Room, Centre Block. This will be followed by a reception in the Railway Committee Room.

I hope all members will attend at 4 p.m. today.
^ ^ ^


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to my colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, I was wrong in an answer I gave him. I should make it clear that I was wrong because I misread a briefing note prepared for me by officials. Our colleague for Trinity- Spadina did in fact specify the purpose of his application for a visa to Mexico. The Mexicans issued the visa on March 6. That is surprising because the Mexican Constitution prohibits any participation by foreigners in the
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1991
Point of Order
Mexican electoral process. On March 15 the Government of Mexico sent a diplomatic note to Canada saying it had made an error. The Canadian Embassy advised our colleague for Trinity-Spadina, indicating that he was nonetheless able to stay in Mexico on a tourist visa so long as he did not violate the Mexican Constitution and take part in the electoral process.
As I said, we will look at the matter. I apologize to the House for inadvertently misleading members, and I will report to the House if there is further action we should take, although I should indicate that it is not surprising, even if it was late in doing it, that Mexico should follow a policy that adheres to the letter and the spirit of its Constitution.
David Barrett: On the
same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for correcting the information given to this House. But it still begs the question; the question that I raised was the fact that there was an invitation by an official opposition party, clearly stated in the letter. Furthermore, it went through your department, Mr. Minister. Someone in your department should have been aware of this as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to cut off the exchange as it is an important matter. However, I would ask hon. members to put their questions through the Chair.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair.


John Horton McDermid: Point of order.
Mr. Speaker, during question period I inadvertently named the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for heckling. It was not him, and I apologize to the right hon. gentleman.


WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, while we are on a run, on Friday, March 15, 1991 I rose in the House during Question Period on questions regarding the budget and letters that had been sent by the Secretary of the Treasury Board the day after the budget. I said that the government deliberately misled the House. That may not go against the strict rules of the
House but for the peace, order and good government of this House, I withdraw those remarks.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow an allotted day.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order respecting Question Period. At least three different questioners from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for York West, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Saint-Henri- Westmount, prefaced their questions with "in the absence of this minister", and "in the absence of that minister".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is against our practices and rules to indicate the presence or absence of any member. By continuing this practice, which admittedly has been widely used, they are in essence doing that and if it is going to be a quid pro quo situation, then presumably that is to invite members from this side to stand up and acknowledge who is not present on the other side. I do not think that would contribute to what Question Period is all about.
I would also like to express concern about a situation I also feel is inappropriate, given the strictures in Beau-chesne as to what Question Period is supposed to be. Questions by the hon. members for York West and Hamilton West were directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as a former Minister of Transport. I think there are submissions by your predecessors in Beauchesne which make it clear that questions in terms of former capacities are out of order.
I see the new member, newly elected and not aware of past practices, is chuckling over there. Perhaps he would learn a little bit.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The hon. government House leader has risen on a question of order with respect to the way we conduct our Question Period. It is not the first time this matter has been raised in the last
March 18, 1991

very recent interval. I think hon. members would want to extend the same courtesy to the hon. minister that have been extended to other members when the matter has been raised.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe it also not to be in keeping with the strictures of Beauchesne to insist, as did the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for York West, that this must be answered by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Again, Beauchesne makes it very clear that the purpose of Question Period is for all members of the House, opposition members, and backbenchers, to have an opportunity to seek information from the Chair. I agree that we have separated a long way from that in recent years.
In view of comments by yourself the other day in terms of decorum in the House and what should be appropriate in this House of Commons, in view of comments by the House leader of the Liberal Party last week in terms of his concern about the number of people who have an opportunity to rise for questions, I would like to bring to the Chair my concern about Question Period and the way questions are being answered. I would refer again to Beauchesne. May I humbly suggest that all of our goals as responsible parliamentarians interested in pursuing the public interest in a way that does not bring disfavour and disgrace on all of us by way of the antics in here might in fact be well served if we agreed again to honour these practices, have the Chair enforce them, or, if not, to then agree to look at them, see which we do agree to, and again ask the Chair to enforce them.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat humorous to have the government House leader stand in his place and lecture members of the opposition with respect to decorum and ways in which we pose questions to government ministers.
I do want to thank the hon. member opposite for allotting tomorrow a supply day. There will be no real discussion with regard to House leaders on that matter, but I want to thank him for his co-operation on that.
Point of Order
With regard to Question Period, the points that have been raised by myself and others in this party on previous occasions had to do primarily with the time both of the question and of the response.
I want to tell the Chair and all members of this House that we have complete confidence in the Chair. We do not wish to lecture the Chair in any way in terms of the rulings of Beauchesne. It is rather somewhat unique that the government House leader would want to quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist. I did not take anything that the hon. House leader said as a lecture to the Chair.
There has been discussion going on back and forth now for a while. I think the discussion is sincerely meant to try to handle the affairs in this place as well as we possibly can. I do not take these comments, whether they come from either side, as a lecture to the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate your interventions.
However, those of us on this side of the House would conclude that the government House leader is once again transcending the bounds that we believe to be appropriate and fitting in the circumstances by lecturing members of the Opposition as to what is precisely in Beauchesne and what is not in Beauchesne.
From time to time, we have deviated from Beauchesne as government members have deviated from Beauchesne from time to time.
If the minister's comments are made in the light of trying to perfect some of the discrepancies which occur in Question Period, fine, if that is the light in which they are given, but I would hope that the minister would take under active consideration the point of the matter that ministers of the Crown repeatedly and regularly stand in their places and give long, verbose answers to questions which we believe are succinct and to the point.
I would hope that the hon. member opposite would give active consideration to that. I know that the Chair will give active consideration to that because Mr. Speaker has instructed the Clerk to gather information for us

March 18, 1991
Point of Order
that we may want to use and discuss at future House leaders' meetings on that particular point.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I would hope that the government House leader will stand again in his place, perhaps tomorrow after he has reviewed Hansard, to issue a retraction. This member for Hamilton West did not refer in his remarks, as the minister said I did, to the absence of the Minister of Transport.
In fact, I directed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, who was once Minister of Transport. I apologize if I was to lend any credibility to the Deputy Prime Minister as well as his official duties as the Deputy Prime Minister to also be a knowledgeable gentleman on the facts as they pertain to transport.
I would hope that correction is forthcoming. If I have made any incorrect statement in the House, to my own defence I would only say that as a new member, and having heard the line of questioning for the past two years, I would only assume that that was the correct procedure.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to rise on this point order.
Just a few minutes ago, I got up and withdrew my comments of Friday. I did not think I had broken the rules, but I recognized that the nature of what I had said had upset some members of the House. I think I also upset the person in charge of the mikes too, since they keep going off and on.


Mr. Speaker:: Let's see if we can get started all over again.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am speaking to the House.
I have had many occasions when I have not been allowed to speak in the House, but this is one of the more unusual occurrences in which this is happening.


Mr. Speaker:: Don't push it too far.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the House right now with regard to the mikes actually illustrates what I was trying to say in the House, that the government House leader is correct in some ways in saying that we should not be referring to the absence of
ministers or any other members of the House. However, I think the nature of the questions that are asked quite often is not referring to the absence of a minister in a derogatory sense, but is referring or trying to explain to the House why a question is being deferred to another minister.
I recognize that any member of the cabinet can get up and answer a question and that there are ministers designated from time to time to answer questions in the absence of another minister. However, sometimes it makes sense if the person asking the question gets up and says: "In the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I am asking my questions of the minister of energy". There might be a very logical reason for doing that.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, as we do quite often, recognizing that we do have rules of the House, that sometimes it makes a lot more sense for common sense to prevail and that in the case quite often when members get up, make reference to the absence of a member or a minister that it really assists the House and certainly assists those people who are watching in the public.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let me first respond to the member for Hamilton West who indicates that he did not state: "In the absence of the Minister of Transport", he may well be right. If I inferred otherwise, I apologize to him.
In terms of his other comments, he made perhaps a very relevant point in commenting that as a relatively new member he is following the examples set. I understand that and it is quite appropriate. I guess my point is that in a variety of ways, through things happening and being duplicated and triplicated and becoming the norm, we have established practices which are being criticized by our own members in terms of the opportunity to ask questions and to respond, and by those who watch in terms of the relevance to the governing of Canada of some of the actions that occur.
In the context of the question raised the other day by the House leader of the Liberal Party as to the question of time, I rose then, and I just repeat today and raised examples today of wherein it may well be appropriate for us to re-examine the definitions of what Question Period is, as stated in Beauchesne, or with those things that are no longer relevant and adopt and enforce those which would be appropriate to what we want to see.
March 18, 1991

Again, the member for Churchill is still here, I would comment with regard to what he suggested, that sometimes it might be appropriate to ask a question "in the absence of", the difficulty is in terms of what it does for the minister who is not there. It says to everybody who is watching: "The minister is not in his seat. He is not in Ottawa." The question, in order to protect the reputation, if you will, to establish that he or she is bona fide involved in government business, presumably invites a session where somebody stands up and says: "While the Minister of the Environment is currently touring the Fraser Valley", and so on and so forth, and to go through that exercise.
My understanding is that is why Beauchesne, and based on previous Speakers' rulings, indicates it is inappropriate to raise the question of the absence of ministers from the House. All I am asking is that until we change that rule, let us enforce, it.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the comments of the government House leader today. It has been the practice of this House for some time to put a question in the fashion that he objects to today, to say that in the absence of such and such a minister, I put my question to the Prime Minister or to the Deputy Prime Minister or whatever. I have never heard anyone object to this. Indeed, this formulation is intended to assist cabinet. We know very well that ministers are given the task of responding for other ministers. To me, it has always been the common sense way of drawing attention to the responsibility and getting the attention of perhaps the cabinet minister who had been asked to respond for another.
I really do not know what alternative there would be. I would seek your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, or the advice of the government House leader in this regard. Perhaps one would say my question relates to science and I bring it to the attention of cabinet in the hope that there is someone who is qualified to answer. Maybe he would prefer that.
I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a bit longer and it might take up more time in Question Period to put questions in that fashion.
Point of Order
Again, I really wonder what is behind this. Why did the government House leader raise it in this fashion? Perhaps he has a legitimate point. It seems to me that this kind of matter ought not to be raised without warning on the floor of the House of Commons. These are the kinds of questions where there are other fora for consideration of matters of this nature.
I ask the government House leader perhaps to reconsider his manner of dealing with questions like this.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can be of assistance. When some of us who are in this Chamber first came here, including the government House leader, myself and others who are here-it is getting to be a long time ago-and something happened during Question Period with which another member umbrage, Question Period could be interrupted with a point of order. That was eventually done away with by agreement of all hon. members in order to get on with Question Period.
I am as aware as anybody else in this place that from time to time there are complaints about Question Period, or at least suggestions for its improvement. It comes not only from both sides of the House, but it also comes from the country.
The hon. government House leader has raised a matter and I think the appropriate thing to do is to go back a few days. I certainly appreciate the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount and the very cordial and courteous way in which he has approached this matter. I think it would be helpful if there were some discussions about some of these matters. Certainly I do not think it is appropriate for me today to lay down any dictates. If hon. members want to go back into the past, there were some very clear statements made by past Speakers as to exactly how Question Period should be conducted. Those statements gave a certain degree of constraint on both questions and answers. If the House wishes to come to me and suggest that we make some adjustments to our present practices, as I said the other day, I would certainly be prepared to listen.
I do want to remind hon. members that once upon a time the practice was that if there was a complaint it was taken up in the middle of Question Period. We decided that it ought not to be done at that time. The hon. House leader has raised it subsequent to Question Period, as is the right of all hon. members and he of course has the right to do.

March 18, 1991
Privilege
I would hope that we could have some discussions. I think there is a genuine feeling in the House that Question Period is perhaps a unique institution of our country and a very important one but that we want to make it as effective and as fair as we possibly can. I will look forward to hearing from hon. members in this regard.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to clarify a statement I made on March 14 on the CBC program The Journal. I apologize for the fact that part of what was broadcast last Thursday may have given a wrong impression of my opinion of native people. I am very sorry if my comments gave the impression that I was referring to native people as a whole. I can assure the House that such was not the case, because what I had in mind was the behaviour of certain warriors during the crisis at Oka last summer, a crisis that left its mark on us all.
I may add that these remarks were made in the context of a conference meeting with a group of social agencies. The meeting was about federalism and Canadian unity. The agencies had an opportunity to talk about the past and about their concerns for the future. It was an open, friendly and public discussion, the kind I regularly have with my constituents and certain business groups.
I want to emphasize that I never expressed any threats of any kind towards any group whatsoever.
And how could I, Mr. Speaker, since these people are important members of my community. Many of them, with whom I have worked for many years, I consider as my friends, because their efforts have helped me to improve the social conditions in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, this array of opinions expressed by 19 groups-not 190, a figure that was referred to out of context in the House and outside the House-may have set the rumour mill going in Ottawa, but we should not judge these opinions out of context. They should be
judged in a context that leaves no room for any misunderstanding.
I only went so far as to mention or point out that curiously, some anti-federal groups have no compunction about cashing cheques from the federal government and wearing a "Participation Quebec" badge. Those are facts, facts that can be checked and were checked.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I can give this House the assurance that I am still determined to defend the cause of a united Canada with a strong Quebec, and my efforts will continue, with due respect for all ethnic groups and all persons concerned, and especially for all Quebeckers.


MEMBER FOR LAVAL-EST
Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege for which I have given notice.
I would like to quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, citation 27, which reads:
A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and
should be taken seriously by the Flouse.
I take this matter very seriously. It pertains to the comments just made by the hon. member for Laval-Est, in which I heard no apology to the aboriginal people of Canada.
I would like to quote from the transcript of the comments of the hon. member, which reads:
It's like the Indians. They don't like our laws, they don't respect
this, they don't respect the Constitution, but they want to have the
money.
This matter deals with remarks about aboriginal people made by the hon. member last Thursday, March 14, on CBC's The Journal. I respectfully submit that my privilege as a member of Parliament has been breached and that a contempt of Parliament has thus occurred. The hon. member's statements reflect on the House as a whole and reflect on individual members thereof, namely the aboriginal members of this House.
According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, at page 11, parliamentary privilege is enjoyed by individual members and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
March 18, 1991

I submit that the hon. member's statements impinge on my ability and that of the other aboriginal MPs in this House to do their jobs properly. We have been misrepresented, and these remarks are derogatory not only to us but to the dignity of the entire House of Commons.
Mr. Joseph Maingot, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, stated at page 213:
There are actions which, while not directly in a physical way
obstructing the House of Commons or the member, nevertheless
obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by diminishing
the respect due it.
I respectfully submit that respect for this House has been diminished in two ways by the comments of the hon. member for Laval-Est. Again I refer to the transcripts of The Journal, and I would like to table this with the Clerk.
First, the member's comments were racially based and discriminatory against aboriginal people in Canada. The elimination of racism and prejudice-


Mr. Speaker:: Not to take anything away from the issue, whatever the member's complaint is, an hon. member has got up and said that under no circumstances did he mean it to be a slight against any of the people of Canada.
Second, I have to apply the rules in this as I would have to apply them in any other case. It is very difficult for me, despite the complaint the hon. member may have, to see how this in any way impinges upon his ability to do his duty as a member of Parliament in this House or anybody else's ability to do their duty.
What we have here clearly is a remark. The hon. member has stood in his place and we have to accept in this place the hon. member's word that he was not referring to all of the aboriginal peoples of our country. He was referring to a specific thing and he has made it very clear. I certainly have accepted what he said as making it very clear that he is not insulting nor is he casting aspersions on any group of Canadians, and certainly not aboriginal Canadians.
I have to say to the hon. member that the complaint is made. I see the hon. member for Shefford wants to rise on this matter. It will have to be a very pertinent statement indeed because I am in the midst of saying that there may be a complaint here. If there was, it has
Privilege
been met by an hon. member on the other side and it is not a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Shefford, very briefly. I am bowing of course to the fact that he is a senior member here.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you look at the comments made by the hon. member for Laval-Est, you will realize that he withdrew his insulting remarks about certain native people but did not withdraw all comments that were specifically directed to sovereigntists, a group to which I belong. In his comments, he said they did not respect the Constitution-


Mr. Speaker:: He may or he may not have. This place is an adversary forum and we all know that. There are going to be lots of things said that are political. We once had a member here, a gentleman in whom I hold very high regard, who said: "The trouble with this place is it is getting too political". It is a political place, but as far as I am concerned the hon. member, if there were any question of privilege, has made it clear there is not. I do not think there was a question of privilege in the first place. That does not mean that there might not have been a complaint.
The hon. member has certainly got up and, to my satisfaction, has said that he did not mean an insult and if that is the way it appeared he clearly did not want it to be so.
The fact that we have arguments about different people's political positions in the country is something which takes place here at all times. That is the end of the issue.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I informed you of my intention to review Hansard and, if necessary, raise a point of privilege arising from Question Period.
In my view, members must be vigilant when replies stray into derogatory personal remarks and away from the substance of the issue.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We do respect the Constitution, but he fails to see that.

March 18, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Members of the Parti Quebecois are citizens who pay taxes like anybody else.


Marlene Catterall: It is very difficult to understand that I do have the floor, Mr. Speaker.
If I may go back to my previous question and ask my colleagues to be somewhat more polite, in my view members must be vigilant when replies from ministers stray into derogatory personal remarks and away from the substance, as the government House leader did on Friday. Such remarks diminish the House and dimmish the member.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. What exactly were the remarks and in what way is it a question of privilege?
There is a big difference between complaining about something and having a question of privilege. The essence of privilege which goes back hundreds of years is: Has somebody done something that makes it impossible or makes it less likely or less able for an individual member to carry on his or her duties as a member of Parliament to speak freely? That is what privilege is.
Hon. members may complain about all kinds of things that we say about each other in this place. It is not necessarily privilege. I would ask the hon. member to tell me just exactly what was said and why it is a question of privilege.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, in fact having reviewed Hansard I may find some unwarranted insults and something that peaked my umbrage, but no specific breach of privilege and I therefore withdraw my request to you.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the hon. member's comments. Perhaps it will help us all.
There are other places and other ways to carry on the debate. I want to say to the hon. member my very sincere thanks for helping the Chair. I appreciate it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canadian Grains Commission for the crop year ending July 31, 1990 and the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 32(5), this report is referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred residents from my riding and adjacent ridings, in which they point out that 85 per cent of visa and immigration activities in New Delhi take place from people living in the Punjab, that the Canadian consular service in New Delhi is now overly burdened, and that it is difficult for the people travelling from the Punjab because they must travel for three days into a city that is often dangerous for people from the Punjab to be in.
The petitioners ask that the Canadian government open a new Canadian consulate and immigration office in the Punjab to provide the level of service required for immigration, visitors' visas and related services.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a number of petitions.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of rural Canadians is disturbed at the deterioration of the quality of life in rural areas.
March 18, 1991

These petitions are signed by a large number of constituents and people from rural areas. They call upon Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life by immediately implementing new economic and social policies to enable rural Canadians to continue to work and live in their communities while still being able to provide a decent quality of life for their families.
The petitioners call upon us to take some action in that form.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of other petitions to present, one which may be a little late in arriving but which calls upon the government to deal with the privatization of Petro-Canada so that Petro-Canada can remain a Crown corporation, acting in the best interests of all Canadians.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of people from Saskatoon and surrounding communities.
They call upon Parliament to urge the government to consider restoring proper funding to the CBC so that it can fulfil its mandate and its role as the heartbeat of Canada and to re-examine its priorities in terms of decreasing funding for Canadian institutions and its insistence on privatization. All of these have an impact on the quality of life in rural Canada.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition signed by many constituents of my riding of Northumberland.
The petitioners state that whereas the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets the standard of protection and care to children far superior to anything we know and experience in Canada and countries world-wide, and whereas the convention will address the basic health, nutritional, social and economic problems that are the cause of much child suffering throughout the world, my constituents want to encourage the federal government to speedily review its legislation and policies in order to achieve consistency in our policies here with the UN
Routine Proceedings
convention and to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as soon as possible.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions. The first is signed by many constituents of my riding and relates to the Senate.
The petition indicates the very clear purpose under which my constituents believe the Senate was established in 1867 and the valuable purpose that it then served. It goes on to indicate that they do not believe that purpose is being served today and they therefore call upon the Parliament of Canada to abolish the Senate outright.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, the second petition presented under Standing Order 36 is signed by many constituents of the greater Toronto area and deals with allergy information.
Many people in Canada suffer from allergies. They are concerned that restaurants and food packages are not required to disclose all of the contents of food. Therefore the petitioners have requested that the Parliament of Canada enact legislation amending food and drug regulations to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in prepackaged foods in place of the general classifications now permitted. They further request that restaurants and food retailers be required to provide on demand to customers a list of all food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.
Both these are respectfully submitted.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 437 will be answered today.


Mr. Murphy: March 18, 1991



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Supply
Were any calls or correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister's Office and any (a) person (b) organization inside or outside the government regarding the Westray coal mine project in Pictou, Nova Scotia and, if so, (i) on what dates (ii) with which parties?
['It being 7 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.']
Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Correspondence and calls received by the Office of the Prime Minister regarding the Westray Coal Mine project are noted and forwarded to the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology for his information and consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.



Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 408.1 ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS &quot;
Mr. Milliken: What is the total forecasted cost of the (a) Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation (b) Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (c) Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing?


Leonard J. Gustafson: As indicated in Part III of the 1991-92 Estimates for the Privy Council office, the total forecasted costs are as follows:
a)	Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation	$ 23,100,000b)	Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies	$ 24,700,000<9	Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing	$ 19,900,000
]English]


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-FARM INCOMES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Foster (p. 18577).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: At the suspension of the debate at 2 p.m. the hon. member for Saskatoon- Humboldt had the floor. He has 18 minutes left.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is one calling on the government to take action regarding the lack of income for this particular year. It puts before this House the problem of funding for the seeding of the crop in this particular year.
It is a laudable motion, something that we would support. However, if one looks at the record of the government, one also has to think that maybe it is a motion that is a little bit futile. Last year when this government promised that we would have a certain amount of assistance by spring work, many of us were still waiting for it when we harvested the crop that it was supposed to help seed.
The minister, in answering a question just before Question Period, when he made his presentation to this House, also indicated that there was likely to be a considerable hold-up, because he attached all of the bridging funding to the GRIP and NISA programs. Therefore, it is a little difficult to believe that this government is going to do anything for the farmers in time for them to be able to use the assistance for the planting of crops this year.
This government has made it clear that what it intends to do as far as agriculture is concerned is to commit the industry to a market system, a trading system, and a financial system which makes it unlikely the first two of these three systems will allow the farmers enough income so that they can make a living comparable to most other parts of the economy.
The Minister of Agriculture and the government generally make a great song and dance about the fact that we must be competitive, we must fit ourselves into the market system. They make a great song and dance about getting away from direct support to the farmer. Their theme has been to put in place a safety net which
March 18, 1991

would guarantee the farmers enough return for them to survive in farming.
Mr. Speaker, it all sounds very good, and it may even help somebody. But the government, for all its great propaganda about how it has always come to the aid of the farmer and how it will do so in the future-and we heard that again during Question Period today-it has not improved the position of the farmer relative to income in the last six years.
If you were to look at the structure of the income of farmers in today's dollars, you would find that it has gone down considerably-the income has gone down considerably-even with the increase in aid that the government has given them. I am sure you would find it very difficult to find a farmer who would say they are better off today than they were six years ago. I am sure if you went out and asked, that you would have no one volunteer that they are in a better position now than they were six years ago. Certainly, there is no one in the industry who would indicate that is the position they would take.
During the last six years, this government has dispersed among farmers a considerable amount of help in the form of debt review boards, has written off the deficit for the Western Grain Stabilization, and has also expended the amount of money it has given in direct assistance.
But, after all that, we find an industry that is much worse off than it was six years ago.
So, Mr. Speaker, we come to the position that we find ourselves in today. We look at last year's income and we find that it was considerably less than the cost of production. In other words, a large portion of the farmers who were in the industry last year did not make as much as they spent. Even after the government assistance was in place, they did not make as much as they spent. It is predicted that the 1991-1992 crop year will also produce less income than it did last year. The GRIP and NISA plans are supposed to take that up, but the GRIP and NISA plans do not come into effect until the end of this year.
Most industries, if they had that kind of return for several years for their efforts would have curled up and quit. The farmers are a different breed. They go on
Supply
producing. They hope that society recognizes they are contributing something of considerable value and will, therefore, make sure that they can survive.
I suppose, to a certain extent, we have done this. However, there are far fewer farmers now than there were a few years ago. The quality of life in the farm communities is lowering considerably each year.
As I said, society should recognize that farmers contribute considerably to the community. They produce much of the food we eat. There is good reason to believe society would do this. Besides the fact they are producing a considerable amount of the food eaten in Canada, the agricultural industry contributes what we call-I cannot quite come up with the word-but for every dollar paid to the farmer, there is about $7 generated within the general economy. Multiplier is the word I was looking for. This multiplier factor should be recognized by society as a good reason to keep the farmers on the land producing food.
Every farm job kept in place produces quite a large number of other jobs. I can give some examples. These are not direct multipliers, but they give some indication of the effect the farm community has on industry in Canada.
For instance, bread is usually the main product we think of from the farm community. A grain producer gets about 4 cents for the wheat used in a loaf of bread that costs anywhere from $1 to $1.50. That gives a multiplier of something around 33.
A farmer gets 1 cent for the barley used to make a $2 bottle of beer.
Cooking oil, from canola-which is one of the healthiest cooking oils on the market-the farmer gets 60 cents for the canola used in a litre of canola oil which will sell at something over $2.
Even something as simple as sugar cookies, the farmer gets 2 cents for the wheat used in cookies and those cookies are usually worth about $3.
Rye whisky produces a considerable amount of income for the government; it is more often called Canadian whisky in this part of the country. The farmers get 1 cent for the rye that is used in a 40 ounce bottle of whiskey. Most of that multiplier, if you wish, is paid as taxation to the government.

March 18, 1991
Supply
I grant that these multipliers I have mentioned here are not direct, because other products are used in the making of making of the products sold. Consequently, there is not a direct relationship.
It gives us an indication of the impact agriculture has on other industries. For instance, the oats that are used in a $4.88 package of oat bran flakes will only bring the farmer about a cent and a half. Society should recognize that we owe a lot to the farmer in other jobs and in other activity in the community.
To a great extent, the point that is being made here by most of us who are part of the agricultural industry is that agricultural production is important. If we do not pay enough for the product for the farmer to survive, it means that we are reducing the effectiveness of the economy to some extent.
As long as the farmer keeps producing, the rest of the industry can survive. We cannot expect farmers to go on indefinitely producing at a loss. Consequently, eventually we will be looking to other countries for the products that we now buy at home.
If we think of a multiplier factor of seven times for every dollar paid to a farmer, we recognize that agriculture has a major impact upon the economy of the country. Also, it is one of the major suppliers of foreign currency to our government.
The government tells us that it has been helping the farmers with special programs and in other ways for many years. We will grant that it has, but its plan was not to help the industry. It has not helped the industry, because the industry is still going downhill.
For example, during 1989-90, even with government help, the farmers did not recover all of their costs. In 1990-91, unless the government gives them some direct help, the amount of income will be less than it was last year. What they need now are contributions directly, which will give them enough cash so that they can plant their crops this spring.
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke a little while ago in answer to a question we put to him, he said that the government will do something when it is able to do so and when it has enough involvement in the GRIP and NISA plan.
On several occasions over the last year, farm organizations had pressed the Minister of Agriculture to make a
statement on whether or not he was going to assist the farmers in bridging the gap between last year's shortfall in income and the establishment of the GRIP and NISA programs. It was well known for some time that that gap in income was going to be there. The farmers have been asking the minister and the Government of Canada what they intended to do about this gap. Again, that is what is being asked today in this motion.
The minister stated: "Leave it until after we have solved the safety net problem." That might have been some relief to somebody, but it did not assure anybody that they were going to get any funds.
The minister also stated: "We have always helped the farmers when they needed it. We will do so in the future." He made that statement again today, and again there was no commitment to funds for the bridging process.
Later on he said that any answer to this question would be correlated with the GRIP or the NISA program. In the process of making that statement, he indicated to us that he was making it dependent upon the GRIP or the NISA program. In fact he almost threatened-and he did not renege from that position when I asked him the question today-that if people do not join GRIP, they cannot expect to have any assistance. The assistance required is for this year. GRIP is going to pay for next year. It is very unusual or very disturbing to find the government saying that if you do not sign up for GRIP and NISA, which will do you for next year, it will not pay you anything this year.
The first ministers have announced that the GRIP and NISA papers will be complete for the spring work. They also said that if the farmer needs help, the government will pay it. I am sure that John Wise, who promised these GRIP and NISA programs back in 1985-not in those particular words-must be breathing a little easier, because after all this time we have them in place. However, there is nothing in the programs that deals with the basic fact that money will be there when they need it this spring.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech on the motion today. I could not help but reflect that over the years that I have had the privilege of sitting in this House, we have

March 18, 1991

experienced and participated in many debates with respect to problems within the Canadian farming community. Almost all of these problems revolve around scarcity of money, lack of funds, lack of income, or incomes that are falling and have been falling over a period of many years.
Today a way of life that at one time, and indeed historically in our country, had a great deal of built-in security based almost entirely on one's ability to work or determination to work has changed to a way of life that is pretty much on the fringe, materially speaking. Farming today is almost a way of life to be avoided. It is very sad and tragic that one of the great pillars of Canadian society, the rural way of life, and farmers in general, is in such an unstable situation and that young people, by and large, bom on farms today do not want to continue farming. I should not say they do not want to continue farming; they fear going into farming because of this lack of security and this inability to live a reasonably secure life based on one's determination and ability to work.
In what way or ways would a New Democratic Party government in Ottawa be different in its approach to assisting farmers, both individually and through their organizations, in respect of these various funding programs that we have debated from time to time in this Chamber? We have seen both Liberal programs and Conservative programs and though they have had the immediate stop-gap effect of preventing ultimate disaster on the farm front, they have not in terms of long-term solutions amounted to very much.
In what way or ways would our party's farm policy differ basically from that of the Liberals and the Conservatives?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there has been a lack of long-term programming. I give credit to this government for suggesting the GRIP, a program which suggests that there may be long-term assistance in place.
The shortcoming of the GRIP program which is placed before this Elouse is that there is not written into it any cost of production. It will only supply the needs of the farmer as long as the moving average of 15 years is higher than the cost of production. There is no guarantee that is going to happen; in fact, it looks as if within
Supply
two or three years that moving average will be lower than that.
We have a program that we have had as a policy for a good number of years very similar to this, except that the basis of it is the cost of production. For a minimum amount produced by each farmer, a certain portion of his crop, he would be assured the cost of production. Beyond that he would have to depend on the market. Only his insurance would allow him to survive, or to be sure he was going to get some return beyond that, if there was a drought or a bad year.
I suppose one could say that the program we would put in place is not that much different than the GRIP, except that it would have built into it a cost of production, and would have a cap which would not allow a situation as they have in the United States where 85 per cent of the funding from these kinds of programs goes to approximately 10 per cent of the farmers. That kind of a program has a tendency to eliminate more farmers than the number it assists.
The approach that we have been suggesting for many years, and which we hoped John Wise would suggest back in 1985-because we had talked it over with him on many occasions-would establish a program that would allow a return to the farmer at a cost of production level for a certain portion of his crop. He would always be sure that he was going to get some return.
This program does not do that. GRIP does not do that.
NISA under the government is really only a glorified savings plan, and again is only there for the farmers who have extra money. It is so glorified, in fact, that I have had farmers come to me and say: "You know, I think I am going to borrow some money and put it into this NISA plan, because the return on it is better than what it would cost me to borrow the money". That in itself is a discredit to the reason for the plan being put in place.
Basically our plan would not be too much different. But it would assure a return to the farmer based on his cost of production and would assure that some farmers were not able to take advantage of it more than others.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Humboldt and perhaps pose a question.

March 18, 1991
Supply
Let me say first that I appreciate his recognition of the fact that there has been some considerable magnitude in the dimension of support to Canadian agriculture by this government, and that he does see elements of merit in the long-term safety net programs which are presently in front of the agriculture committee even as we speak, and soon hopefully back in front of this House.
I want to ask the hon. member a couple of questions relating to the idea of a cost of production formula, and also the idea of some form of support being based on, I gather, the first x number of bushels of production.
In the latter case, I am wondering how he would ensure that there would not be such a proliferation of permit books that in fact all of the production would be qualifying for the additional support that he envisions. I am also wondering how he could apply a cost of production formula into an area like the production of wheat where we are dependent on export for probably 82 per cent or 83 per cent of all of the production in Canada. How is it possible to apply a cost of production and recover that from an international market where, because of factors that lie beyond our borders, there simply is not the return at the present time?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the proliferation of permit books or quota books is a concern that this government is having right now and will have with the program it has put before us.
I would first point to the U.S. programs of conservation where they have managed, very successfully, to control the number of acres. Now they have not managed to control the production particularly well but they have managed to control the number of acres that a particular farm seeds and puts on the market.
We have discussed the questions that he talks about on many occasions. We have felt that it was a minor concern, but the situation where one unit produces or farms 100,000 acres and gets the cost of production for all of that would not happen. That is the main concern for what may happen under the GRIP program.
The second question that he asks is the extent to which the program can be dependent upon. We feel that its greatest weakness is the fact that it is bound to go below
the cost of production within two years unless the price of grain goes up. What you do by putting in place a market controlled level is guarantee that within a certain number of years the price that the farmer gets for his grain will be lower than the cost of production. It will not make any difference how well you farm or how good you are at it. You will still lose money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex-Agriculture; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Softwood Lumber; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Resuming debate.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to continue the debate this afternoon on the Liberal opposition day resolution. To refresh the memories of those here, it reads as follows:
That this House call upon the Government to take immediate action to deal with drastically reduced farm incomes resulting from the 1990-91 crop year and to make required assistance available in time for spring planting to ensure viable returns for grains, oilseeds and horticultural producers.
It is my pleasure, as I said, to speak to this issue, an agricultural emergency that exists in our country at this time. As others have said, although we have dealt in this House many times over the years with issues of agriculture, we always seem to have an agricultural industry that is in a state of emergency. The state of emergency derives, I believe, from many factors, but one of the major factors for the emergency that exists today is the lack of understanding on the part of the Canadian public in general to the importance of agriculture as a part of our Canadian economy.
Agriculture in Canada today is a $43 billion industry. Since 1988, it has declined from about a $50 billion industry. At the base of that $43 billion industry today, the basic pillar is comprised of our farmers across this country. It is my regret and the regret of many of us who are concerned about agriculture in this country that the number of farmers is declining rapidly and drastically. Western farmers across our prairies had not too bad a
March 18, 1991

year last year only because of good growing conditions and a good crop yield as a result of that.
As we know, before last year they suffered very severely from drought. It is not to say that this past year, for being a better year, has brought them out of the serious financial crisis that they experienced the previous years. They are still suffering from that and they still need considerable assistance in order to survive. The fact is that many have gone bankrupt and many are on the verge of bankruptcy.
I have heard from colleagues in my own caucus, colleagues who represent the ridings of Essex-Kent and Haldimand-Norfolk, as well as ridings in southwestern Ontario who are experiencing severe agricultural problems at this time. Farmers are giving up because they have lost crops and the prices for their commodities have dropped considerably. They do not have the funds to produce crops this year; vegetable growers to get seed into the ground and fruit producers to get the spray on their fruit and other crops that they might have.
We are in serious trouble across this country. We have heard of the potato farmers in Prince Edward Island as well as other horticultural producers in the east part of our country. They all are crying and begging for assistance.
This government has tried in different ways to address the needs of farmers across this country. At the present time, with spring planting coming on, particularly for horticultural producers, there is a gap. There is an emergency need, a crisis at this time, for our government to address this issue and to allow our horticultural producers to get on stream to get their crops yielding for this current year.
Within the last couple of weeks we started a debate on Bill 098, the Farm Income Protection Act, a comprehensive act which includes insurance programs, income security programs like GRIP and NISA. I think, as I sit here as a non-agricultural expert, one of the reasons perhaps that the Canadian public does not seem to understand and stand behind agricultural producers, our fanners in this country, is that we use terminology which is really unknown to most Canadians.
Supply
As I speak today, I will try to avoid using terms like GRIP and NISA, but simply to explain that, as I said before, these are income security programs, insurance programs meant to help and assist with income security for farmers across this country. Those programs are very important.
I stood here last week and applauded the minister for the method that he used in bringing the bill forward in the House. He combined farmers and provincial and federal government officials in the discussions out of which came the proposed Farm Income Protection Act, that we will presumably be voting upon within the next week or so.
The Farm Income Protection Act, although it might have many points of great merit within it, does not provide the type of assistance which horticultural producers in this country require at this time. There are 20,000 horticultural producers, producers of vegetables and fruit, in this country. Half of those producers, 10,000 of them, reside in Ontario.
Last week, as has been mentioned here in the House before, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and outlined the problems that their industry is facing at this time. They indicated that the Ontario producers alone require $700 million this year in order to produce their crops for this year.
They do not see how they can be assisted at this time by the Farm Income Protection Act that is before the House right now. It is an act which provides for insurance and income security programs for the year 1991-1992. They want to be assured, as well as the grains and oilseeds producers who will benefit from that program, that if they receive any income support this year or insurance coverage this year it will not be seen as a prepayment for the 1991-1992 crop year, because we are talking about the needs of the previous year and we cannot be continually playing catch-up.
On the other hand, producers do not like the ad hoc programs that are constantly being put in place and have had to be put in place to help them. At this point there seems to be no other possible, but yet there is one more ad hoc program for this year, particularly for horticultural producers who have such great need.
From what I can understand, one of the problems with the producers is that under one section of the Agriculture Income Protection Act the GRIP is fairly easily

March 18, 1991
Supply
defined for grains and oilseed producers, but it is much more difficult to define for our horticultural industry. Our fruit and vegetables growers produce over 100 different crops and each crop has different parameters. They must work out a separate type of program of insurance and income security. They have not even yet determined what the premiums would be for the various crops that might be covered under that program.
We heard from the minister today-and it would be of concern to the horticultural producers-that they may receive nothing this year in emergency assistance unless they become part of the GRIP program now for 1991-1992. Even if horticultural producers have the funding in hand to pay a premium, they do not know how that program will benefit them and the crops they produce. There are definitely problems and deficits in the legislation as it stands at this time, particularly for horticultural producers.
On the weekend I was reading the newspaper put out by the Ontario fruit and vegetable producers called The Grower. It had an article which referred to our agriculture minister's video speech to the B.C. Fruit Growers Association last month via satellite. We heard different members talk in the House today about a third line of defence committee, but for the average Canadian citizen I am afraid again that this would just be so much Greek and they would not really understand what that was referring to. I did not understand completely what it was referring to until I read this veiy good article in this agricultural newspaper.
It mentioned the first line of defence, which our minister referred to today, the second line of defence and the third line of defence. Our horticultural producers are saying that they need assistance from the third line of defence committee immediately in order that they can work this spring.
Just to explain to the Canadian public who may be tuned in to the House of Commons today, the first line of defence refers specifically to what is possible for producers themselves to do for themselves to promote their own self-sufficiency, and programs the Canadian and provincial governments can become involved in as well to help support our farmers across this country to become more self-sufficient. It looks toward farmers being as efficient as they possibly can be in production.
Certainly it has been seen in past years that farmers have indeed become much more efficient in their production methods than was perhaps previously the case.
However, in line with the first line of defence there are responsibilities the government must take as well. One of the most important ones in this era of free trade with the United States is for our government to help our Canadian farmers to be able to compete in the international markets on a level playing field.
Last week, when horticultural producers came before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, they outlined some of the problems they experience that cause them not to be able to compete fairly with American farmers. For example, we cannot get registered in Canada certain chemicals used on fruit to help the preservation and quality of crops that are grown in United States but are imported into this country.
In the United States they have a spray that deals with a disease called the pear psylla. This spray has not been registered here and cannot be used by Canadian pear producers. We are in serious condition of losing pear production in this country because this fact alone is causing our pear farmers not to be able to compete.
I come from a region that is famous for its apple production. I invite members and the Canadian public to come to the great riding of Northumberland to experience our delicious apples in the fall. Apple producers in Northumberland have come to me and have spoken of their problem of not being able to acquire in Canada registered chemicals that are available in the United States. This therefore lowers the quality, the saleability and the pricing. It is a detriment to them when it comes to selling their product in Canada, to say nothing of trying to export and sell their product abroad. It must be remembered that although we have a $43 billion agrifood industry in Canada, we export about 25 per cent of that agrifood production. That in itself accounts for about one-third of Canada's trade balance.
We are not talking about a minor economic sector in our economy. In fact the food industry from farm to supermarket is one of Canada's largest economic sectors. The sector, the bottom tier of which is our farming community, includes many other workers in the agrifood industry as has been mentioned before. It would include our transportation of food sector, the producer sector,
March 18, 1991

the marketing sector, the advertising sector, and the sales and supermarkets of which we are all aware.
For $1 of produce at the farm gate there is an additional $7 brought into the Canadian economy as a result of that $1 of farm production in this country. The importance of farmers to the economy of this country simply cannot be underestimated.
Many Canadians do not really understand the importance of agriculture in this country and the fact that there are so many farmers who are going out of business and experiencing bankruptcy in these days. Statistics were referred to earlier here today, that Agriculture Canada predicts the total net farm income in Canada will drop by 54.5 per cent this year as compared with last year, and that only three provinces in this country will have a positive net farm income in 1991. Saskatchewan and Manitoba will have the most difficult time. well. Ontario and Quebec will also have very difficult times.
From my point of view it is very difficult to start comparing sectors in the farming economies that are experiencing rougher or tougher times than another. If a farmer cannot make it, the situation is critical. It is of great concern to me that in my own riding of Northumberland I have seen several farmers in the last few years go out of business. These are farmers who have good university education. Some of them are fortunate enough to have come home from university to land that was held by their family for generations. With good equipment, with all of these resources in hand -and I know these people to be excellent business people-they are unable to make their farms economically viable and have had to leave their farms.
Much earlier in my life I came from the Burlington region. I watched that region of our country get gobbled up as farm land was sold by farmers who found it more economically feasible to sell their land to developers. I personally never want to see that happen to other areas of our country, but unfortunately I do continue to see it happen. It is something that we must stop as quickly as possible.
The agricultural industry in Canada faces many challenges, not least of which is the challenge of international trade. Canada does subsidize its food industry, but it is
Supply
not recognized by the Canadian public that in fact we pay very little for our food in comparison to its actual costs. But as we subsidize our industry we are competing with the U.S. and European countries that subsidize even more heavily. It is very hard for Canadian farmers to receive less; it is impossible for Canadian farmers to receive less for their production than they do nowadays.
I know this government is aware of the difficulties and is trying to deal with international trade issues, but we cannot stop. We must continue to do everything possible to try to support and help our agricultural food industry.
We laugh when we hear children being told or coming forward with the understanding that the stork brings babies. I very much get the impression that many citizens in Canada do not think beyond the supermarket when it comes to thinking of where food comes from, what the source of their food is.
Canadians must regard the crisis we have in the agricultural industry in our country at this time as their crisis and something that we all together must understand and try to do something about.
I have had the good fortune of browsing through a book called Farming the System by Mr. Barry K. Wilson, which gives a very good review of how politicians and producers shape Canadian agricultural policy. It is something I would recommend to all Canadian citizens to read in order to understand more about the agricultural industry in this country and what we can all do to help to improve the policies that we have in support of our farmers. They need our help. They need our understanding.
Politicians are going to be able to respond in a better way if all Canadian citizens become better informed and let politicians, decision makers, legislation makers, know that they understand the needs of the agricultural industry in this country and the enormous importance of agriculture to the economy and security of this country.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on a comment that the hon. member for Northumberland just made. I think she quite properly raised the matter that there is a lack of understanding or a gulf between urban dwellers and farm people or producers today.

March 18, 1991
Supply
She used the analogy of the stork bringing babies. Indeed I think when a lot of people go to the supermarket they do not realize that the food and the produce on the shelves come in fact from real live people, most of them Canadian.
If anything, there is a widening of this gulf, a heightened lack of understanding on the part of many Canadians as to exactly where their food does come from. In fact we in Canada enjoy the second lowest cost of food in the world. It is clear that some of the reason for that is the return that Canadian producers receive.
It has always troubled me that every program which the government announces on behalf of agriculture, whether it is crop insurance payments or WGSA payments or even the Canadian Wheat Board final payment, which in fact is entirely the producer's own money, is given a great headline in the media with a suggestion that it is another handout to the farm community. That in turn is seen by urban residents in a negative way.
That is why I rather like the concept of moving to these long-term safety net programs, GRIP and NISA, which are in fact in front of the House now and are moving forward. I wonder if the hon. member for Northumberland would agree with me that those programs will be a step in the right direction not only for their content, but also by lessening the dependence that we have had on ad hoc programs and all of the negative publicity that seems to come with each one. I wonder if the hon. member would agree that to the extent these programs will replace ad hockery and to the extent that they are permanently in place they will reduce the need for ad hoc programs and thereby reduce the kind of publicity which seems to widen the understanding between rural and urban areas.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would agree. Earlier I was talking about the different lines of defence, the jargon used currently around the House. I talked about the first line of defence and the second line of defence being the Farm Income Protection Act, that type of long-term program which I do think is important. I think we have to keep reviewing that type of program, which I understand the minister is prepared to do to make sure that it really does address the changing and emerging needs of the farming community.
What I did not mention was the third line of defence, which is also part of the total farm strategy. The quotes from this paper are saying: "Where the first and second lines of defence do not fully deal with an income problem, the third line of defence would then come into play, the minister explained. This would involve emergency assistance or transitional assistance and it may include input cost". This is the type of program that the horticultural producers in this country today are asking for and are very concerned about.
Although we need solid, long-term programs of assistance, I think that we always are going to require this third line of defence. When the minister meets with the third line of defence committee in the coming couple of weeks, I hope that he will address this urgent need particularly of horticultural producers at this time and understand their needs. They cannot at this time become enrolled in GRIP because of the uncertainty of what that means to the horticultural producers, but in order for them to be able to enrol eventually in that program they need emergency assistance today, which is the third line of defence.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland, spoke about sprays and chemicals that are used on produce to make it last longer while it is being shipped into Canada. Of course, these usually hit our markets at a time when a lot of our own fresh produce is coming on the market or even during the winter months when some of our greenhouse crops are being harvested.
I am very concerned about this same issue because even though some of these chemicals may be banned in Canada, they are used in other countries. Therefore, we do not allow any tolerance for these chemicals on our domestically produced food, but there is a tolerance allowed on imported food, which naturally gives them a competitive advantage coming on to our markets.
I am just wondering if my colleague would like to comment on this and if she thinks the use of these chemicals should be banned. Should we bring in regulations where all foods, both domestic and imported, should have the chemical content, pesticide, herbicide and so on, listed when they are put on sale in the supermarkets so that the Canadian consumer knows exactly what she is buying?
March 18, 1991


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague brings up a very good point. When I was speaking to that particular issue and the role of government, I was talking again about the first line of defence and the need for our producers to have a level playing field. At the same time as we want to have a level playing field, we have Canadian standards of health and acceptability with regard to chemicals.
Some chemicals that may be acceptable by American standards are not necessarily acceptable by Canadian standards. There is an urgent need for the government to act quickly to determine which of the chemicals are used on products in the United States that are imported into Canada are acceptable for consumption in Canada and which ones are not. If chemicals used on products imported into this country from the United States are acceptable, then they must be immediately registered in Canada so that Canadian farmers have equal access and equal opportunity to use them.
I have had complaints, as well, from organic farmers who try not to use chemicals. They use more natural substances. Who knows, maybe they are as toxic as regular chemicals. I cannot be the judge of that. But many people have spoken to me about this serious problem. So it is to have a level playing field, but a level playing field based upon Canadian standards of health and well being.
I also think it is important for all of our food products, whether they are imported or not, whether they are sprayed natural products or processed products, should be well marked in stores what chemicals are used so that consumers know what they are ingesting.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate, actually against the motion put by the opposition and, of course, in support of the government's agricultural record. I will try to do so from the perspective of a member who represents an area of some 25,000 square miles in southwestern and south central Saskatchewan, which is very dependent upon agriculture, especially, the grains sector and particularly the production and export of wheat.
There is no question that Canadian farmers and, especially at this time, the grains and oilseed producers
Supply
are faced with unprecedented circumstances. There has been enormous pressure to change and to adapt and that, in fact, is happening. We continue to support the farm community as we have always done, to help them meet their challenges at home and in the international marketplace.
There are three particular ways in which the government can assist the grains and oilseeds sector. The first is on the international level, where through the negotiations in GATT and with the Cairns group and with other nations, we tiy to bring about, if not an end, at least a lessening of the harmful subsidies which have so drastically affected the international price which our producers depend upon.
The second area is in regard to domestic agriculture. We must try to retain those things that were good out of the old agricultural programs and try to repair those deficiencies through innovations such as the GRIP and NISA programs which have developed a new generation of green sector safety nets, developed by the grain safety net committee.
The third area we should be addressing is that of diversification. When I say diversification, I mean within agriculture and, indeed, outside. Agricultural diversification is good, but it is obviously not possible to shift some 600 miles of prairie for which the highest and best use appears to be wheat production, into something else. It is just not feasible and not practical.
Progress is being made through Western Economic Diversification to diversify in a non-agricultural sense. We are trying to support and enable enterprises that have new products, new ideas, new technology, new markets, a possibility of import replacement to flourish on the prairies so that it will be possible to have plants, factories and initiatives which will employ prairie people in areas and occupations and walks of life that are not so dependent upon agriculture, as is the case at the present time.
Since the mid-1980s the federal government has provided an unprecedented level of income support to the grain and oilseeds sector, about $12 billion in direct assistance. This support has been delivered through record high pay-outs under existing programs such as the WGSA, that is the western grain stabilization program and through special programs that responded to unexpected emergencies.

March 18, 1991
Supply
Long-term programs like western grain stabilization were put in place to provide stability to producers and it has served that purpose well. However, it was never intended to deal with the kind of emergencies the industry faced during the late eighties and today. One obvious flaw was that the triggering mechanism was for the entire Canadian Wheat Board area rather than for specific areas. Another flaw was the five-year rolling average of income, which is fine when there is a quantum shift from one year to the next, but is not much good when the prices drop consistently and over a five-year period show very little change.
The problem is that farmers could no longer rely on these programs for predictable support. They indicated they needed a more effective and predictable safety net program, and that is why the legislation enabling GRIP and NISA, the Farm Income Protection Act, is now before this House. It is hoped that these programs, which were recommended to the government by the Grain Safety Net Committee composed in the majority of producers, will answer some of the problems.
The difficulty we find ourselves in, all Canadians and the grain producers in particular, is the trade subsidy war, the grain export subsidy war which has developed through the mid-eighties and late eighties between the European Economic Community and the United States. The Europeans, since the sixties, have been heavily subsidizing the production and eventually the over-production of product, including grain. They have embarked upon programs to subsidize the further export of their excess production.
The United States suffered a diminution of its share of the market for a number of years as a result of the European activities and eventually the Americans took the gloves off and got into the subsidy battle as well. Unfortunately, Canadian producers have been caught in the cross-fire. It has been particularly difficult because, as we all know, the European Economic Community has some 330 million people, the United States some 250 million people. We in Canada have 27 million people.
On the other side of the coin, the Europeans are able, because of that population, to consume by far the greater part of their production, so they are exporting-or perhaps I should say dumping on the world market-perhaps 15 per cent of their production.
The United States is in a somewhat similar position, and I am guessing at this point because I have forgotten the numbers, but I suspect that they export well under one-half of their production.
Canadians remain exposed to the tune of about 83 per cent, to export. We consume, as humans, about 7 per cent of our wheat production. Livestock take up perhaps another 9 per cent or 10 per cent. The remainder has to be exported, and that is where our producers are very much at risk.
This subsidy war is being very much fought with a double-edged sword. The big powers, the Europeans and the Americans, have the population to be able to chew up a lot of their production and at the same time they have the population base and the tax base to be able to afford the kind of massive export subsidies that they are affording their producers. So it is a very difficult situation. As a result, international grain prices have dropped dramatically through the eighties to the point now where, as we speak, as a result of some recent sales, it appears that the international price-if one can call it that-is in the area of $1.50 to $1.75 per bushel of wheat. Clearly, Canadian producers face a major problem. This is something that has been building for some time.
This has not gone unanswered. We, of course, recall the Canadian Special Grains Program in 1986, under which $1 billion was paid out to Canadian producers in addition to the regular government programs. The following year another $1.1 billion was paid out through that program.
Prices did recover somewhat in 1988 so that there was no need to extend the Special Grains Program, but just when we thought we could see some light at the end of the tunnel another crisis arose. In 1988 we had a drought which caused difficulty and suffering to many parts of Canada. The prairies, parts of southern Ontario and Quebec suffered the most severe drought since the 1930s. Crop losses were significant in many areas. Again this government responded with the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program which injected some $850 million into the farm economy. In addition, there was a Livestock Drought Assistance Program and a Green Feed Program in western Canada which put out another almost $150 million.
|

March 18, 1991

As I indicated earlier, Canada cannot hope to match the treasuries of the United States and Europe but, at the same time, we cannot allow farmers to fend for themselves because farming is a very productive sector. Canadian grain farmers are among the most productive, competitive and, indeed, low-cost producers in the world. If they were ever able to achieve the famous level playing field, they would do quite well without any government assistance. All of us in this House, all Canadian taxpayers and all Canadian producers would be very pleased with that but, unfortunately, it is somewhat like Saddam Hussein, it is not possible to wish him away and it is not possible to wish away these harmful international subsidies at the present time.
Last year this government put forward some $500 million in a special income assistance program. Last fall it announced the Cash Flow Enhancement Program which gave farmers access to advances on their farm storage production interest free. This resulted in about $1.5 billion of cash flow being available.
In addition to these programs, the government, through the Farm Debt Review Process, has assisted a number of farmers in resolving difficulties with their creditors. The Farm Credit Corporation has, through various measures, written off enormous amounts of money. There is the Equity Building Program which is assisting a number of Farm Credit Corporation clients who are experiencing difficulty in an attempt to enable them to build up some equity and to re-establish their farming operations. The other side of it, the Canadian Rural Transition Program, has provided income training and assistance to more than 3,500 farm families.
There is another item, a not inconsiderable item, which was perhaps missed in the middle of the GST debate. The implementation of the goods and services tax will relieve the farm community of some $250 million in sales tax on the purchase of their production inputs; a fairly considerable advantage.
There remains a long list of government initiatives towards the grains and oilseeds sector and, indeed, towards other aspects of agriculture, but I am particularly addressing my remarks today to the grains and oilseeds sector. In fact, during the late 1980s federal and provincial governments contributed significantly to farm in-
Supply
come. Direct program payments in fact accounted for 84 per cent of realized net farm income from 1986 to 1989. They more than doubled from an annual average of $1.5 billion during the first half of the 1980s to $3.6 billion for the latter half of that decade. In the prairie provinces where, of course, grain and oilseed production dominates agriculture, the federal share of support averages 86 per cent.
These various ad hoc programs I have outlined were certainly needed, but they show that there were gaps in the safety net program which made it impossible for farmers to be able to predict their incomes. Farmers need some predictability to be able to remain efficient and competitive. That was one of the reasons why, back in 1989, the Minister of Agriculture and this government launched the most comprehensive review of agrifood policies and programs ever undertaken in the history of Canadian agriculture, and did so, I might add, in partnership with the provinces and with the various participants in the agrifood industry.
Through this policy review, the government has attempted to move away from inefficient ad hoc assistance toward a more comprehensive support structure that is fair, cost-efficient and predictable.
For over a year, federal and provincial governments and representatives of the industry have been working in partnership toward this goal. Together there has been undertaken an historic review of agricultural policies and programs. Through the 11 task forces created under the review many Canadians have worked very hard at putting aside their differences to develop solutions for the good of the agricultural industry.
Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, was this more evident than through the work of the grain and oilseeds safety net committee. This federal-provincial-industry committee was established in the early part of 1990 and had something in the order of 34 members of whom 19 were actual hands on farmers, hands on producers. They were able to bring forward a series of recommendations which have resulted in the farm income protection plan legislation which is in front of the House right now, as I mentioned, and indeed the Minister of Agriculture is in front of the agricultural committee right now dealing with aspects of that bill.

March 18, 1991
Supply
GRIP and NISA were developed from the ground up by farmers working with government. Together they have developed a program which provides farmers with predictable support.
At the agrifood policy conference a couple of years ago, farmers indicated that they wanted new safety net programs that would be targeted more effectively to their own individual situations, to their individual operations. They wanted government to take a whole farm approach, they want a predictable support, and these new programs I believe meet these criteria.
The Gross Revenue Insurance Plan and the Net Income Stabilization Account will deal more effectively than any previous programs with the market and production instabilities that farmers have to deal with. The government has put the development of these programs on a fast track because we know that farmers cannot wait, farmers are asking for a new program and the government has responded by creating the environment in which these new programs can be developed.
Mr. Speaker, under current market conditions we anticipate GRIP to pay out approximately $2.7 billion in 1991-92. The establishment of this program will, therefore, ensure a secure underpinning for the future of the grain and oilseeds sector.
GRIP is a reality, Mr. Speaker. Most provinces have agreed to participate and the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture recently agreed on the formula to establish premium rates. It is a very important program, an insurance program whereby the federal government, the provinces and the individual producers contribute toward the premium. It is individualized, it is based on the production of the individual, not of others.
The second component of the safety net program is the Net Income Stabilization Account, or NISA, a cash stabilization account under which farmers are able to contribute up to 2 per cent of their net eligible sales and will receive matching funds from governments whenever the program formula triggers a withdrawal from the fund. It is important to stress here, Mr. Speaker, that each individual producer in the country will have his or her individual NISA account. The individual will control his or her destiny.
We also recognize that GRIP and NISA will not solve all our programs. It is quite clear that no one is going to get rich on these programs. I believe that what they represent today is an important survival mechanism in the face of an extremely difficult world situation.
A government industry committee was established in February to study options to the grains and oilseeds sector. They build on the objectives of GRIP and NISA and deal with issues such as income shortfall, debt burdens, restructuring, land use, the need for adjustment diversification and so on.
The first line of defence is the farmer's responsibility to manage risk as has been stated before in this debate. Stabilization and safety net programs like GRIP and NISA form the second line of defence. There will be no effective third line of defence without a strong second line in place. That is where the third line involves all of us; federal and provincial governments, and producers alike working together to put in place some solutions that will ensure long-term viability.
That means exploring a series of options that will allow us to deal with long-term difficulties in a planned an organized way.
In the recent budget, the government committed an additional $1.3 billion as further proof that we continue to stand by agriculture. This money will be used in part to finance new and ongoing stabilization programs. Some of this money will have to be used to deal with the anticipated deficit in the wheat pool of the Canadian Wheat Board this crop year.
Some of the money will be set aside for special assistance because GRIP and NISA will not pay out until next year. The grains and oilseeds committee, and indeed the horticulture committee are developing options for delivering special assistance. These options will in fact be discussed with farm leaders when the Minister of Agriculture meets with them on Tbesday, two days from now.
An announcement on how special assistance will be delivered is to be made before spring seeding.
In conclusion, I want to stress again that this government has always delivered in terms of support for agriculture. When the farmers need us, we are there. We
March 18, 1991

have responded in the past when they needed assistance, and we are going to continue to do so.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice the member's comment that this government has always delivered in terms of support.
I have a question. I should perhaps go back a little bit. In the summer of 1984 the Minister of Agriculture at the time made a statement that the government was going to seriously support and put in place a program for the development of ethanol blended fuels in Canada. In fact, some research is being done on it at that time.
On August 2, 1984, because we were into a campaign, there was a statement that came from the Progressive Conservative Party that there was a real opportunity for fuel alcohol to be used in Canada as an alternative octane booster in gasoline. The Progressive Conservative Party said that a Progressive Conservative government would set up a special program to encourage the use of alcohol as a lead substitute for octane boosting.
Of course, a few days later, Dr. Gary Gurbin, a former member of this House said: "We would seriously consider mandating the change for environmentally damaging additives to more environmentally acceptable alternatives through federally owned and controlled Crown corporations".
The key is that it is becoming increasingly clear that we have environmental problems that are caused by and as a result of additives in gasoline. We also have great potential in other substances, including both ethanol and methanol.
Of course, on December 2, 1985, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said: "I support the development of ethanol produced from agricultural resources and forestry products to replace lead as an octane booster for gasoline." He went on.
In May 1986 the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources reported to this House. The committee recommended the use of methanol and ethanol as blending agents in Canadian gasoline. It recommended that the federal government move more extensively toward research, development and demonstration required to introduce alcohol and gasoline blends on a broader basis and that the federal govem-
Supply
ment co-operate with the provincial governments and industry to establish guidelines and standards for ethanol based fuels.
Does it not make a lot of sense with the low price of grain in the world today to divert a lot of that grain into renewable fuels that are environmentally friendly by the government's own admissions, going back those years, to utilize that grain in Canada in a way that would improve not only the environment but the income to the farmers. It would provide a high protein based livestock feed for the Canadian livestock producers and give them a step up on a lot of the competition. If it was not used for livestock feed, this product could be dried and used as a flour for the manufacture of bread, cookies or biscuits. This particular product is exceptionally well suited for the starving people in Third World countries.
I cannot understand why the government is delaying on this matter. Recent cost studies show that ethanol can be produced for 27 cents a litre. A Canadian company made that statement. Also, in the United States the most economical process can produce it for 38 cents a gallon, with the average price being 47 cents.
I would like to have the comments of the previous speaker as to why the government is delaying on this issue when it can create a market for between 5 million and 8 million bushels of Canadian produced grain in this country.
Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex for what I perceive to be a constructive suggestion. I find it very refreshing and that is why I commend him. Frankly, to this moment I have been rather disappointed by the lack and indeed the almost complete absence of any constructive and concrete suggestions on the part of the opposition. They bring forward a motion, but not much in the way of suggestion, just the usual form of criticism. If I may say, it is sometimes a little hard to swallow, given that the motion emanates from a party whose only legacy to prairie agriculture and western agriculture over the 16-year period from 1968 to 1984 was the LIFT program and the imposition of the capital gains tax.
Perhaps I should add a legacy in the form of approximately a $207 billion national debt as of March 31, 1985, the interest burden of which is the single most significant constraining factor on any government today to be able

March 18, 1991
Supply
to respond adequately to the needs of sectors of the country, be it agriculture or others.
In any event, I do appreciate the hon. member's interest in ethanol. Indeed, while I am far from being an expert, I understand that in fact there have been several initiatives taken under the Western Diversification initiative. I am certainly going to check that out and I will be in touch with the hon. member.
It is important, because his suggestion ties in with one of the three measures I outlined in my remarks that could certainly assist western agriculture, and that was diversification. Diversification within agriculture itself, but also diversification on the prairies but outside of agriculture.
If I may cite an example within my home town of Swift Current which, as an aside, was cited last week by one of the national magazines as one of the 10 most desirable places in the country in which to live. I guess it is that way because, as the magazine indicated, the community spirit and the fairly low cost of housing, low taxes and easy access to a number of amenities.
The one thing we lack in a prairie city which is so dependent on agriculture is a payroll base, a job base. That is where Western Diversification has been helpful. Through Western Diversification and some help from the provincial government, but especially through the initiative of some innovative people, there has been establish an operation impact packaging which will take waste paper and recycle it into environmentally friendly degradable trays for the display of produce. The result is that there will be 135 jobs commencing this summer in this manufacturing plant, absolutely and totally unrelated to agriculture.
In addition, there has already been a spin-off company formed which will employ another 15 constituents in the manufacturing of a coating which will go on the product made by the impact packaging plant.
At a time like this, 150 jobs in a city of some 16,000 people is extremely important. What it means is payroll, it means a spin-off that is unrelated to agriculture. It means, in fact, that some people in the agriculture community who have been relying on straight grain
farming will in fact be able to supplement their incomes through the obtaining of jobs in enterprises such as the one I have described, or in others which are being put forward through the innovative results of the Western Diversification program, a $1.2 billion program which makes repayable loans to enterprises which have new product, new market, new technology, that are seeking to replace imported goods.
I agree very much with the hon. member when he speaks in terms of diversification. I think any measures that can be taken which will lead to diversification of the areas that are so dependent on agriculture are most welcome.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this opposition day debate at this point. At the onset I will just speak for a moment about some comments made by the minister this morning. When he said there is a 39 per cent net increase in farm income, this is realized farm income.
I should just go back a little bit and point out that during the years 1984-89, the average farm net income increased by only 11 per cent. In 1984-89 the average income of all Canadian families increased by 39 per cent. During this period, due to the lack of farm income, more and more farm families were forced to resort to off-farm income to make ends meet. They had to take jobs off the farm and this level of income, this additional income that came from off farm jobs, increased by 34 per cent.
In spite of those statements, we still have to face reality and realize this government has allowed the people of rural Canada to fall even further behind the rest of society and forced them to take off-farm jobs in order to subsidize their farm operations to grow food for the people of this nation.
On page 9 of the Farm Income Financial Conditions, government expenditures data book, January 1991 you can find these figures. I just want to put that on the record because more and more people are coming to me who are in financial difficulty, people from the riding of Lambton-Middlesex, which is a very large and diversified base of agriculture production.
I have a letter here from four diversified tobacco farmers who are trying to stay afloat. They explain that they are a group of farmers who produce hydroponic lettuce year round. They tell me their product is pesti-
March 18, 1991

cide free, it is clean, and with the roots intact with moisture, it has a much superior shelf life. I should point out that there is no need to spray this kind of lettuce to keep it fresh on the supermarket shelf. They also advise me that they have five family farms producing their product for the past five years, with private money.
It has taken a lot of determination to produce their unique product and to put together a workable marketing plan which, they tell me, is working well. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to compete with American lettuce, mainly from California, that is being dumped into the Ontario market at prices which, questionably, may or may not cover transportation costs.
I will go on and read the rest of the letter:
We feel that we are victimized by American subsidization and policies of their produce. We are aware of their irrigation equipment grants, illegal Mexican labour and large corporate incentives, just to mention a few advantages that we, as Canadians, do not have access to. Free trade has also enhanced dumping procedures.
It does not stop there. These big American dealers, with their government money, have obtained methods to encourage major buyers here to always buy American first. As Canadians, are we put into the back seat of our own market? The major buyers in Canada, in general, feel that they cannot be bothered any more by buying from the family farm in Canada.
Our costs to produce our product is determined by materials, labour and other activities that are generated right here in Canada. If we had the same national privileges as the Americans do, we would be more stable in the marketplace.
We want fair action from our government to make the produce marketplace a fair place to deal. If we are at the woes of the Americans all the time then we are headed for a broke country. We cannot pay enough taxes if we cannot produce enough money to pay them.
That is the end of the quote from this letter. I think it tells it all.
Another of my constituents, or close by to the constituency, is a tobacco grower as well. He calculated that his crop, about 90,000 pounds of tobacco, will translate into roughly $9 million revenue for two levels of government this year at the federal level and the provincial level. In 1990 Ontario tobacco growers sold a total of $123.2 million pounds to Canada's big three cigarette manufacturers, worth $181.1 million or $1.47 pound. In 1989 cash receipts added up to $261.1 million. Between them, the federal and provincial governments collect more than $5 billion a year in revenue from tobacco products.
Supply
When we look at the revenue income from tobacco products and distilled products in this country, they take in billions upon billions of dollars from that primary producer of this nation and yet, at the same time, this government brags about handing out $1.3 billion to the Canadian farmers to help bail them out of trouble, bailing out the people who lay the golden egg in terms of the department of revenue of this nation.
I cannot help but look back at two years ago now when on the floor of this House I asked the Minister of Agriculture about the no-rolled beef being imported into this country, a million pounds a week at that time. He assured me that he would look into it, but the closure of six packing plants since 1989 is due in part to the government's inaction on no-rolled beef being allowed to come into Canada from the United States.
One of these packing plants has re-opened, but the fact is that the amount of no-rolled beef-a cheap product coming into this country from the United States, most of it dairy cows that have been slaughtered over there after one or two lactations-coming into this country which is not graded, and that is why it is called no-rolled. When you grade a carcass of beef in the slaughterhouse, you run a roll down the side and it tells you whether it is A-l, A-2, A-3 or A-4. If it is cow beef, they call it C-l, C-2, C-3 or C-4. All this is coming in here and the consumers do not know what they are buying. The amount of that has tripled since 1989. The feedlot industry across this province has been decimated.
Yesterday, in The Ottawa Citizen there was a story about Ontario's once powerful beef industry taking it on the chin. It is having an impact on our environment, it is having an impact on the income of this country and it is taking away jobs. We have to look to our food processing industry in this nation, whether it is the beef packing industry, the lettuce producers, to see what is happening to this country under this government in allowing imports of products from other countries. While we cannot export beef that is not graded, we are letting it into this country. I ask the government to do something about it, to put a stable foundation under the beef industry in this country so that we know precisely where we stand and what lies ahead of us.

March 18, 1991
Supply
I am going to share my time today with another member. I believe my time is almost up, so at this point I will sit down and turn the floor over to him, and perhaps we can share questions at the end.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree with the suggestion of the hon. member that the opposition split its time between two speakers?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the motion before the House imploring and encouraging the government to take some immediate action to assist primary producers in this country to get over the hurdle facing them as a result of the disastrous prices in 1990-1991.
I will refer first to the situation of grain farmers in western Canada who went through several years of drought. They did not have anything to sell. I would like to draw a little comparison. That is like someone else in the rest of Canada having to sit down at the dinner table every night and saying to the family: "I am sorry, folks, I still don't have a job so we don't have an income", because they just did not have anything to sell, there was nothing in the bin.
If we follow on to what happened in 1990, they got a job or they got an excellent crop. They did. They had an excellent crop, pretty well evenly spread, although there were pockets where it was no so good. That always happens when dealing with mother nature. But they got that crop and because of what is going on in the world in trade wars it was not worth anything. Basically they had a job but they still were not getting a pay cheque.
That is the conundrum they are in at this time of year. They need money to get them through.
We met with the prairie pools the other day. There is talk, I agree, good talk; I just came from a committee meeting in which we were talking about the GRIP and NISA programs. They are not going to kick in for the 1990-1991 crop year. They can and will kick in down the road, but they are not going to provide that bridge financing for the 1990-1991 crop year. That assistance is definitely needed.
The Western Grain Stabilization Act will put some money in there, but the prairie pools tell us that to bring them up even close to the average net farm income they had in the last number of years they need $1.1 billion or $1.16 billion; somewhere in that neighbourhood, a considerable sum of money.
I know money is not easy to come by, and I am not here to say to the government: spend, spend, spend. What I know, what those of us in the agrifood industry know, and what we should all realize as Canadians is that every dollar that arrives at the farm gate will multiply seven times before it is through our economy and our society. That is a lot of money when it goes through.
One out of five Canadian jobs results from what happens at the primary producer level. One out of five Canadian jobs is in the agrifood industry. It is important that that sector of our economy, that sector of our business world in this country, is kept sound. What we are asking the government to do today is to react, to realize that and to do something now.
I wish I did not have to stand here and ask this today, to discuss this with the government, to debate this in the House of Commons, but it is a reality of where we are as a result of what happened in 1990.
I would like to give some examples of what is happening in the horticultural industry as well. In discussions about the agrifood industry we hear about third line of defence, second line of defence, and working back to first line of defence. What I can say and what I am hearing is that there is nothing wrong. There are some good things with the second line of defence, such as the GRIP and NISA programs and the Farm Income Stabilization Act which takes into account the hopefully not needed necessity of a third line of defence. The government also has to move quickly, and quite frankly in some cases has to move, on the first line of defence. That first line of defence talks about border inspection, grade standards, equalizing and levelling the playing field for such things as crop production requirements, be they chemicals or whatever, with our major competitor in the horticultural field, the United States.
The horticultural industry in Canada is a $2.2 billion industry itself and $500 million of that is exported. It is important that our players, our producers, be on an equal playing field and equal footing with those they are competing against.

March 18, 1991

The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds stated last week that action had to be taken within six weeks. One of those weeks is gone already, and we have not seen the action. I just saying that the producers need to know. Producers are looking at a longer term situation, but right now their bankers are saying to them: "What are we going to look at and what is there so that we can get to the 1991 crop?"
Some very startling things are happening out there. In my own riding a food processing facility announced about six weeks ago that it was no longer going to process food.
I heard the minister stand last week and say that a number of new food processing facilities are being constructed in this country in the last number of months.
I spoke as recently as this morning with the chief executive officer of a major food processing company, and his answer was: "I am in the industry, and I do not know where they are. If we have got new food processing facilities, they must be hamburger and fast food outlets in the city some place". He did not know where they were.
When they pulled out of processing tomatoes, pumpkins and peas in my riding in Prince Edward County, it took out $1.3 million from farm gate prices. If we multiply that by five, six, seven or whatever figure we want, we find that is a tremendous removal of funds from there and the employment that went with it. The chief executive office also said to me this morning: "The rules are changed. The tariffs are changing. We have globalization," et cetera. His answer to me was: "Mr. Vanclief, it is cheaper to buy it south of the border".
I understand that those business decisions have to be made. I am asking the government: What does it suggest that these producers turn to in order to make their living? The neat answer is: "You have lost your job because of competitiveness", but what will the government put in place to allow these people to make a living? What is the government going to put in place immediately to provide the producers who are still there with a financially sound basis in order to get through the disastrous results of the 1990 crop year?
I cannot say it enough: A bridging type of program is needed. Horticultural producers in the province of Ontario have worked their figures. They claim that they need $70 million to get them even close to where they have been on the average in the past number of years. That is one province.
Supply
I know all provinces in the horticultural industry were not affected in the same way. British Columbia has been affected, as has the maritimes, but they agree that the main hurt this year have been in the province of Ontario.
I ask the government to react to this as quickly as it possibly can so that producers know where they are at for 1991.1 will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and there may be some comments.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment.
There is no question about the seriousness of the agricultural situation, especially in the grains and oilseeds, but I think there is also a very clear indication, particularly in the farm groups and among farmers, that this government has stood with farmers through difficult times. There has never been a government in the history of this country that has stood with the farmers like the Conservative government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Agriculture. There has been strong representation throughout the grains and oilseeds industry, horticulture and agriculture as a whole.
If we look at the numbers, I think we will find that this government put about $22 billion into agriculture in the last six years. I am not saying that is enough, nor that it has solved all the problems, but certainly if there has ever been a government that has been sensitive to the need, it is this government.
What about the present situation? This past winter the Minister of Agriculture called together farm groups from across the country: 19 farm groups, all the wheat pools, all wheat growers. All the organizations were represented. Farmers themselves, with support from the federal government and the provincial governments, brought together programs that are now called GRIP and NISA. They are being well accepted.
I just want to assure the opposition and our farmers out there that if ever there has been a government that will stand with them, this government will, has, and will continue to.
The importance of the strength of this government is that we represent all the regions of this country. We represent Quebec, Ontario, the west, the maritimes, and right across the country. One important point our farmers are making is that it is important this country

March 18, 1991
Supply
stay together as a strong federation so that we can continue to do what has been done in the past: support agriculture. I just want to make the point that our government has stood with the farmers, will continue to stand with them, and these programs will work in the future.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do not quarrel with some of the comments of my friend across the floor about the dollars that have been put into agriculture. What he did not address is the subject matter of the motion today.
He talked about what he has done in the past. He talked about what he hopes to do in the future. But fanners want to know what he is going to do now.
The programs and the action taken for the 1989 crop year are not going to take place again. We are talking constructively. We are talking about what will happen or what can happen for 1991 on. However there is a gap or a bridging in there, and we are asking the government what it is going to do.
Today the Minister of Finance says the money is not available, the $1.3 billion increase in the agriculture budget this year is used up for the Canadian Wheat Board for western grain stabilization. He says the money is not available.
The government is making promises to bring. That is what it is saying. The government is giving it lip service. We hear the rhetoric all the time, but it does not have anything.
What we are saying is that we want the government to make a commitment and come out with a program to put it up. Put it on the table. We don't even know where it is going to get the money. Where is it? It is used up.
Is it going into consolidated revenue funds in order to get the money or, because of its importance, is it willing to go into contingency funds to get the money? With what the government has said it is going to do and the dollar value it put on it, it does not have enough dollars even to begin.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State for Agriculture.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I take the floor today to emphasize the impact of many measures taken by the federal government to enhance the economic situation of Canadian and Quebec farmers. A number of comments have been made and heard today, but let us keep in mind the progress we have accomplished over the past six years. On many occasions this government has shown a concern about the socio-economic well-being of the agri-food producer. Never did the federal government back away from its responsibilities in this sector. On the contrary, as hon. members will admit, the government did intervene whenever the situation called for constructive action. My colleague who is now the minister showed determination and commitment when in the fall of 1989, and this bears repeating, he launched the most exhaustive review of our national agrifood policy ever undertaken in our history.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, provincial representatives met here in Ottawa and endorsed a series of major principles, namely agrifood sector autonomy, respect for regions, enhancement of sustainable environment, and market awareness.
The numerous interest groups got down to work. So far a number of people sat on a dozen-odd different committees. They were confident that they would find practical solutions in the interest of the general public and contribute to re-assure the farming community. That is what they did, and they produced entirely relevant reports. The job is not finished yet, I agree, but in most cases these reports have been unanimously endorsed by the participants, be they from the government sector, the processing sector, the academic sector, or any other sector.
One of the first task forces was set up to study the matter of income security, particularly with respect to grains and oilseeds. Having considered the issue from every angle the members of the committee opted for a two-prong income security program. Earlier this after-

noon several speakers said that we have been talking about this for years, and that is true enough. But it is only after consulting farmers, producers, processors and provincial spokesmen that our government launches new programs.
Federal and provincial ministers of Agriculture and almost every farm association, including Quebec'sUnion des producteurs agricoles, approved in principle these two programs, the Gross Revenue Income Plan, usually called GRIP, and the Net Income Stabilization Account, NISA. Unable sometimes to attend federal-provincial meetings, in view of the current political situation in Quebec as my colleagues know representatives of the Quebec government regularly inquire about the policy review process. The many Quebeckers who sit as members on these committees have greatly influenced the debate and its progress.
The government of Quebec had absolutely no trouble accepting some of the measures resulting from the policy review. Such was the case for example with the objective of progressively reducing the countless interprovincial trade barriers which applied to a lot of agrifood products.
More recently, Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleagues would be interested to know that last Thursday, on March 4, the government of Quebec and the federal government reached an agreement allowing Quebec grain producers to participate in the Gross Revenue Income Plan. This program will be in effect for the 1991-92 crop year, which means that one more provincial government joining this national program that was prepared by them and for them. The two levels of government have agreed to let the Regie des assurances agricoles du Quebec manage the program, hence making its implementation easier, improving communications, and allowing for more positive results for the Quebec farmers.
I am happy to see that public authorities can provide farm producers with such a good safety net which will enhance the current crop insurance and stabilization programs which apply as we know to all Canadians.
We are all aware just how difficult a farmer's life can be, not just because the weather conditions can have such an impact on the expected yield, but also because of the export subsidy war which has now been going on for some time, with the result that all farm producers must face depressed world prices which make it extremely
Supply
difficult for them to get an adequate income from their hard work.
Recent statistics indicate that in some areas of our country, some producers are better off than others. This makes it necessary-my hon. friends of the opposition will certainly agree-for these programs to be as flexible as possible, so that the regions which are hurting the most, such as Saskatchewan, as well as some regions in Manitoba and in other provinces-may benefit from this flexibility.
That is the way our government has applied and prepared the programs for the farm producers. The purpose was to make these programs flexible enough to provide producers with adequate help when they need it most.
The new safety net will help remedy a situation on the basis of the prices paid over the past 15 years. This program will require the personal involvement of the producers and of the two levels of government. As I said on a number of occasions in this House, a government can no longer keep throwing money at a problem to make it go away Long-term solutions have to be considered and producers themselves must contribute to this long-term effort, as well as the provinces. Statistics show that some of them have made no significant effort to help farm producers.
It is with this objective in mind that for the past two years, federal programs required that the federal and provincial governments as well as producers do their share.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to tell you about the dairy industry. In its effort to deal quickly with a difficult situation, our government, with the invaluable support of the people who devoted themselves heart and soul to achieve this safety net has managed to improve the lot of wheat producers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Several other policy review initiatives focus on other industries which should not be neglected. I refer for instance to the task force on dairy policy and the task force on poultry which were created as soon as the review of the Canadian farm policies were announced and which are doing a tremendous job.
Everybody will agree that supply management is more important in Eastern Canada. I want to emphasize what is being done in each of these industries. Like other food processing industries, the dairy industry is presently undergoing major disruption. In Quebec, particularly, as well as elsewhere in the country, dairy

March 18, 1991
Supply
cooperatives joined forces to realize economies of scale and better compete on the North American market. In this context, the thrust of work of the task force on the dairy policy is toward the adaptation of the dairy industry to change. It is up to the industry to determine of its future. Even then, the days are over when the government would decide everything for the agrifood sector. It is now up to the sector to set its objectives and find the means to achieve them.
The government of Canada fully intends to follow the recommendations from the final report to be presented in a few short weeks, on April 1. Of course, these proposals will first have to be agreed upon by the whole group. The policy review process is designed to create partnerships between producers, processors, dealers and consumers. The future of an industry can be managed properly only once a good partnership is established. No one can impose his ideas nowadays. Their consequences on every link of the agrifood chain must be weighed. This need is more and more obvious to everyone.
Earlier this year, the Canadian Dairy Commission was asked by the government to set the support prices for butter and skim milk powder. This decision was in keeping with the objective of increased independance for the sector. Why would the government have to make such a technical decision? So, our government requested that price-setting mechanisms allowing the industry to exercice greater freedom and responsibility be investigated and reported on. Other subjects of investigation include allocation of quotas, price-setting, competitiveness, research, etc.
I am convinced that the members of this task force will introduce proposals that will strengthen this sector. I was told that the poultry task force's report, which is expected to be very interesting, is about to be released. Another sector that has a quota system! Last May's preliminary report emphasized the need for improving supply management in the poultry industry. What remains to be seen is whether they can agree on how to do this.
We must not forget that we cannot expect the government to deal in advance with every problem that might
arise in these industries. It will always be up to the sectors-which are very dynamic, I may add-to establish with us how we can improve things for the future. Perhaps I may remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we introduced a long-term dairy policy, something which had been lacking for five years. There was one when our friends the Liberals were in power, but during the subsequent four or five years, it was treated in a rather desultory fashion. It was just renewed annually, and there were no safeguards for producers.
As my colleague said earlier today, we introduced a long-term policy that passed the test over a five-year period, but before we introduce a new policy, we want to ensure that it will provide an adequate and firm response to the needs of the dairy sector in the years to come.
Another sector that concerns us and which, in fact, has hurt us somewhat in recent years is the pork industry. In September 1989, the U.S. government imposed countervailing duties on our exports of fresh and frozen pork.
The U.S. Department of Trade judged that certain federal and provincial programs in Canada were subject to countervail, including the tripartite national stabilization program which we introduced after consultations with the parties concerned and which responded to the needs of all provinces, producers, processors and the various governments. The U.S. International Trade Commission, however, judged that Canadian exports represented a threat of injury to the U.S. pork industry.
Our government, together with the industry and several provinces, is working very hard to get the countervail removed. We called for two special binational panels under Chapter XIX of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and we also filed a complaint with GATT. For the benefit of those who criticize the free trade agreement, I would like to say that without this agreement, Canadians would have had no recourse at all. Thanks to the free trade agreement, Canada was able to establish these binational panels to make itself heard. I think that is a very important point. It was quite an event.
It was one of the first times ever that we were heard before this kind of tribunal. In fact, and I will get back to this later on, this is an opportunity to defend and obtain recognition of the rights of Canadian producers.
March 18, 1991

The two special panels ruled in favour-I repeat, in favour-of the Canadian arguments. The number of programs and the value of the support systems that would be subject to countervail were reduced following decisions by the special panel which examined the definition of subsidies subject to countervail. Furthermore, and this is most important part, the other special panel looked into the matter of injury and caused the International Trade Commission to reverse its judgment of threat of injury. This reversal repealed the imposition of countervail, retroactive to September 1989, one and a half years ago.
Finally, a special GATT group ruled that the U.S. legislation applied in this case did not conform to GATT regulations.
Since their original representations were successful, pork producers in the United States recently asked their government to use the last recourse provided under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, i.e. extraordinary challenge. The United States are to decide by March 29 the middle of next week whether they believe such recourse is justified. If they do, an extraordinary challenge committee must hand down a ruling within forty-five days. Whatever the Americans decide to do, we remain confident that we will be vindicated. We explained our case before the special panels under GATT and the Free Trade Agreement, and we believe that the request for an extraordinary challenge is wholly unjustified. Once this matter has finally been resolved, I am sure that the collaboration among the Canadian parties, as well as our joint perseverance, will prove to be an unqualified success.
In the final analysis, this government has proved it is capable of acting responsibly to help its Canadian and Quebec farm producers.
What I think is very encouraging is that we always act in consultation with the sector and the provinces, and that at the same time we are promoting partnerships within the agrifood sector. I remember the week we met when I was in Brussels last December. There were representatives who were aware of the importance of the agrifood sector for Canada and the provinces. Representatives from all over Canada, from the entire sector,
Supply
were in Brussels. Everyday we talked and consulted through a number of advisory committees representing the entire industry, not only the agricultural sector but all sectors.
Everyday, we would discuss the issue around the table, and I will always remember the last Friday when we were facing some very serious difficulties in the GATT. In spite of those very serious difficulties, provincial representatives around the table, headed by Premier Devine, Mr. Picotte, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, and representatives from other provinces as well from the industry said: Never have we been so well represented, never a government represented Canadian interests so faithfully. That is a mark of appreciation for a government which preferred to work with Canadian organizations- I am not exaggerating, I was there. It is on the record, and you know it.
For the past seven years, we have seen a government like none before caring for Canadian farmers and taking the best actions in the interest of Canadian agricultural producers. The agricultural producers have a good memory; they will know who they can trust because this government has always dealt with their concerns.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that the minister was not shy about patting himself and his government colleagues on the back.
But the reality is somewhat different, and people like me who look at the situation from a more objective standpoint will tell you the same thing. Still I should like to direct a few questions to the minister.
In his remarks he spoke highly of the Free Trade Agreement, emphasizing all the benefits it brought to the agricultural community, or so he said. I wonder whether he remembers the debate we had about ice cream and yogurt just before the 1988 election. Perhaps the minister will recall that, at that time, Canadian farmers asked the government to ensure that ice cream and yogurt would be on the import control list. The government opposite simply said: "Yes, it will be done."
And some of us asked: Fine, but, Minister, dear conservative friends, don't you know that, if you do that, perhaps the other side will object, you will be brought before the GATT and you will lose the argument? Is it

March 18, 1991
Supply
not exactly what happened, in all respects? Is it not true that the opposition was right to warn the government?
And is it not true also that the government was derelict at that time, because when the GATT panel rendered its decision, the government simply accepted it without appealing to the GATT as a whole. We will recall that the government said at the time: Well, we will accept the panel decision and we will implement it after the new GATT negotiations, hoping that, first of all, those will be successful-it is not yet the case, although I also wish it were. But at the same time, for example, in case of failure, what is the government going to do to help dairy producers on the ice cream and yogurt issue, all of which was precipitated by the free trade deal of the minister opposite and his colleagues?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is second to none when it comes to clouding the issue. First I would just point out that since the Free Trade Agreement became operative we have been witnessing a sharp increase in exports, and even in the agrifood sector our export trade with the United States has gone up by more than 20 per cent, a figure which goes to show that the FTA has been a very successful venture, Mr. Speaker. All the fears expressed by those who were dead set against this agreement proved to be unfounded.
With respect to yogurt and ice cream, Mr. Speaker, indeed I vividly recall discussing the matter with dairy producers as well as the federal and provincial federations, fully aware as I was of the danger of adding these two products to the list of controlled exports because the FTA negotiations did not have anything to do with GATT. Sure enough, the Americans won when they took their case before GATT officials. However my colleague would know that we have not yet accepted that ruling, which is still in limbo like many others concerning yogurt and ice cream. We are not particularly pleased about the situation, Mr. Speaker, and I too could have done without yet another debate on the issue.
In any case, we consulted with dairy producers and they were strongly supportive of our position. Not a single word was written nor a single step taken in this
matter without the full endorsement of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. When we filed our request with GATT they were behind us all the way. We sought to have Article 11 strengthened and clarified precisely to avoid any future argument over yogurt and ice cream. To this day, Mr. Speaker, the case has been dealt with only after full consultation with and approval of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Never before had any government held so many consultations with producers, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we will continue to do because we believe the industry can be prosperous only if it gets to have a say on its own future.


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague-


Don Boudria: Why?


Gilles Bernier: -the hon. minister of State for Agriculture, the member for Bellechasse, which is adjacent to my constituency. His constituency is also half-urban and half-rural. But I would like to say something to my colleague of the opposition who has just spoken of failure. Sure enough, failure is a familiar word when it comes to Liberals. Let me remind him these words by Cervantes, in Don Quixote'. "He who goes for wool comes home shorn." I believe it is extremely important to give a lot of consideration to the speech made by the Minister of State for Agriculture.
A few minutes ago, the minister mentioned the benefits of free trade for agriculture, and I think free-trade has been very profitable for us. There are 3,000 pork producers in my constituency alone who benefit from a free access to the American market.
So today, because of the decision that well-known panel has just rendered in favour of our Canadian, Quebec and Beauce producers, we are going to get 17 million back. It is our money and I think a good deal of it will end up in Beauce and Bellechasse counties.
But without this court decision that, would not have been the case. In my opinion, our producers are quite aware of the significance of the American market for them. But enough said about the benefits of free-trade to our farm producers, I would now like to talk about GATT.
March 18, 1991

After displaying a great deal of discipline, we, the Quebec and Canadian producers, have sacrificed ourselves. We have set limits for ourselves without joint programs, marketing boards and quotas.
Today, we are asking for increased protection under Article XI of the GATT, and the Opposition member said that we failed in that regard. I do not think that we failed since negotiations are not completed yet. Is there any reason for producers from Quebec and Canada to believe that, one day, we will have all the protection we want and asked for under Article XI of the GATT?
So our farmers, our pork, egg, milk and poultry producers, are asking themselves some questions and I think they deserve an answer from the government.
Therefore, I ask that question to my hon. colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. minister of State for Agriculture. You have two minutes left.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as to the comment of my hon. colleague regarding pork producers, it is clear that all producers, the thousands of pork producers in Quebec, Ontario and the West, will benefit from that decision, since that industry grew as a result of the requirement to process locally its procucts for export.
Regarding the GATT negotiations, I would like to say, that the Canadian position was nearly unanimous since all groups representing producers, processors and the provinces were supportive. This is a clear victory which proves that the Canadian position was truly in line with what Canadian producers want. I would say that, like the hon. member for Beauce, I am optimistic. I am optimistic and I believe all will agree that these negotiations which are beginning again will require compromising from everyone. This will lead to a settlement which could be near the Canadian position, since if we look at the two extreme positions, the American one and the European one, our position is in between.
So, what I would call the centripetal force, which is tending to pull toward the center, should bring people to be reasonable. And the more they will be reasonable, the closer they will be to the Canadian position. I am therefore relatively confident and I think we must look
Supply
to the future with optimism, despite the problems. I firmly believe the GATT negotiations will end up with an agreement which will profit the Canadian agricultural producers, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise on debate to discuss this question of calling upon the House to take immediate action to deal with the drastically reduced farm incomes resulting from the 1990-91 crop year and to make required assistance available in time for spring planting to insure viable returns for grains, oilseeds and horticultural producers. I think this debate was initiated by the tabling of the estimates. In those estimates you will recall that the amount of new money being allocated to handle agricultural problems was set at $1.3 billion. Producers and politicians began to look at what was on the government's plate in the form of new expenditures. We see a bill that was subsequently presented to implement GRIP and NISA, to provide long term assistance to agriculture which would have swallowed a couple of deficits that are existing now by rescinding the WGSA account and the crop reinsurance account.
WGSA had, at February 1, a deficit of about $1.1 billion. The reinsurance account had a deficit of $471 million. We know that the Wheat Board initial price will create a bit of a deficit and a call for government assistance as well in the coming year, covered by this budget. That is expected to be somewhere between $.3 billion and $1 billion. As well there will be premiums for the new GRIP and NISA programs when they come into account.
Out of those expenditures of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion or $2.5 billion, to find where this $1.3 billion would cover all those things and still provide some assistance for the 1990-91 crop year. That crop year is going to be missed out, it appears. That was the reason, I suppose, that the Official Opposition wanted to raise it in its opportunity today for an opposition day.
The lack of funds for the farm aid program, which has been estimated at about $1.25 billion for a grain and oilseed industry right across the country, is something that is concerning farm communities and farmers in particular.

March 18, 1991
Supply
I thought what I would do, however, today is go back a little bit over the last decade and try to find out why it is that the 1980s were not been a particularly good decade for farmers and what the 1990s might hold for that sector of our economy. The eighties were hard times for farmers. We began the decade with net farm incomes in the range of $4.5 billion to $5 billion. In the last several years that means farm income has dropped to $3 billion or $3.5 billion. We saw in the committee stage of Bill C-98 some departmental estimates that put the coming year's net farm incomes around $2 billion or slightly lower.
We are dealing with net farm incomes that are less than one-half what they were at the beginning of the 1980s and a precipitous drop of more than one-third in this year alone. That is why this bridging money of $1.25 billion is being asked for.
I do not think we have to ask ourselves what that drop in net farm income will buy at the end of the eighties and entering the nineties as compared to what could be purchased with it in the early eighties. The buying power is down almost one-half. In fact, numerous observers have noted that a bushel of wheat this year buys less real goods than it ever has in the history of keeping records. Wheat is at the lowest price it has ever been in this year of 1991.
The question we have to ask ourselves is why is this happening. When we look at global output and think in terms of the old economic thinking where we use supply and demand to try to arrive at what prices are, there are no answers. The old market economics do not work in agriculture right now because when you look at the global output over the last three or four years, you will see that during three of those four years the world failed to produce enough food to meet global needs. Yet, during those four years prices continued to drop even though supplies were falling and the needs of people continued to grow as population increased.
Some economists will argue that that is because of differences between real demand and effective demand, the new population are all children and they do not have any money and, therefore, they cannot affect the market, which is true, but the facts still are there that the supplies are not meeting the demand and yet the price is
falling. So we have to look at the market a little more closely than what has been the bent in textbooks.
You can see over the last couple of decades a fairly substantive shift and change in the way that a price is arrived at. We do not have world markets for agricultural products in the way that the textbook looks at a world price. What we have are markets that are very much adjusted and manipulated by active involvement by governments and by active involvement by very large multinational trading corporations. The two often, almost always, are working hand in hand to manipulate these markets and to keep the farm gate price relatively low.
To back that up, I would just like to go through the two major grain and agricultural producing blocs, the Americans and the Europeans, to show how their so-called price support systems work to achieve extremely low market prices or world prices. I say that in the context of a current situation where wheat at U.S. gulf ports is being exported at an effective price of about $80 per tonne even though the cost of producing that wheat in the U.S. is about $150 per tonne.
How does the U.S. do it, you ask. They do it by a system of support prices and loan rates that have been devastating for countries like Canada, Australia and Argentina, countries that have not got similar kinds of programs in place. They begin with a target price, just take it for wheat, where they attempt to have a target price for 1991 of approximately $4 a bushel for wheat in Canadian funds. That is the target that the government attempts to get the farmers and they come very close to it. Farmers have to sign up to the program and they have to comply with certain alleged or so-called restrictions to acreage. Those restrictions to Canadian farmers are a bit of a misnomer because when you look at the U.S. border between Alberta and Montana you will see that these restrictions to acreage, so-called, south of the 49th parallel have resulted in most of the grassland being broke up.
When you look at satellite pictures you will see that the 49th parallel marks exactly where grasslands start on the Alberta side and where farmland continues on the Montana side and there is no agronomic difference between those soils, the weather or anything else on either side of the 49th parallel at that point. Yet, the American farmers have found it profitable to break up those rather fragile prairie soils and put them into wheat
March 18, 1991

because of the program that the Americans are offering which is sometimes sold world-wide as being a program to restrict production. In effect, it has increased production and put soils into production that should probably never have been put into production.
What does the farmer do if he is an American farmer. After he has harvested his wheat he can take out a loan. The loan rate for this year of $2.04 American translates into roughly $2.40 Canadian.
In effect, the U.S. government has control of that grain at the loan rate. If the price goes up, the farmer can pay the interest and storage charges, buy it back and resell it on to the market. The reality is that there is enough wheat in the United States so that that very rarely happens.
Effectively, the loan rate becomes the price that the U.S. government turns into holdings, which it accumulates over time. The grain becomes theirs and it is then turned over to the multinational grain corporations to market outside of the U.S.
The price of that grain becomes the U.S. loan rate. Those multinational corporations found that the U.S. loan rate of $2.40 a bushel Canadian did not make that wheat really easy to sell. They had to compete against everybody else because the rest of us have cut our prices accordingly. They have convinced the government that they need a second tool, which is the Export Enhancement Program, whereby the U.S. government supplies funds to those companies which lower the cost to those companies by as much as $55 a tonne more.
Hence, the United States is able to offer grain out of the Gulf of Mexico ports at approximately $80 a tonne. Meanwhile, the Europeans have created a system, called the Common Agricultural Policy, which relies on a host of import levies and export restitutions. They try to keep their price of wheat to approximately $8 a bushel Canadian. Any grain products that go into the European community enter at the international price, which is generally considered to be the loan rate in the United States, plus a difference between $8 and that price.
Grain and oilseed products going into Europe have to pay this very large levy which goes into a fund and assists the European community to provide export restitutions
Supply
to their farmers when they over-produce and have to sell some of their produce outside of the market.
As a consequence, the cost to the European treasuries are not very high, but the cost to importers is quite high. The effect on other exporters around the world is quite devastating because they use their restitutions to roll the price back down to the U.S. loan rate.
Everybody is happy in this system, if they happen to be Americans or Europeans, but the rest of the world is very unhappy with this system.
The multinational grain companies benefit. They do very well by it. They still handle their volumes. Forty per cent of their world trade is in U.S. wheat and grains. Approximately 20 per cent of their business is European grains. As a consequence, the synergy between the multinational corporations and the big power governments in this case has worked very well for them, but it has been pretty hard on Third World countries and farmers like we have here in Canada.
We have no ready way of being able to subsist against that kind of competition. It is often asked: "What can we do about this kind of system?" There are two answers that have been pursued, one with some vigour. There was a proposal which began in the Uruguay Round to try to limit these kinds of subsidized activities as they apply to agriculture. There was an attempt to include agricultural subsidies and trade in the recent GATT round.
That round fell apart in early December. It may be extended for another year or two, but so far that is depending almost exclusively on the reaction in the U.S. with its President and Congress. Currently, there are some discussions going on to tie the new fast track to the U.S.-Mexico trade arrangements so that the GATT fast track and the Mexican fast track will be together, which means that the President and his advisers will be able to use the good that the American economy will extract from the U.S.-Mexican arrangement in getting access to cheaper labour along with the further internationalization of its trade commitments under the GATT. The politics are that they are trying to tie the two issues together for fast-track purposes so that the growing concern in the U.S. about including agriculture in the package will not scuttle the fast track and with it any

March 18, 1991
Supply
agreement the President and his people might achieve outside the country.
The second thing that could be done which very few people are talking about would be to raise the loan rate. There is an awful lot of good that can accrue even to the Americans if they would raise the loan rate. It would reduce the amount of U.S. farmers' dependency on taxpayers. It would help resolve a very large government deficit situation that the U.S. finds itself in. It would reduce the taxpayers' liability and it would increase farm prices. It would not hurt the farmers in the U.S. but it would help farmers outside the U.S.
I contend that is one of the reasons why the U.S. is not doing it. What we have here is not market economics, as I noted earlier, but it is power economics. The Americans seem to want it, as do the Europeans, because they are finding the system works very well for them in international power games. It keeps the rest of the world quite dependent on their political actions.
The people who benefit are their own producers. The people who are hurt are the competing producers in other countries, and Canada is one of those countries being hurt by this program. The Third World countries are being hurt. Not only does this provide access to power on an international scene, but complying governments and complacent governments such as our own continue to go along with this international power game because the multinational corporations are good supporters at times of election. They supply them with free advice, or almost free advice. They pretend to supply them with jobs, always at the expense of local communities and farmers, and they argue that they certain things have to happen or food aid or world debt problems will not be alleviated.
Even on the domestic scene we have witnessed in just the last few years the use of political power over farmers by following and accepting this particular kind of economic gain.
The Canada-U.S. trade agreement was predicated upon this kind of thinking. GRIP and NISA which are supposed to be the key that will unlock our ability to collect third line of defence payments in emergency situations is that kind of program. It is called voluntary,
but if one does not sign into the program and agree to fairly substantial levies over the years one does not get any assistance.
It is a little bit like having a gun put to your head by a person who says: "You don't want to commit suicide, do you?" And, if you shake your head, the trigger goes off and they say: "Sorry, he committed suicide". This is the kind of dependency that our government is trying to foster on our communities with this kind of program.
I think it is time we looked at the real solutions to world agriculture and returned to self-sustaining, selfsupporting, self-sufficient agriculture, instead of the dependency that this government and other world governments are foisting on us today.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about this government's efforts to give Canadian horticultural producers income stability and predictability. The industry has a farm gate value of close to $2 billion and a processing sector of close to $1 billion and growing. This growth comes from a willingness to respond to the challenges of constant change. This industry is dealing with changes in market conditions, changes in consumer demands, changes in technology and changes in trading patterns. It has proven that it can respond successfully to these challenges.
The B.C. Wine Institute is a clear example of how this industry can turn a challenge into an opportunity. It has responded to changing consumer tastes and competition from imports by aggressively marketing premium B.C. wines under the the Vintners Quality Alliance. As a result, sales in December 1990 were up 61 per cent over December 1989.
What about growth in trade? Other sectors of this vast and diverse horticulture industry are also benefiting from increases in exports. Exports in floriculture and nursery products reached $204 million in 1990, compared with $171 million in 1989. The blueberry industry continues to enjoy a trade boom. Export sales in 1990 reached $23.5 million, up from $20 million the year before.
In 1990 we also exported more apples and apple juice, cranberries, peaches, onions, fresh tomatoes, cabbage and carrots, just to name a few commodities. In all, our fruit and vegetable sales to the United States alone increased to $328 million from $257 million between 1989 and 1990.
March 18, 1991

There is some exciting news m the processing sector as well. Canada's agrifood processing companies have so much confidence in our primary agriculture sector that they are making new investments. In the past two years some 50 new processing plants have been established, 54 have been expanded, and 26 new investments in modernization have taken place.
Our processors and producers are also recognizing that success comes with working together as partners. Producers need processors and processors need producers.
Ontario's vegetable processing industry is a clear example of the kinds of partnerships being forged. Growers and processors have developed a new bargaining and pricing system that has given the tomato industry a promising future.
Here is what Bob Kerr, a prominent southwestern Ontario grower, said about this industry during the recent annual meeting of the Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board:
I am really excited about the potential for growing tomatoes for processing. When I look around at all the commodities in Ontario and ask myself "where do I think is the most rewarding place to invest equipment and capital?", I would say it is the tomato industry.
When we review policy we see that partnerships in the agrifood industry have been fostered and strengthened in the past year, thanks to the government's agrifood policy review.
During 1990, more than 300 men and women from all facets of the industry worked through 11 task forces to put our agrifood policies under the microscope. Most of those task forces have submitted their reports and recommendations to federal and provincial agriculture ministers. When the ministers met earlier this month in Regina, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture outlined 12 areas where he believes action must be taken in the year ahead.
These include: properly launching a new safety net program, taking steps to enhance the competitiveness of the agrifood sector, freeing up the system by reforming regulations that have created barriers to competitiveness, broadening our agriculture base by encouraging diversification and value added production, strengthening our processing sector, reducing production costs right through the system, strengthening the management
Supply
capabilities of our industry, expanding our efforts on the environment, looking at ways to provide adjustment support when necessary, strengthening our regions and rural communities, maximizing our trade opportunities, and aggressively challenging unfair trading practises that hurt our industry.
We have heard much about the safety nets. As members of this House know, the government has introduced the Farm Income Protection Act which will allow us to put in place new safety net programs. The legislation is now before the House agriculture committee. That legislation reflects a new way of thinking in the agrifood business because those safety nets, which I might say were designed in full consultation with producers, are part of a comprehensive strategy for dealing with a full range of farm income situations.
The Farm Income Protection Act will establish the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan known as GRIP and the Net Income Stabilization Account known as NISA. The federal government is offering to make GRIP and NISA available on edible horticultural crops in as many provinces as possible in 1991. We have a government-industry committee looking at strengthened stabilization programs for 1992 and beyond.
GRIP and NISA represent one part of a three-part strategy and form what has become known as the second line of defence. Under the first line, producers are responsible for effectively managing their operations. Government has a responsibility to provide an environment that allows for effective management and, to that end, the Minister of Agriculture wants to strengthen management capabilities by, among other things, introducing a national farm business management program. An industry-government group is developing details for this program, and a discussion paper will soon be circulated.
Until such a strategy is in place, the government is providing funding for the farm management initiative program. The government is also looking at the recommendations of the farm finance task force on providing stable, long-term interest rates and special assistance to beginning farmers. The government also wants to reduce production costs by improving producer access to farm chemicals.

Supply
One of the recommendations in the pesticide registration review deals with price monitoring. Work in this area has been fast tracked to ensure producers are not left at a competitive disadvantage with their U.S. counterparts.
The government also wants to put more emphasis on research projects aimed at lowering production costs. The GST is already lowering those costs, a fact that will become more apparent as farmers start making their purchases for spring planting.
The third line of this three-part safety net strategy deals with income situations that cannot be adequately addressed by effective management or programs like GRIP and NISA. A national horticultural safety nets committee is in place and is dealing with issues that span the three lines of defence. It is studying ways to enhance the long-term income stability of the industry and will submit its recommendations to federal and provincial ministers when they have their annual meeting in Alberta in July of this year.
The federal government is also working closely with the Government of British Columbia, the Okanagan Tree Fruit Authority and the B.C. Fruit Growers Association to look at what needs to be done to revitalize the tree fruit industry.
We also plan to work closely with the province of Ontario and its tender fruit growers in looking at long-term solutions to some problems affecting that industry.
In conclusion, clearly this government is concerned about the well-being of Canada's horticulture industry. We are taking the steps necessary to ensure its health and well-being in both the short term and the long term. By working in partnership with the industry, we are taking the action necessary to build a vibrant, durable horticultural sector for this decade and the 21st century.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member opposite with a great deal of interest. I recognize that he has some personal interest in the horticultural sector. I applaud him for that because it is an important part of the agricultural sector.
The main part of the motion put forward today dealt with the government coming up with the required assistance in time for spring seeding this year. One of the
things the finance minister, in his February budget suggested, was that there would be additional spending, $1.3 billion in additional funds provided for farmers in need.
In Saskatchewan where I come from, there are a large number of farmers in need, mostly grain producers. I realize the member opposite understands the grain sector as well as the horticultural sector. We have farmers in need who are looking for that $1.3 billion in funding that the finance minister has identified as money necessary right now for spring seeding.
The prairie pools have indicated that if we just take current market conditions, at least $1 billion is necessary in order to ensure that the farmers on the land in western Canada will have enough money to put their seed in the ground and harvest a crop.
The other part of it is the economics, the massive debt that exists in the agricultural sector: $22 billion now exists as the accumulated debt.
I would like to ask the hon. member opposite two questions. We have a massive debt on the prairies and a great need for immediate money, immediate funding. Would the hon. member agree that the money in the budget, $1.3 billion in additional spending, should be earmarked for spring seeding funding for grain producers on the prairies? Would he see an opportunity for the government to put in place a special interest program for farmers who are holding that $22 billion debt in the agricultural sector?


Mr. O'Kurley:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member identified a problem that is certainly an important issue in the region of western Canada, and in particular in prairies ridings where agriculture is an important pillar in their economies, as it is in Elk Island.
As the member from Saskatchewan pointed out, our agricultural sector is experiencing some very difficult times. Those difficulties are to a large extent created by the subsidy trade war between the European Economic Community and the Americans. Certainly it is important that the federal government play a role in addressing that very important difficulty.
The program that was set out by the federal government was a program to include the producers, provincial governments, as well as the federal government. It was also suggested with regard to immediate assistance prior to seeding that any assistance or any type of program
March 18, 1991

would have to be included in the proposed structure of the GRIP and NISA programs.
I am sure that the government of the province of Saskatchewan will be looking very closely at this issue. I am sure that it will be listening to farmers and trying address the needs of the farmers. I know that Premier Devine of Saskatchewan has done a great deal to address the concerns of farmers in that province. I know very well that he will be working closely with the federal government, with the Minister of Agriculture, with the province and with the farming community to ensure that those concerns are resolved.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. member for Elk Island and the hon. member from The Battlefords this afternoon because I think they raised two very important points.
One was the point made by the hon. member for Elk Island about the horticultural industry. We know from those producers in Ontario who appeared here just last week that the shortfall for their industry is some $70 million just this year. That is just in the Ontario region. We know there are other horticultural producers in his constituency in B.C. and certainly in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick where they are facing some very serious shortfalls because of the special circumstances there.
I wonder if the hon. member is as concerned as I am, when the Minister of Agriculture stands in his place and says: "Look, if the horticultural producers want help this year, they have got to sign up for the GRIP program in the future and indicate they are going to take the program". There is only one little problem there, and that is there is no GRIP program. The one for grains and oilseeds has been developed over the last 18 months by a very hard working group of producers and other officials over a long period of time.
The negotiations for having some kind of gross revenue insurance program, or NISA program, for the horticultural industry has just begun. They hope that by next year at this time there will be a program. That causes a problem.
How do you sign up for GRIP for the horticultural industry if there is not one? The minister is us the sleeves out of his vest. He is saying: "You sign up for
Supply
GRIP and we will give you an emergency support system. The only thing is you can't sign up for GRIP because there isn't a GRIP for the horticultural industry". I am sure he is concerned, as I am concerned and the horticultural producers right across this country are concerned that they are not going to have any interim emergency funding.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings related this earlier this afternoon. Four of the prime producers in Ontario sat down last week and looked at their net losses for the last year which totalled over $400,000. The president said he lost $44,000 last year for the first time and it was the largest loss in a 35 year period.
There is great concern as to whether the government is actually going to come through with assistance for the horticultural industry. Likewise, there is very great concern whether there is going to be an immediate deficiency payment or support for the grains and oilseeds system.
The minister of finance in Saskatoon just last week said that there is no more money, that this is to support a number of deficit funds but left in serious doubt whether there is any assistance for emergency deficiency assistance for these those producers who are in the worst financial crisis of their lives.


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to be brief in response to the member's comments and questions. Generally speaking in the horticultural sector, there are some challenges which have to be worked through. I am sure he will recognize, as other members of the House will, that horticultural products fit into categories of edible products as well as non-edible products. When we are establishing a program we have to first recognize the distinctiveness of that sector of the agricultural industry.
Second, it is important that when we are designing a program, we design a long-term program which will ensure a certain sense of stability and predictability and that we do not go for the quick fix emergency funding that does not recognize a long-term structure and a long-term program.
The third thing is that it is important in establishing and designing these programs that we engage in full consultation with members of that sector to ensure we develop the most effective program possible.

Supply


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the House today about the concerns of rural Canada and primarily the concerns of farmers in farm communities.
A number of my colleagues have already addressed the general problems of Canadian agriculture and have spoken of the specific problems being found in the horticultural industjy and the grains and oilseeds sectors.
In addition, there has been an extensive discussion of the safety net program, the national GRIP and NISA programs and a third line of defence. Therefore, I want to confine my comments for the most part to Atlantic concerns, especially those relating to my home province of Prince Edward Island.
Prince Edward Island is basically a rural province. Its economy is driven by two main industries, the farming and fishing industries. The economic health of the whole province is heavily dependent upon the state of these two industries, both of which are our primary industries.
The policies of this government since 1984 have made it increasingly difficult for these two industries to survive, let alone grow. Further impediments have been placed in the way of primary producers in their attempt to make a decent living. For example, in the fishing sector we have been confronted by a refusal to make adequate repairs to wharfs and to keep harbours dredged. The government has forced our lobstermen to increase the carapace size, posing a further loss on their catches.
The dockside monitoring program has now been forced through. Fishermen throughout the whole gulf area have objected to this program and the way the costs are being passed on to them but all to no avail.
In the agricultural sector, we have been confronted by increased user fees, increased inspection fees, cuts in assistance programs, increased crop insurance fees and a cut of $1.8 million over the past couple of years.
These types of policies have eroded the capability of our farmers and fishermen to make a decent living. When these policies and programs are combined with general weak economic conditions, recessionary in many parts of the world, with high costs of production, especially long-term high interest rates and with the increas-
March 18, 1991
ing levels of competition from foreign producers, Canadian farmers are in extremely difficult times.
Add to that, the subsidy wars between the United States and Europe, of which we are a casualty, and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the result is that our agriculture industry is seriously adrift.
At this point, I would like to deal with a problem which directly involves the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and, indirectly, any other province which depends on P.E.I. for their supply of seed potatoes. The potato industry has long been the lifeblood of our agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island.
It has often been said that potatoes are to P.E.I. what wheat is to Saskatchewan. The provincial minister of agriculture made this statement just last week. Given the importance of the potato to the economy of P.E.I., it is not difficult to understand the degree of potential economic devastation being faced by potato producers on the Island. In light of the discovery of the potato virus PVY-N and the ensuing embargoes imposed first by the state of Maine, then by the U.S. department of agriculture and then by the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico, it has pretty well frozen out all seed potato exports to anywhere in North America.
When producers were informed last October that the virus had been discovered, there was considerable concern among producers whose crops were infected. This concern turned to shock in February when the USFDA imposed a total ban on the imports to that country which meant that even those producers who did not have the virus were unable to sell any of their seed potatoes.
A modification of this ban left only Prince Edward Island seriously affected. The province of New Brunswick, which had three incidences of disease, was cleared.
Right now the industry in P.E.I. is in turmoil and it is feared that many farmers will go out of business. A severe eradication program has been agreed upon. This was a necessary first step, although a bitter one to swallow. A compensation package is now being negotiated.
I sincerely hope, as do the producers and those in related industries in P.E.I., that this compensation package will be a just and equitable one, that it will be one which will keep our growers in business and allow them to rebuild P.E.I.'s reputation of being the producers of
March 18, 1991

the highest quality seed potatoes in the world. After all, Island growers are the victims of the virus and not the perpetrators.
In view of the eradication plan already agreed upon, it is estimated that losses, whether through the destruction of crops or through drastically reduced prices for both seed and table potatoes, will be in the $25 million to $30 million range. This amount would be the minimum required just to keep the industry afloat.
We must consider the situation in the context of declining farm incomes. Agriculture Canada's estimate is that total farm income has declined by 30 per cent from 1990 to 1991. When we factor in the unexpected potato losses, we can see why the economic plight of potato farmers is so terrible, and we can see why the industry is in such turmoil.
At this point, when a compensation package is being negotiated, there is little point in trying to assign blame. We have to understand the position of those who are directly involved and who find their livelihoods in jeopardy. The question that is being asked by potato producers on Prince Edward Island is: where did the virus originate? No one seems to be able to tell the potato producers where the virus came from and how it arrived on Prince Edward Island.
One of the reasons why the seed potato industry has been such a success on Prince Edward Island is the very fact that we are an Island and it is easier to control disease when separated from the major land mass of the country. On top of that, the stringent inspection and growing standards that we have for seed potatoes, which were forced upon us especially by the European Economic Council, have resulted in the high quality of seed potatoes and the fact that we can export seed potatoes all over the world, to all provinces in Canada and to 22 states in the United States.
Where the virus originated is still a major mystery. Another question people are asking is: When did the officials become aware of its presence and, why did it take so long to react? There is a rumour this disease was discovered last June. Of course, the first question producers are asking is if it was discovered last June, why were the crops not immediately ploughed down in order
Supply
to control the disease? Why then, as one farm group has asked, was the panic button pushed?
I think Agriculture Canada is well aware that PVY-N virus has been around for many years. Apparently it is all through the United States. It is widely spread in Europe, and there are instances of it being in the province of Ontario as long as 15 years ago. Why all of a sudden has the PVY-N virus become such a major issue? The thinking follows that the State of Maine, which has been harassing our potato exporters for many years on the border crossings and so on, has discovered an opportunity whereby it can take advantage of the P.E.I. markets if the P.E.I. products are eliminated.
It has used this as a political tactic. I think Senator George Mitchell is not shy about saying that he will fight for his people. The question we are asking is who is fighting for our people, especially when our department went to the United States and argued that its ban was unfair. Then in a matter of days it came back to Canada and, without consultation with the provincial government and the producers of Prince Edward Island, instituted the same ban.
The other question producers are asking is why were the producers informed so late in the game? If the producers had been informed earlier on, drastic measures could have been implemented much earlier.
In time, these concerns must be addressed. Hopefully, when that time comes, all our growers will still be in business and none will have to, as one grower put it, drop her keys on the banker's desk. This is one of the many grave problems facing farmers in every region of the country. Our farmers have done everything humanly possible to make our operations effective and viable. We are not competing on a level playing field. Other countries are taking steps to assure their food security. We have to do the same.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member from Prince Edward Island that I enjoyed listening to his comments about Prince Edward Island potatoes. I certainly have a great love for your province. Prince Edward Island is a part of Canada that I, from Saskatchewan, enjoy visiting probably more than any other area of the country other than my own. I envy you the Island, to a certain extent.

March 18, 1991
Adjournment Debate
P.E.I. also has a lot in common with Saskatchewan in that the rural nature of your province and the rural nature of my province are very similar.
The government is well aware of the problems that are being foisted upon rural Canada. Prince Edward Island felt the brunt of post office closures before any other part of this country, and now post office closures are affecting communities in my constituency and across Canada.
RCMP budgets are being affected. Emergency vehicle communications are being affected because of increased licence costs. One thing that I have just become aware of with the increased tax on reading materials, the tax on books, is difficulties at some of our regional libraries. I don't know if there are regional libraries in Prince Edward Island but there certainly are in Saskatchewan, and those regional libraries are now having a difficult time buying the books that are necessary to help inform members of our rural communities.
I feel very strongly that this government has launched an attack on rural Canada, with Prince Edward Island feeling it first and those of us in western Canada feeling it next.
My question is for the hon. member who spoke mostly about P.E.I. potatoes. I should mention before I put the question directly that I think Prince Edward Island potatoes are the second best in the whole world. The first, of course, come out of my garden.
Anyway, my question to the member from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Speaker, is; would he agree with me that there is an attack on rural Canada and it is starting with cutbacks in services and decreasing prices paid and attention paid to our primary producers who make up the backbone of rural Canada?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his complimentary remarks about my province of Prince Edward Island.
I would just like to say that the reason the potatoes in his garden are so good is because the seed came from P.E.I. in the first place.
A lot of Islanders in the past, especially in the 1930s, left P.E.I. and the other provinces in the maritimes, went out to Saskatchewan on harvest excursions. They stayed, made their living there, contributed very much to the
economy and to the farming sector of Saskatchewan. One of those people included-and I hope he is watching today from the city of Calgary-is my uncle Ernest McGuire who left in the late 1920s, early 1930s. He is 88 years old, still hale and hearty and living in the city of Calgary.
To respond to the hon. member's concern about rural Canada, there can be little doubt that rural Canada is under siege. One of the main illustrations of that fact is what is happening right across Canada as a result of the free trade agreement with the United States. We find food processing facilities, especially in southern Ontario, are closing, and there is very little hope that these food processing plants will ever reopen. For example, Campbell's Food in Manitoba is closing and it will never reopen as a food processing facility again.
He also mentioned the closure of rural post offices. This hit Prince Edward Island extremely hard, especially recently with three additional post offices closing. This is cutting off in the rural areas one of the few federal presences existing in rural Canada and in rural P.E.I. It is just one example of how this government is contributing to the depopulation and the lack of hope in the rural areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, on December 17, 1990,1 asked in this House if Canada has taken advantage of and is using the instruments available to it under the free trade agreement to call for consultations with the United States regarding the losses incurred by the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian farmers for the 1990-91 crop year.
March 18, 1991

I am talking here about article 1804 in the free trade agreement that allows for the government to call for consultations on any other matter that it considers to affect the operation of the agreement. In this context, under article 701.4 of the free trade agreement, the United States is to take into account the effects of its export subsidies on other nations, and how it affects Canada, and to ensure that they do not prejudice our exports.
Therefore, I call on the government at this point to use the instruments provided for it in chapter 18 of the agreement to seek compensation for losses incurred by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian farmers as provided for under articles 1804.3 and 1806.3 of that agreement.
Under these articles, article 705 in particular, there is a provision to open the borders to movement of grain between our two countries. It appears that Canada may be heading in this direction and that border opening may occur this coming crop year.
I ask the government today, because it apparently has not called for consultations, to consider instead revoking provision 705 of the free trade agreement because the United States is using its export enhancement program to buy its way into markets normally filled by Canada.
With the U.S. grain reserves at the lowest point since the early 1900s, there is no acceptable reason to have such low world prices and such high export subsidies. These prices are bankrupting our Canadian farmers and in no way do they reflect supply and demand. Rather, they are prices resulting from export subsidies, acreage set aside programs, deficiency payments, and corporate concentration in the marketplace.
I ask the government now to demand consultation with the United States as laid out in the agreement or withdraw from article 705 in retaliation.
When I see what is happening in the food processing industry with 22 food processing plants closing in the last 26 months in the province of Ontario, I say we have got to stop the haemorrhaging now. Thirty-two hundred jobs have been lost in Ontario alone. I know the government is going to brag about new plants and new investment in Canada in the food processing industry, but I have not yet been able to find out where they are. Perhaps I
Adjournment Debate
noticed a new chip wagon a year ago on the comer of Metcalfe and Laurier Streets. Is that a food processing plant? It is the only one I could see in the area.
We have asked the minister's office if it can provide information; we have asked the Department of Agriculture, but it has not given us an answer. Yet there have been 3,200 jobs lost in the food processing industry alone in the province of Ontario in the last 26 months.
Food production and processing is the foundation of this nation. If this government continues to allow those foundations to be undermined, the economy and the agriculture sector of this nation will surely collapse.
I spoke earlier this day about what is happening in the beef industry in this nation, the fact that the importation of no-rolled beef has tripled since 1989 through to the last year, an increase of 20,636,000 kilograms of beef into this country that is not graded. Our consumers do not know what they are buying. Consequently, it is a haemorrhage that has got to be stopped.
I suggest very strongly that because of the fact the minister apparently did not know what I was talking about on December 17 when I asked the question, asked him if the government would call for consultation with the United States into the export enhancement programs and the fall-out effect this has on our Canadian grain markets, I ask him to respond. If it has not made any decision or made any progress with the consultation process, I ask that it revoke Article 705.
The questions are: Has the government started consultations? If not, why not? If the consultations have not been successful, will the government revoke Article 705?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked for assurances that the Canadian farmer will continue to have the support of the Canadian government. I am pleased to assure the hon. member that Canada will live up to its commitment to support farmers who are caught in the international price squeeze.
Since 1981 federal and provincial assistance to farmers has averaged $2.4 billion a year. This support has been provided through such programs as the two special Canadian grains programs in 1986-87 and in 1987-88 and

March 18, 1991
Adjournment Debate
by the Canadian crop drought assistance program in 1988.
As well, in March 1990, the federal government announced a $500 million special income assistance program that was cost-shared with the provinces. Then on October 13, the government announced a new cash flow enhancement program which is expected to provide a benefit of $95 million in interest rate relief to farmers for the 1990-91 crop year. As of January 2, 1991, more than $1.5 billion has been advanced interest free under this program. On January 11, 1991, the government announced the details of a new generation of farm safety net programs which will go a long way toward easing the hurt that producers are facing because of this international trade war.
Bill C-98, the farm income protection act, will enable the federal government to implement the gross revenue insurance plan, commonly known as GRIP, and the net income stabilization account, NISA, which is now before the House. GRIP and NISA will provide an estimated $3 billion in benefits to grain and oilseed producers for the 1991-91 crop year.
The federal budget tabled on February 26 earmarked $1.3 billion to agriculture and this money will be allocated in part to pay for the government's share of safety net premium rates. Some of it may also be used to pay for a possible deficit in the Canadian Wheat Board's wheat pool account, a deficit caused by the excessive use of trade distorting subsidies by both the United States and the European Community.
While Canada can cushion some of its producers from the impact of the trade dispute, we cannot support our farmers to the same extent that the U.S. and European Community can with their much larger treasuries. Their actions are unfair and irrational and Canada must continue its aggressive pursuit of a fair set of international trade rules through the GATT multilateral trade negotiations.
Canada has also complained recently to the U.S. over the use of the export enhancement program. Through this program the Americans continue to subsidize grain sales to the U.S.S.R., China, Algeria and other major Canadian markets without the economic rationale of competing Canadian and EC exports.
The government opposes these subsidized sales and continues to work both bilaterally and through the multilateral trade negotiations toward their elimination. While we work toward that goal, we stand by Canadian farmers.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today and to follow up on a question that I put to the minister, the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, on November 6 last year. It was in regard to questions I was pursuing with the minister about the softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding. I questioned the minister on this most important issue and debate to draw attention to how this government, in co-operation with the current Government of British Columbia, sold out our forest policy and the sovereignty and ability of Canadian governments to set policy in the forest area, in particular, when it relates to very important questions of stumpage.
What I was relating in my question to the minister at that time were questions I had placed on the Order Paper to attempt to get some indication of just how far reaching the U.S. commerce department and U.S. administration officials have come in trying to raise and control Canadian forest policy.
It became very clear from the questions raised on the Order Paper, the list of documents and information provided by the government over the course of a year or two, that the commerce department actually ended up providing some 60 directives, comprising over 250 pages of in some cases censored and blanked out orders to Canadian companies and officials. It is a pretty clear indication that we sold out our sovereignty on this issue.
Of course they had a hand in that from the premier of British Columbia who at the time said that the signing of this tariff was a great day for British Columbia. He was helped by the minister of trade, of course the now Senator Carney, who has left us in this ugly Catch 22 situation whereby thousands of forestry jobs in British Columbia and northern Ontario are being lost due in part to the tariff brought on by this government in

co-operation with the Government of British Columbia and signed with the United States government.
The important point I was pursuing was the question of sovereignty, the ability to set our own policy ourselves.
I will cite three circumstances that I think the minister should consider in his current round of discussions, in his hopes to get support from the provinces to carry the fight to Washington.
Section 6 of the softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding allows the United States to question any policies that are pursued "directly or indirectly, which has the effect of offsetting or reducing the export charges or replacement measures". In my province a new stumpage regime was brought in. The commerce department took it so far as to question under section 6 when Canadian National Railways offered to reduce freight rates on lumber products as a violation of the memorandum of understanding.
In this particular case, I think I have applauded the government because it told the Americans to take a hike, that it did not apply.
Given the powers that obviously the Americans have interpreted in this section-and I hope we have some information on that when the parliamentary secretary responds-what other so-called indirect measures have been taken which may in fact have led to many decisions by this government, largely due to U.S. influence and how we signed our forest policy decision-making ability away.
I refer to a second measure which came late in 1986 when the Government of Canada exchanged notes with the U.S. government. Really the crux of the issue is the question of what is the determination of the replacement value with stumpage from the various provinces. The Canadian government has agreed with the U.S. government to impose an additional tariff again, if in fact the replacement measures, the stumpage systems which have been brought in, are actually reduced. This government has gone hand in glove with the U.S. commerce department in trying to implement this policy.
The final point is the side letter that accompanied the MOU amendments in late 1986. It is a letter signed by the then Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. trade representative and reads: "It is the understanding of the U.S. government that the U.S. government would have to approve any changes in the export charge or calcula-
Adjoumment Debate
tion of the value of any replacement measures. Any changes made without U.S. government approval would be considered a violation of the understanding".
This government, in co-operation with governments like the government of Mr. Vander Zalm, have sold out this country's ability to set its forest policy in particular on important questions like stumpage. We must at every opportunity now get out of the softwood lumber tariff so that we can set our own forest policy here in Canada.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, on November 6, the hon. member requested the tabling of certain documents relating to the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber memorandum of Understanding. These same documents have been provided in response to a request under the Access to Information Act, but I will answer in some detail again.
Like any bilateral agreement, the softwood lumber memorandum of understanding includes a requirement for ongoing consultation. Under the terms of the memorandum of Understanding, Canada has agreed to provide certain information to the U.S. This includes the volume and the value of softwood lumber exports and the value of export charges paid, forestry regulations and statistics on forestry production in Canada.
Such an exchange of information in no way interferes with provincial rights to manage their forest resources. The government consulted closely with British Columbia and with other provincial governments before agreeing to the terms of the memorandum of understanding in the first place.
Most of the correspondence provided to the hon. member relates to routine matters. It is largely intergovernmental in nature, involving such routine things as settling dates and agendas for bilateral consultations or requesting information concerning the implementation of the memorandum of understanding. This can hardly be characterized as dictating how Canada manages its forest resources.
The memorandum of understanding does not give the U.S. the right to approve or disapprove changes in provincial forest management policies. In fact, provinces are free to implement changes to forest management policies as a basis for reducing or eliminating the export charge, subject to the agreement of the U.S. on the

March 18, 1991
Adjournment Debate
values of such replacement measures in relation to the export charge.
When a policy change is made in provinces which have replaced the export charge, Canada and the U.S. must agree on the effect that these changes may have on the value of the original replacement measures.
On the larger question of addressing the memorandum of understanding itself, the hon. member will know that the Minister for International Trade is consulting closely with the provinces and the industry on this issue. The Prime Minister also referred in this House on March 14 to his productive discussion of the issue with President Bush on the previous day.
The Minister for International Trade has made clear the government's position. The memorandum of understanding never was envisioned as a permanent arrangement. It was understood during negotiations of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that the MOU would not exist forever and that the government would want to revisit this issue.
Circumstances have changed significantly since the memorandum of understanding was negotiated in 1986. Stumpage rates have increased in British Columbia and Quebec. These provinces together account for 90 per cent of Canada's exports of softwood lumber to the U.S.
The value of the Canadian dollar has appreciated significantly, vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar since 1986. Canada's market share in the U.S. has dropped by six points from 33 per cent to 27 per cent. Based on a reasonable and objective review, the memorandum of understanding has served its purpose. There are no subsidies now to the Canadian lumber industry. The memorandum of understanding is being re-examined in consultation with the provinces and with industry, and a decision to take up the issue with the U.S. will depend solely on the outcome of these consultations.
The minister has indicated in this House that his first priority is to conclude these consultations, particularly with the four major producing provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regard to the decision which was taken by the Government of Canada on December 5 whereby the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation announced a $110 million cut to CBC. This matter has been raised on the floor of the House of Commons by my colleagues and I, too, raised it with the Minister of Communications on or about December 19.
In putting my question to the minister, I noted that the CBC has a particular role to play in fostering national unity. For those members who are present I wish to quote from a former Conservative Prime Minister who was very involved in the legislation leading to the institution of the CBC.
This is what the former Prime Minister R.B. Bennett said some years ago: "This country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control, broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals and without such controls it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened."
The CBC, from time time, has treated politicians, if you will, with disdain and perhaps rightly so, but one thing that it has been able to do over the years is it has given those regions of the country who wish to be part and parcel of a united country, an opportunity to show the best of what they have. In doing so, it has added immensely to national unity in this country. Whether it is in Sept-Iles, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Comer Brook, Newfoundland or Calgary or parts of Ontario, the CBC has been bringing information to Canadians across this country.
Our history tells us a number of things, one of which is that yes we are a large country in terms of its geographical mass, but population wise we are very small. We are also young in years in comparison to other countries throughout the world. Hence, the need for a very active, a very comprehensive mandate by the CBC.
March 18, 1991

The cutbacks at Sydney have affected us in an extremely negative way. Not only will individuals be losing their jobs-and I want to speak specifically to that in a moment-but it also precludes us as a people on the Island of Cape Breton from communicating in a profoundly effective way with other citizens of this great country. But little ought not to be made, in fact a great deal ought to be made, of those individuals who will be displaced by the Government of Canada's decision to cut CBC by $110 million. These are employees, most of which are with NABET, the National Association of Broadcasters, Employees and Technicians, who are going to be losing their jobs. Those of us in Atlantic Canada who have seen the erosion of VIA Rail, the massive cutbacks with regards to Air Canada, the gutting of the Atlantic fisheries and the over-all massive erosion of medicare and now another national institution is waning in the wind.
It is not overly appealing for the major centres of this country to learn that such far off places as Sydney, Nova Scotia next to my constituency and/or Comer Brook or Sept-Iles or Rimouski are losing their stations.
It must be said, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing at a time when national unity has never been as important as it is today, we are helping to foster a belief in a view from coast to coast that the government is not really concerned about national unity. Because if it was, it would not be cutting away at those veiy same national institutions which foster unity in this country.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary could rise in her place this afternoon and explain to my constituents why those individuals who were employed with CBC Sydney have lost their jobs; why the people in that community of a population of over 130,000 are without the facilities of the CBC. Yes, they have some reporting mechanisms to have a few news stories out, but it is entirely different from the way it was.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary could be candid enough to tell us the true reasons why the government has fingered this particular institutions in my riding for closure.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and I am glad to dispel some of the confusion he obviously has over the CBC.
Adjournment Debate
All hon. members recognize the importance of our national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in providing services from one coast to the other.
I know that many Canadians were concerns by the December announcement of the CBC. The restructuring measures that they announced were approved by the CBC board of directors in an effort to bring the services they provide in line with what is available in terms of resources.
This decision was taken in order to avoid operating in a deficit in the coming year. The board's decision was acknowledged generally as being fiscally responsible. And I believe it is important at the outset to stress to the hon. member that no transmitter, whether it be radio or television, is going off the air. All of the more than 1,600 transmitters owned and operated by the corporation will continue to serve Canadians, including those from Sydney.
Radio continues to be deeply rooted in all the regions of Canada and it continues to provide service at the local, regional and national levels. This is as true in Sydney as anywhere else, and I am assured that CBI-Ra-dio in Sydney continues to provide all the local programs which existed before this restructuring announcement.
Television complements radio. It has withdrawn from programming intended for purely local audiences to concentrate on regional, national and international programming; in fact, to deal with that very issue of unity that the hon. member has mentioned.
This means that in Sydney as in other Canadian centres, the local productions have been replaced by strengthened regional programming. CBC continues to operate a local news bureau in Sydney and to assure local news stories are part of the strengthened regional news casts.
It is instructive to note, Mr. Speaker, that CBC's total planned resources for 1991-92 amount to $1.4 billion. These resources consist of parliamentary appropriations and revenues. Since 1984 the CBC has been allowed to retain in full the revenues it generates from advertising, and these revenues are projected to amount to $354 million for the next fiscal year.
Despite budgetary restraint, the Government of Canada has injected more than $645 million in new funds into the CBC's budget since 1984. This is over and above increases for salaries and other unavoidable operating costs. As a result, the corporation's total resources have

March 18, 1991
Adjournment Debate
increased by 33 per cent in the period from 1984-85 to 1991-92.
All federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations must do their part to deal with the current financial burdens and pressures on the government and on the Canadian taxpayer.
The CBC has experienced some reductions in its parliamentary appropriations. This is necessary. These reductions are extremely modest when compared to the large amount of public funds that the CBC receives each year. For example, the reduction to CBC's appropriation of $23 million announced since 1989 represents only 1.8 per cent of CBC's projected total resources.
As the hon. member is undoubtedly aware, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission this morning began a week-long hearing to examine CBC's restructuring activities. The CRTC will hear
comments and concerns from more than 70 interveners, as well as the CBC, before it retires to consider its decision.
The Minister of Communications is following these proceedings carefully, like all interested Canadians, and we await the decision of the commission with a great deal of interest.
In closing, I would like to assure all-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize, but the rules are the same for all members and your time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m..
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 19, 1991