1993-02-09

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 23 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-79, an act to amend the Divorce Act and the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, with amendments.


PETITIONS
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present three
petitions including the names of hundreds of Canadians in and around the riding of Elk Island.
These petitioners live in places such as Fort Saskatchewan, Ardrossan, Bruderheim, Sherwood Park, North Cooking Lake and Edmonton.
The petition states that the Young Offenders Act is in itself inadequate to deal with the problems of youth crime. The petitioners believe this act must be strengthened or replaced by legislation that will act as a stronger deterrent to criminal activity among the nation's young people.
Therefore the petitioners respectfully pray and call upon Parliament to strengthen or replace the Young Offenders Act with legislation that will be a stronger deterrent to youth crime.
These people are most concerned with repeat violent young offenders and recommend harsher penalties including work camps. In cases dealing with theft or property damage they support financial repayment to the victims of crime.
Generally the citizens want laws that make young offenders more accountable for their actions. These Canadians want laws that are seen to support victims of crime rather than insulate offenders from justice.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, petitioners from my province wish to bring the following to your attention: that indexation of pensions should adequately reflect the needs of the elderly; that the general cost of living indexation does not reflect the real financial needs of the elderly; that under the current system pension payments, even with the supplement, provide an income that is below the poverty line; that an alarming number of senior citizens are now living below or at the poverty line; and, finally, that senior citizens are facing a crisis because their incomes are insufficient.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and indeed an honour to present a number of petitions on the same issue from a variety of very concerned communities in British Columbia.
They believe that the North American free trade agreement holds a number of clauses that would facilitate the diversion of Canadian rivers into the United States to provide fresh water for the southwestern United States and northern Mexico.
They are asking the government to ensure that this not take place when we eventually pass legislation regarding the North America free trade agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to recognize June 21 as the most appropriate day to recognize our First Nations.
They are calling upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal people of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on yet another matter, the petitioners point out that alimony provisions in the Income Tax Act of Canada currently stipulate that taxpayers who receive child support payments must include the payments in their taxable income.
They point out the unfairness of this and are therefore asking that the Parliament of Canada amend the Income Tax Act to exclude child support payments from the taxable income of custodial parents.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 416 and 420.
Mr. Simmons: With respect to the post office in Newfoundland, (a) does it follow federal tendering procedures for mail delivery contracts and does the contract go to the lowest bidder and, if not, why not (b) does it follow federal hiring procedures and practices for temporary and permanent staff and, if not, why not?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: (a) Canada Post Corporation, while operating in a fiscally responsible manner, must ensure the best cost and quality when selecting suppliers and contractors. Consequently, the corporation adheres to the principle of a fair and competitive bidding environment. It follows a formal tender evaluation process that ensures an adequate and fair competition and allows Canada Post to consider the most effective package submitted. This process gives all Canadians a chance to do business with Canada Post.
In every competition all the technical, commercial and financial elements of the tender are taken into consideration. The final decision on tender competition is based on the corporation's ability to obtain maximum value for each purchasing dollar. Canada Post awards business to those suppliers and contractors whose offer reflects the best quality, cost service and delivery necessary to carry out the task. In the instance when all these factors are equal, the business will be awarded to the supplier and/or contractor in the locality in which the item or task is needed.
There are few exceptions to this policy. They are: when an emergency situation exists in which delay would be injurious to the corporation and/or the interests of its customers; when the nature of the task is such that it would not be in the best interest to all concerned to invite bids, for example when there are no other suppliers or contractors that do the work.
The above mentioned policy is applied nationally.
(b) Canada Post Corporation does not follow federal hiring procedures. The corporation's hiring procedures in post offices are as follows:
When a unionized position in a post office becomes vacant, it is filled following steps laid out in the collective agreement. For permanent placement, a unionized position is first offered to members of the bargaining unit under which it falls. If no successful canditate can be found, the position is then opened to other employees of Canada Post. If the position remains vacant, it is offered
February 9, 1993

to persons on the valid eligibility list for an office in order of their placement. If no eligibility list exists or if previous successful applicants do not accept the offer, the position is advertised by poster to residents of the area served by that particular post office. Should no qualified person be found in the area, the position is again advertised by poster, extending the area of competition to include other communities.


Mr. Boudria: Routine Proceedings
What is the total amount of payments, grants, transfers or any other contribution made by the government and/or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to Atlantic Ibrbines or Mr. Craig Dobin since September 17, 1984, and what was the purpose of each payment?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned, see below:


[Stage Direction]
Location	Project Description / Purpose of Assistance	Program	Authorized Assistance	Expenditures to DateSummerside, RE.I.	Action loan to finance operating growth	Action	$ 750,000	$ 726,266Summerside, RE.I.	Engage marketing manager	Action	98,750	nilSummerside, RE.I.	Undertake marketing activities	Action	55,700	nilSummerside, RE.I.	Establishment of a turbine overhaul and manufacturing facility	Canada - RE.I.	$ 5,030,340* ($ 7,186,200)**	$ 4,579,019
Agreement on Industrial Economic Development
Federal share
Total of federal and provincial assistance
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 438 and 443.
In view of the length of the answers, I would ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.

*


Mr. Saint-Julien: Concerning the airport industrial parks managed by Transport Canada, (a) how many are there (b) which ones are they (c) have grants been made to these serviced parks in order to make commercial and industrial developments and, if so, (i) how much have these parks received each year since 1980 (ii) how many commercial industries are there in each of these parks and for each industry, and is the building ownership clause included in each lease?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: (a) Three.
(b)	and (c) (ii) The location and number of industries in airport industrial parks managed by Transport Canada are: Gander International Airport (one lessee with 10 sub lessees), Ottawa International Airport (three lessees) and Regina Airport (one lessee with four sub lessees).
(c)	No grant(s) was or are paid.
(i)	Not applicable.
(ii)	Transport Canada does not have a building ownership clause. However, if the member is referring to the occurrence of vesting the end of a lease, there is a form of vesting clause in most of the leases with Transport Canada which expresses the action of common law on leasehold improvements at lease termination.
*


Mr. Duhamel: Since September 1984, (a) how many post offices have been closed and what were their locations and (b) how many post offices or postal facilities have had their range of services reduced and what were their locations?


Harvie Andre: (a) From a rural perspective, the only recent change to postal

February 9, 1993
Privilege
service in the hon. member's constituency occurred in St. Germain when the contractor of the retail postal outlet there informed us that he did not wish to renew his contract. Unfortunately, neither of the two remaining businesses in St. Germain was interested in hosting a retail postal outlet. Retail postal products and services were amalgamated to McKnight's Pharmacy in Winnipeg. Delivery service through community mailboxes commenced on May 27. Canada Post remains prepared to consider establishing a postal counter in any local business which might express an interest in operating a postal outlet in this community.
(b) On an urban scale, the service currently available in the hon. member's constituency includes two postal stations, five full service retail postal outlets and one retail postal outlet offering a limited range of postal services. Furthermore, there are 19 stamp shops open, providing convenient locations for stamp purchases. For the member's information, the following is a list of the names and addresses of postal outlets and stamp shops in the area. Of the 10 postal outlets in his riding that have undergone changes recently, five have become full service retail postal outlets and five have become stamp shops.
Postal stations offering a full range of postal products and services: St. Boniface Postal Station, 208 Provencher Blvd., Winnipeg; Norwood Grove Postal Station, 287 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg.
Retail postal outlets offering a full range of postal products and services: Marion Postal Outlet, Metro Drugs, 4-276 Marion Street, Winnipeg; Lakewood Postal Outlet, Pharmasave, 35 Lakewood Blvd., Winnipeg; Niakwa Postal Outlet, Safeway, 2 Alpine Avenue, Winnipeg; St. Vital Centre Postal Outlet, Shoppers' Drug Mart, 17-1225 St. Maiy's Road, Winnipeg; South St. Vital Postal Outlet, McKnight's Pharmacy, 1631 St. Mary's Road, Winnipeg.
Postal outlet offering a limited range of postal services: Nieman Enterprises Ltd, 1087 St. Mary's Road, Winnipeg.
Stamp shops: Mac's Convenience Store, 8-680 St. Anne's Road; Boutique du Boulevard, 112-131 Provencher Blvd.; Canada Safeway, 285 Marion Street; Tache Pharmacy, 400 Tach e Avenue; M & M Foods, 845 Elizabeth Road; Island 99 Food Store, 12-20 Island Shore Blvd.; Mississippi Jacks, 1034 Beaver Hill Blvd.; Uniglobe Travel, 310-119 Vermillion Avenue; Shell Circle K, 1270 Archibald Street; Canada Safeway, 2
Alpine Avenue; Streamers, The Party Store, 4-827 Dakota Street; Auxiliary Gift Shop, 409 Tache Avenue; Laccueil Columbien Inc., 200 Masson Street; Fredette Foodfare, 390 Provencher Blvd.; Western Canada Ltd., 125 Garry Street; Metro Drugs, 1069 Autumn Road; Canada Safeway, 77 wermillion Avenue; Mac's Foods, 1035 Autumn Road; The Coffee Cup, 79 St. Anne's Road.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park raised a question of privilege concerning the tabling of responses to petitions. I undertook at that time to respond to my hon. friend at the earliest opportunity, and I am pleased to do so today.
On behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I wish to advise the House that we agree the situation is not acceptable. I have asked the department to explain the lateness in answering some of these petitions. I have also inquired as to any measure it may undertake to rectify this situation.
The department wishes to apologize to the member and to his constituents for not having forwarded a response within the prescribed time.
The minister has spoken with his departmental officials and has been assured that any outstanding parliamentary returns will be dealt with in the shortest possible delay and that hon. members can expect that the current situation will not recur.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for acting so quickly on the very serious question of privilege I raised yesterday.
I fully accept his apology on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I shall pass that on to the petitioners.
February 9, 1993



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved:: That this House condemns the government for reneging on its
commitment to Canadian farmers by changing policy in the following
areas:
(a)	its lack of commitment to the Third Line of Defence concept;
(b)	its abandonment of the 95-year old promise to pay the Crow transportation benefit in perpetuity;
(c)	its weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board by several actions: removing oats from its jurisdiction, considering a continental market for barley, and the lack of control on quotas as witnessed by the December 23, 1992 action of removing quotas on canola and flaxseed in the middle of the crop year and ultimately creating problems in the primary elevator system;
(d)	its failure to develop long-term agricultural programs that meet the needs of mral Canada by promoting viable farm families and rural communities; and
(e)	its failure to provide clear and unequivocal support for our supply management system, particularly with respect to the mixed signals the government is giving with respect to its position on the strengthening and clarification of article XI of the GATT.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the rules of the House I will be sharing my time today with the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. This will be a 10-minute intervention.
Essentially we are calling on the government to look at five areas of their agricultural program. Initially their apparent abandonment of the third line of defence concept is something to which we think attention should be drawn.
Farm incomes in the grain sector are very low. Since the beginning of the grain wars initiated by the Americans with their export enhancement program, which had the effect of pulling all export pricing for grains down everywhere in the world except to American farmers, the result has been devastating for Canadian farm families.
We did not have particularly strong incomes in the early 1980s. Already pressure was being placed on farm families, but the result of the grain wars has meant a
Supply
deficit in their total income of $6.7 billion since their advent in 1985. In Saskatchewan this translates to close to $20,000 per family on an annual basis and that is a lot of money.
The government initiated three lines of defence. The first line of defence was things that farmers could do on their farms and farmers have done a great deal on their farms. They have reduced costs, they have diversified to other crops that might bring a higher price, they have diversified out of crops altogether and into grass, hay and the production of cattle. They have done what is humanly possible.
The second line of defence was to be government programs that would back up the farmers and defend them against international price competition that was considered to be unwarranted. In this we can see quite clearly the government has not been able to fully manage that with the programs that were put forward, the so-called GRIP and NISA programs of 1991-92.
If there is any doubt about that, all one has to do is go out to the prairies right now and talk to farmers. They were so upset about the lack of income resulting from the first GRIP program that a huge rally was held in Saskatoon in the past week with some 13,000 farmers in attendance. This was the biggest farm rally that ever occurred in the prairies. Previous large rallies in the sixties when there was a relatively short period of pain came to 9,000 or 10,000 persons. At that time there were more farmers to rally to the cause as well.
If we need further evidence other than the pain being felt by prairie farmers in the amount of bankruptcies they are going through, you need only spend some time in a rural community as I do all the time. I live there. We see people restructuring, trying to find ways of financing to stay in business for another year. They sell off assets, they downsize, they try to get rid of debt. After three or four years many of them are having to do the same thing again and make decisions whether to stay in farming or not. This puts a lot of financial pressure as well as human tragedy in rural communities. At the rally we were told that suicides in rural Saskatchewan have gone up tremendously, into the hundreds. The source of this is the economic crisis that puts social pressures on people.

February 9, 1993
Supply
Communities do their best to try to ignore the crisis and to make things as normal as possible. We all try to make things seem as normal as possible. It is less stressful for children. It is less stressful for spouses. It is less stressful for the community. Yet this hidden stress does break out.
I usually attend some of the meetings of the municipal councils during the course of a year. I recall being in one municipality in an area where the farm productivity is very high and everyone is considered to be doing quite well. I asked the councillors how the farm foreclosure situation was in their municipality. They said: "Oh, we do not have any of that here". Then the municipal secretary spoke up and said: "Actually there were almost 400 quarter sections transferred from farmers to lending institutions in this municipality last year. That is where all of the tax revenue came in last year. The only way the title could be transferred was to have the taxes paid".
Some municipalities are finding themselves in the strange position of having more cash to deal with than they have had for some time because of the transfer of land and of titles. Some have found themselves with an embarrassing surplus of cash from land being taken back and from back taxes having to be paid to the point where they have bought new graders and snow ploughs with the surplus funds that have accumulated from taxes that had not been paid the last three to five years.
The crisis is there. It is visible if you look, even though people are trying to hide it. It is there in the statistics. During the last decade farm incomes in Europe fell by 16.5 per cent. American farm incomes rose 23 per cent and Canadian farm incomes dropped 51.4 per cent.
The Americans have come in with a very aggressive trade policy on grain pricing which has been good for their farmers. Their net income has risen over the decade by 23 per cent. It has affected the Europeans which apparently were the targets of U.S. actions by showing a loss of 16.5 per cent in net farming income. However, it has devastated Canadian farmers whose net incomes have dropped by 51.4 per cent.
We can see the effect of the trade war. Let us look at the first full year of the GRIP program which has just been completed. The 1991 GRIP was finished in 1992. After all the results came in, and farmers looked at their
net income, they rallied for the first time in the biggest numbers in two decades.
The pain is there. Action has to be taken. We call on the new Minister of Agriculture to hold meetings with his provincial counterparts to address the problem of the third line of defence. It is obvious from the statistics and from the social indicators which I have spoken of in my earlier remarks that the first two lines of defence have not been adequate. Something will have to be done. If we are going to catch up, payment and aid in the range of $1 billion are needed.
Part of our problem is that the government ignored the needs of farm income in 1990. It was talking about aid that had been given in 1989 through much of 1990. It talked about aid that was going to be coming under the GRIP and NISA programs instead of giving aid. Since then, that debt has been carried forward each of the years.
It is accumulating interest even though the interest rate is dowp a little and it is still leaving a wide swath of devastation in its wake. Clear attention to the third line of defence has to be given at this time. That is part of what this motion is proposing to do.
I will now leave other members of my caucus to deal with other aspects of agriculture.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, as someone who spent 18 years on a family farm in the very region the hon. member for Mackenzie is representing now, I know exactly of what he speaks.
I would like to ask him why there is such a difference in incomes between United States farmers and Canadian farmers. He told us that in the last decade the American farmers' income went up by 23 per cent whereas the Canadian farmers' income went down by 51.4 per cent. That is quite a discrepancy, over 70 per cent. Knowing farming on both sides of the border, I always assumed that our farmers were just as efficient, if not even more so, than the U.S. farmers.
The other question he might want to address is this. He did tell the House that the farmers in Saskatchewan will require about $1 billion in assistance to get this year's crop in and to make ends meet between crop years. I wonder if he has any idea where the government could get that additional $1 billion.
February 9, 1993


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the difference between American and Canadian farm incomes, it basically goes back to the differences in marketing systems.
Essentially the U.S. has a closed market in that it pretends to price its products on the open market and sell accordingly. Elowever, it has a large intervention program with deficiency payments. Each year it sets target prices for each of the major crops. When the crop is sold the average difference between the target price and the actual amount collected from the market is simply made up by the U.S. treasury.
To strengthen the competitive edge which the Americans already had, in 1985 they began an export enhancement program which provided cash payments per tonne for every tonne of grain that was exported. The exporter or receiving country could take grain or cash for buying from the Americans.
There have been periods of time when you could get a tonne of grain, slightly lower quality U.S. wheat than is available from Canada, at comparable prices plus the $80 U.S. per tonne which went with it. It is a little bit like what the car companies have been using lately, only much more interventionist.
As a result, the Americans have attempted to increase their share of the wheat and corn markets in the world. Essentially it has failed because we have an extremely proficient marketing agency in the Canadian Wheat Board. However in order to compete, we have had to reduce our prices by the amount of the export enhancement program.
It puts our farmers approximately $80 a tonne short of U.S. producers on the export side and we do not have the kind of assistance they get domestically. The war is a very unequal war. The U.S. has an extremely big treasury, granted with a large deficit, but it has decided to put a lot of priority on the farm side.
The other question was where will Canada get the billion dollars. In the short term, the immediate source would be the same place as the Americans are getting their billions, from deficit financing. I think there are a number of places where Canada could raise offsetting funds, either by reducing expenditures such as reviewing some of the expenditures on defence. We are no longer in a cold war.
Supply
We could collect some of the existing taxes as the Auditor General has been pointing out for a number of years. He pointed out in several reports that the pay back for the expenditures made in auditing large corporations would be far greater than the pay back in auditing individuals. Yet Revenue Canada persists in auditing individuals instead of large corporations even though we could collect far more funds from auditing the latter.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this opposition day. This is the first opposition day the New Democratic Party has had in this new session and it was decided to devote it to the difficulties which exist in agriculture.
Certainly the New Democratic Party has been very concerned with these issues and the member for Mackenzie and other members of our caucus have been very active with respect to agricultural issues.
We have a strange and bizarre situation in this country of having spent $15 billion or $16 billion in the last few years on direct agricultural payments. At the same time there is a need for emergency relief funds.
It is patently obvious the programs we have in place are simply not meeting the needs of western Canada or agriculture right across this country. In fact the government is out of touch with our farmers. That was made very clear last week when I asked the Prime Minister a question about agricultural programs and he responded by saying that farmers in Saskatchewan adore GRIP. That is what he said.
I do not know where he has been because we had a recent rally in Saskatoon with 13,000 farmers saying they did not like GRIP. They did not like 1991 GRIP; they did not like 1992 GRIP; they do not like Saskatchewan GRIP; they do not like Alberta GRIP; they do not like Manitoba GRIP; they do not like GRIP. I do not know where the Prime Minister is getting his information but he said Saskatchewan farmers adore GRIP. That is wrong.
The Prime Minister and this federal government are abandoning the agricultural field. Until very recently we had three ministers of agriculture in this country. We now have two, but one happens also to be the justice minister.

February 9, 1993
Supply
I do not know how the justice minister is going to deal with his portfolio in justice which is a very demanding portfolio and still have time to deal with agriculture. He will be an agriculture minister in name only. In fact we have one agriculture minister left in this country and a Prime Minister who is out of touch and has no idea what is going on in the agricultural sector.
What we have been saying is that we have to have a new approach to agriculture. We have been talking about alternatives. The member for Mackenzie was keen in designing an agricultural program back before the 1988 election. We now have a rural policy to deal with other aspects of rural Canada. In fact we are the only party that has been putting forth real alternatives.
The Liberal Party, although some of its members are very concerned about agriculture and are working hard in that area, has no real policy on agriculture. In fact those members obviously do not have the power in the Liberal Party to invoke some changes and direction in Liberal agricultural policy.
As far as the Reform Party is concerned it thinks it should get rid of every single agricultural program that exists and go to a completely free enterprise system. That is ludicrous. That would simply destroy agriculture in Saskatchewan and across the rest of the country.
It has been the New Democratic Party that has put forth some real alternatives in agriculture. We have said that we cannot continue to have a program in which some farmers receive a cheque big enough to buy a half section of land while other farmers are receiving a cheque that will not even pay their fuel bill. In fact some people are actually receiving bills. There is a fellow in Moose Jaw who works in my office, Ron Bishoff, who actually received a bill from the GRIP program.
What we have been saying is that we have to target the money in areas that are going to do the most good. It has become a joke in this country today, the amount of money we have spent on agriculture and the amount of farmers who are still leaving the land. Taxpayers are upset, farmers are upset, rural communities are upset, urban communities are upset. They should be upset because we are not getting the benefits we should be from $15 billion, $16 billion or $18 billion in direct payments going to farm families.
The reason of course is that a lot of times these payments have come out at election time. There is a joke going around, certainly in my riding. The farmers are saying that as there is a federal election coming they are expecting a cheque any day now. Or when the government makes an announcement of some agricultural funds they will know there is an election coming. That is what it has come to.
I know back in 1988, 10 days before the federal election on November 21, on about November 11 the federal government announced it was going to spend $880 million on agriculture. It did not know how it was going to be spent, it did not know where it was going to be spent, except it told everybody they were going to get $45 or $55 an acre, which was not true. That is the mockery that has been made of agriculture.
We have to bring some sense to the agricultural area. The first thing which should be done is this government has to take some leadership. We have a new Minister of Agriculture. He has a golden opportunity to make his mark in the agricultural area and he should be consulting with the provinces.
The minister should be calling a conference with agricultural ministers of the other prairie provinces with a view to providing a framework for future agricultural programs. That is what should be done. They should not be getting together and developing an actual program, but setting some framework and providing the objectives. There should be an objective to maintain a viable rural infrastructure and viable farm families. That is not the direction in which this government has been heading.
A good example is back during the days when we were debating the GRIP legislation before the House. In fact the New Democrats voted against that legislation, I remember during the legislative committee meetings. By the way, it was not a detailed bill. It was enabling legislation. It simply said that the minister shall have the right to enter into something called GRIP. We did not know what GRIP was at that time. There were some principles that were to be set out.
There were four principles in section 2 of that particular act that the minister should take into consideration. He did not have to follow them; he just had to consider them. The program should do a number of things. I pointed out these four principles to both ministers at that time and that they had missed a principle. That principle was that we should take into account the
February 9, 1993

futures of farm families in rural communities. They disagreed with me and refused to put it in. It was only when I moved a motion on the floor of the House the government passed it because of course it was too embarrassed not to. The clause said: "The program should encourage the long-term social and economic sustainability of farm families in communities". That would not have been there if it was not for this caucus.
This government is not thinking of farm families or rural communities. It is thinking of agribusiness and to hell with little communities, to hell with some of the small farmers. This government is misdirected and misguided.
There are thousands of frustrated farmers right across this country. There are thousands of frustrated Canadians and yet the Minister of Agriculture so far has done nothing. We have had promises in the past.
The growing together initiative came out in 1989 in which the government was going to do big things for farming. We ended up with the GRIP which was a fiasco. There is nothing on farm finances. There has been nothing on the future of grain transportation. All government has really done is to continue to dismantle the Wheat Board and threaten to remove the Crow benefit without putting forth any real alternatives and any real explanation as to how those programs are going to fit into a viable and healthy future rural infrastructure and a future farm economy.
That is the problem we are faced with today. Until the federal government takes the initiative to develop some viable long-term programs, we are going to continue to have this problem. We cannot have emergency payments coming out every year. We are faced with that again this year. Yes, there have to be some emergency payments. Yes, we need them now. However, along with those emergency payments has to be a commitment to develop a viable, long-term agricultural program.
There has been no initiative from this government. Provincial governments are calling for it. I spoke with the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan recently who said he would like to meet with the new minister. He
Supply
would like to have some consultations with respect to new programs, but that has not been done.
I see that my time has expired. I conclude by saying that this minister has a golden opportunity. Let us hope he takes advantage of it.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I listened more than just a little attentively because the matter before us today concerns me since I have an agricultural background and a constituency of which 8 per cent is rural. I have spoken, perhaps, on a per capita basis more times to the rural part of my constituency than to the urban part. The story I get from the farmers I talk to is somewhat different from what the hon. member presented to us today.
Perhaps a bit of a geography lesson is in order here. The hon. member with all due respect does not have the same kind of farmland in his constituency that I have in mine. The quality of his farmland ranges from excellent to some marginal agricultural land. As a result of that, I would expect he is going to get a wide range of stories.
I suggest that he go to the Ihxford-Marquis area just north of Moose Jaw and talk to the farmers there about GRIP. Talk to those who farm in a mixed farming situation about GRIP. He will likely get the same story I do from my farmers. That is, had the Saskatchewan NDP government not tinkered with 1991 GRIP, while it was not the paved road to Mecca, it certainly was at least a document which could be taken to the bank. The banker and the farmer could predict within a reasonable proximity what the income would be for the 1992 crop year.
That is not the reality now. I know there were one or two farmers from Alberta and Manitoba quoted as saying that GRIP Manitoba and GRIP Alberta were less than ideal. I would suspect that they represent the minority of farmers from those two provinces because the same demands have not been placed on us from those two provinces. As well, I happen to know that the Minister of Agriculture has met with the provincial Minister of Agriculture and they have talked about farm programs.
The hon. member said that the NDP wishes to take a new approach to agriculture. It feels that a new approach to agriculture is necessary and it has some plans. I certainly would like to know what those plans are. They might be better expressed to the House of Commons by the hon. member than that farmer who works in his

February 9, 1993
Supply
office. Perhaps if that farmer would spend more time on the farm than pretending to be a bureaucrat we would have some solutions for the farmers.


Rodney Edward Laporte: With respect to existing GRIP there have been a lot of politics played lately, certainly by the former Minister of Agriculture who tried to play down the fact that Saskatchewan GRIP was inferior to Alberta GRIP and so on. The fact is that neither program is doing the job.
Certainly the Alberta GRIP has gone into a huge deficit this year and there is going to be a large increase in premiums. Farmers in Alberta are going to find themselves paying a lot higher premiums next year. It looks as if the IMAP price is going to go down to something like $3.79 a bushel which is not going to encourage a lot of people. That I understand is the preliminary result. That is not the direction to go in. The controversy should not be over whether the Saskatchewan GRIP is inferior or superior to the Alberta GRIP. The fact is that neither program is doing the job.
The New Democratic Party has come up with two programs. The member for Mackenzie and the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt back in 1987 and before the last federal election were instrumental in developing an agricultural program that wanted to keep farmers on the land. There should not be a program whereby a farmer receives payment for every single acre of land he or she has, whether it is 10 acres, 5,000 acres or 50,000 acres.
Mackenzie's program says that we are going to pay farmers for the initial few thousand bushels of their production. They will receive that cheque at the elevator and in the spring they will know what they are going to get. That is a program they can bank on. In the spring the farmers will know that on the first 8,000 or 9,000 bushels, whatever the program works out to be, they will receive a cheque for $5, $6 or $6.50 a bushel. In addition, they can buy an insurance program to insure the next 8,000 or so bushels of grain. Farmers will know in the spring what they are going to receive and will receive those cheques when the grain is hauled to the elevator. That is a far better program than what we have now.
We also have a rural policy now to develop programs that are going to help rural communities and diversification in rural Canada.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the NDP and this opposition motion condemning the government.
There is no question that there are problems in agriculture today. The trade war has been going on for seven or eight years and has created significant problems. I would just like to bring a little bit of realism to what happened in Saskatchewan and defend a government, a Prime Minister and Ministers of Agriculture who have done more for agriculture than any government that ever sat in this House. I can tell you that first hand.
My life has been agriculture. I have seen our government stand with the farmers through drought, trade wars and difficulties. It has increased agricultural spending by 650 per cent. Now what happened in Saskatchewan just this year? The GRIP program and the NISA program are not perfect and will no doubt need some improvement as we go along.
The Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, supported by the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, rejected the national program. I can bring in the numbers from my own farm. Under the previous GRIP program as directed nationally and for all provinces we were guaranteed $115 an acre premium paid for our farm in the first year. On durum wheat we were guaranteed $120 premium paid, which was bankable. We could go to the bank and get a guarantee that it would advance on the 28 bushel per acre on our farm, which was the long-term average, $115 an acre on hard wheat and $120 an acre on durum wheat after the premium was paid on both crop insurance and GRIP.
The provincial Government of Saskatchewan changed the program after the election and said it would not go along with it. After the changes came in that were made by Mr. Wiens and Mr. Romanow-and Mr. Romanow has indicated clearly now that he made a major mistake-our farm was only guaranteed $80 an acre on hard wheat and $90 an acre on durum. That took the top right off the program and cost farmers on average anywhere from $30 to $40 an acre. I have travelled through my riding and asked farmers what the changes made by the provincial Government of Saskatchewan cost. It is my
February 9, 1993

understanding Mr. Romanow's government only saved approximately $17 million. Opting out of the national program lost the province of Saskatchewan over $400 million. Saskatchewan could not afford this.
There is another interesting point about the direction the NDP took in Saskatchewan. For years it has supported national, universal programs in health and agriculture in this country. It reneged and did not support the national program that was put in place by the various groups of producers.
I sat at the table when John Wise called together 50 to 60 groups of producers from all across Canada. They developed a program that was not perfect, but was workable for the whole nation. I will give the numbers. Since 1984 for every $1 that has been paid into the federal government from Saskatchewan, $1.59 has been paid back to the province of Saskatchewan.
How could the premier of Saskatchewan and the NDP government in Saskatchewan reject a national, universal program that worked for everyone and was developed by farmers? I think they have a lot of explaining to do. It is no wonder Mr. Romanow said they made a mistake.
The federal members here this morning are not willing to admit they have made a very serious mistake. Next year's problem is very important. Let us get back to the table in Saskatchewan and not make the mistake two years in a row.
No government can see a drought or frost coming. I was chairman of the task force on drought in western Canada in those drought years. I saw a government come through for the farmers. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister I have seen a Prime Minister who never turned down the farmers.
We have just seen what they have done in Saskatchewan. I do not want to be too hard on the Liberals here, but we can remember when the last Liberal Prime Minister told the farmers to sell their own wheat. We do not have to acknowledge from any government on the opposition benches that we as a government have worked for the farmers. This includes Grant Devine in
Supply
Saskatchewan who was a farmers' man, and the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.
These are the short-term problems. Let us look at the long-term problem. The world trade war is causing a mammoth problem for Canadian farmers and for farmers all over the world. I can assure you that Canadian farmers are as competitive as any other farmers. They can produce grain as cheaply as farmers anywhere. According to the figures of the United Nations, the trade war has cost us $299 billion in subsidies alone in 1991 figures.
At the same time, to be realistic, if you go out on the prairies you will see piles of wheat on the farms.
We read our newspapers and see that people are starving around the world. The problem is that on the international level food is not a priority. We must come to grips with this. This makes absolutely no sense.
At the same time we are getting $2 or $3 a bushel for grain. How are we going to deal with it? The GAIT has been dealing with it and I certainly support the GATT in every way in accomplishing its goals. It has been a long time coming.
I believe the G-7 countries must take hold of this problem and deal with it as the number one international problem we face today. The major international problems have been arms control and cold war. The major international problems of today seem to be starvation, the trade war and agriculture, which is going through very difficult problems. How are we dealing with this?
I want to assure you the Prime Minister of Canada carried agriculture to the G-7 Tokyo conference and has continually been doing this on behalf of the Canadian farmers and the Canadian people. Now that he is the senior member in the G-7, only the Prime Minister will be able to represent the farmers of Canada at the G-7 with regard to the great problems that face us internationally in the world-war subsidies on food.
It is most important that the G-7 take hold of this problem, deal with it through the GATT at the international level and make food a priority. As a farmer who has produced food all my life, the only thing I know is farming. One day the Prime Minister took my glasses, used them to read the menu-he did not have his glasses

February 9, 1993
Supply
with him that day-and said: "Len, all I see is wheat, wheat and wheat". It is true that has been my life.
There is no higher calling than producing food. If you want to look at the international situation today, there is a lot of talk about rights. Rights for this and rights for that. Minority groups are talking about rights at every level. Certainly there is not a more important right than the right to eat. If you are going to eat, the farmers have to produce food. I do not know of any better place to produce food and grain than in the prairies of Canada that God has blessed us with. They can and will produce food.
We must strengthen agriculture and build it up if we are to survive as a strong nation. We must build it up if the world is to benefit from the food farmers produce. I strongly believe we must make food a priority at the G-7 level. The leadership must come from there to deal with the world banks, the international situation and so on.
What about storing food for the long term? We know what has happened in Russia. The whole infrastructure has broken down. The ability to produce food has broken down. This must not happen in Canada. It will not happen under a Conservative government and Conservative leadership which has given historical leadership to agriculture. You ask those prairie farmers out there. Thlk to them one on one as I have.
They know a government that has stood with them through thick and thin.


Mr. Harvard:: That isn't what they said at the rally.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I was at the rally. I heard them boo the premier of Saskatchewan. I saw our Minister of Agriculture stand and make a declaration and give the message to farmers that we were there to listen, as they know we have been.
This situation that exists in Saskatchewan is interesting. For months the former Minister of Agriculture kept going back to the province and saying: "We will leave the door open for you. Don't scuttle the national program". He said that again and again. How many times did he say that on TV and in this House? Yet the NDP in Saskatchewan decided to move ahead in its own way and not go along with the national program.
I am a strong believer that we do need some strong programs to see the farmers over the difficult times. They have been put in place, imperfect as they may be. On my farm when it costs me $35 an acre that is not bankable because of the direction of a provincial government that would not go along with the national program, it is pretty serious. That is a pretty important third line of defence to me. It was put in place and must be reconsidered.
We know that the NDP did better in the northern part of the province than in the south. I do not know whether it was to penalize those who might have a drought as we do in the south. The old Assiniboia riding, which is now part of the Swift Current riding and part of the Souris- Moose Mountain riding, produces more grain than the rest of the province put together.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Come on. Maybe wheat.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Wheat and saleable products that go into the international market.
The other point that I want to make is that the provincial government obviously thought there could not be a frost. That was an unfortunate situation. The frost came and we have wheat that is weighing 62 pounds a bushel, if frozen. On the other hand, we have some that is weighing 52 pounds and it is black. You would wonder whether the cows would even eat it.
Had they not disturbed the program-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That's a crop insurance program that wasn't touched.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The crop insurance program and GRIP were programs that were working together and would work together for the benefit of those who bought the insurance.
Because of the interference of the NDP in the provincial program, many farmers opted out of it. The percentage of farmers going into the program in Ontario was up considerably, somewhere around 85 per cent. The percentages in Manitoba were up considerably. The percentages in Alberta were up considerably. In Saskatchewan, because of the unrest created by the provincial NDP government, many farmers opted out. They now find themselves in a very difficult position.
February 9, 1993

If I have anything to say to farmers after the 14 years that I have been here come May, it is that anyone who was in the national programs did benefit from them. It would only have to be a government that was completely out of its mind that would put in a program on a national scale that would not work to the benefit of farmers.
Every program that I have ever seen, whether the western wheat program or the drought programs, always worked to the benefit of farmers. Here is an opportunity to buy insurance. Might I state that when it comes to GRIP or crop insurance, farmers do pay a premium. Many urban people feel that all this money is coming from the taxpayer. It does not all come from the taxpayer.
A good portion comes from premiums that are paid year after year. Some years they do not collect from the program. Yet they pay a premium, just like when you buy house insurance. That is why it is so important to have a national program, a universal program if I could use the words so often used by our friends in the NDP. They chose to opt out of it. This trade war continues. We have to come to grips with the long-term program of making food a priority at the international level.
I want to repeat that the Prime Minister of Canada is well positioned. He has done a great job. I am a farm boy. I have seen him operate at as close a level as anyone. I can state that he has never brought in a program that was not a benefit. He has listened again and again to the farmers. This government stood with the farmers. It will stand with them. Just look at the record of the opposition parties on the other side of this House and what they have done in the last 20 years.
The Conservative government increased assistance to farmers 640 per cent. I am not saying it was not needed. It certainly was. I am not saying there is not much more to do. Certainly we have had a government that no one can criticize on the basis of the opposition motion before us today.
Let us be honest. Let us be fair. I am sure that the farmers of Saskatchewan and all of Canada understand and understand very well.
Supply


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I note from the comments of the member for Assiniboia that he was quite critical of the 1992 GRIP. That is his privilege.
I think it should be noted, however, that the way the GRIP functions, the 1991 GRIP is the program that provided the income for 1992, the year just completed, and that coverage was inadequate as demonstrated by the 13,000 farmers who gathered at the Saskatoon rally. They criticized the fact that they did not have enough income. The source of that inadequate level of income was from that 1991 GRIP that the hon. member praises so highly.
He did not tell the House that that first effort at the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, known as GRIP, was highly subsidized by the federal government. In the second year of the program the premiums that the farmers had to pay would have increased had there not been a change by 30 per cent. The federal government paid 25 per cent of the premiums in the first year of the program which would have meant that to continue the cost for the farmer would have been 33 per cent higher. He did not tell us that.
He did not explain that the contingent liability from the first year's program to the province of Saskatchewan which has to pick up the deficit that is created from the program rose by $160 million. He did not tell us that the premiums that the province would have had to pay would have gone up because of the level of subsidization on the first year's program which was there to entice people or encourage them, depending on your choice of words, to join the program.
That would have made the program considerably higher cost at his farm than he indicates. For most of us who are on the farm, the program was getting very close to creating a question of whether the benefit was going to outweigh the cost.
The 15-year index moving average price would have dropped under that first program from $4.15 to $3.80 and some cents. The province mitigated that and was able to negotiate a higher level of support to $4.07. There were some positive things that came out of that program which he did not tell us.
As well, the coverage levels as they are now being enforced go by crop district level which discourages the practice that had developed in the first year of simply using the program. Sprinkling seed across the fields and

February 9, 1993
Supply
taking the guarantee is no longer possible. You have to get most of your money from the market. The average for your crop district is what the payout will be.
Finally, I want to point out that the hon. member's area gets the highest coverage from that program because it is so tied to wheat and wheat is such a poor risk these days. The highest payments will go to the wheat areas. The areas which try to shift their production to meet the market demand will get the very lowest payouts, and mine is one of those.


Leonard J. Gustafson: There is no question that there has been a great deal of controversy over the programs and the various areas of the province. In answer to the last question the hon. member raised, one of the areas where both the producers and the different farm groups have voiced their opinion was certainly dealing with the pulse crops, canolas and such, and bringing that into should I say a fairer level with the grain production of especially wheat and durum wheat. The federal government was looking at this and making adjustments to this, in all fairness.
This is the point that I want to make on the criticism the hon. member makes of the national program. Nobody said it was perfect, but certainly it was much better than it is now, having been destroyed by the provincial government of Saskatchewan. These improvements need to be made and they will be made through the proper channels of discussing with farm groups, sitting down with the province of Saskatchewan, as the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario did.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: If you had to live with it, you would have been complaining, too.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I suppose that politics has its place, but certainly politics took an awful toll on Saskatchewan. The provincial government of Saskatchewan decided to play politics. It said: "Well, we are in now. This looks like a Devine-Mulroney program so we had better throw it out and put something in for four years down the road when it will look like an NDP program".


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: But the farm groups recommended the changes. They implemented the farm groups' recommendations.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It did not work. It cost the farmers of Saskatchewan a lot of money. Now they are coming back with cap in hand and asking us to make changes. How can we make changes that will be credible to the province of Manitoba, fair to the province of Alberta and fair to the province of Ontario after they have rejected a national universal program that was put in place after a lot of discussion by farmers themselves for the benefit of farmers?
This has been a major, major mistake. The Saskatchewan farmers will not forget it quickly.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: I am surprised that the member for Souris-Moose Mountain, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, did not spend a few minutes giving us an update on the supply management, the strengthening and clarification of article XI at the GATT negotiations. The government trade negotiator says this government is not pressing at all for the strengthening and clarification of article XI. Basically it has given up any effort to convince other nations regarding this article, which is so important to our national programs, especially in eastern Canada.
I wonder if he would comment on that.


Leonard J. Gustafson: On the programs relating to dairy, chicken production and marketing boards and so on, the minister of trade again and again in this House has ' indicated that the Canadian position before the GATT is one that protects that direction and will continue to do so.
The member is well aware of that. That is the record of this government and will continue to be.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member blamed the plight of the farmers on the trade war that has been going on for seven years. He and his government have been in power now for eight years, and are going into the ninth year.
Surely to goodness over eight years his government could have negotiated with other countries around the world and resolved this trade war. Who does he shift that blame on? He shifted all the blame on the NDP in Saskatchewan, and rightly so. I would agree with him there.
How can he justify that after eight years the trade war is still going on and still hurting the Canadian farmers?
February 9, 1993


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, anyone that would trivialize the size of the trade war and the impact it has had internationally, I would question whether he knows much about what is happening in international trade.
I said a few minutes ago that the subsidies paid by various governments around the world were $299 billion and the European common market countries alone paid $133 billion. There is some good reason for that.
A doctor from Austria, lumping us as Americans, said: "You Americans do not understand starvation. I've seen starvation three times in my life". With some reservations, there is no questions that the Europeans see food differently than North Americans. I am not blaming the Europeans entirely. The U.S. exports only 25 per cent of its product, whereas Canada exports 80 per cent of its coarse grains, wheats, durums and so on. It is a major problem.
Certainly we do not trivialize the problem. There has been one leading country, both through our trade minister and our Prime Minister. We just saw the implications of it when the Prime Minister visited the new President of the United States, Mr. Clinton. What was the topic? Trade.
I am sure that agriculture was talked about. Without a doubt this has been important. It is important that we-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments has now expired.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on this motion today. It highlights many of the failures of this government, not all of them in agriculture, but certainly most of them. It is important that this kind of issue be aired on the floor of the House of Commons.
In commenting on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, it is interesting that he tells us what a wonderful job the Prime Minister has done at international meetings of the G-7 with regard to the farm situation. If he is responsible for all the chaos that there is today in international trade and agriculture commodities, it is nothing to brag about.
Supply
The Prime Minister and his minions over in the Langevin Block do a great job of telling us what a wonderful job the Prime Minister is doing on international trade issues. Where are the results?
Even in 1986 the Prime Minister's Office was putting out press releases saying that he had gone to the G-7 meeting in Japan to solve these problems. He put it all forward and he was going to lead on to the great successes of the Uruguay round. The press release from the G-7 meeting in Tokyo, Japan, in early May 1986 never mentioned one word. He made a great impact if the communique from the G-7 meeting in Tokyo, Japan, never even mentioned it.
The parliamentary secretary tells us what a wonderful job the Prime Minister has done in assisting Canadian agriculture. Would he trade Canadian agriculture as it is today for what it was in 1985 when this government came to power? Thirteen thousand fewer farmers are in business today. The debt levels in Saskatchewan are horrendous. The Farm Credit Corporation owns more land than probably even the banks. Half the bankruptcies, 51 per cent, approximately 220 bankruptcies in 1991 were on Saskatchewan farms. The situation is really dismal.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister put forward the canard that the Prime Minister has led us into some great promised land in agriculture. What a disaster. Show me one sector of Canadian agriculture that feels confident. Show me farmers that are not desperately concerned they are either going to lose their farms or they are going to lose the viability of their farms today and I will show you farmers who do not make their incomes from farming.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool people are going to be here tomorrow meeting with caucuses of the House. The average price of grain in Saskatchewan is something like $2 a bushel, 50 per cent of the grain is feed grain because of the quality.
The parliamentary secretary blames the NDP government in Saskatchewan for changing the GRIP. That criticism is well placed. Two farmers, the former minister and Mr. Williams who both have now left agriculture portfolios, made the agreement. Surely two politicians, even though they are from different parties, could sit

February 9, 1993
Supply
down and say: "The NDP made a mistake; the federal government is concerned about it. Let us sit down to resolve this problem". Is that what happened? No, it is not what happened. They issued press releases back and forth, April, May, June, July, August, September, November and December. The Prime Minister mounted to the challenge in September as we launched into the referendum debate.
He stated that once the crops were in the bin and the frost damage had been assessed, the federal and provincial governments would start discussing compensation to farmers. He added that the federal government would not be shy about delivering money to Saskatchewan producers before the October 26 referendum. Where is the money?
We have heard from the parliamentary secretary about what a wonderful Prime Minister he is, how many billions of dollars have been delivered to farmers and what a wonderful job this Prime Minister has done internationally. He has solved most of these problems. There are still $300 billion in subsidies which are driving the price of wheat in Saskatchewan down to $2 a bushel. Where is the money that the Prime Minister guaranteed in September?
We know how the former Minister of Agriculture, a buddy of a another former minister, snatched away $73 million in the economic statement in December which is going to cost every shipper about $2 a tonne to ship grain.
In September the Prime Minister promised that he would not shy away from delivering money to Saskatchewan producers. He knew what the situation was. He knew there was drought in the north during the summer. He knew it was cold and damp and they could not get the crop off in decent shape.
When the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool put together the rally on January 26 in Saskatoon, finally the Tories and the NDP got together and produced what they tried to portray as a $170 million benefit.
However when all the gloss is stripped away it comes down to $40 million in new money. Talk about bringing forth a mouse; $40 million for a province which estimates its shortfall is something like $800 million, according to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The $40 million of new money translates, since it is paid over five years, into $4 million a year.
The parliamentary secretary is simply not serious. He may be able to say all these things but on checking what
is actually delivered in terms of dollars in producers' pockets, for those 13,000 who attended that meeting, it is practically nothing.
Let us look at the gravity of the situation. As put forward by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, it is clearly approaching the situation which we saw during the Great Depression of the 1930s: low incomes, declining assets and inadequate safety net programs.
The Saskatchewan government can well be blamed for changing it because we do not have a guarantee per acre of benefit. However it seems to me that two ministers of agriculture from the same province could sit down together and come up with a much better solution than $40 million of improved benefits. The rest of it, in the announcement in Saskatoon on January 26, is strictly speeding up payments that would be made anyway and the premiums that are paid by the producers themselves. Actually the producers pay some $40 million which is the equivalent of the $40 million of new money.
I want to get to the situation in southwestern Ontario because our producers are facing the worst cropping situation in history for com, soybean and other crops.
The reason those 13,000 farmers in Saskatoon last month rallied is explained simply by looking at the projections for net farm income. In 1990 the net farm income dropped to $395 million, in 1991 it was $414 million, in 1992 it was $636 million and they still see a shortfall of $800 million.
Let us look at the projection for 1993. The projection for 1993 is $238 million. That is just about slightly more than one-third of the 1992 income. That is why producers are terrified, especially if their fuel bills are not paid and their taxes are not paid.
The parliamentary secretary stood up today talking on behalf of the Prime Minister and saying what this Prime Minister has done in the past and what he is going to do in the future. Now is the day for him to stand up and tell the House and those producers in Saskatchewan what he and the Prime Minister are going to do. He says the Prime Minister has solved most of the international trade problems. How is he going to solve this realized net farm income for 1993 of $238 million. That is what the producers want to know.
I want to deal with the farm income problem in southwestern Ontario. I am told that this fall they had the worst cropping situation in history. Something like
350,000	acres of com crops still have not been harvested. That is about 20 per cent. The grade is quite low but it is suitable for the feeding of livestock. The problem is that
February 9, 1993

many of the elevators are already full so the farmers cannot deliver that crop.
I have never seen a more cavalier attitude than the one we saw from the former agriculture minister. Several years ago the government did away with the advanced payment program, the interest free cash advance. In the spring of 1989 it had been done away with and then brought back by Order in Council that same fall.
It is never known now whether there is going to be an interest free cash advance or not. This year we did not know until late September or early October whether this assistance was going to be available. A program has been available in western Canada where if the crop cannot be harvested the government will give the interest free cash advance. The level of the interest free cash advance has been set at $50,000.
Last fall, the corn producers and others in southwestern Ontario where the crop is relatively more expensive per acre, asked if that interest free cash advance could be made available in Ontario and Quebec and in other parts of the east on the same basis as the regular interest free cash advance of $50,000. The minister hemmed and hawed and the agriculture committee passed a resolution calling on the government to make this interest free cash advance of $50,000 available. That went on and on and on.
Finally, in December the government agreed to make available $15,000 which is the same level as in the west, plus $3,000 for drying cost. However, it was made so late that out of the 25,000 com producers, so far to my understanding only 20 of those producers have been able to take advantage of the interest free cash advance for unharvested grain.
What a disaster. Producers are having difficulty getting the crop off but they have GRIP and crop insurance to guarantee the crop and they only get interest free cash advance on half of the crop anyway. The government will not provide the same interest free cash advance for unharvested grain as it will for harvested grain.
Supply
Then when the Ontario com producers tried to implement the interest free cash advance there was a little hooker in there. Treasury Board had set the amount of the interest free cash advance available at $41 million. They had to hustle around to various banks to find the money. The parliamentary secretary never talks about all these little hookers that the government has in there to hinder and to confound the farmers of this area.
One possible source for all of this low grade com would be for livestock feed in Cuba, but they cannot get the credit available. The Canadian Wheat Board has credits available. The possible market for this low grade com is for livestock feed in Cuba, but the credit arrangements are simply not there. These producers are so frustrated that we see in the press reports this week where a group of farmers down in Lucknow, Ontario have put together a meeting of 1,000 people to protest the lack of action by the government to assist. The situation is really very serious as we commence 1991.
A report put out by the WEFA forecasting group in late December says that government programs boost 1992 income, but a crash in 1993 income is forecast. Clearly that is the case.
Looking back at why there was some increase in government support programs in 1992 one finds it all came from the massive rallies that occurred throughout the fall of 1991. The government had chopped its support programs in 1990. Even though the world price of wheat had dropped to $2 a bushel, the lowest since the 1930s, the lowest in real terms in history, the government finally approved a payment under FSAM-2-that is the federal smoke and mirrors program number two-in the fall of 1991 for $800 million. That $800 million of course was not paid until 1992, otherwise the income situation would have been even worse in 1992 than it was. Even there we saw these massive rallies because of the inadequacies of the government programs.
The WEFA report forecast a drop of 21 per cent in net farm income in 1993. That is similar to the figures for Saskatchewan. It is in proportion.
The situation as we enter 1993, six or seven years after the international trade war began, is even worse than it was then. We see the total inadequacies of the government support programs but more than that we see the government chiselling on this. It is not known whether the interest free cash advance is going to be available until October or December. It is always a fight to get any

February 9, 1993
Supply
assistance rather than the government coming up front and saying what the program is and what assistance is going to be made available. The government is simply not doing well enough.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member for Algoma gets so exercised when he hears the work the Prime Minister has been doing and carrying on at the international level. Especially when we hear day after day from a party across the way that is opposed to free trade. It wants a protectionist approach. Here we are with a country that exports 80 per cent of its product in terms of wheat, durums and grain and that party has a mishmash of policy that would make your head spin.
I wonder what would happen if that party were to try to implement the kinds of policies where it says on the one hand it will do this and on the other hand do that. There is not a clear direction of where that party is going. Then it trivializes the international situation of the trade war.
Nobody said that one man could solve this all alone. However, certainly one man can give the right direction as we saw just last week with the Prime Minister's visit to Washington and his dealing with the trade situation and the international trade war going on.
As far as I can see and watching day after day in this House, whether it is the leader of the NDP or the leader of the Liberal Party, there is no direction. There would be very little if any international presence in which the existing situation in Canada would be put forward.
It is interesting that this member from Algoma would stand in the House and trivialize the immensity of not only an international recession but also an international trade war that is going on. Anybody who is not aware of that is not aware of what is going on.
Any government that does not deal with that in trade, just to give an example, the U.S. is now our fourth largest trading partner in wheat. Close that border on livestock. Incidentally, livestock has hit the highest price in terms of 97 cents a pound for live weight cattle shipped with much of it going into the United States. I do not know how the opposition would deal with a situation
like that. We would have the old Trudeau era again: Sell your own wheat, do your own thing.
In commenting on what has been, the hon. member knows we had 20 per cent interest rates in 1985. Under this Prime Minister, we have the lowest interest rates in 31 years. Certainly there are international problems and they are immense but with the mishmash of ideas that on the one hand this and on the other hand that which come from the leadership of the Liberal Party, I would fear as a farmer to live under that direction.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. parliamentary secretary had really been interested in bringing information to the House today, he would have told us exactly what the Prime Minister did in Washington last week. We saw him walking around with the new President.
This House passed a unanimous resolution on February 12, 1992. It directed the Prime Minister to meet with the President and to secure his support for our position on a strengthened and clarified article XI. We want to know, as do the dairy farmers, the poultry industry and the supply management groups of Canada whether he did that. Did he do anything? Did he really accomplish anything in Washington or was he just looking for a photo opportunity?
People are interested in the results. Why did the Prime Minister not go there and get a commitment from President Clinton? Why did he not get a commitment if he has all this international power and influence? Nobody is trivializing the trade war. The trade war has been a disaster.
The parliamentary secretary is telling us that the Prime Minister has great influence, that he is a senior member of the G-7. If he is this member and has all this influence, why is he not able to sit down with President Clinton and get a commitment to support us with our supply management system? Clearly his Minister of Agriculture is reported to have supported supply management systems in the United States. If that is true, then there should be no problem convincing the President that it is a good system for not only Canada, but also for the United States.
If we look at the Washington news press releases, Mr. Espy, the secretary of agriculture, has voted for supply management bills in the past. Therefore groups like the
February 9, 1993

dairy fanners of Canada, the poultry and feather industry are asking the Prime Minister to go there and get a commitment in the GATT negotiations. Has that been achieved or not? That is what we want to know.
Clearly the supply management groups are the most stable, most viable groups in the country. If he does not have that kind of support from the President in those GATT negotiations, then we could end up with that whole supply management industry being destroyed. We would go on to the future and see this most viable sector, some 35,000 producers producing something like 28 per cent of farm income being destroyed.
The House directed the Prime Minister to do that last February 12. We want to know whether or not he achieved it.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on that whole direction. What this government has been trying to achieve under the direction of the Prime Minister is important.
When the minister of trade met with Arthur Dunkel of the GATT, I happened to be there with him. At that time he put forward the importance of the concept for Canada. I heard Mr. Dunkel ask if we had any idea of how big a job it is to get the support of 108 nations that are bringing input into the GATT.
This again makes the point of the hon. member trivializing, if you will, the trade war and the contribution that the Prime Minister has made to trying to end this.
We must continue our negotiations. We are a trading nation. We must trade into that international market or we will lose the grain sector or even other sectors, steel or what have you, in Canada.
Our government has taken strong positions under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture, to achieve these ends. We must continue it. That is the point I am making.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary had to say about the Minister for International Trade is very interesting. In fact there was a letter written to the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture on February 1 asking if the
Supply
government is willing to reconfirm its support for the resolution that was passed on February 12, 1992.
The amendment which our party put down to that resolution says:
And that this House calls upon the Prime Minister to involve himself personally in the GATT negotiations in the interest of Canada's dairy, egg, and poultry producers by meeting with the President of the United States and with the President of the European Community in order to secure their support and to do so in co-operation with other countries that agree with Canada's position on a strengthened and clarified article XI.
There are 130 trading nations in the world but the first two that you have to lock in are the European Community and the United States. The Prime Minister has met with the President of the United States. Did he lock in the President of the United States to support our position? When is he meeting with the European Community? Is the government prepared to reinstate or reaffirm its position for the resolution that was passed unanimously in the House of Commons on February 12, 1992? If he is, it is a direct signal. We will not have these press reports coming out as on January 21 and the headlines reading: "Ottawa altering farm stance. Border barriers find few friends. Ottawa softens-".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry but the time for comments and questions has now expired.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I will be taking a 10-minute slot and the second 10-minute slot will be taken by the hon. member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake.
I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Mackenzie. It is very important that this House address agricultural issues. One of the things I have noticed is that the government over the last number of years has tried to create a series of myths about what is happening in Canadian society.
To give some recent examples, the minister of employment is somehow trying to blame those people who for one reason or another have to quit their jobs, as the reason that unemployment insurance is costing so much.
Somehow in that whole debate the government has ignored the fact that over 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, that last year alone a million people in this country exhausted their UI benefits. They are people who were fired, people who were laid off, people who quit for whatever reason. Somehow the government has

February 9, 1993
Supply
narrowed the debate to those people who have quit and is taking away their right to a level playing field in terms of how they are affected by this government decision. That is why people are concerned.
There is also the myth, which certain government members have perpetrated, that the fishing industry is receiving millions and millions of dollars in hand-outs that they do not deserve and that those people engaged in fishing really do not deserve the kind of support that they need.
When it comes to agriculture, if we listen to government ministers and government backbenchers we would think that the government has bent over backwards to meet all the needs of farmers. Again that is not true.
I will quote some information that was produced for the member for Mackenzie by the pools: "Compared to our two largest grain competitors, Europe and the United States, Canada is falling behind. Using 1981 real total net farm incomes as a base, European incomes fell by 16.5 per cent over the last decade, American farm incomes rose by 23 per cent and Canadian farm incomes fell by 51.4 per cent over the 10-year period from 1981 to 1991". That is a 51 per cent decrease in farm incomes in this country.
That is why this debate is taking place. The farmers in this country, the rural communities in this country, know there is a crisis. It is not a matter of too many farmers. It is not a matter of farmers refusing to go out and seek new crops, which seems to be the response of The Globe and Mail to the crisis that exists. Because of what is happening at the national level and at the international level, our farm incomes have gone down by 51.4 per cent over the last decade.
While governments may laud their various achievements or claim they have had various achievements over the same time period, take a look at some of the things that have actually happened. Look, for example, at the Crow transportation benefit. My friend, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said: "The Liberals began dismantling the protection farmers had under the Crow rate and now the PCs are set to finish the job. If we lose
the Crow rate we could see a lot of grain moving to port via the United States".
What exactly has the government done with the Crow rate? The Liberals under Jean-Luc Pepin and later the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre actually destroyed the Crow benefit that existed for many farmers. They set up something else to replace it.
What has the Conservative government done with that replacement? Right now we are looking at a 10 per cent cut in 1993-94 and another cut of 10 per cent in 1994-95; that is 10 per cent this year, 10 per cent next year, cut in the support that Canadian farmers received in lieu of the original Crow agreement.
What has that meant? In 1983-84 farmers paid out an average of $5.72 to move a tonne of grain or 23 per cent of the total freight cost. By 1992-93 it cost farmers an average of $11.98 or 37 per cent of the cost of moving a tonne of grain. The actions of this government are increasing the costs of farmers trying to move grain out of this country at a time when there is a 51.4 per cent decrease in farm income for farm families across this country over a 10-year period.
It is interesting that during the same time period farm income in the United States went up by 23 per cent. It is not because American farmers are more efficient on the land. It is because American farmers are more efficient in Congress. They have subsidies and programs that do not exist in this country. They have programs that have taken away our traditional markets, and when that happens our government is silent.
Occasionally there is one single speech, saying the Americans should not be doing that. Then there is a quick shift from attacking the Americans to all of a sudden blaming Europe. The reality is that it is the Americans that are taking our markets. It is the Americans that export the largest amount of grain. The Europeans, by and large, consume the vast majority of the grain they produce.
It is the Americans that are the price leaders. Unfortunately, they are also the subsidy leaders when it comes to supporting their farmers and supporting the sale offshore of their product.
February 9, 1993

One of the things that has concerned us with the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement has been the fact that we continue to be harassed by American industry. Our farmers, whether they are hog farmers or grain farmers, are harassed just as much as our steel makers and those involved in softwood lumber.
One of the things that the free trade agreement was supposed to end was this harassment. One of the things that NAFTA was supposed to improve on was bringing an end to this harassment. That has not happened. We have more and more cases against Canada being brought forward under the American anti-dumping legislation.
American experts have admitted this is harassment. They have said that 97 per cent of cases brought forward before their commerce department are ruled upon in favour of American industry. American experts have said that the harassment is often the end goal. It is not that the Americans are afraid to lose before some dispute settlement mechanism, because they have achieved their goal through their harassment process.
If you make it difficult for steel, if you make it difficult for softwood lumber producers to go into the American market, it does not matter what the final ruling is by a dispute settlement mechanism body; you have achieved your goals because you have harassed Canadian industry and effectively cut off markets.
In the few minutes I have left, I would like to talk about what we can do to reduce the costs to Canadian farmers. One of the things that is obviously important for me is a decision on the port of Churchill. The port of Churchill provides a shorter, downhill route for getting grain to our sea port. It is a shorter distance to much of our European market.
What the farmers need, especially in the area between the Alberta and Saskatchewan border where most farmers find it cheaper by up to $30 a tonne to ship through Churchill, is a commitment from this government to make a decision on the port of Churchill. It is the time of year when that decision has to be made for this year. It has to be made this month. However, we also need a long-term commitment to assist farmers.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. friend from Churchill
Supply
got on to the subject of agriculture, because he was straying in various directions. He spoke, for example, of the Atlantic fishery as if there had been no response from this government at all to the very grave difficulties which we face in Atlantic Canada.
He dismissed the $565 million aid package, the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, that was brought down two years ago. He dismissed the $1 billion of special assistance being made available to support the industry in Newfoundland this year. He completely ignores the $800 million that is annually pumped into Atlantic Canada through the unemployment insurance scheme. Perhaps those bits of assistance are either dismissed by him as irrelevant or they have kind of escaped his notice. I notice he did talk about unemployment insurance and I was intrigued. He is making a mission of this. There is no question there is a difference in philosophy on both sides of the House on this issue. My constituents and others in my province, which is highly dependent on unemployment insurance are saying bang on. When jobs are scarce and times are tough people who quit their jobs without just cause should not have access to unemployment insurance. People are suggesting there are a lot of scams in unemployment insurance and they applaud this government's efforts to come to grips with that.
I want to ask the hon. member a question with respect to what he just said about the free trade agreement because it is most mystifying. It is my understanding that we have had eight panels under the FTA in the area of agriculture-one is being announced today-and every single one has been won by Canada. If we did not have the free trade agreement we would still have protectionists in the United States Congress but we would not have a means to rectify those improper actions.
If we had no FTA as my hon. friend's party advocates, how would he propose to resolve those disputes in the future?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to speak about agriculture, but I guess the member wants to talk about something else. I referred to agriculture, free trade, unemployment insurance and the farmers to talk about a common problem many Canadians face. Then I

February 9, 1993
Supply
went on to talk about specific problems faced by people in agriculture.
With regard to free trade, I have said the government has failed to meet its own objectives. In 1987 it was the Conservative Prime Minister who said-I must admit I am only paraphrasing because I do not have the direct quote in front of me-the reason we are going into free trade is to end the harassment. I will get that quote for those members who do not seem to remember those words, but the harassment has not ended.


Peter L. McCreath: Why will you not answer my question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The member asks me to answer his question but he wants to continue heckling. We did not end the harassment. It is continuing and continuing. Instead of the Prime Minister and the minister of trade going on Friday and Monday respectively to make the Canadian position, they were more concerned with protecting their own political backsides and protecting the NAFTA rather than saying: "Stop the harassment". That is what we need.
We had trade with the United States before we had the free trade agreement. We all know that. We also settled our disputes before we had the free trade agreement.


An hon. member:: They harassed us then.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We had harassment before and we have harassment now. Under NAFTA we will have more harassment because we have taken out the one clause that had some potential under the free trade agreement. It was the requirement that both Canada and the United States sit down and come up with a final definition of a subsidy. That was a requirement under the free trade agreement and over a five-year period it was supposed to resolve a lot of the problems we face. Under NAFTA that is no longer required. Under NAFTA we will continue to be harassed because none of the parties to the agreement will have a clear definition of what a subsidy is and is not.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion today brought forward by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, calling on the federal government to fulfil its responsibilities to agriculture that have been forsaken by this government since it was elected. This actually fits within the plans outlined by this government some time ago for agriculture when the now finance minister was
Minister of Agriculture and with the white paper of the government called, "Growing Together" which was actually based on the assumption we already operate under a free market in agriculture. There was no recognition at all in the "Growing Together" paper that all of the marketing institutions we have operate under an oligopolistic situation. The only remnant of the free market in agriculture exists at the local level.
At the time of the release of the "Growing Together" paper, the National Farmers Union and others were able to analyse the paper and comment on it. The then president of the National Farmers Union, Wayne Easter, called the paper an acceptance of the negative international trends and a positive wave for the future. He used them to justify further cuts in domestic farm programs. Since that time we have seen that is exactly what has been happening.
Today's motion indicates a continuing commitment of the New Democratic Party members of Parliament to fight on behalf of agricultural producers. This continuing commitment has been shown virtually every day in this House since this sitting began. A farm rally in Saskatchewan during Parliament's recess attracted 13,000 producers and interested and concerned Saskatchewan residents. They called upon Ottawa and the Government of Canada to respect the financial responsibilities the government has to the producers on the land.
The New Democrats have been questioning government since Parliament sat. There have been speeches under the Borrowing Authority Act including my own. Today is the first opportunity New Democrats have had to raise any issue of significance in this House. Their commitment is to agriculture and the producers of Saskatchewan.
There are many other very important issues today that have been raised in Question Period and appear on the front pages of the newspapers, but New Democrats today have made agriculture the number one priority of our caucus and the debate in this Chamber today.
There is a crisis in agriculture and it must be addressed. On February 2, I rose in this House to speak about my reaction to the farm rally. At that time I talked about the need for an immediate injection of cash as discussed in our motion today. I also talked about other matters that were raised at the farm rally which included support for the Canadian Wheat Board, maintenance of the Crow benefit and the need for the development of a long-term agriculture program based on the cost of
February 9, 1993

production and targeted to meet the needs of producers to sustain rural communities to the best of our ability.
Today I am not going to repeat myself in the short period of time that I have. I simply want to acknowledge and recognize that there is a crisis in agriculture. There are some serious financial problems in agriculture that must be addressed.
One of the concerns we are going to experience in 1993 that is addressed in this motion and put before the House today is the possible end of the Crow benefit subsidy. I want to address that important issue today in the short period of time I have because it is one of the issues we are going to have to address during 1993. Because the need for cash is so important, much of the debate is going to focus on cash. Perhaps some of the other large issues affecting farmers may be set aside in this debate.
I just want to argue today on behalf of the producers who are struggling to ensure that the Crow benefit payment is maintained.
I want to thank a former wheat board advisor and constituent of mine, Mr. Ted Strain, who farms outside of North Battleford, for some of the background I want to put on the record today.
We know that on November 14, 1983 the historic Crow rate ended with the passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act. The act was passed by a Liberal government with both opposition parties voting against the bill. Sufficient Conservative members of Parliament at that time were absent from the House to ensure the passage of the bill. This was also done by Liberal members in the Senate recently with the passage of C-91, the prescription drug bill.
The most profound implication of the Western Grain Transportation Act was its dramatic increase in revenue provided to the railways for the movement of grain. Under the statutory Crow rate, the railways received $4.89 per tonne for moving grain from central Saskatche-
Supply
wan to the seaboard. Under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the railways received $32 per tonne.
The cost was determined by Karl Snavely Jr. who had been hired by the federal government on three occasions to estimate the cost of moving grain by rail. The unusually high cost of 6.25 times the Crow rate was established as the price the railways should receive. The difference between the farmer's share and the amount the railroads received became known as the shortfall or the Crow benefit. It was paid to the railways in the form of a federal subsidy of $612 million which was later increased to $712 million. The December 2 statement of the finance minister indicates it will be reduced by $73 million in 1993-94 and by $104 million in 1994-95.
The Western Grain Transportation Act has given the railways and the government protection against increased costs but has left farmers exposed to future inflation and larger grain volume. The Crow benefit will not apply to export grain volume in excess of 30.5 million tonnes and farmers must pay the first 6 per cent of future inflation costs. That has been happening and will continue to happen.
The farmer receives no inflation protection while protecting the railways against inflation. If inflation continues at 6 per cent for 12 years, the cost of moving grain will double and the railways will receive $64 per tonne compared to $32 per tonne in 1990.
The $720 million Crow benefit is needed to allow western farmers to compete in the world market. Grain exports bring billions of dollars a year into Canada and benefit the domestic economy and farmers in rural communities. Grain is a renewable resource unlike oil, coal and potash where the revenue may not remain in Canada.
Saskatchewan stands to lose about $400 million a year if we lose the Crow benefit. In a province like ours where the rural base is so important, that benefit is critical to the survival of rural Saskatchewan.
Currently the Crow benefit is paid to the railway but the farmer receives the benefit in every bushel of export grain he delivers to the system. He receives it when he delivers his grain.
Realized net farm income is now $6.7 billion less than it would have been prior to the international grain war.

February 9, 1993
Supply
Agriculture Canada is predicting that realized net income for Saskatchewan farmers for this year will be about 30 per cent below the 10-year average and the 1993 forecast is set for a realized net income of only $238 million or about $4,000 per farmer. We have a serious crisis on our hands that must be addressed.
As the rally indicated, we need the injection of cash but we also need the protection of the Wheat Board and the security that the maintenance of the Crow benefit provides to all the producers in Saskatchewan. Without the maintenance of these longer term programs the other policies are simply band-aids that will eventually fall off and create the damage we are trying to prevent.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity on this opposition day to participate in this debate. It stems from a New Democratic Party motion which is critical of government policies toward agriculture.
In part, I would like to address that motion from the perspective of a member of Parliament who represents an area which is indeed as grain dependent as any part of the country. It is the southwestern and the south and central part of Saskatchewan which consists of some
25,000	square miles. I have 9,000 to 10,000 of the farmers in Saskatchewan and probably about 20 per cent of the viable farming operations.
I spent the first three weeks in January travelling around my constituency. I met with rural municipal councils. I met with groups of 6, 8 and 10 producers here and there. I tried to do this, quite frankly, in the absence of the representatives of the so-called organizations of whatever stripe. I tried to get away from them and just talk with farmers at the grass roots.
I fear that sometimes when the farm organizations come with policies, they are at a national level, or at the very least at a regional level. I am not entirely satisfied that they speak for all of their members. That was the reason for trying to get right down to the grass roots. I can attest to the fact that there is an enormous amount of frustration, disappointment and despondency out there.
First, I want to talk in terms of the history of the prairie grain sector. Then I will talk about the reality
which it faces today, the politics of it and the hope that maybe there are some solutions and answers out there.
This is a relatively young sector of our economy. The prairies were for the most part settled in the early 1900s. It was a deliberate policy to settle and to populate the west. The offer was made throughout the world that people could come to Canada. They came on the promise of free land. They came as well for the kind of opportunities and freedoms which our country has and maintains proudly to this day.
People came from the northern United States, eastern Canada, Scandinavia, the British Isles, Germany, Ukraine, Poland and literally from the four comers of the earth. They came to settle the prairies.
It is very interesting and almost unparalleled in history that the country was laid out ahead of time. It was surveyed into sections or square miles and townships which consist of areas 6 miles by 6 miles, or 36 square miles. It was all laid out ahead of time and when the homesteaders came they had the opportunity to file for a particular quarter section of land. It was theirs provided they broke it up and cultivated a certain portion of that ground. They had the opportunity to build on it.
The information indicates that the number of farms peaked at a fairly early time during this century. I believe that in Saskatchewan, there were around 100,000 farms in the 1920s and 1930s and that the average farm size was in the area of 350 to 400 acres. If one follows that sort of chart, one will see that the number of farms has been steadily declining ever since those peak years. That decline continues today.
One will see as well that there is a corresponding increase in the size of the farms, which are now in the area of about 1,100 acres.
The west was laid out before the people came. It was the era of the steam engine. There were places for the train to take on water every five or six miles and it was around those spots that towns and villages grew up. That is where the grain elevators were constructed and that is where the farmers would haul their grain to the elevator so it could later be shipped out by rail to tide water and on to export.
There was a long and glorious history where the prairies were the bread basket of the world. There were
February 9, 1993

huge markets in Europe that the prairies were able to satisfy. These were the golden years. Wheat was the king of the grains.
These villages and towns developed every five or six miles along the railway tracks. Farmers hauled maybe 20-25 bushels of wheat to the elevator in a horse-drawn wagon in the very early days. Those days are long gone and the reason for that is not a trade war today. It is the march of history. It is technology and advances in machinery and equipment. It is road building, communication and technology. It may have taken that pioneer farmer all day to take a load of grain to the elevator a mile or two away. Now they move a trailer of grain-huge amounts of grain-vast distances in that time.
The end result has been a consolidation. Many of these small towns and villages have ceased to exist and many more, I am sad to say, are in their death throes. It is not because of a particular policy of a government of any stripe. I say this not in any partisan way. It is simply reality. It is a result of technology and of markets.
I do not think there is much use in clinging to the old myth of the role of government to preserve rural Canada as it might have been or as someone idyllically remembers it 40 or 50 years ago when the population was at its peak. I am not so sure that those days were particularly rosy anyway. Oldtimers tell me that they do not recall so many wonderful times.
I guess the bottom line is that this movement from the rural areas to the urban ones is something that is a result of technology. It is happening in Saskatchewan. It has happened across Canada. It has happened world-wide.
We are told that back in the 1930s something like a third of all Canadians lived on the farm. Today I think that figure is in the area of perhaps 3 per cent or 4 per cent.
Over the past number of years, many programs have been generated to try to deal with the problems of agriculture. It is not easy to do because agriculture speaks with many voices. Sometimes people who live in the north see things differently from those who live in the south. Those who live in the west naturally see things differently from those who live in the east. If one is into livestock, one sees things differently than one would if one was a straight grain farmer.
Supply
There is an enormous difficulty in devising and developing national programs that work and that are seen to be satisfactory to all concerned.
In the past, it has been shown that programs like area-based crop insurance, like the WGSA which triggered huge areas and which had a five-year rolling average which turned out to be inadequate at the time when it was most needed. These programs have been discarded and a new generation of safety-net programs have been brought forward.
These programs, GRIP and NISA, were not developed in isolation. They were the result of many months and, indeed, many years of work, not just by federal and provincial governments, but by producer groups and by individual farmers. They were designed to try to overcome the obvious shortcomings of some of the programs that preceded them.
Those safety-net programs are in their infancy at this time. There are problems with them, yet at the same time they do seem to be working across most of the country. There are some criteria such as individuality, certainty, predictability and bankability that were central to these programs.
It is an unfortunate fact that GRIP has not been allowed to work within the province of Saskatchewan, which is a major grain-growing sector of the country. It is one of the sources of enormous frustration as related to me by producers within my constituency.
Over the past number of years, a variety of government programs have delivered unprecedented support into the grains and oilseeds sector. I believe that the numbers for Saskatchewan, for example, over the last six or seven years average out to something like slightly over $20,000 in support from the federal government to each farm operation within the province of Saskatchewan.
The irony is that for the taxpayer obviously it is too much. Yet for the hard-pressed producer who has been buffeted by historically low grain prices owing to subsidies beyond our borders it is not enough. So we have this fundamental problem. It is reality.
Canada is up against the United States and the European Community in this subsidy war. These countries have large populations, they have deep pockets and they have a much smaller dependence on export than Canada does.

February 9, 1993
Supply
Canada has 27 million people. We try to export five out of every six bushels of wheat that we grow. Eighty-three per cent of our production has to go outside of Canada hopefully to a willing buyer who has some money to pay us for our product. Unfortunately, at this point in time there are not those buyers out there and where there are buyers, the price is being undermined by the export subsidies and the domestic subsidies of our competing countries.
The United States has a population of about 250 million people and the European Common Market has about 330 million. Their dependency on export is much less. In the case of the United States it is 45 per cent. In the case of the Common Market it is something less than 20 per cent.
We are in the situation where the Canadian taxpayer, on a per capita basis, is putting more into the grain sector than his counterpart in the United States or in Europe. Sad to say, it is still not enough. What is the answer?
The Prairie Pools Organization presented a recent brief, December 1, 1992, to federal cabinet ministers. There was one particular paragraph which simply leaped out at me: "We cannot compete indefinitely with the export subsidies and trade-distorting internal support programs which are used by other major grain and oilseed trading countries, which are far in excess of those available to Canadian producers".
That is absolutely correct. It sums up the problem in a nutshell. If this is to go on indefinitely we cannot compete with the treasuries of those other nations. We simply do not have the resources available. That leads to a lot of the frustration and I guess to a lot of the politics.
I recall being at farm rallies in Rosetown, which is in Saskatchewan, Regina and Winnipeg in the fall of 1991.1 was also in Shaunavon and Regina in the spring of 1992, in North Battleford last fall and of course more recently in Saskatoon. I have listened very carefully at those rallies and of course I understand and hear clearly the frustration.
I understand that there is a need there. We have people who are dependent on growing of wheat for a living. The question is how long we can continue to grow that wheat for export when there are no willing buyers out there and where there are, they are unable or
unwilling to pay the necessary price. That is the reality that we face. What can we do about it?
I do not think it is good enough for opposition parties to come in here and try to deal with this problem through a cheap, grandstanding sort of motion like the one that is in front of the House today. I heard my colleague from Algoma, the Liberal agriculture critic, giving the old-style 1960s approach to this thing. There was not a single useful suggestion. It was just a long litany of the problems. God knows, we all know them. The people on the farms know them. They are not interested in hearing about that.
What they want to talk about are some useful, sensible solutions or alternatives, given the circumstances and given the reality out there. Then we have their friends in the New Democratic Party, the guys with two heads. They have one head for Ottawa and one head for Saskatchewan. Here in Ottawa we have heard some of it already and we are going to hear more during the course of the day. There is no expenditure which would be too great for the Saskatchewan grain farmers. They need help and the government had better go out, borrow a bunch of money and give it to them.
Meanwhile, back in Saskatchewan, guess what? They have a New Democratic government in Saskatchewan that has completely and utterly turned its back on the number one industry in Saskatchewan, agriculture.
This motion today has to be without a doubt the single most hypocritical motion that has ever been presented on the floor of the House of Commons. An NDP government in Saskatchewan which tore up the national GRIP program, unilaterally and arbitrarily tore up a program, did it retroactively, breached contracts which thousands of farmers had signed in good faith and then passed legislation retroactively saying that they were not responsible for the breach of contracts. They then had the audacity to say that it is somehow the fault of Ottawa that the safety net program is not working. Lo and behold, on top of that they have the unmitigated gall, the audacity, to come into this House today and try to point a finger at a federal government which has provided-unprecedented albeit; maybe it is not enough but it is unprecedented-support for that sector at the same time
February 9, 1993

as their brethren, their friends in Saskatchewan are saying: "Sorry, we do not have any money for you".
Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. I do not think it is good enough for New Democrats to whine here in Ottawa about the federal government's role while at the same time they have offered nothing, absolutely nothing, for agriculture within the province of Saskatchewan.
I view it as being two-faced and hypocritical. I am not going to say more about that. At the end of the day producers are frustrated. What they are seeing in their minds is a tennis match going back and forth. The ball is bouncing between levels of government.
At the rally in Saskatoon many farmers called for a mediation process to try to get federal and provincial governments together to try to fix the GRIP safety net problem in Saskatchewan. I do not blame them for feeling that way. The federal government and the federal minister are ready, willing and able to sit down with the provincial counterpart to try to fix the problem which was caused and created by the New Democratic Party in the first place.
In the brief time I have left I did want to touch on a number of suggestions that I have, given the circumstances, given the reality that there is no market and that the return at the moment is coming from the taxpayer. One questions whether it can come forever from the taxpayer. Obviously, more efficiencies are needed. There has been a lot of discussion about that and work being done on it.
Western Diversification: A $1.2 billion fund established by the federal government to do exactly what its name implies, to try to diversify a western Canadian economy which is all too dependent on grain.
Lower interest rates: the policies of our government trying to contain government spending, trying to contain the kind of philosophy and attitude that was left here from 20 years of Liberal government, we are succeeding here. That is why we have stable inflation and lower interest rates, the greatest gift I think that we can give not just to agriculture but to small business as well.
In addition, we are negotiating internationally, negotiating at the GATT and bilaterally with other countries,
Supply
at the same time trying to secure a lessening of these harmful subsidies which have caused the problem.
Finally, we need co-operation federally and provincially to try to make the farm safety net programs work. In that regard, I urge my colleagues in the NDP here to stop complaining about Ottawa, go back to Regina and ask your provincial counterparts in good faith to sit down and see if we cannot make things work for Canadian producers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the hon. gentleman's speech. I think he chose wisely to concentrate on the changes that have occurred and the difficulties of adapting to change.
Toward the end of his speech he also talked about hypocrisy, claiming that the NDP members were speaking one set of truths in Ottawa and another set in Saskatchewan. I think for the record he ought to know if he continues with his clear eyed analysis that he attempted at the beginning of his speech, the reason there is the problem in Saskatchewan as a result of the shortfall in the income in 1992 has nothing to do with the change in policy precipitated by the provincial government bill last April.
That shortfall in income is a direct result of the problems with the program that was initiated between the federal and the then Conservative government of Saskatchewan for the 1991 GRIP program which paid out its payments in 1992.
We have not begun to reap any of the shortage or benefits from the NDP induced program that was begun last spring, so he should get that clear when he is describing the problem. The problem that farmers have is because the original GRIP was not adequate.
As a second point he talked about the problems of inducing change and how farmers are going to have to change because the Russians do not have credit to buy wheat anymore and the U.S. has been systematically interfering in international prices to depress the price by as much as $80 per tonne.
He should be aware that the program that was introduced last spring in Saskatchewan would in fact let market forces occur and would in fact encourage diversification to other crops. It has forced a big chunk of Saskatchewan's farmers to look for other markets in the Third World and Europe for products like lentils, pul-

Supply
ses-peas and beans for most of us-and the the various oilseed crops that we have been diversifying into for a long time. The payments by crop district instead of on an individual basis will in fact encourage that.
I think he should perhaps give credit for applying his own ideas to that provincial government for the changes that were proposed in the spring of 1992 which will be felt in the income of 1993. For some people it will not be a good feeling.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be confused but I thought the hon. member had already made a speech during this debate. I am wondering how it is he is allowed to make a second one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I hope that the hon. member will end his remarks and ask a question of the previous speaker.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to the hon. member who has been here for some time that this is a period for comments and questions and that is what I am doing.
There have been two questions. The third comment is that while agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, the federal responsibility for trade, which is what got us into the financial problem that we are in, is all in the federal government's court. The shortfall because of the trade wars that have befallen Canada's farmers should be borne by the federal government. As a lawyer, he should know that the provincial government is only responsible under the Constitution for the production side only.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond in the limited time available. I heard what the hon. member had to say about the GRIP. I was in Shaunavon, Regina, North Battleford and Saskatoon at the rallies and I know what I heard. I have listened to farmers in my area and I know exactly what they think of those unilateral and arbitrary changes that were made to the GRIP by the hon. member's socialist friends in Saskatchewan who have abandoned the grain sector.
The most vital sector of the Saskatchewan economy was abandoned completely by the hon. member's party. They have the gross hypocrisy to come in here and complain about the federal government's role.
It was interesting that GRIP, a national program with national standards, is working in Alberta and Manitoba. At the rally in Saskatoon, the usual National Farmers Union people were crowded around the microphones at ten o'clock in the morning much, I might add, to the chagrin of the wheat pool organizers. People from a couple of plants in Alberta came in to complain about GRIP in Alberta. But the fact is that GRIP is working reasonably well in the other provinces of this country. The reason it is not working in Saskatchewan is because the NDP government, cohorts of these people who brought this motion today, refuse to give it a chance to work.
In the few moments I have left I want to make some constructive suggestions to the provincial government of Saskatchewan. My hon. friend mentioned trade. I think it is high time that the NDP stop whining about the CUSTA, NAFTA and GATT. I think it is time they recognized the fact that Saskatchewan above all is a trading province and that we have negotiated very important access to the United States market, as well as a dispute settlement mechanism which has been tested and found to work time and time again. It worked for pork and now for wheat. "Canada wins wheat dispute with the United States", today's paper states.
That agreement has given important access to other Saskatchewan producers in livestock and beef and pork. These people who are criticizing trade agreements should go to Saskatchewan and explain that to the cattlemen and the pork producers.
I would like to make three brief points. I think it is important that there be co-operation between the federal and provincial agriculture ministers on the GRIP. Second, the province could harmonize the PST and the GST and lift the burden of sales tax from the inputs of Saskatchewan farm producers. I urge that they do that.
Finally, maybe they have to stand up to the big public sector unions in Saskatchewan which really are their political bosses. We in Ottawa did stand up to PSAC and the other public sector unions. We froze wages because it
February 9, 1993

had to be done. I challenge them to do the same in Saskatchewan. I do not think they have the gumption to do it. It is a matter of priorities.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member who, as he said, was in Saskatoon at the rally. The biggest response at the rally in Saskatoon, the biggest ovation, was when one speaker got up and said: "Leave the wheat board alone".
I would like to ask this member if he thinks that barley should remain under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Second, does he agree with the New Democratic Party that before any changes are made to the Canadian Wheat Board it should be put to a vote so that all the producers can have a say in what they want to happen to their own wheat board? Does the member agree with that position? Does he think that barley should remain under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board as the farmers in Saskatoon said it should?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in brief, first of all I find it impossible to agree with the New Democratic Party. I want to make that perfectly clear. I disagree violently with the method of operation and with the hypocrisy of coming in with a motion like this today when they have abjectly failed producers in the province of Saskatchewan.
Second, with regard to barley the hon. member knows that there is a study being undertaken at the present time. I am perfectly willing to wait for the results of that to see what it says. I know as well that a number of producers in my area are concerned about what they see as the dumping of some of our product into Montana, into the northern part of the United States, which is of concern to them. They are frustrated and upset with the wheat board over this and with a major farm organization.
I do not have time to go into it at this point, but I can say that there are quite legitimate concerns out there among many producers about the monopolistic situation. That is not to say that it will be changed, but I cannot believe that it is not possible in a democracy like Canada to at least discuss intelligently some options.
Supply
If there are some problems with these organizations and with these institutions, let us be up front about it and talk about some of these problems to see if we can solve them in a co-operative manner.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to share part of my time with the hon. member for Gatineau.
The motion before this House condemns the government for reneging on its commitment to Canadian farmers by changing policy. This motion identifies the areas of uncertainty that prevail in Canadian agriculture and the continuing erosion of net farm income.
Let me put this into perspective. Three years ago the Minister of Agriculture started talking about farm family income and used figures that painted a very rosy picture. I pointed out these misleading figures last Thursday night at a farm rally in Lucknow, Ontario, where the community centre was jammed full. Incidentally this meeting was organized by a group of farmers calling themselves "Line in the Dirt". They drew a line in the dirt and said: "Enough is enough". That was back in 1991 and things have not changed.
In 1991 the so-called average Canadian farm family income was $39,638, but that is very misleading because more than half of it came from income earned from other sources than the farming operation. For example, if the spouse was teaching school, nursing, working in an office in town or working in a factory, that was called farm family income. The non-related income was added to farm income.
This left a balance of $17,115 of income from the farming operation itself. Of that amount, $9,927 was a government subsidy, both federal and provincial. When we deduct these subsidies from the net farm income of $17,115 that leaves a balance of $7,188 of income from the actual sale of farm products. Slightly more than 20 per cent of the so-called farm family income came from the sale of farm products. I submit that is a national disgrace.
Food production and processing have to be made matters of national security. Canadian consumers pay the second lowest amount for their food in terms of disposable income of any country in the world for the highest quality food in the world. The ironic part of this is that others in the food chain, particularly the food distribution sector, are doing very well. I refer to The Globe and Mail Report on Business showing the average five-year rate of return on capital invested in the food

February 9, 1993
Supply
distribution industry to be 17.2 per cent from 1986 to 1990. For the same period Canadian banks had a 13.3 per cent return and Canadian agriculture had a return of 6.2 per cent. This was not even enough to cover the interest on their loans.
Poultry and dairy producers were included in that 6.2 per cent figure, and they had a return of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent and have been criticized for doing so.
A few years ago this government took away the two-price wheat system that served this nation very well since the early 1970s. This program served Canadians very well for many years. In terms of higher world prices, the domestic price provided protection for our consumers, and the producers of Canada received lower prices for the products used domestically. However in times of low world prices it provided a higher price to producers for the product used domestically.
Our studies show that this policy was discontinued. At that time the net producer prices for wheat tumbled in Canada. The price of consumer products manufactured from wheat did not drop but rather continued to escalate. From 1982 to 1992 the value of wheat declined by 31 per cent and the price of a box of soda crackers increased to 25 times the farm gate price of wheat.
Last year an eight-ounce box of Breton Wheat crackers, made in Canada, sold for 99 cents U.S. in South Carolina and sold in Canada within a range from $2.69 to $2.89, the average being $2.79. There were 3 cents worth of wheat in that box. Ten days ago I bought an eight-ounce box of these crackers in Chilliwack, B.C., again containing 3 cents worth of wheat, for $3.15. That is an increase of 36 cents a box since last summer. If Canadian farmers were to receive 6 cents out of that 36-cent increase, they would be satisfied, could survive and make an acceptable living.
I am not sure I am supposed to show this in the House, but I want to draw your attention to it, Mr. Speaker. It is a national disgrace that people make returns like that and farmers have to depend on government handouts to
make a living that is not commensurate with that of the rest of society.
I was speaking last August to a person in the food distribution business. I asked him for an explanation of the increases at a time when farm prices were deteriorating. He admitted that in some sectors the prices and the profits were exorbitant. This situation is absurd. Canadian farmers need subsidies to hang on and have to find off-farm work to put food on their own tables, and others in the processing and distribution sector are making exorbitant profits.
A recent consultant's study pointed out that five major food distributors in Canada control 80 per cent of food sales. That was in 1992, and it was up from 69 per cent in 1987. On the surface it appeared to be adequate competition, but if we examine where these distributors operate within Canada, some regions of Canada have very little competition, particularly western Canada and Atlantic Canada.
I have a report of one of those firms. We find that in 1990 the firm sent $538.7 million in dividends back to the parent company in the U.S. and borrowed the money to do it. It sent over half a billion dollars in dividends back to the parent company in the United States at the same time governments were giving money to primary producers in order for them to survive. Also at the same time these farmers and their spouses had to find off-farm work to provide living expenses for themselves and to put food on their own tables.
This situation is intolerable and cannot continue. It is becoming obvious that a very few and very powerful transnational companies are slowly taking control of food supply in the western world. Five of these companies virtually control the world's grain trade.
There was a report prepared by the Library of Parliament for the agriculture committee of this House in May 1991. It was pointed out in this study into the U.S. commodity exchange fiasco in relation to soybeans in the fall of 1989 that two of these companies decided what the price of soybeans would be. The prices dropped by nearly $2 a bushel in the summer of 1989 and never recovered.
As these huge corporations take control of the marketplace there has to be a countervailing force in that marketplace or the price discovery mechanisms simply
February 9, 1993

will not work. I respectfully suggest there is no counterbalance in the world markets at the present time. Consequently the price discovery mechanism is not working.
On December 2 a news item in the Ontario Farmer pointed out that a few multinationals were jockeying for position, for dominance and control of the food industry. It went on to say that the food system in the United States resembled an hourglass with many producers and millions of consumers at either end. This was a statement by William Heffernan, head of the sociology department, Missouri State University.
I also wish to put on record that very few companies are taking more and more control of the U.S. production and food processing industry. Professor Heffernan identified the amount of control they have over production processing. For example, four firms control 69 per cent of beef processing and two of these are the same firms.
One company controls 25 per cent of chicken production and processing. It has recently bought a huge pork processing plant in Minnesota. It processes 12,000 hogs per day, 84,000 a week, more than is processed in Ontario on a weekly basis.
Of eight major commodities produced in the United States, among the top four firms one firm is listed in all eight. That is the type of competition that we are subjected to. Competition is going to wipe us out unless we as a government step in. I heard the same firm is gearing up to have two million brood sows in another midwestern state to produce its own hogs.
Yesterday I received a letter from Gerald van Koever-den from Thamesville, Ontario, who spent several years with CUSO in Thailand:
While there I worked hard to develop and implement a few strategies to enable farmers to compete and survive. This is difficult in a country where agriculture policy is completely dominated by large multinationals.
These farmers are not allowed to organize into large farm organizations and they have virtually no say at all in the process.
I submit this is starting to happen in Canada. Those few huge companies have now made Thailand the world's sixth largest exporter of poultry meat. There is extremely cheap labour in Thailand, few environmental regulations, very little supplementary heat is required
Supply
for brooding, and we suspect the export enhancement subsidized grain is used to feed the birds.
This nation needs to make food production processing a matter of national security and Canadian farmers need a fair share of the consumer food dollar. They need a return on investment, management and risk, and an income commensurate with the rest of society.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comparisons of the hon. member in the eight-ounce package of Breton biscuits. He alluded to a possible solution. He was going at it a little backward when time ran out, but he was talking about how large corporations were taking advantage of the huge differential between the farm price and the process price. I note it is very difficult for farmers to get into the next level of production so that they can capture the advantages of the processed product themselves.
I wonder if the member has any solutions as to how that might be done. In the past decade we have seen the value of farm assets drop dramatically in western Canada, and pretty precipitously in eastern Canada and central Canada. In my part of the country land prices dropped from $900 per acre down to $300 and lower, which takes a huge pool of reserve investment away from the farm community.
I note that people like dairy producers and pork producers in western Canada have made attempts to control processing. For instance, Alberta Pork Producers process most of the pork in that province through plants owned by the producers. Alberta Dairy Producers attempted to forward integrate as well by combining both the north and south Alberta dairy pools.
In both instances of pork and dairy products the provincial government kept stepping in the way and trying to stop farmers from getting into the processing business. It did not succeed with pork but it did stop the integration of the two dairy pools. The government insisted that the one in financial difficulty be sold to Beatrice Foods in the interest of avoiding a monopoly, Beatrice Foods being probably the biggest dairy in Canada and if there is anything approaching monopoly it is Beatrice Foods.
Would he tell us how he thinks farmers could avoid this interference? What does he see as possibilities for forward integration so that farmers could take advantage of these high prices for processed product?

February 9, 1993


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I want to hold up one example of further diversification by the prairie pools: Alberta pool, Sask pool and Manitoba pool. I also want to point out what has been happening in terms of concentration in the processing industry. I have to relate to one big firm we are referring to getting a foothold in the U.S. meat packing and other sectors of the agricultural industry. It is already in Canada. It has virtually taken over the beef industry with a huge plant in Alberta and now one in Ontario.
To see these things taking place we realize there has to be a solution. What puzzles me is the fact that quality standards in other countries do not measure up to ours. If we are to have foods imported we must make sure their quality standards measure up to ours, or else under article III of the GATT we can keep them out.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the comment about standards. I am horrified when I read what is coming through and on to our dining room tables.
Just to quote briefly, these are the kinds of chickens that are coming through. "Every week throughout the south", the southern states, "millions of chickens leaking yellow pus, stained by green faeces, contaminated by harmful bacteria or marred by lung and heart infections, cancerous tumours or skin conditions, are shipped for sale to consumers".
Another article states that according to the U.S. agriculture department, 40 per cent of all American raw poultry is contaminated. They have all sorts of gadgets where they bombard them with radioactive gamma rays to kill it.
Perhaps the member could share with the House whether our slaughtering techniques and food processing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member has 30 seconds.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, indeed our standards are among the highest in the world. We would never tolerate such standards as those in Canada. In the first week of
January children became sick in Washington State from eating tainted hamburger, and some children in the Chilliwack and Abbotsford area of B.C. as well.
It is despicable those standards have been allowed to slip under deregulation of the food inspection industry in the United States. The Americans call it the SIS, the streamline inspection system. We could never allow that to happen in Canada.
My hon. friend from Parkdale-High Park is absolutely right. If they do not measure up to our standards, we must keep them out of Canada and produce our own.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m..


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking foward to attending the opening of the new Zoe Blais home this Friday, February 12, and I would like to draw your attention to the exceptional work being done by one of the community groups in my riding.
The Zoe Blais home offers moral, spiritual, material and academic support, free of charge, to 42 families in the riding of Quebec-Est. With this kind of assistance, these families will have a chance to improve their quality of life and that of their children.
I admire the initiative shown by people who value the concept of brotherhood and friendship and show this in their daily lives.
This is the kind of mutual assistance our society needs.
February 9, 1993


BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the black communities across Canada are celebrating Black History Month to develop pride in their heritage and awareness in Canadians of their long history and many contributions to Canada.
Contributions of political leaders including Rosemary Brown, Emery Barnes, Lincoln Alexander, Howard McCurdy and Zanana Akande are part of this history.
In response to the Liberal leader's chief of staff who recently said that Quebec is not ready to have a black Liberal candidate, Howard McCurdy said: "In refusing to support an equality clause in the Charlottetown accord, in the exercise of veto power over candidates and in the absence of a firm policy on minority candidates, Liberals communicate a mixed message compared to the policy of inclusion of the NDP".
An NDP affirmative action policy has resulted in an historic nomination of visible minority candidates by riding associations.


HIBERNIA
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian shipyards fear that Hibernia contracts to build tankers and supply vessels will be awarded to foreign competitors.
Where would be the logic? Why look to others when the work can be done right here in our own backyard? Shipyards across Canada can do the job, including the yard in Marystown which has the capability to construct the supply vessels.
In 1984 the government talked a lot about the need for a prosperous shipbuilding industry and about Canadiani-zation. Since then, thousands upon thousands of skilled shipyard workers have had their jobs wiped out. An entire industry is being threatened while the government is sitting on its hands.
I ask the government today to recognize this golden opportunity and to use the Hibernia project to help revitalize the shipbuilding industry and to provide work opportunities for its workers.


LIBERAL PARTY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I was appalled to read more today in The Toronto Star about the Liberal Party's candidate selection process. Apparently a Quebecer was advised not to run for a nomination because he is black.
The way the Liberal Party selects its candidates in certain ridings is distressing to many people who believe in democracy. If one of the criteria to be a candidate is race, this is even more disturbing. It is absolutely essential that everyone in this Chamber uphold the fundamental Canadian values of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not only morally wrong, it is illegal to discriminate based on race. Discrimination hurts not only individuals but all Canadians. It has no place in the candidate selection process of a political party.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, it is now almost five years since the multiculturalism act was implemented, and the government still does not know the difference between employment equity and multiculturalism.
The act should be strengthened to ensure that public service decision makers consider the diversity of Canadian society when developing policies and programs that affect all the citizens of this country.

The tabling of the annual report on the implementation of the multiculturalism act is a somewhat anti-climactic event. I believe that a non-partisan officer should review the implementation of the act.
The tendency today has been to highlight the successes instead of some of the failures of the policy. Having the

February 9, 1993
5. ft 31
Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship review the implementation of its own act is like having the fox take care of the chickens. This situation must change.


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked this morning when I heard that the executive assistant to the Leader of the Official Opposition had said it was not the right time for a black candidate to run in the Quebec City area.
Speaking on behalf of all Quebecers, I deplore an attitude that is undemocratic, to say the least, and is a sad reminder of a recent distinction made by Mr. Parizeau between old-stock Quebecers and the others.
Unless Mr. Pelletier withdraws those unfortunate remarks, I urge the Leader of the Official Opposition to dissociate himself from those remarks, in no uncertain terms, in this House where we represent all Canadian citizens.


POVERTY
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the National Anti-Poverty Organization has brought forward a study entitled Illiteracy and Poverty which shows a strong linkage between illiteracy and poverty. I want to refer to this report.

Unfortunately despite government lip service to the literacy cause the opposite is happening with economic policies such as the cap on Canada Assistance Plan payments, an additional freeze on health and education transfer payments, cuts to social housing programs and legal aid and the GST.

What is this government going to do to make sure that it attacks the cause of poverty? When you attack illiteracy, you attack poverty.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the federal Minister of Finance dated January 15, 1993, the president of the Quebec Bar Association, Paul P. Carriere, made the following comments on Bill C-105, which would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act:
"The changes made in November 1990 to sections 28 and 30 of the act increased the penalties for workers who quit voluntarily without justification or are dismissed for misconduct. Completely excluding from benefits all those who quit voluntarily for a reason that the law does not consider justified or are dismissed for misconduct would be unrealistic in view of the conflicts that arise in labour relations. The measures proposed in Bill C-105 would totally exclude from unemployment insurance benefits thousands of genuine unemployed people, without considering the particular circumstances surrounding their voluntary departure or dismissal for misconduct".


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: We
recently learned that 81 per cent of university and college women have experienced physical, sexual or psychological abuse within the last year.
Seventy-six per cent of the young men surveyed acknowledged acting abusively to a date. Twenty-nine per cent were sexually abused and 22 per cent were physically abused. There is clearly a need for education so that all people are viewed as full human beings with the right to say no and the right to be treated with respect.
The Secretary of State Women's Program funds many organizations and projects aimed at educating about violence and the rights of women. This program has taken another 10 per cent cut this year and there will be a further 10 per cent cut next year.
February 9, 1993

Anti-racist and aboriginal programs are also being cut during times of growing racial intolerance and in spite of the horrific situation many aboriginal peoples continue to face.
Violence and intolerance grow during bad economic times. Now is not the time-it never is-to cut back on these worth-while projects aimed at strengthening our society.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon -Souris):: Mr. Speaker, within days the main contingent of the 1st Regiment, RCHA will return from its six month tour of duty in Cyprus where both the regular force and militia have served with distinction.
Those who have been a part of this 28-year old peacekeeping operation have every right to be proud, as indeed we are, of their contribution even though the time spent in the observation posts may on occasion have seemed tedious.
Although Canada's role in Cyprus will soon be changing as our troops are needed elsewhere for other UN peacemaking and peacekeeping operations, Canada will likely continue to be a part of an observer force in Cyprus should such be created.
In the meantime, the decision of Canada and some other countries to wind up their activities in Cyprus will hopefully serve to act as a catalyst to the peace talks scheduled for March of this year.
The people of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish alike, must now find a lasting solution to the division which for too long has tragically divided this island nation.


MUNICIPAL TAXES
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian municipalities are once again being asked to foot the bill of the government's economic mismanagement. The government is proposing to cut grants in lieu of taxes, resulting in more than $80 million in lost tax revenues for Canadian municipalities.
The government is also proposing to change the formula by which grants in lieu of taxes are calculated, resulting in a loss of several more million dollars for Canadian municipalities.
Mayors from across Canada will be meeting with the Minister of Public Works this evening to voice their concerns over the government's latest attempt to shift the burden of Conservative economic mismanagement on the backs of Canadian municipalities.
Let us hope that the Minister of Public Works will see the error of his government's ways and reverse this unfair and regressive decision. The federal government has a legal and moral obligation to pay its fair share of municipal taxes like the rest of us.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario communities along the Canada-U.S. border welcome Statistics Canada's figures indicating a 15 per cent decrease in same day trips to the United States in November as compared to the same month the year before.
This is good news but to my mind it is no time to back off in our efforts to address this problem. Cross-border shopping is by no means dead.
At Ontario border points there were still 2.2 million automobiles returning on same day trips checked through Canada Customs in November 1992.
All stakeholders must continue to move ahead. For one thing our government must continue to consider the elimination of third party tariffs. Those already removed were well received by the retailers in Sarnia-Lambton and helped lead to lower prices.
A list of further products for tariff removal has been submitted to the Department of Finance. I urge their serious and prompt consideration. I remain convinced that it is initiatives like these that can help our retailers compete on the cross-border front.


MUNICIPAL TAXES
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is considering a tax revolt against the villages, towns and cities of this country.

February 9, 1993
In 1992 the federal government paid $420 million in grants in lieu of payments to Canadian municipalities. These payments replaced tax payments for services provided to federal buildings and properties.
It appears the government is attempting to shift its fiscal responsibility to municipal councils and the residential taxpayers will be forced to offset the loss in revenue, estimated to be $80 million over the next two years. There should not be any arbitrary exemptions.
School boards, homeowners and businesses do not get to make their own property assessment. Why should the federal government? The government is considering intrusion into the setting of municipal property tax rates and abandoning a longstanding agreement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
I urge the minister to reconsider any options that would decrease federal fiscal responsibilities to municipalities.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important concerns facing our nation today is the issue of public security. Canadians from sea to sea are insisting that improvements be made to our criminal justice system. People perceive the justice system as favouring law-breakers instead of supporting victims of crime.
Constituents in the riding of Elk Island question a system that pampers convicts at the expense of victims. Two areas that must be examined are the Young Offenders Act and our parole laws.
The Government of Canada has made some important changes in this regard but more work has to be done. The Canadian Parliament must continue to focus on the issue of public security. Our challenge as a nation is to establish a model of justice that has the support and confidence of all citizens. Let us work together to achieve this important and worth-while goal. Let us all work together for a better Canada.


BILL C-lll
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-lll banning the sale of cigarettes to anyone under 18, the government is again showing that it is out of touch and only seeming to govern.
Faced with the big smuggling problem, the government has chosen to attack small convenience store operators and young people instead of the smugglers. Instead of putting its energy into fighting cigarette smuggling, the government's latest effort would impose fines of up to $50,000 on small store owners who dare sell cigarettes to people under 18.
That makes no sense. Who will pay those fines, if not the people, knowing very well that small shopkeepers cannot afford it? It is the same with Bill C-105. The government is attacking the unemployed instead of tax cheaters.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are concerned that repeat young offenders are flaunting the weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act. Edmonton Sun columnist Linda Slobodian is leading a campaign to get tough on repeat young offenders.
Staff Sergeant Peter Zaharko who heads the Edmonton city police youth unit commented in a recent article by Mrs. Slobodian as follows:
The Young Offenders Act as it stands right now is really a good piece of legislation when it refers to first-time offenders, or really even second-time offenders.
He also notes that it is seriously weak when it comes to repeat offenders. In a survey I did on the Young Offenders Act in my constituency, many of my constituents echoed this view.
I urge the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada to listen to these views. It is time to get tough with repeat young offenders.
February 9, 1993



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Employment and Immigration both said that the 50,000 people who took part in the demonstration in Montreal in -25C weather were separatists. Everyone who opposed Bill C-105 on unemployment insurance reform, even Conservative or New Democratic members, as well as Liberal members and senators, and who participated in the march on Sunday afternoon were called separatists by these two ministers. Does the Prime Minister agree with this rather surprising statement from two of his senior ministers?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the transcript of the comments in question. I think that the minister said, and it is common knowledge, that Gerald Larose is not a great supporter of my friend or our party or the New Democrats and that his political options are well known. I think that is what was mentioned.
As for the substantive issue, the hon. member simply said that his recommendations were very much like those put forward by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister of Finance in 1978. The Leader of the Opposition who was then Minister of Finance found it quite acceptable, and rightly so, because the purpose was to control spending. Is that acceptable? Is it morally acceptable for a government to stop paying unemployment insurance benefits to someone who quits a job without any valid reason or justification? That is the issue. In these circumstances, we come to the conclusion that Canadian taxpayers do not have to pay unemployment benefits to someone who quits a job without just cause. Now, if my friend has a different opinion, he should tell us.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Prime Minister if he agrees that the tactic of the minister in calling
Oral Questions
everybody who is opposing this bill a separatist is unacceptable to the Canadian people. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in every part of Canada who think that some provisions of this bill are completely unacceptable.
Will the Prime Minister agree with me that the only separation I support would be the separation of this minister from his ministry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is suggesting that the minister be separated from the Crown because he has tightened up on the unemployment insurance requirements.
What would he say then about himself? In 1978, when he was Minister of Finance, he reduced the weekly benefits from 66 2/3 to 60 per cent of weekly insurable earnings.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I share the sense of shock of the NDP. What we are dealing with here is that members of the NDP may be opposed to us on the GST. They may be opposed to us on free trade. They may be opposed to us on deficit reduction, but at least they have the courage to have a position, as opposed to the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party who has two positions on every issue.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will quote someone who is neither a separatist nor a socialist. Yesterday, Ghislain Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat, suggested that the government refer the problem to a committee of the House of Commons and allow public hearings, because the Prime Minister and the minister are trying to give the impression that people who quit their jobs voluntarily are not penalized. That is absolutely false. They have a penalty of 7 to 12 weeks. Why does the government not act on this suggestion from the president of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition referred to a demonstration in Montreal, perhaps I could refer him to an editorial that appeared in The Montreal Gazette this morning, which says:

February 9, 1993
Oral Questions

"What is frustrating and infuriating, however, is that so many of the angry people badly misunderstand the proposed changes. The misunderstanding has been shamefully fomented, it must be said, by some politicians and union leaders for their own agendas. A staggering number of people think the changes will penalize anyone who quits a job even for an overwhelmingly good reason. In fact, no one who has a good reason for quitting a job will be affected. The new rules are aimed only at people who quit their jobs without cause".
The Montreal Gazette is quite right. It is the kind of action that was taken by my hon. friend when he was Minister of Finance in 1978, which he then supported vigorously in the interests of trying to reduce the deficit and which today, simply because he is trying to be a typical Liberal opportunist, he is now denouncing.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A month ago the minister blamed the unemployment rate in Canada on the unemployed. He claimed they were going to Florida and spending their unemployment insurance benefits there. Now he blames the separatists for the negative reaction to this policy of punishing Canada's unemployed. Why does the minister not admit that the real problem is the minister and his punitive policies, not the unemployed or the separatists?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about penalizing the unemployed and said that I blamed the unemployed. This is not about blaming the unemployed but about protecting Canadian workers and employers. I was told this morning that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has just submitted to the Liberal Party the results of a survey of its members across Canada. These results show that 81 per cent of small businesses, the businesses that create jobs and prevent unemployment, support the measures announced in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in December.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister asked us to provide examples in the House where people who voluntarily quit their job would not be protected.
I would like to give him an example of a woman in metro Toronto, employed by a major corporation, who was sexually harassed by her boss. She had proof. She went to human resources. It went right to the president's office and at the president's door, instead of protecting this woman's right to work without sexual harassment, she was shown the door.
I would like to ask the minister how his law can protect this woman and whether he reasonably expects that when someone leaves a job the employer is going to write: reason for leaving, sexual harassment.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that president did not work for the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
If this lady was met with such rudeness by an employer, she would go down to a CEC office where a sensitized employment agent would deal with the person and ensure that she got her benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Contrary to what these people are trying to spread, fear among women in Canada, they are fully protected under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers paid to send the minister of trade to Washington to tell the Americans to back off from the trade harassment against our steelworkers, our woodworkers, our pork producers and our brewery workers.
In today's media the minister is quoted as saying: "Really the Americans are free traders. Really they are not protectionist. I am coming away feeling very positive. They have positive things to say about our relationship".
While the minister is talking in these loving Valentinelike phrases, in today's Wall Street Journal there is a full page saying that in 1993 the border between Canada and the United States-
February 9, 1993


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the rule about using props or other things to illustrate his remarks. Would the hon. member put his question, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that I cannot hold up the full page of the Wall Street Journal that says that the border between Canada and the United States is to be no barrier to trade, about to be erased.
My question for the minister of trade is simply this: when is the minister going to stop being an apologist for the American interests and start standing up for Canadians, particularly Canadian workers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should indeed table that ad. I looked at the Wall Street Journal this morning and my recollection is that it is an ad from a telecommunications company that says that in future, because of advanced technology and telecommunications, there will not be any borders between Canada and the United States.


An hon. member:: Or between Canada and Europe.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Or between Canada and Europe.
I know my hon. friend and I sometimes read the Wall Street Journal together in the morning. Indeed, if that is the ad, then I think my hon. friend has inadvertently misrepresented that ad and misled this House. I know he would want to apologize to the Speaker and to the Minister for International Trade who represented Canada very effectively yesterday in Washington.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We have long since had a practice where it is not appropriate to raise a point of order or a question of privilege during Question Period. This can be done later.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister knows the rules well enough to follow your ruling and raise this matter if he feels he has one at the end of Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: I will try to do the best I can without coaching.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade with regard to his trip to Washington
Oral Questions
the other day to discuss trade issues with the U.S. administration.
Part of one of the countervail actions against Canada by the United States is in softwood lumber exports wherein the Americans are making the spurious allegation that our raw log exports constitute a subsidy in Canada.
Did the minister raise this specific issue with trade officials in Washington? Did he get assurances from officials in the new administration that our raw log export regulations stand and are not subject to challenge by the United States?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, let me first correct something that the member for Kamloops just said.
I made very clear in my comments after the meeting that I had with Mr. Brown and Mr. Kantor, I said it is still early days to draw conclusions. I am not drawing any conclusions. I did not go there to pick fights. I also said that it is still too early to draw conclusions. For my hon. friend to immediately draw the conclusion that because I did not bloody someone's nose down there I was falling into the lap of the new administration is totally wrong and he should know that.
As far as the question posed on the softwood lumber issue, yes I raised that with both Mr. Brown and Mr. Kantor. We had a very good discussion. I set out very clearly the concerns Canada has with the actions.
I also pointed out the fact that the price of lumber in the United States market, partly because of the problems we are having with trade between the United States and Canada has doubled and has increased the price of housing by a few thousand dollars and their actions are hurting their own economy.
I told them I thought it was very important that we achieve a long-term resolution of this issue for the interests of both Canada and the United States.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister an opportunity to suggest how successful he was in his visit to Washington.
Yesterday U.S. officials called the steel case a train coming down the track. Unfortunately we agree that the American steel workers are the conductors and Cana-

February 9, 1993
Oral Questions
dian steel is riding the caboose. It is going the way of VIA Rail and the caboose is near extinction.
Did the minister proffer a strong case on behalf of Canadian steel yesterday? Did he insist on a sectoral trade agreement? What assurances did he come away with, if any?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, indeed I did raise the question of steel. I said that this was of extreme importance to Canada because of the significance of the United States market to Canada and also the significance of the Canadian market to the United States producers. I said that the two markets were integrated.
I also raised the point of a U.S.-Canada steel accord, as I indicated to my friend in a previous Question Period that I would. He said that he would take this aboard and give me an early response specifically to the request that I made.
Since I know where the U.S. industry is on this particular issue I also raised the importance of getting started on this with a blue ribbon panel to lay the groundwork for whatever options might be possible, including a U.S.-Canada steel accord.


JUSTICE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, today the members of the coroner's juiy investigating the tragic death of 11-year old Christopher Stephenson did something unprecedented in the legal history of Canada. It issued a statement which singled out the Solicitor General for blunt criticism for his categorical refusal to consider compensating little Christopher's parents for their legal costs of the inquest. The jury specifically stated that it could not conceive of an inquest of this depth and nature without the perspective provided by the Stephensons' lawyer.
Will the Solicitor General now agree to consider a joint federal-provincial package to reimburse the Stephensons for their legal expenses?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. I am
sure that everyone in this House shares the tragedy the Stephenson family went through.
I have stated since the start of the inquest that I believe the costs of determining cause of death are quite properly a provincial expenditure and that the province of Ontario had carried the case forward in a very extensive manner.
I also suggested last week at committee that I was prepared to have the Canadian Bar Association or an independent body consider the issue as to whether legal costs of such a person should be paid by the municipality, the province or the federal government, to have the question of independent legal counsel, independent opinions brought forward, whether or not the lawyer's bill should be taxed and what is appropriate.
I do not claim to be the fount of all knowledge on this. I made my decision based on what I know about the process at this time. I am certainly willing to put it to an independent review.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, this is an independent jury and the Solicitor General has praised it for its work. It has flatly disagreed with both his assertion that the Stephensons did not need independent legal counsel and his decision to deny funding was sensitive, sound and just. Indeed, it found the Stephenson lawyer's involvement indispensable to its recommendations.
I ask the Solicitor General to do the right thing and act on the poignant recommendation: "That the federal government and the provincial government compensate Jim and Anna Stephenson for all legal costs incurred in this inquest".


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a colleague of the bar what my friend must also find interesting and I think there is a question here, is that when the inquest jury made 71 recommendations that particular one was not among the original recommendations. I am prepared to take it into account at this time since it has reconvened and asked the question.
This is a very serious matter and I wish my hon. friend would treat it as such. I am prepared to have all of these issues examined by an independent commission.
February 9, 1993


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Yesterday a study was released which showed that among young university women, 35 per cent had experienced physical assault and 46 per cent had experienced sexual assault since leaving high school.
We have had statistics like this before but they are becoming more alarming. The time has come to address the attitudes and behaviour which allows such assaults and abuse to continue. We support the studies, but the studies are not solving the problem.
What is the government doing to ensure that such abuse will not continue and to drastically reduce this terrible terror women have to endure?


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague and all colleagues welcomed that study which was funded through the family violence program of the Department of National Health and Welfare. For the first time it gives us the kind of in depth information about the experience of the lives of young women at universities.
My colleague, of course, knows the new laws dealing with sexual assault which were passed last year by this House send that very firm message to all Canadians that no means no. We have to ensure that young women use that tool and put forward the proper complaints and that the courts deal with them effectively.
As well, universities could establish, as some already have, protocols which deal with this kind of behaviour in an appropriate way and provide penalties to students who get involved in inappropriate behaviour.
A lot of this requires work at the very early ages by education within the family and again through a number of the initiatives of the family violence program. We have supported work going on in the schools by the Canadian Teachers' Federation and we look forward to doing a great deal more as a result of these efforts.
Oral Questions


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is fine to deal with the courts and relate experiences in the courts. However, only a small percentage of men who commit this abuse are actually charged. We know that abusive behaviour is learned. Therefore, it can be unlearned.
What is the government doing in conjunction with the provinces to ensure that children who are the victims of abuse realize that this abuse is not right and that they do not have to experience and live with it?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues agree that there is not one simple answer.
It is going to require a multifaceted approach in terms of education which begins at the family level, in the community and in the schools. Young girls and boys have to develop and understand that relations with each other, men and women, have to be on a more appropriate basis. Then it grows from there to the support given by the universities through the counselling services to support women in developing the strength to deal with these situations effectively when they encounter them and to lay and press charges.
All of those factors are moving ahead. The work of the Canadian panel on violence against women is also going to bring forward a national action plan in which we all work together to eliminate this kind of abuse against women.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
I have a draft UI document which I would be more than happy to table. It was sent out to the UI offices by the director of benefit entitlement and is full of proposed questions that must be asked of claimants and the reason for all these questions. I quote: "The condition to be met by the claimant in this context is particularly strict and appears to imply that only exceptional circumstances

February 9, 1993
Oral Questions
where the claimant had no reasonable alternative which might have allowed him or her to retain the employment can the immediate voluntary separation be justified". This is clearly a one-sided approach.
How can the minister continue to tell us that his department will give benefit of the doubt to the claimant?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the instructions given to employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration on the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act are being reviewed and new instructions are going to be given out.
Furthermore the training programs being devised for the insurance agents will take into account every possible situation. Ultimately the insurance agent makes the determination.
I remind the hon. member that over four million cases were handled in 1991 by the Department of Employment and Immigration. The vast majority of them were handled with equity and reasonableness and that is what we will continue striving to do.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I am very intrigued by the minister's answer. Clearly we have a case in point that the adjudicator is certainly going to be making the wrong decision.
This morning CBC Radio ran a piece about the dangers of working in the scallop fisheries and how UI would force workers to continue dangerous work. In this radio interview, Lloyd Allen, chief adjudicator for unemployment insurance claims, said that some employment is hazardous by nature and a person would be expected to continue in that employment.
In other words the chief UI claims adjudicator said that quitting a job because of risk of death would not be considered just cause. If that is not just cause, what is?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, how low will they stoop in trying to scare Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: To stand on the floor of this institution and tell Canadians that now because of a bill that has
nothing to do with just cause a person cannot quit a job when in danger of imminent death.
It takes only a socialist in a necktie to make a statement like that.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
On Sunday, 50,000 people marched in the streets of Montreal. The government sees it as a separatist plot. I was there, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you these people were not there to talk about independence. They were there for one reason: they want to contribute to the system and not be the eternal victims of that system.
My question is this: when will this government finally understand that the best way to reduce the cost of unemployment insurance is to create jobs, permanent jobs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised to see the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, who claims they are going to change the world, object to a measure whose ultimate goal is to break the cycle of dependency that our social security system has generated in this country.
Yes, it is a fiscal measure, but it will also make people more responsible. People who quit their job for a valid reason will be protected. I thought the hon. member would at least admit that and tell these people who were out on the streets that anyone who quits his job with just cause will have all the protection he needs and more, because these people will no longer be penalized as they were before. They will get their full benefits.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he was surprised to see me there. Well I was surprised that none of his colleagues who opposed the bill had the courage to be there on Sunday.
I ask my question of the Minister of Finance. The problem with unemployment insurance is that this government has no long-term plan to create jobs. Its only policy is to hope against hope that prosperity will spill over the border from the United States.
Just yesterday the Minister of Finance said that he could not proceed with his budget until President Clinton had proceeded with his.
February 9, 1993


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. This minister is supposed to be the Minister of Finance for Canada, not the governor of the 51st state.
My question is this. Trickle down meant the end of the road for the Republicans. When will the members-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must please put his question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, when will the members opposite realize that trickle north is going to be end for the Tories?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is absolutely wrong. He knows very well the December 2 economic statement outlined a number of initiatives: investments in people, investments in infrastructure, further investments in international trade, positive steps toward encouraging small business which generates 80 per cent of the new jobs in Canada.
That is reflected in Ottawa Business News, a small business publication which indicated it has become increasingly clear that small business has emerged as the big winner.
This is what Mr. Bulloch had to say about the UI measures. "The UI measures were very significant", Bulloch affirmed, "I've been in the office of Liberal ministers in the seventies and there was agreement that the major area of UI abuse was voluntary quitters. The Liberals didn't want to touch it because it was politically unpalatable".
Well, Mr. Speaker, we did it in the name of fairness.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Finance.
I want to ask the minister why is he telling the Canadian provinces to go ahead, prepare and present their budgets now and not wait until after he presents his next budget, when he is saying to Canadians that he has to wait until after President Clinton presents his state of the union message and his first budget to Congress?
Oral Questions
Why does he follow this policy which suggests, like my colleague said, he is acting like the governor of the 51st state instead of the Minister of Finance for Canada? Why will he not present a budget now that will help 1.5 million Canadians get back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what a bunch of nonsense. The provinces can bring in their budgets any time they like. The previous administration used to bring in its budget any time it wanted.
We try to bring in the budget in the spring. We brought down an economic statement in December to keep Canadians and the provinces up to date with respect to the fiscal and economic outlook.
Yes, we will be bringing in a budget. We are listening to some suggestions from across the way as to what might be done and what we might be able to incorporate. So far we have received absolutely nothing in the way of positive recommendations.
I assure the hon. member that I am getting a lot of suggestions from the Canadian people. We will build on the budget of February 1992 and we will build on the economic statement of December 1992.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He is quoted as saying, after he met with the U.S. secretary of the treasury Bentsen, that they are talking about "providing some stimulus to create renewed economic activity and jobs" and the Minister of Finance then said that it will certainly help Canada.
If the minister thinks that approach is right for the United States, why will he not follow that approach of economic growth for this country? Why does he not present a budget now that will help this country move forward, not backward like his previous budgets?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, welcome to the wonderful world of reality. The United States is our biggest trading partner. As its economy goes, so goes ours. That is a fact of life.
I can tell the hon. member, in case he might be interested, that there was a great deal of interest in the economic statement that I brought down in December. As a matter of fact, I ran out of copies because they were very interested.

February 9, 1993
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was a best seller.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They were very interested in the balanced approach.
There was the need to contain the deficit and the need to inject some stimulus into the economy. We did both in the December statement.
I remind the hon. member it contained $2 billion worth of expenditure on infrastructure, on training, on the small business sector. Second, it contained $1.8 billion in reduced taxation, something that the Liberals would not recognize.


SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As you know, violence is seen and experienced eveiy day on television, in the streets, in schools and even within our own homes. Recently, one of my constituents was sexually assaulted by an inmate who was out on a day pass. The victim asked for a court order that would oblige her attacker to provide a blood sample, in order to determine whether he was HIV positive or had any other sexually transmitted disease. The judge rejected the application on the grounds that he could not legally accept this kind of application. The judge also indicated that it was up to the legislature to fill this legal vacuum.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he and the Solicitor General would be willing to make certain changes in the existing legislation in order to give more rights to victims of sexual assault.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has raised a rather disturbing point. I think we all understand the concerns of a woman who has been a victim of sexual assault and who has to live with the fear that she may have been infected with a fatal disease. I believe the situation referred to by the hon. member is a very serious one.
However, we must also realize that it is difficult to force people who have not yet been found guilty, against whom charges may be laid, but who have yet to be found
guilty or to plead guilty, to undergo a test that may not fully comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this matter is being examined by my department, and that, together with my other colleagues at Health and Welfare and the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women, we will see how we can respond most effectively. I can assure the hon. member that I am very much aware of the concerns of the women of this country.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On December 7, in his response to the Pearse report, the minister said that DFO is now identifying over-all increases in manpower, equipment and operating funds necessary to ensure an effective enforcement presence during the 1993 season.
Since 1986 DFO's specific region fisheries management budget has declined from 35 per cent to 27 per cent of allocation. Further reductions were made in all departments by Treasury Board in November at a cost to DFO of $12 million so far.
How can the minister possibly keep the promises he made to the west coast fisheries in December?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we will simply spend our money more effectively for a start.
Of course the hon. member is leaving out of account the fact that we have additional funding in connection with our aboriginal fisheries strategy. With that funding, we are entering into co-management agreements. Last year, we had some 80 agreements with the aboriginal bands of British Columbia. Funding is provided in those agreements for habitat enhancement, enforcement and other purposes. We have 60 native guardians who will be getting special training to join our enforcement ranks during the coming season.
February 9, 1993

I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will redouble our efforts with respect to enforcement. It will be far more effective this year.
The hon. gentleman might also tell the House whether or not he supports the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the program of attempting on a voluntary basis to see whether the sale of food fish will work or not in British Columbia. Does his party support that or will they continue to straddle-


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the minister's question, it is not the strategy that bothers us; it is the lack of implementation of it.
The minister said again, following the Pearse report, that he would not proceed with the aboriginal fishing strategy unless he had watershed agreements for the whole of the river concerned.
Is the minister ready to announce that he has a watershed agreement on any of the major salmon rivers in B.C.?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it will be a watershed day when the hon. gentleman's party adopts a firm position with reference to the aboriginal fisheries strategy and stops running with the hounds and hunting with the hares, or running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
Do they support the aboriginal fisheries strategy or not because they are saying one thing to commercial fishermen and something entirely different to the others.
The hon. gentleman should get his mug and his wump on the same side of the line.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
Yesterday the government House leader said there was a competition for the $21 million worth of advertising contracts.
Oral Questions
Will he now admit that of the six companies which were invited to make proposals, not tenders, three of them were not equipped to handle the job. The fourth, Camp and Associates was already doing another government job, which left the two Tory firms as the only possible alternative. Is it not obvious who was going to win all along?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, prior to 1984, we had a system where advertising contracts were simply handed out by the political minister. We know which agencies got those contracts.
We introduced a system where agencies for large advertising contracts would have to make submissions and these would be adjudicated by a panel of civil servants. That policy was followed. It is the fairest policy we can think of. It is infinitely more fair than what existed prior to us assuming office.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the answer was very interesting but it had nothing to do with the question I asked.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this time. On September 9, 1985 the Prime Minister said that he would have the toughest conflict of interest rules in the western world.
Is there not something wrong with his rules when a Tory appointee, Mr. Bob Byron, who sat on the Tory re-election committee was handing out to Tory firms $21 million worth of taxpayers' money? Is that not at least wrong?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not going to be deterred by facts. He continues to slander individuals who do not deserve it.
Mr. Bob Byron spent 35 years in the advertising business across this country. He severed all links with that industry to take on a position with the government. By the way, exactly the same structure existed under the Liberals with an advertising management group.
The assessment as to which agency will get the contract is made by a committee of bureaucrats. The committee of bureaucrats makes the choice. The administration of the contract is undertaken on behalf of the government by the advertising management group,

February 9, 1993
Points of Order
headed by a man with 35 years of experience, a man whose integrity puts to shame anything the hon. member has exhibited at any time in this House.


EDUCATION
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, Canada spends 7.2 per cent of its GDP on education. This is higher than any other industrialized country. We have no way of measuring the effectiveness of our system. Experts in the field have stated that every successful academic system in the world uses rigorous evaluation methods such as national standardized testing.
Would the Secretary of State consider implementing a program of voluntary national standardized testing?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the question of my colleague is very appropriate at a time when more than ever we have to assure our youth of a prosperous future. This is very much in line with the prosperity action plan recommendation to focus more on results in learning.
We are also very pleased to see the efforts of the Council of the Ministers of Education to develop a national achievement indicator system. Also Canada is playing a very leading role now in the third international study of maths and sciences with a $2 million grant from EIC.
The federal government will continue to encourage and support any efforts that will improve learning for a prosperous Canada.


POINTS OF ORDER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, over the years I have not made a big deal over points of order and I am not going to today, except for one thing.
My hon. friend referred to an ad in The Wall Street Journal which I happened to see this morning. The conclusion he drew from it was quite pejorative in
respect of the government. It is a dramatic ad and I would be happy to table it for hon. members.
I noticed what the ad said was that "AT&T and Unitel have formed a new alliance to provide seamless communications between the U.S. and Canada who are working together to assure that your business will get the highest possible level of reliability and consistent service on both sides of the border, including voice data and multi-point conference capabilities".


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister may wish to refer to a document. He may wish to ask the consent of the House for it to be tabled. However, I do not think it is appropriate that we get back into debate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that it was not my intention to get into debate. I would be happy to table the ad and have other members of the House look at it because based on my understanding of the prefatory remarks of my hon. friend, he misrepresented this ad in respect of the Government of Canada.
I know he would want to withdraw that immediately. It would be inconsistent for him to keep those remarks on the record because they are at variance with the truth and inconsistent with parliamentary tradition.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could assist hon. members. Is the right hon. Prime Minister tabling the document, or is he requesting that the hon. member for Kamloops table it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to facilitate this process I will seek unanimous consent of the House to allow the tabling of the AT&T ad which indicates that to have direct access to Canada it will be at the expense of thousands of telecommunications workers. That is the point I was trying to make.
But, Mr. Speaker, my request-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that I indicated, gently of course, that I do not really think we should get back into the debate. I understand the right hon. Prime Minister has tabled the document. The hon. member for Kamloops is asking consent to table the document. That may not be necessary.


Nelson Andrew Riis: To simplify it, Mr. Speaker, whether the Prime Minister has asked to table it or I have sought unanimous consent to table it, I think the document will be tabled.

February 9, 1993

Supply
However, I want to ask my friend the right hon. Prime Minister, when he was reading The Wall Street Journal was he reading the help wanted ads?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I would almost have to ask consent if there is to be any reply to that. I am going to move on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to respond to that except on behalf of all members of the House to express the view that really, after a day, it is time for Audrey to come back.


TABLING OF DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN QUESTION PERIOD
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, today during Question Period I made reference to a document I had and was willing to table entitled "The Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles". In my supplementary question I referred to a transcript of a CBC Radio interview that was held this morning with regard to the comments made by Mr. Lloyd Allen, chief adjudicator for unemployment insurance claims.
I seek unanimous consent from the House to table these two documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre has the floor for at most 10 minutes.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition motions reads: "That this House condemns the government for reneging on its commitment to Canadian farmers by changing its policy in the following areas:" and it mentions the Third Line of Defence, the Crow transportation benefit and especially
the GATT agreement that Canada signed many years ago.
For several years, farmers across the country have been very aware of the threat facing them. Over the years, we in Canada have built an agricultural infrastructure that has been very good for our farmers. But with the GATT negotiations, our farmers have been in danger for some time. They know it and they show it. We saw that last year, in February, I think, when nearly
50,000	people came to Parliament Hill to protest this issue of GATT.
But we become increasingly concerned as time goes on, when we realize that the Canadian negotiators in GATT told a parliamentary committee that our position had less and less support in other countries, especially Japan, which wanted to protect its domestic market as we want to protect ours for poultry, eggs and industrial and processing milk.
We are in a situation where our country's negotiators seem concerned about our decreasing support. We are moving towards a new system for which we are not ready and with which our farmers and organizations across the country do not agree.
After this statement by our GATT representative, a small article appeared in the newspapers, reporting that the Minister of Agriculture said that our farm quota system was being vigorously defended. But, Mr. Speaker, we wonder who is telling the truth on this. We are concerned for the simple reason that with the changes imposed by GATT, our farmers' investment in their farms, the family business, if you will, will lose value, that is obvious.
This House even supported and passed a motion asking the Prime Minister to go personally to defend article XI of GATT.
We wanted the Prime Minister to impress upon the European countries, especially upon Jacques Delors, and the newly-elected US President that article XI of the GATT was absolutely fundamental and vital to farmers in Canada. Above all, if I may Mr. Speaker, as I have discovered in my numerous conversations with UPA leaders-that is the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec-there is of course a great vested interest, when you think that 48 per cent of industrial milk is produced in Quebec. That is a very important market for our dairy producers in Quebec. But we are very concerned about this change to article XI of the GATT. It would be

Supply
tantamount to revolutionizing the way our producers operate.
They tell us about tariffication. Representatives from Canadian associations, whether from the poultry, egg or industrial milk industry, tell us that they are being pressured into accepting the tariffication instead of the quota system guaranteed under article XI of the GATT. We do not want the tariffication; neither do our farm organizations. I wonder, not so much for myself as for farm associations and organizations of course, who is putting pressure on this country's farm organizations to accept or at least consider tariffication? I thought their answer was pretty clear last year when they rallied on Parliament Hill.
I am sure that, if they could voice their concern in this House, the representatives of all these organizations, especially those from the UPA, they would. They actually did in another way, democratically, through letters, telegrams, petitions and so on. Except that government seems ready to capitulate and see article XI of the GATT fail in the end, and that will have a major impact on agriculture in Canada.
That is why we call upon government. This is very important. We have a motion before us and the Prime Minister has recognized that we have to fight for article XI of the GATT as it affects our farmers, but what we have to do is to stress the importance of having the Government of Canada tell not only European organizations and Jacques Delors, but also the new President of the United States of America that we, in Canada, are not exporters of farm products, that we are in no way destabilizing the global market, that we have no surpluses that could be cause for concern. In that context, it is only normal for the Prime Minister to explain to our GATT partners that it is vital for our country and that we will not accept or agree to sign a deal which will literally drive our farmers to personal bankruptcy.
The situation is very clear, and we would like this government to realize that it has a mandate to protect an agrarian structure that has worked well during all those years, a truly wonderful system for many. I could quote from articles written by U.S. organizations and associations concerning our quota system in Canada. They actually say that they would need such a system, not only for milk, but also for poultry and eggs. If there are people in the United States who believe that our system
is so special, all the more reason for us, here in Canada, to protect this system through our government. But without that will, if it is not made obvious to our GATT partners, of course we will fail.
The message is clear. We have a farming system that many countries wish they had. It is therefore essential that we never agree to abandon a system that has benefited not only our farmers but also Canadian consumers.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the beginning of my comments today that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg-St. James.
It is a pleasure for me to make some comments on the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party in condemning the government for reneging on its commitments to Canadian farmers by changing policy in many different areas.
The government should be faulted not only for changing policy but having a number of consultations, and I will give them credit, with many and most of the players in the agrifood industry. However the government has been mostly all fluff and no stuff. However in the major part of the industry many players are now asking where and when is the government going to come up with solutions to all the suggestions and comments that have been given to them.
We know that agriculture in Canada is facing an unprecedented crisis. We all know the economic figures show the primary producer is facing a very uncertain future. It has come to the point where there are even food banks in rural Canada. It is something which has been unheard of and unthought of in the past, but in rural Canada we have food banks.
The average farmer feeds approximately 120 people in Canada. Yet it is very likely that one of the partners in that farm ownership, one of the spouses, is very likely going outside the farm environment and the business environment to work in order to feed that farmer's own family.
What is lacking in this country is a long-term agricultural policy, a long-term vision. We do not have that. We need that. All of us as parliamentarians need to work toward that. I am pleased to say our party in particular has been working very diligently on it and we look
February 9, 1993

forward to unveiling it to the public in the very near future.
The government says it is committed to putting into place permanent safety net programs to get away from ad hoc payments which have been there in the past. I personally have no problem with that but we all know that so far it has not worked. It has been tried. We have all had an opportunity to comment on the attempts that have been made with GRIP and NISA. They are good attempts but they have not worked to the extent that they should and they need a very serious reworking and revamping so that they will.
Agriculture Canada states that in 1992 the total net income in agriculture will be between $4 billion and $4.9 billion. However in 1993 that is expected to drop to $3.3 billion to $4.4 billion. I do not know how successful this government can say it is when the total net income is going to drop to that extent.
In the province of Saskatchewan alone the total income figures last year were between $427 million and $522 million. This year they will be between $250 million and $350 million, down again. How can the government say it has been successful?
This motion before us today deals with several parts of the agricultural industry but not all of them. There is no mention in the motion of a commitment of support for the processing and further processing industries which are also feeling the pinch.
It is a known fact that since 1989 Canada has had close to 100 food processing industries and plants close down. Agriculture Canada figures state there were over 20 such plants in 1989 while five opened, they will admit. According to Agriculture Canada's own figures, unfortunately 34,000 jobs have been lost in the food processing industry.
GRIP and NISA, which are long-term safety net programs, are being tried and are being worked with. So far in many areas they have been insufficient. They have been a disappointment to the farmers and the industry.
It has even gone so far that last week the ministers of agriculture in Manitoba and Saskatchewan made the prediction that these programs would be in such a drastic
Supply
financial situation that by 1995 they might be even too expensive to continue.
Some of the concerns that many of us had when these programs were being discussed in a legislative committee, that they needed to be put in place in a different manner than they were, that they would deliver a fair bit of money in the short term, but in the not too distant future they were not going to be successful, unfortunately I think some of our comments at that time are proving to have been true.
I urge the government to make the necessary changes to those programs so that they can be effective. We had concerns they were not going to be market neutral. Unfortunately those concerns have come true.
The unpredictable prairie weather this year has resulted in a dramatic downturn in the quality of grain produced and therefore the returns to the producers are smaller. In provinces such as Saskatchewan there are estimates that the return, because over 50 per cent of the grain is of feed grain quality, is drastically reduced. The emotional and financial strain on the agrifood industry, in particular on the primary producers, is absolutely incredible.
Other facts and figures we need to consider are these. On the prairies there are more farmers over the age of 70 than there are under the age of 30. We need to consider what we are going to do. I ask this government what it is doing and what is it prepared to do to encourage young people to stay in the industry and to get into the industry.
The third line of defence has turned out to be nothing more than a mythical creature. It was stated that if everything else failed, that the third line of defence type programs would be put in place. I ask the government if this is not the time for that. If there ever was a time that we need third line of defence programs, now is the time. What is the government doing about that? If it is doing anything it certainly has not made it known to the producers.
Producers are getting discouraged. They have lost confidence. They want to know where they are going to go. If we look at what has happened in Ontario this year, I can tell members from very close observation that there are still many acres of com and soybean crops in the fields. I know of one instance where a producer has close to 300 acres of com and soybeans which because of the weather this year was totally written off by crop insurance. Yes, there will be crop insurance payments from

February 9, 1993
Supply
the Canada-Ontario crop insurance program. Here we are today, February 9, and that producer has not received one penny from that program when the claims were put in well before Christmas.
The federal government wants, as it always does, to lay claim to the crop insurance program and the important role it plays. How does it suggest that producer cash flow his business when the crop insurance program does not pay up? I will make just one comment. If the producer was late in paying his or her premium, my guess would be that crop insurance would say: "Sorry, you don't have any coverage".
The other area I want to stress in my last minute is that the government has, as far as I am concerned, let us and the industry down as far as supply management is concerned. I will just close with a couple of comments. How do you think the industry feels when the government's chief negotiator at GATT recently stated basically that the government's position is a lost cause. He then goes on to say that the negotiations are not over yet. I do not know how effective a negotiator he can be.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that I do not think the government has recognized to the extent it should the effect this has had and the human tragedy in the rural communities. Farm families just want to be able to continue to work hard for their living and provide good food to Canadians.
Finally, I want to address this to the taxpayers who wonder why governments spend billions of dollars on agriculture. The taxpayer, like all of us in these recessionary times, finds it difficult to rationalize big expenses. Why do we continue to support agriculture? The answer is because it is worth support. The cost of farm support is not cheap but Canadians should ask themselves where they want their food to come from. I believe they want it to come from Canada.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to take part in this very important debate. It brings to light some of the very serious concerns emanating from my part of the country.
I want to start by saying how disappointed I was in some of the offerings from the other side of the House earlier today in this debate. I paid close attention to the
remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. One would have to spend a lot of years in this House of Commons to find a more self-righteous, more sanctimonious speech than the one delivered by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. The man stood in his place and talked about how he really cared about the farm community in this country. He talked about how this Prime Minister really cares about the farm community, that there is no greater champion of Canadian agriculture than the right hon. Prime Minister, and he said it with a straight face.
In fact, he told the story about the time when the Prime Minister had lunch with the hon. parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister did not have his glasses so he borrowed the parliamentary secretary's. What did the Prime Minister say? "When I look through these glasses all I see is wheat". Pretty sanctimonious, selfrighteous stuff.
If you listen to the parliamentary secretary and if you did not know any better, you would think that Canadian farmers had no problems at all. Life is blissful out on the land. In fact, what the parliamentary secretary is saying is that if there are any problems on the farm, if there are any problems in Canadian agriculture, do not blame us. Do not blame the federal government because we have always done our best. We are honourable and we really care.
Let us just look at the record of the government. If we want to talk about the right hon. Prime Minister, we could say that if he really wants something he usually gets his way. For example, take how he went to the wall for the big pharmaceutical companies, the multinationals that want to destroy our generic industry, that want to destroy our compulsory licensing system, a system that prevailed in Canada for 20 years and saved Canadians billions of dollars.
The Prime Minister did not have any trouble going to the wall on that issue. He did not have any trouble giving support to the big multinationals. He brought in Bill C-91 and in the process he destroyed compulsory licensing in the country.
Look at the right hon. Prime Minister's record in the field of agriculture. I will point to a study that was carried
February 9, 1993

out by the Canada Grains Council. We all know how devastating the export enhancement program of the United States has been to grain farmers in Canada. In fact, according to the study carried out by the Canada Grains Council, the export enhancement program cost Canadian farmers between the years 1985 and 1990 something like $2.5 billion. Not a million dollars, $2.5 billion.
One would think that this great champion of Canadian agriculture would be pretty disturbed about that. One would think that this great champion of Canadian agriculture would be down there in Washington shouting from the rooftops. He would be perhaps even trying to throttle the President of the United States for doing such a dastardly thing to Canadian agriculture.
What does the record suggest? What does the record say? The record says absolutely nothing because the Prime Minister says nothing about that. We have asked him for a number of years to address this issue of the Export Enhancement Program. He refuses. The Minister of Agriculture refuses. The entire lot refuses.
They will not do anything. Yet, these are the parrot people who stand in their place and say: "We are the champions of Canadian agriculture. We have a proud record. If you have any problems, don't look at us". I wanted to point that out because we have to get a little balance in this debate. We are not going to allow those people to get away with those remarks.
I want to point to some other things. This government is always so busy, it says, working on behalf of farmers. I will get to some of the problems in a moment. We know the serious problems that farmers face. Yet, this government finds time to be studying the possibility of a North American, continental barley market.
One would think that the government would have better things to do than to be spending its time determining whether there should be a continental barley market. All it has to do is go to almost any farm area of Canada and it will be told in black and white terms: "Forget it. Forget it. We do not want it. It will help only a few farmers near the United States border. It will help only a
Supply
few farmers". In the process, it is one more exercise in the undermining of the Canadian Wheat Board.
This government and this parliamentary secretary stand up and say: "We are the great champions of Canadian agriculture. Just look at us. If you have any problems, please do not blame us".
What does the Prairie Pool say about the continental barley market? I want to refer to a statement that it has distributed. I will mention just a couple of points. I want to quote directly from the document produced by the Prairie Pool: "The CWB pooling system would not survive the loss of the single-desk selling system. If producers have the option of selling to the board or marketing directly to the U.S., the CWB barley pool would become voluntary producers who would have the option to sell only to the board when U.S. spot prices are low. This would depress the pool price and increase the risk of pool deficits. Number two, removing CWB control of sales would affect the board's ability to source grain to meet international commitments".
I could go on and on. Let us face it. What the Prairie Pools are saying makes a lot of sense. You either have a Wheat Board that has some control, or you do not. You cannot have it both ways.
We have to realize just how important the agricultural industry is. For example, it should not be forgotten that the capital value of the agricultural industry right now stands at about $130 billion. If you look at its production of just a couple of years ago, that value had been set at $25 billion. The industry contributed about $10 billion to Canada's gross domestic product.
In fact, that agricultural industry accounts for about seven per cent of Canada's trade. It earns, on the positive side of the ledger, about $3 million. That is the kind of industry we are talking about. We are talking about an industry that is in trouble, an industry that has to be saved and an industry that needs to be supported.
I want to point out in my final remarks that according to the current estimates, income may plummet by almost $1 billion this year on the prairies.
We know this government has done a considerable amount of things in terms of infusing cash into the agriculture industry. We do not deny that for a moment. I know the agricultural industry, especially the producers, are grateful for that. The fact of the matter is that

February 9, 1993
Supply
there is still a cash crisis. Farmers are leaving the land. Bankruptcies are up. There is a lot of despair.
One of the members from Saskatchewan talked earlier today about the number of suicides in his province alone. It gives you an idea of the situation down on the farm. The farmers are asking for about $800 million. It is a lot of money, but we must address that situation. We must address that problem because we have to save the farm and we have to maintain and strengthen rural life.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Liberal member from Winnipeg-St. James has an interest in agriculture and the farming economy and he should be commended for taking such an interest.
I heard him give some recognition to the government for some cash infusion over the past years when the agricultural sector was in some difficulty. If he read local papers-I am sure he has-some Canadians found the cash infusion very significant in terms of paying out from the tax dollars that they put in, many billions of dollars. This averaged I believe $12,000 to $13,000 per farmer per year for the last eight years so I am sure that is what he was referring to. He points out that there is still difficulty in farming, especially in grain farming. He is somewhat critical of the actions taken by this government in trying to find solutions to those problems.
I thought he might have taken some time to put forward a platform as to how his party intends to deal with it as we are going into an election before too long. If he cares to respond to this I hope he does not stand up and say: "We will not do that, and we will not do this, but in fact here are the positive steps we want to take if we form the government". That would be very helpful for this Chamber here today and for the Canadian public because he was somewhat critical of the barley markets that the minister was seeking out.
I cannot imagine why he would be critical of finding and using any effort possible to find new markets for barley as they now have with oats. Since it has been taken out of the Wheat Board, oats are worth more than barley. One cannot necessarily condemn the farmer for wanting to sell it and get a higher price.
With all due respect to his interests, he should not stand and condemn this government, but show me how he is going to get rid of it at a higher price and create markets for the farmer's grain that is going to be produced and has been produced in the past year.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Portage-Interlake talks about the infusion of cash into the agricultural community. I repeat that the government-like governments in the past-has contributed in the way of subsidies and other ways toward the agricultural community and that is appreciated.
What is not appreciated is the hypocrisy of the government. I will just point out one example of hypocrisy. I believe the hon. member for Portage-Interlake mentioned the package that was announced two or three weeks ago for the province of Saskatchewan. In that package is $170 million or $180 million. Is that not right?
These people from the other side do not want to point out that that there is only about $20 million new dollars of federal money in that package. It is only $20 million. At the very same time and in the very same year, they cut WGTA payments to the tune of $70 million. For the farmer, regardless of how you cut it, that is a reduction of about $50 million.
In other words, this government gives with one hand and it takes away with the other. In this particular case the hand that takes is taking a lot more than the hand that gives.
That is hypocrisy. That is the kind of policy that this government has been known for for a good long time.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to today's opposition motion, which claims the government has failed to provide clear and unequivocal support for our supply management system. The opposition alleges that the government is sending mixed signals with respect to its position on the strengthening and clarification of GATT article XI.
February 9, 1993

This is patently false. The government has never changed its commitment to strengthening and clarifying GATT, article XI. It has taken a balanced position, and it did so more than two years ago. This position, which was approved by groups of farm producers, groups in the agricultural industry across Canada, has not changed. It was supported across Canada.
The so-called Uruguay round refers to a major series of negotiations which are part of that round and which have been going on for more than six years. One hundred and eight countries are involved. We tend to forget that Canada is one of those 108 countries and that these are probably the most comprehensive and most complex trade negotiations ever conducted in the world.
These negotiations involve an unprecedented number of participants who are more active than ever before. There are many issues on the agenda including agriculture, textiles, subsidies, dispute settlement, access to markets and services, for instance intellectual property, an area in which I had the privilege of working as well, and all other trade related issues.
We must be realistic and consider that when negotiations involve 108 countries at one time, with negotiating committees whose interests do not always coincide, and that when we get into the final stages, the pressure starts coming from all sides. I may say that so far, Canada has fiercely resisted any attempts by partners and allies throughout the world to urge us to drop or modify our position. Our position is clear and has been stated on many occasions.
I think members on both sides of the House will admit-there is no problem on our side-but members on the other side know that we never gave in. In fact, I attended a meeting with the group that represents the largest number of farmers in Canada who are affected by article XI, and I am referring to the dairy producers. They held their annual meeting in Calgary a little over a week ago, and my colleague the Minister for International Trade and I went to Calgary to meet them and discuss and report on the situation in Geneva to show them once again that we want to stay the course and maintain the same position.
What are the chances of success of these negotiations? Despite missed deadlines, dashed hopes and the obvious
Supply
political problems, GATT member countries remain generally optimistic about obtaining a comprehensive agreement that will set the rules for trade between all parts of the world, at least for this decade.
I think that some political considerations come into play that delay proceedings or often put things in a new light. Both the Americans and the Europeans changed their negotiating team in recent months. In Europe, there were changes at the end of last year, in December. Of course, in the United States, the change of president brought changes to the negotiating team. Last week, we had an opportunity when the Prime Minister went to Washington to meet President Clinton and the Minister for International Trade also met with the minister responsible for trade there. We renewed contact to ensure that our main trading partner, the United States, is well aware of our position and that this position has not changed.
As a matter of economic policy, freer trade is justified because it promotes efficiency, competitiveness and more generally confidence among investors and business people. That encourages economic growth and job creation. We need only consider the fact that since the free trade agreement was signed with the United States, over-all trade with the U.S. has increased by something like $15 to $20 billion, I think. Despite the recession, our food and agriculture exports to the United States have increased 25 to 30 per cent in all areas, including those affected by article XI covering supply management.
You know that even in this special sector protected by a specific GATT article, some trade still goes on and some products are exported. This means that the fears expressed many times, especially by the opposition, the same people who from the very beginning opposed freer trade, in particular the New Democratic Party-these people fiercely opposed any change in our economic policies, especially with respect to trade. I think that they should be able to see that the disaster predicted after the free trade agreement was signed has not happened. It has not happened because now and for the coming years as we approach the 21st century, the economic approach will be broader, more developed trade and this protectionist approach from the 1950s particularly advocated by the New Democratic Party and supported in many

February 9, 1993
Supply
respects by their colleagues in the Liberal Party leads nowhere. It is a regressive, unrealistic policy.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to emphasize that as one of these 108 countries throughout the world that are trying with difficulty, we must admit, but trying nevertheless to have trade rules that apply to everyone efficiently, we have more chance of successfully building our economic future if we prepare adequately to face international trade and prepare to face market rules that will require countries to be more competitive. I would almost say that is a truism. Any attempt to take us back to what it was like 25 years ago or to the market rules of even 10 years ago could hardly work now.
In the supply management sector, which is a rather special case, we have a very real problem. Some countries are saying: "Hey, Canada, you want the best of both worlds! You support free trade, and you want to sell your grain everywhere in Asia, Europe and the United States. You want trade barriers to come down, not just for grain but also for beef, pork and other products, and at the same time you want to protect your dairy farmers, poultry farmers and egg producers who want you to maintain those barriers".
We are often told our position is not consistent. On the face of it, there does seem to be some inconsistency. However, a closer look will show there is no incompatibility, because what we have been doing since GATT first started is adapt our supply management system in accordance with a clear and specific-more or less clear, and I will get back to that-article, the well-known GATT, article XI. What is the underlying principle? It is quite simple. Canada demands the right to say: we have regulated our business sector in these areas across the country. We no longer produce a surplus of milk, powdered milk or poultry. We produce according to Canadian demand, with an extra margin for exports to very minor markets we have been supplying for a number of years. And we also accept certain imports of products that historically have been allowed to come into the country, such as cheese from Europe and certain quantities of yogurt from the United States.
However, under article XI, Canada demands the right to be able to say at the border: we do not send any surpluses to foreign markets, so we have the right under
article XI to prevent other countries from flooding our markets with surplus products that may be dumped at prices that have no connection at all with being competitive or with observing the law of supply and demand.
Until quite recently, article XI had allowed Canadian producers to make a decent living and even enjoy some degree of prosperity, which was agreeable to everyone. However, we had a couple of setbacks, including a GATT ruling, a GATT panel on yogurt and ice cream. We have a problem with the Americans, since the Americans would like to sell their yogurt and ice cream on our markets, and we have high tariffs that prevent the entry of these products. That was challenged at GATT, which said: Canada, you do not have the right or we do not think you have the right to challenge or to prevent entry of these products under article XI in its present form. This caused considerable alarm among our own people who for the past decades had thought they were adequately protected. So what did we do? First, we obtained an agreement from the Americans that there would be no changes regarding yogurt and ice cream for the time being, so that we could continue negotiations at the international level, not just with the Americans but with other countries across the world. This led us to take the position we have now: since article XI in its present form is not sufficiently clear, we request clarification and strengthening of the article so that it covers not just fresh milk, the kind we drink, but also processed milk products like butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream.
That was the first objective, a very laudable one. I would add that there was a certain, I do not know just what to call it, but in any event, I had a lot of difficulty accepting that the Americans could sell us ice cream or yogurt here in Canada but that we could not sell them ice cream, for example, because they have special permission under GATT. They have special permission from GATT to prevent ice cream from entering their country from Canada, Europe, Australia or anywhere else.
The same goes for the Europeans who over the years obtained a special permission called variable levies giving them a right to impose import duties of whatever amount. I will give you an example. If you take a pound of bacon or a pound of pork to Europe and want to sell it for $2 a pound or $2 for 500 grams, you are refused and the price is raised to $8, if the price in Europe is $8. I think that anyone who takes a close look at that would
February 9, 1993

Supply
see that it is not quite fair and equitable under the rules not deserve the slightest blame since it has stood up and for international trade.	met its commitments 150 per cent.
The purpose of this Uruguay round was to achieve more consistency in trade rules and to have the same rules for everyone. I could take an example from hockey. If you have two hockey teams, there are five players on each side, but I would not allow one team to have five players and the other seven. So again referring to the example of ice cream, the Americans have six players on the ice and we have only five. For the case of bacon in Europe, they have seven players and we only have five. We can win from time to time but it is difficult to win more often when the same rules do not apply to everyone fairly.
The over-all purpose of these negotiations is to have fair and equitable rules that apply to everyone. That is the goal we are pursuing.
In conclusion, I will say that one of the strong points in this stage of negotiations is that Canada has a comprehensive policy that was developed with the help of Canadian farmers from all regions. Whether they produce grain, pork, beef, milk or poultry, they all agree. In the negotiations, the farmers agreed to put some things on the table, in particular a cut in the dairy subsidy and permission for foreign products to take 3 to 5 per cent of the Canadian market. Nevertheless, that was a considerable effort for our farmers at a time when the domestic market is shrinking and domestic consumption in the dairy sector alone has declined between 13 and 15 per cent.
I think it was a good move for these people to allow some access to their market in exchange for strengthening Article XI. We are offering the Americans and Europeans the same thing. I will repeat what the European negotiators, Mr. Andriessen and the others, whom I met personally when we went to Geneva with the farmers last spring, said the Europeans would not allow one kilogram of butter more than the minimum allocated at the end of the GATT negotiations. The Canadian position is the same. We will not allow foreigners and foreign countries to put any more of their products on our market than was accepted.
That position still stands, it has not changed and with all respect, I still think that the motion presented today is not applicable because our government definitely does
In that, it has the unwavering support of the farm community and the whole Canadian agri food sector.
We have a good system, which we have built with much effort over the years, and we will continue to defend it. That is the Canadian position on GATT


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the minister's words and noted when he said the GATT was trying to create a level playing field. He talked about the difficulty he was having protecting the marketing boards.
Recently in the United States we have seen-and my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex has brought it up repeatedly-several articles in the American newspapers where the inspectors of the U.S. department of agriculture have said millions of tonnes of substandard poultry and some beef were being sold to consumers. Just recently we know of a case where young people were poisoned to death because of substandard meat.
In the hon. member's speech about the marketing boards he did not mention our agricultural industry has probably the highest standards in terms of quality and production of any agricultural sector.
Does he not believe in that extra effort and extra cost that goes into quality? As an urban member of Parliament, I know the people in my urban community are concerned about the quality of products we receive from our agricultural community. Does he not think the extra work farmers put into their products is something we should use to reinforce the uniqueness of marketing boards in this country?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is raising an important point. It is better coming from your mouth than mine that we have the best standards in the world. I believe that. Obviously we have worked hard to keep that system the best in the world.
The specific case of poultry does not really apply. We have standards in some cases that are different from the United States. Year after year I would say its system is coming closer to ours.

Supply
We are only importing about 7 per cent of our poultry products from the United States. There is an historic quota. Every time a Canadian industry wants to import poultry products it needs a permit from international trade. Those products coming from the United States have to meet Canadian standards and I totally agree with my hon. friend that we should be very tough about meeting those measures as we always are.
From time to time there is pressure from those in the sector that they need more flexibility in the system, but I am not going to give an inch in the area of inspection. I think it is important. We have the best system in the world and we stand by it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. minister does not intend to give an inch on strengthened article XI and protection for supply management commodities. I would point out to him the government's own officials are saying that their position has become untenable and they will have to eventually adopt a policy of tariffication in exchange for all border measures.
I am sure the minister is aware that tariffication even at very high rates will not provide protection some times of the year against veiy low priced products from the United States, which has fluctuating prices for poultry and eggs in particular. There are periods of time when prices are so low that even a high tariff will not keep the products out. Those in the United States will still be able to sell those products to Canada and make a profit.
Many dairy and poultry products that are offered at world price are products that are being dumped. The GATT has not done a very good job on agricultural products that are being dumped. The policy of the United States right now with regard to grain is a dumping process, but none of the countries that get access to that very cheap grain will take the United States to the GATT court for dumping. They simply buy it because it is very cheap.
How does he think we will be able to protect ourselves against that kind of action by the Americans or any other country, since the dumping rules are being ignored by the importing countries now? How would he see our producers of dairy products and poultry products being treated any differently than our grain growers who have seen their asset values drop by more than 50 per cent
since the beginning of this action? Does he hold out the same prospect for quota values and land values for dairy and chicken producers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a different question with a number of elements. We are having some difficulty with our position in Geneva because we do not have many allies. Out of 108 countries so far only 5 or 6 are on our side. Israel, Korea, Japan, Norway and Switzerland support our position on article XI, but some of them are not totally committed.
Norway and Switzerland are close to the European Community and are trying to make some arrangements to get ready to accept tariffication. They are independent countries. We are trying to get those allies on side and are doing everything we can.
Some others like Japan are trying to make the best of the situation. I think we are not there yet. The Americans and Europeans, the two major players, are still trying to make arrangements.
Our position on article XI is supported by a few members. I think we will be able to deal with the situation as soon as we are closer to an agreement between the Americans and the Europeans. I think at this very moment it will be easier to get them on side. So far we have done well.
It is unfortunate that we cannot get more support from other countries, but our people in Canada are fully aware of the situation. We told them very bluntly and frankly that we are not going to change our position. Whatever happens we will sit down with them to discuss our position.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has talked about how committed his government and the Prime Minister are to agriculture. I would like to ask the minister why in 1991 farm bankruptcies reached 441 which was double the number of bankruptcies in 1980 when the Liberal party was in government. Why was the total farm income 53 per cent lower in 1991 than it was in 1989?
Could he also tell the House why the total farm debt in Canada has reached a staggering $23 billion? Why is the ability to repay the debt being seriously eroded by the government's economic policies?
February 9, 1993


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the situation we face now and that we were facing during those years, there is really a war between the major countries in Europe and America. We are facing the situation where the grain prices are lower than they were a decade ago.
Obviously, the farmers' receipts are lower and that is why the amount given to farmers has grown from $100 million to over $6 billion. We transferred $10 billion to farmers out of programs like NISA, GRIP and other special programs over the years.
That was done to make sure the farmers would be able to face the terrible situation they are not responsible for. I do not think the federal or provincial governments are responsible for this. It is an international situation and we are facing a war. Dumping prices are all over the place and we are just trying to keep our farmers in business to make sure they will be able to survive.
That is why we are being so tough at the negotiating table at GATT. We want to have a level playing field for everybody. I know it is not an easy task. I understand what you mean. The farmers are in a difficult situation and we have pumped money into the system over the years to make sure our farmers will be able to survive those difficult times.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to listen to the self-congratulatory words of the junior minister of agriculture. It is such a contrast.
I had dinner last Saturday with three farmers. Two of them had sons who were working with them in their farm enterprises. One had sons and daughters who had left the farm. All three of the farmers agreed that the lucky person was the father whose sons had left the farm.
That is the kind of reality that is out there for many of our farmers throughout this country, despite the minister's fine words.
Essex county has some of the best farming country in the world. It has some of the best land in the world. Its climate has ordinarily been excellent for the production of farm products. Yet in Essex county and across Ontario the farm crisis is very real and very serious for many, many Canadians.
Supply
Low prices have been part of the reason. Problems in government policy have been another part of the reason. Pressures from the United States and its subsidies to grain exporters have been a third factor. When the negotiations took place introducing some of the new policies that have come to mark farm policy in Canada like GRIP and NISA, this government promised to provide a third line of defence if these policies were not enough. It has failed to provide that.
We needed it last year in Essex county when farmers in my constituency were hit with a severe drought. Com was only knee-high at harvest time. The soybean crops were mined. Most crops, if farmers were lucky, yielded 50 per cent of what they ordinarily would have produced. Costs, however, continued to be the same. Sometimes they were somewhat higher as farmers tried to deal with the drought situation.
Agriculture Canada itself has said the following: "Governments are responsible for offering support and changes to the economic and/or legislative environment when severe difficulties arise that are not covered by existing programs".
Such difficulties have arisen. They arose last year in Essex county and have arisen this year in much of Ontario especially for com producers. They have arisen also in Saskatchewan, in northern B.C. and in Prince Edward Island.
Across the country, farmers are hurting. The first two lines of defence are price levels and the new government GRIP and NISA programs. They are inadequate. That third line of defence is desperately needed and the government's promise of that third line of defence must be respected. Yet what is the federal government doing? It is effectively letting these family farms face the catastrophe of disappearance.
The government's programs, GRIP for instance, are simply not good enough. They are based on a rolling 15-year average of prices. As the price levels, year by year, continue to be significantly poorer than are needed to cover the costs of production for many farmers, the GRIP program, as the years go forward, becomes of less and less benefit to the farming community. GRIP only gives the farmer an already insufficient price for the product produced. NISA is only helpful for those farmers who have a decent income.

February 9, 1993
Supply
The second line of defence that the government established is too weak to protect farmers from the low prices that they have been experiencing as a consequence of trade pressures that come out of the massive level of subsidies being provided in the United States.
Rural communities across the country are being decimated as a consequence. It is not just from these low prices. They are losing their post offices and processing plants. The only thing on the increase is the number of people unemployed.
For the first time last year the National Farmers Union had to establish and operate with support from the Ontario government a welfare program, a relief program, for farmers in my constituency. They had to hand out support so that farmers could buy food for themselves. That is the kind of reality that is becoming far too common across our farm communities.
The solution, I believe, is a system of supply management, a system of orderly marketing and a system which provides support for farm prices. Yet this kind of supply management, which has been so successful in our dairy industries and so successful for producers of poultry products, may be on its last legs because of what is happening in the GATT. Despite what the minister says, the pressure is very much there and this government is not making the noises which suggest that it is going to stand up to that pressure.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that you may be just a little quick off the mark on your timing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I appreciate your question but this morning your party indicated that its members would share their time. However, I have no objection if you want to take your maximum 20 minutes.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in terms of at least how I have been following the clock, I have been speaking for six minutes. You just indicated I had two left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You have been speaking for eight minutes and twenty-three seconds.


Steven W. Langdon: Your clock, Mr. Speaker, is different from the clock which is up here in the House of Commons.
Let me stress if I could in the few minutes that I have left that the uncertainty created by the GATT negotiations is something extremely serious for farmers. We have to recognize that dairy producers and poultry producers cannot make those investments that they wish to if they do not have certainty for the future.
We also see that the credit problem for many farmers continues to be extremely difficult. With a $23 billion debt in this country there has to be a change which gives the Farm Credit Corporation a significantly larger and more powerful role to play within this economy.
We also believe that changes must be made with respect to the free trade agreement. We need to get out of that agreement because we have seen our industries throughout our communities hit very hard by the impact of free trade. Just ask anyone in my county who used to grow tomatoes for tomato paste. Just ask anyone who used to grow for Campbell in Chatham. Ask farmers who used to grow hand-picked tomatoes for Heinz. They simply do not have that market.
Agriculture is presently being treated with the same lack of respect and the same recklessness that the Atlantic fishery was treated with five years ago.
The Conservatives are showing a similar lack of concern. What is needed is action, a new approach and a real sense of empathy and recognition of the problem on the part of this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to reassure hon. members that the Chair has a very precise stopwatch which gives time to the hundredth of a second.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina- Qu'Appelle.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to enter into the debate and speak on the motion that was presented to the House by my colleague, the member for Mackenzie.
I also represent a constituency with a fair number of farmers. My riding is half inside and half outside of Regina. Whether one is in Regina or out in the rural areas, on a daily basis one is reminded of the crisis that is facing agriculture in Canada particularly in Saskatchewan. One is reminded from the lost job opportunities. One is reminded as one goes through Coffee Row and
||

-F-vL -.	[DOT]->
* "* ; ' * [DOT]	'
February 9, 1993

hears the individual stories from people of how they are losing their land that was broken and settled by their great-grandfathers. Land that has been in the family for generations now must be sold. The sons and daughters are abandoning their land. The statistics tell it. The average Saskatchewan farm income for 1992 was about $636 million or 30 per cent below the 10-year average. That is indexed for inflation. For example, for the year 1993, the forecast is $238 million or about $4,000 per farmer.
Of course, a lot of this is due to the trade wars. It is estimated that the trade wars constitute a loss of some $6.7 billion from 1985 to the end of 1993 for Saskatchewan.
I can see it in my riding when I go door to door. There are a number of perfectly good homes that are empty with not even a "for sale" on them because they know they will never find a buyer. Slowly, these towns that used to be vibrant are now dying out and becoming ghost towns.
It is a crisis. It is a crisis that we in Saskatchewan particularly feel because so much of our economy is dependent upon agriculture. It is not just a crisis for Saskatchewan. Surely, it is a crisis for the country as a whole. Are we as a country and as a whole willing to give up an important agricultural sector, namely the wheat producers who produce most of the foreign earnings in terms of exports of our agricultural products?
We ask what this Conservative government has done. For years the Conservative government in western Canada portrayed itself as the friend of the farmers. There was a hope that with the election of the Conservative government in 1984, it would implement some programs and policies for agriculture that would produce a base and a firm foundation on which agriculture in western Canada could thrive. What a disappointment.
For the first four years of its mandate it played politics with agriculture. A good example is the last election. On November 11, 10 days before voting day, the government announced a new farm program of some $800 million. Nothing was thought through. There was no consultation. It was totally out of the blue and of course it never materialized. What was needed, of course, was a perma-
Supply
nent and predictable program so that farmers would know where they stood and upon which they could depend.
After the 1988 election the government responded with GRIP. We have seen that GRIP has not been the answer. What was needed was a universal program free from political manipulation and easy to administrate. It would automatically kick in and allow farmers to know exactly where they stood. However, GRIP has failed to do that. We have seen this government continuing to play politics with the lives of farmers.
The second thing that stands out about the record of this government is its attempt to off-load. Generally speaking, this unilateral reduction by the federal government cost the province of Saskatchewan some $538 million. We could have been able to balance the budget in our poor province of Saskatchewan had the federal government not off-loaded in numerous areas. The key area of unloading, of course, is in agriculture. The federal government has imposed cost sharing and agricultural income protection programs. This affects Saskatchewan the worst, of course, because Saskatchewan's population consists of such a high number of farms and farm families.
In 1991 and 1992 Saskatchewan paid, on a per capita basis, $199.45, whereas Manitoba only paid $58 and Alberta only paid $40.16 for farm support programs.
Farm support programs should be national programs.
We have lost money because of the international grain trade wars between the Europeans and the Americans. Surely the province of Saskatchewan cannot be expected to fight that battle alone. Yet the feds have continually shoved the responsibility more and more on to the province. For example, in the last year Saskatchewan was responsible for 44 per cent of the farm aid programs. In 1988 it was zero per cent.
Of course, the irony is that the victim in a sense, Saskatchewan, is being blamed as with other Tory programs. This weekend in The Globe and Mail we saw the exposition of the exploitation of Saskatchewan by the Tory government of Grant Devine and his cohorts, the friends of this government. We read in The Globe and

February 9, 1993
Supply
Mail how they plundered the treasury of Saskatchewan leaving it with a debt of some $15 billion.
Now this government is shoving further responsibility on to the province of Saskatchewan expecting it to cough up money it does not have because this government's friends, Grant Devine and company, have squandered it all. What irony. It is something the Saskatchewan farmers are going to note.
What else has this government done? We come to transportation. No doubt, the Liberals started it with the destruction of the Crow rate. In the dying months of the former Liberal government it did away with the Crow rate and instead introduced the Western Grain Transportation Act. At that time we warned that it would open the door to the eventual abolition of the Crow benefits. Lo and behold, it is happening.
The Minister of Finance announced a 10 per cent cut in the program for 1993-94 and a further 10 per cent cut for 1994-95. Gone is the two-price system of wheat. Gone is the fuel tax rebate. We have seen user pay programs introduced. We have seen attacks on the Wheat Board. That is the record of this government.
Some fundamental decisions have to be made in this country. What type of agriculture do we want? What do we want to protect? Certainly the GRIP program and programs that pay producers on the amount they grow on their acreages helped the large producers. We see the anomalies in GRIP where some will get hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits and many will get very little. That is no solution.
We have to depoliticize agriculture. We have to do it on a provincial and a federal level. We cannot afford to play politics with the lives of farmers any more. I strongly suggest that a permanent committee consisting of federal and provincial representatives and the producers be brought together to formulate the programs and that these become the effective programs.
Take agriculture out of politics. People's lives and well-being are dependent. There are some who will play politics with those lives and that is unacceptable. I therefore urge support of our motion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Saskatchewan who has just spoken covered a number of the concerns of the motion before us today. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture when he
speaks this afternoon, as I understand he will be, will not give us the usual malarkey that we hear from the parliamentary secretaiy to the Prime Minister about how many billions of dollars the government has spent over the past six or seven years.
Rather than doing that, the real problems facing prairie agriculture should be dealt with for example, the dramatic drop in income which is forecast for next year. The Saskatchewan income is forecast to drop to some $238 million of realized net farm income where the average income per farm is something like $4,000 in that province.
The government brags about how many billions of dollars in support it provided in 1986 or 1987. It is interesting that the support the government has provided always seems to peak in an election year, for example in 1988, but then drop off. Looking at the statistics, the support was higher in 1992 than it was in 1991 or 1990. Of course 1992 was a projected election year.
Clearly we need to know what the government is going to do. The government has run through the political calendar into the fifth year because the polls are so terrible. The farmers do not worry about that. They want to know what the government is going to do about the net farm income this coming year.
Clearly the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Agriculture, chopped some $73 million off the Western Grain Transportation Act in December. Other assistance seems to be falling behind. Independent groups like the WEFA group forecast a drop in net farm income by 21 per cent. I hope when the minister speaks later this afternoon he will respond to this because that is what farmers want to know.
Groups like the Prairie Pools Incorporated are in the community and in the gallery today. I am sure they are waiting to hear what the government is going to do about net farming.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, yes, we see the aid fluctuate and if it is put on a chart it is totally dependent upon when elections are called. If there is a provincial election we get aid or a promise of aid. Then of course what happens is that the aid comes but it is stretched out to include two crop years and stretched out a little more until the next election is there, whether it is a federal or a provincial election.
February 9, 1993

We see this playing of politics with people's lives and it is this that the farmers are angry about. It is their livelihood. It is the ability to put food on the table. It is the land that has been in their family for generations. They see politicians playing with their lives and they are angry. They are angry. They expect a national commitment.
As I tried to put on the record the province of Saskatchewan cannot support the grain industry. We cannot fight the treasuries of Europe and the United States. The province of Saskatchewan thought there was a commitment by all provinces and the federal government that the crisis in agriculture was a national commitment. We thought this commitment was made particularly when there were negotiations on the Constitution.
We want to see this government live up to that commitment instead of trying to off-load the problem on to the people of Saskatchewan who are in no position to carry that load.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate to listen to. I take considerable exception to what the previous speaker, the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, was saying.
I should point out that many of the ways he suggested in terms of how the government should proceed are in fact exactly how the government has proceeded. I know a part of his riding is rural. I would be more than happy if he is available to sit down with him and go over how these stabilization programs were put in place.
The hon. member talks about depoliticizing agriculture and having a committee that would deal with and work on farm safety net programs. That is precisely how the two programs we are talking about today, GRIP and NISA, were put in place.
There was a committee of 33 people and 19 of them were producers. The committee worked over a period of some months under the chairmanship of the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture. Interestingly enough as 19 members of the committee were producers, essentially the producers were designing the program.
The legislation, which is enabling legislation, also provided that those programs should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. That is presently under way through the
Supply
signatory committee which is made up of representatives from the provinces, the federal government, as well as producers. A large amount of the input into how those programs are going to be changed and improved is made by the producers themselves on that committee.
If the NDP member who just spoke wanted to see how those programs operate he would find that the suggestions he made, which are good ones, are exactly how the programs were put in place initially and exactly how they are administered.
He also makes the point that too much of this is political. I would be happy to show him in numbers that government spending actually went down in 1988. The expenditures we put in place really had nothing to do with the election. He made reference to the fact there was some $800 million talked about as farm aid during the 1988 election. In point of fact there was $850 million and it was delivered to that amount.
We tried to depoliticize and to remove farm support programs from the political process so that there was more predictability about those programs. That was one of the reasons most people wanted to get away from what has come to be referred to as ad hoc programs, programs that come up on the spur of the moment to address a specific need.
The whole idea of GRIP and NISA was to make them predictable so that before you went to the field in the spring to seed your crop you could go to your banker with the program in front of you. You and your banker could be quite certain of the kind of revenue you could generate from each acre of land you were going to seed that spring as opposed to, in some cases, as has been in the past, not knowing how much you get until you finally get an envelope in the mail and you open it. The whole idea of those programs was to make them predictable.
Some of the nonsense we have heard here is people complaining that farm income is going to go down this year. There is no question that the projections do not look very favourable overall as an industry and there is likely to be a drop in over-all farm income although the year is not well advanced. There may be some things that are going to happen as far as markets and there may be some things that we are going to have to do as government. They cannot complain that we spend only in an election year and obviously when everybody knows this is an election year bemoan the fact that federal programs are going to spend less money in the farm community

February 9, 1993
Supply
this year than last year. That just does not make any sense. You cannot have it both ways.
Let me address the motion. There is no question there are problems in agriculture. There are substantial problems in agriculture. They are largely rooted in the fact that this industry produces a surplus in Canada because of the way we can produce and how competitive we can be and the fact that we have a large land base and relatively small population. As an industry, we have to export about one-half of what we produce. In other words for every dollar a Canadian farmer earns about one-half of that comes from exports. We then are very dependent on the export market. What goes on internationally has a very great effect on what happens to Canadian farmers.
Again, I come back to the NDP and its policy of tearing up the free trade agreement and not wanting to have anything to do with some of the international agreements that are going to provide some certainty.
When we are so dependent on exports and with a relatively small population it is very important that we trade on the basis of rules, with some predictability and reliability, so that we do not have to deal with the Americans and the Europeans on the basis of whims. In many cases they can act like bullies and that is what has been happening in international trade and agriculture. Because of their size and because of the lack of international rules they have been able to essentially make up the rules as they go along. The free trade agreement with the United States puts a stop to that.
As a result of the free trade agreement there is a way of settling disputes. If the Americans disagree with our trading practices or if we disagree with their trading practices we can take the matter to an international court which settles the dispute on the basis of an agreed upon set of rules: the free trade agreement.
How does that work for us? We have had three disputes to date, one of them to do with hogs and pork. We have essentially won in both those cases, although we will call it one dispute. We have won to the extent that the Americans collected tariffs from us. They were asked and are in the process of refunding $26 million or $27 million collected as tariffs that the dispute settlement
mechanism found were not proper. They are being refunded.
We also won a case to do with raspberries, interestingly enough on today of all days. The Americans have been complaining about Canadians selling wheat into their market unfairly. We established a panel under section 18 of the free trade agreement. They came forward with their findings. We won. We essentially had the practices of the Canadian Wheat Board vindicated by the free trade agreement. We had a panel of five individuals, three Americans. We loss the toss and it was an American who chaired it. By the way, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and a former attorney general of the United States sat on it. It was a pretty high powered group.
They essentially found that Canada was complying with the free trade agreement on five counts: that the acquisition prices of goods referred to in the relevant article include only the Canadian Wheat Board's initial payment; that only storage and handling charges paid by the board should be included; and that the Western Grain Transportation Act should be excluded from the calculations. We also won in two other areas. We won in the sense that we have had the practices of selling into the United States vindicated by a process established under the free trade agreement.
If we listen to members of the NDP, they are going to tear that up. That is not a very smart thing to do if they are going to stand up and advocate policy on behalf of Canadian farmers.
Let me give the results of what has happened in the last three years. Since the free trade agreement has come into effect we have had three complete crop years. The crop year runs from August 1 to July 31. It is different from a calendar year or fiscal year. In the three complete crop years we have had since the free trade agreement came into effect we have almost doubled our grain and oilseed exports to the United States. They have gone from about 1.68 million tonnes to about 3.25 million tonnes. It is almost a doubling of exports into the United States, quite a remarkable record when we think about it.
The United States is the largest producer of grain and oilseeds in the world. It is the largest exporter, yet we are close enough to its market. We can compete with a set of
February 9, 1993

rules that gives us access to that market on a fair set of principles and an agreed upon set of rules. We can be very successful in their market.
Not only is it important because they are close to us. It is important because the Americans do not subsidize their own market. They do not eat their own market. Along with the Japanese market, it is the second highest priced market in the world.
It is right next door to us. We have a first-class product. We have a good capability to sell into that market through the Canadian Wheat Board and through other agencies. The stoiy is there, yet the NDP wants to tear that up.
What would members of the NDP do today when we have just had our selling practices vindicated by the free trade agreement? How would they propose to continue selling over 3.25 million tonnes into that market without the free trade agreement? What is their policy? How would they replace it with anything that would give the same protection to Canadian farmers we have under the free trade agreement?
I do not think they have an answer. If they do, it is certainly not a particularly good answer.
Another point they make in their motion concerns the lack of support for supply management. It reads:
(e) its failure to provide clear and unequivocal support for our
supply management system, particularly with respect to the mixed
signals the government is giving with respect to its position on the
strengthening and clarification of article XI of the GATT.
I do not know where they get that kind of idea. I go back to a press release issued on October 15, 1990, a little over two years ago, prior to the ministerial meeting of GATT ministers in Brussels. We proposed greater security for supply management through a strengthened and clarified article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in accordance with the proposal made by Canada in March 1990 which would include minimum market access levels pursuant to Canada's international obligations.
In pursuing GATT discussions and negotiations with the other members of GATT we have been very aware of industry concerns. We have involved industry at all levels
Supply
of the discussions through what are called SAGITS, the sectoral advisory groups for international trade.
The various industries affected have actually been at the table with members and officials of the government in developing and in sitting down with the people who negotiate on our behalf in Geneva. In some cases they are almost giving instructions to our negotiating officials at the GATT. It is an unprecedented move on behalf of the government to involve people in the actual process.
I could speak with a certain amount of conviction on this because I happened to be part of a commodity group during the last GATT negotiations when the previous government was in power. We got absolutely no consideration whatsoever relevant to what has been happening today. We provided information in many cases to the government and got absolutely no feedback. There was no input coming back from the previous government. We used to refer to it as kind of a big black hole: all the information went in and nothing came back.
In this case members of the different sectors of agriculture have been at the table working with government to set policy. Rather than move this kind of motion, I would suggest that members of the NDP talk to groups in the supply management community and ask them about the government's commitment to work on their behalf.
The Prime Minister raised these issues at the Tokyo summit. He spoke at a Cairns group meeting in Ottawa. He has raised this issue at summit meetings. We have not had a Prime Minister in the history of this country who has taken agriculture and its concerns and raised them so consistently at international meetings.
When those members talk about failure to provide clear and unequivocal support for our supply management system, I have no idea where they would get any kind of concern that would let them put those words on a piece of paper and move a motion in the House of Commons. It does not in any way indicate or represent the attitude of everybody in this government, especially and including the Prime Minister, toward the supply management industry.
They also mention its weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board by several actions such as removing oats. Everybody talks about oats. Let me say a little bit about them. Oats in many ways have become a specialty crop. It

February 9, 1993
Supply
used to be that oats were a major fuel. It fed horses when farmers farmed with horses.
In the last number of years, if my memory serves me correctly and if we rank oats in order of value of exports, they were 14th on this list after lentils and other small crops. It was not a big factor in the export market at all. There were cases when the Wheat Board had responsibility for oats where it exported 100,000 tonnes or less. For a couple of years they did not even close the pool accounts.
When we looked at the international market and realized it had essentially become a niche market, it did not make a lot of sense to have one monopolistic jurisdiction over the marketing of oats. We simply responded to a lot of concerns out there of several farm organizations by letting the private side deal with oats.
I will put it into a bit of perspective. I said before and I say again that it will take four, five, eight or maybe ten years to let things sort themselves out. This year volumes of exports of oats out of this country are expected to be as high as 600,000 tonnes. Prices are up probably $15 a tonne to over $110 a tonne compared to some $95 a tonne a year ago.
That is not a bad record when individuals are given an opportunity to compete on the basis of the quality of the product they produce as compared to having one central selling agency essentially trying to market oats. It is more difficult for them to do it on that kind of basis than when we have individuals dealing in specialty niche markets where smaller quantities can be sold in a better fashion. As I say, it will take some time to sort that out. It may take a few more years to get an over-all look at how it has worked.
Beyond that, the motion does not mention the fact that twice in this government's mandate we have kept the Wheat Board selling at a very large potential deficit. That was a considerable amount of support. In fact, a year ago we ran a deficit in the pool accounts of $744 million. That was a lot of support for the Wheat Board system of selling when we think of the difficult situation we are all in as far as deficits are concerned. That was a lot of support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
We also ran a large deficit, I think six years ago, of a little over $200 million, again an indication of the support this government has had for the Canadian Wheat Board and its system of selling. It would have
been very easy at the time, when we were facing a large deficit and trying to control it, when the board was in a situation internationally that was not part of its own making and was beyond its own control, to simply say: "Stop selling. We cannot afford to see you selling at a deficit. It is going to cost taxpayers too much". We did not do that. We kept the Wheat Board selling.
When people want to point out some of the things that have happened to the board, I would suggest they put it in a little larger context in terms of the over-all support this government has given on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board.
When the Minister for International Trade and the Secretary of State for External Affairs travel, almost without exception they speak in terms of how they can help sales and they raise issues on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board with our customers around the world, various other countries. That again is an indication of the way we have shown support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Let me conclude by simply saying that we absolutely need an over-all GAIT agreement because without it we are going to find it increasingly difficult, earning 50 cents out of every dollar we earn from exports, if we cannot find a way of getting some discipline in the over-all international market.
Let me just give two numbers to make my point. The price a Canadian farmer receives for wheat and barley, but not oilseeds, is probably a little over $100 a tonne. It depends on the grade and where the farmer is. It depends on several things, but it is in that $100 to $105 or $110 a tonne range to a farmer.
Because of their high internal prices and the relatively low international market, when Europeans export they subsidize. The estimate for the present crop year is $140 a tonne. That means their subsidy on exports is larger than what a Canadian farmer receives. That makes it very difficult for a Canadian farmer to compete. That is why we have to put some discipline on international subsidies.
I would like to leave another number with the House. If we add the income all Canadian farmers across the country will earn this year from the production of grain and oilseeds-and we will produce over 50 million tonnes-whether sold internationally or domestically it would be less than the amount of money that the
February 9, 1993

European Community spends on subsidizing exports out of the community.
Those are very difficult numbers for a Canadian producer to compete with and very difficult numbers for a Canadian government to compete with. In the case of the Europeans they have 320 million people and on average they export a very small percentage of their agricultural production.
Unless we can reduce the over-all level of subsidy on a per tonne basis and bring down the amount of money spent in total in subsidizing exports by the European Community, we will find it increasingly difficult to compete. That is why we on this side, from the Prime Minister down, are so committed to putting some discipline in the international marketplace.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a couple of questions, if I may.
The minister was one of the guest speakers at the big farm rally in Saskatoon two weeks ago today. I was there with the minister and with many other members of Parliament from our party and from the Conservative Party. There was a unanimous demand there for some money from the federal government in terms of a third line of defence.
I know the minister is aware of the problems we have on the prairies. His own department said that in terms of 1938 constant dollars farm income now is lower than it has been since 1938. As a result we are losing farmers and we are suffering a loss of jobs in the villages, towns and cities because farm income is down. When the farmer is worse off we are all worse off in rural Canada.
I also know that the minister is more aware than I am, because he is in the cabinet, of the dire financial pressures on the government. Despite those things I wonder whether the minister can tell us today if there is a timetable for a decision on the third line of defence or on a deficiency payment for farmers in western Canada. Can the farmers expect something between now and spring seeding, which is really needed?
Supply
Aid was given to the fishermen in Newfoundland which we all applaud and which was needed. Will a similar aid package be available to western farmers?
My other question to the minister would be whether, as the new minister, he is open to changing the federal support programs to a formula that is based on the cost of production with a cap so that the smaller farmer receives more than the larger farmer in terms of giving him or her some assistance on the farm?
I know that my good friend from Newfoundland, the member for St. John's East, would agree with me, because he understands the fishery very well, and that it is important to help the small and middle sized farmer. I wonder if the minister would agree that we should have a program based on the cost of production where the farmer gets so much for the first 7,000 to 8,000 bushels of wheat and after that the farmer receives the world price for the rest of his or her production.
Those are my two questions. Those are the things I hear as I travel around my riding in my province: first of all emergency assistance and deficiency payments from the federal government; and second, changing the farm support programs where the small farmer and the middle sized farmer gets a greater share of what comes from the federal government rather than someone who has several sections of land.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, with regard to emergency aid, we said in Saskatoon and we say it here again that we are certainly prepared to work with the provincial government with the programs we have in place.
The offer is still on the table from the previous Minister of Agriculture that would see $63 million available to Saskatchewan in this calendar year on a cost shared basis. The member will also know that about two weeks ago we signed an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan, part of it unique to Saskatchewan but a big part of it to do with farmers right across the country, that will see an additional amount of cash flow available in the present calendar year. Beyond that it is very difficult to find additional dollars.
I know we have been berated in the House for simply standing up and talking about the kind of money that has been available, but bear in mind that the average amount of money that is spent by the federal government on a per capita basis on agriculture across the country is around $150 per capita. In Saskatchewan it is eight times

February 9, 1993
Supply
that; it is almost $1,300, the number is $1,285. We have recognized that Saskatchewan as the largest grain producing province in the country has a special problem.
If you add up all of the expenditures on behalf of agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan, the federal government this year will account for close to 80 per cent of it and the province of Saskatchewan about 20 per cent. When all of those things are put into context, you realize that there are problems right across the country. There are large amounts of unemployed people no matter where you go in the country with special circumstances and it is going to be very difficult for us to find additional money for farmers.
I would point out to the member from Saskatchewan that one of the things the Saskatchewan government could do and that the previous administration had on the books to do, was the question of harmonization of the provincial sales tax and the GST. This would generate close to $200 million worth of revenue on an annual basis for the province of Saskatchewan. There are some things that the province itself could do. However, bear in mind that the numbers that we talk about are pretty large numbers when you look at agricultural support by the federal government in Saskatchewan.
No matter how much money any government puts out it is not the real answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is to get more into the marketplace and that is something I think we would all agree on.
With regard to his second question about targeting, it is very difficult to look at. We are certainly prepared to consider any of those things, but when you start putting caps on you run into all kinds of situations that can cause problems.
How, for instance, do you deal with somebody who farms with two or three sons and has everything under one permit book and operates as one unit. There may be three or four families involved. However, somebody else may be operating the same number of acres of land and has chosen, for whatever reason, to operate separately? How are some of those things sorted out? As a government do you really want to start telling people the size of the farm that they should have, because that is what you are going to be doing if you limit the amount of support based on a fixed amount of bushels or production. I find
it very difficult to justify some of those concepts. However, in looking for better ways to spend the money that is there, we are more than willing to consider any of those things if we can make better use of those dollars.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. I listened carefully to his comments this afternoon.
I see the chair of the standing committee on the disabled is here. We heard an interesting presentation this morning from a farmer from Saskatchewan who is faced with a very different problem as a disabled farmer who had lost both his arms in a farming accident. Yet he and his wife and family are still farming in Saskatchewan. He faces the regular problems that most farmers face but he has something additional to overcome because he has two mechanical arms. The equipment he buys is not the normal, standard equipment. He has to spend increased dollars in order to purchase equipment that his arms can operate.
One of the things we discussed was possible amendments to the Income Ihx Act so that the additional costs he has could be compensated through the Income Thx Act. He also mentioned that both he and his wife work outside the farm during the winter months in order to maintain their livelihood. His 14-year old son acts as his arms. It is a tremendous burden on the family. We know that this is not an isolated case. We know that with the added stress of farming today, accidents among farmers have increased incredibly.
I would like to hear the minister's comments on that and whether he has discussed it with others. What does the government propose to do to alleviate some of the stress that not only the able-bodied farmers in this country have but those who have been disabled, for whatever reason, in a farming accident.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nepean for those observations. She might be interested in knowing that we are trying to pursue the whole area of farm safety.
As a new minister, one of the first things I asked the department is where we fit federally when it comes to farm safety. This goes a little beyond her question of what kind of accidents put people in those positions. There apparently is no real system in Canada that I have
February 9, 1993

been made aware of for collecting data or investigating accidents to learn from them.
The next federal-provincial agriculture ministers' meeting will likely be in about three weeks. We are just now trying to decide on a date. One item on the agenda is going to be exactly what the member for Nepean refers to, which is farm safety, to see if we cannot do something in co-operation with the provinces. I have already had conversations with some of the provincial agriculture ministers along this line to see if we can work with them to co-ordinate things that are being done federally and provincially and to see if we can do something in the area of prevention of farm accidents.
Beyond that I would be more than happy to talk to any members of the House to see what we can do in the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Finance, or both, to accomplish the suggestion with respect to deductions from income tax for special equipment.
I know that some of today's equipment is very sophisticated. For instance, it used to be fairly easy to get on a tractor or a piece of farm equipment because it was relatively low to the ground. Now tractor cabs are much more difficult to get into and operate. In some cases I suspect there are literally thousands of dollars of extra equipment required to operate some of this sophisticated farm machinery. We will be more than happy to work with the committee or anybody else through the department to see if we can address some of the concerns the hon. member raises.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today we are here because of what I would say is extreme unrest, an almost revolution in rural Canada.
Last winter, approximately one year ago today, we saw thousands of farmers head to Ottawa to protest on the Hill. Many farmers in areas of Ontario like Lucknow are coming forward and telling everyone what a difficult time farming is today.
The same protests are coming from the west. It is not an anomaly that is happening in one section of Canada
Supply
or in one part of the agricultural industry, it is a problem that is consistently happening across this country.
The farm community is very concerned; concerned that their incomes are getting lower and lower. Stability in the rural community is at an all-time low. There are tremendous problems that need to be dealt with by this government, by the provincial government and by everyone who has any connection or relationship with agriculture in Canada.
In my riding of Essex-Kent, up to one-third of the farmers are having serious financial problems. Those problems are very difficult for the farm community to deal with. In 1988 the agriculture production in the counties of Kent and Essex was in the area of $500 million. Yet one-third of the farmers in that area have run into financial difficulty.
It is not just limited to the farm community. It goes to the food processing industry itself. In my riding, in the last four years since free trade has come in, Olinda Foods has closed. A Nabisco plant in Leamington closed and moved to the Dresden area. A Campbell's plant just recently announced closure. It is moving to the Toronto region. The Hunt-Wesson plant has closed.
In my area four food processing plants have closed. That means every grower of tomatoes or apples for those companies have run into some real problems. We know that the pressure then is a wide broad pressure across this country. It seems to be related back to the time when free trade came in and a very different trend occurred in this country.
Farm competitiveness is the point, we hear, that should be emphasized. However every time I talk to a farmer, I never hear him ask for an increase in subsidies, an increase in support grants, an increase in money to him. The farm community is saying, give us a basis on which we can compete. We can compete with any other farm community in the world if we have an equal footing and if we have a basis on which we can compete. The problem in Canada is that our farm community has been put in a position in which it is non-competitive because of many rules, many pieces of legislation and because of the difficult circumstances under which they have been placed.
I might refer to a report entitled "Competitiveness of Canadian Fresh and Processed Fruit and Vegetable

February 9, 1993
Supply
Industiy" to point this out. The report suggests that the high cost of doing business in Canada renders us uncompetitive.
What are those high costs? Certainly the input cost for the Canadian fanner is quite different from the person he is competing with. In my riding of Essex-Kent, the farmer has to compete with his counterpart in Michigan or Ohio. When we start to look at his basic costs, the first one we can suggest is interest rates. He has to pay in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent above the person he is competing with. He has a 4 per cent disadvantage on all of his input costs. He has a 4 per cent disadvantage on capital costs. He has a 4 per cent disadvantage on every cost related to financing. This makes it very difficult to sell the product for the same price as the competition in Michigan, Ohio or other parts of the United States.
He is also faced with using fuel. It may be oil or gas or whatever type of fuel he is using in his industiy. The cost of those fuels are as much as a third to a half higher again than that of his competitors. As a result he is in a difficult situation in buying gasoline for his tractor or diesel fuel or heat for his greenhouses. Those costs are up quite dramatically in competition with the other industries he is facing and he has to sell his product for the same price.
At the same time we can look at the cost of a tractor or a farm implement and they are much higher in Canada than they are in the United States.
It is my opinion that certainly in the horticultural industry most of the competition that my farmers face are those products coming in from the United States. If large corporations that process products are buying tomatoes for $100 a tonne in southwestern Ontario, they will pay $100 a tonne for a producer in Ohio to bring those tomatoes into southwestern Ontario. The result is that if they are being sold more cheaply in the United States, then in many cases they are being bought in from the United States and processed in southwestern Ontario. They may also be processing tomato paste in Michigan and the food product is then brought into Ontario.
The result is that they are in direct competition with the United States no matter how that comes down. Their cost of fuel, financing, land and each commodity they have to put into that product is way above the cost facing
their competitor. As a result it is very difficult to do that business competition with those in the United States.
Second, the report that I alluded to a few minutes ago on competitiveness suggested that wholesale and retail areas were taking by far the majority of the profits. I think that is quite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Since the beginning, Liberal speakers have split their time with another speaker. I would like an indication as to whether you want to split your speaking time.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I will give some time to my colleague.
With the next point on competitiveness, I mentioned that wholesale and retail areas are taking by far the majority of the profits in that competition. I think it is kind of clear when one starts examining the cost of farm-gate products. I believe my colleague from Lamb-ton-Middlesex earlier held up a box of biscuits and pointed out that there is a product worth 6 cents in that box of biscuits and yet it sells on the shelves in our stores for $2.45.
One can buy tomatoes from the farm for $100 or $120 a tonne, which translates into 5 cents or possibly 10 cents for a can of tomatoes. If one goes into the supermarket, that can of tomatoes sells for $1.50 to $2.50, depending on the size of the can. The difference in cost between the 5 cents or 10 cents of product and the $2.50 the consumer pays is really dramatic.
The farmer is not getting his fair share of that cost of product. The primary producer is just not getting a reasonable return for what it costs to grow the product. The largest returns are very obviously going to the retail sector and therefore the primary producer is being left out dramatically.
We also know that in many cases this report has suggested that subsidization by the U.S. makes Canadian products more difficult to compete against U.S. products. The report also suggests that the government is not concerned enough about the industry. If the government were concerned, I am sure we would have some structural changes in the horticultural industiy to make competi-

tion with that industry equal to its competitors in the U.S. and equal to its competitors elsewhere.
We do not see legislation coming forward to make that competition fair and equal. We do see a dragging of feet when it comes to those types of things.
We hear all about the subsidies that are given. Our farmers want to be able to be competitive and not subsidized. That clearly is the message.
Free trade, interest rates and a high dollar have been great challenges, but there is another area of this horticultural problem that growers in my riding have to face. It is that we have a Canadian policy on pesticides that is a real obstacle for them. In the United States they use certain pesticides that are not allowed in Canada, but products are allowed to come into Canada that have been treated with those pesticides.
In other words, Canada has set out rules that certain pesticides cannot be used by Canadian farmers. However those rules are not consistent with the same rules that are used in the United States. Therefore, many of the fanners in the United States are able to use herbicides and pesticides on the tomato product they grow, have that product processed and bring the product into Canada.
This goes directly to the government. If we are to pass a rule, then any product that is treated with a pesticide or an herbicide here in Canada that is not legal to use in Canada should not be allowed in with any residue. We should zero-rate any residue on those products coming into Canada.
The result would be that an American farmer could not use pesticides and herbicides that a Canadian farmer cannot use. We must allow Canadians to have that equal, fair competition. Our rules today do not allow equal, fair competition. As a matter of fact they are very heavily weighted toward the Americans with the residue ruling that we have in our trade practices.
The NAFTA agreement with Mexico is an example where this may become much worse. We know that DDT has been banned for 25 years in Canada, yet it is still being used in Mexico today.


An hon. member:: It is not illegal.


Jerry Pickard: The product can come into Canada. Many people in the United States have suggested there is a real concern about the fair and consistent use of pesticides and herbicides for them. They are worried about product flooding American markets. I am more
Supply
worried about product flooding Canadian markets. If we do not have a zero rating on all of those herbicides and pesticides, we will have major competitive problems in the future.
There are many things that can be done to make our industry more competitive. I believe it is the responsibility of government to put those rules in place so that Canadian business can be competitive with its counterparts in the United States or counterparts in Mexico and do that with a very rapid speed.
We also talked about the NAFTA. I mentioned the concern about DDT. I would also mention concern about some of the information I have read recently. Even the United States has recognized that NAFTA problems for agriculture may become very great. The Florida secretary of agriculture has warned that NAFTA could devastate the winter produce industry. I believe NAFTA will have some very devastating effects on the Canadian industry unless there are some controls and guidelines.
The particular devastation that I would suggest is the Canadian greenhouse industry. If the Florida industry is frightened about what NAFTA could do to it, then the greenhouse industry has a great deal to be concerned about in this country.
We see within our greenhouse industry today some great concerns about dumping. I talked to one of my constituents just recently about import products coming into Canada. He has been facing a very difficult situation in the horticultural industry. Large pots of plants coming into Canada, 10-inch plants, have been brought in to be sold in Canada in Woolco, Zellers and in many of the companies that retail these large plants for $9.75 or $10.
Look for the same plant coming into Canada from the United States, in particular from Florida. We can take a similar plant and go across the border into Detroit from my riding and those 10-inch pots for $9.75 are nowhere to be seen. In Detroit they are selling at $17 to $18 a pot. However, our Zellers and Woolco stores are selling them in Canada at under $10.
There is a problem. Why are they selling in Canada for under $10, while across the border in the United States they are more than $17? I believe that there is a tremendous amount of dumping. The producers in Florida will sell to different cities in the United States and get rid of their product. Leftovers will be transported into Canada and sold off at very low rates. They are going to get profits on the leftover plants here in Canada, but our greenhouse industry, our people who

Supply
are competing with that, are at a real disadvantage. They are not being treated equally.
I think we have to tighten down those rules on plants coming into Canada and make certain that we are not having them dumped against the Canadian industry and causing lost business. The rule clearly should be that any plant coming in from Florida or other areas should go into the greenhouses for a period of time in order to make sure diseases or problems with those plants are cleared up. It is usually two or three months before they go on to the floor of stores. Those costs should be worked into the Canadian system. However, we are seeing many instances where that is not happening and our industry is suffering a great deal because of that.
Another buzzword in Canada lately is harmonizing. There was a very prosperous Campbell industry in Chatham. They recently announced that they are moving to the Toronto area to operate. I understand that there are applications and discussions with the government having to do with importing tomato paste and the possibility of making other products such as juices, ketchup and other things.
What happens to the Canadian grower? The Canadian grower then is cut out of that process. In other words, a lot of paste imported from Mexico and the southern United States would go into a Campbell plant in the Toronto area to be processed into ketchup, tomato juice and other products. Therefore, the long and short of it is that the Canadian farmer is cut out of that industry.
I see my time has come. I will give the rest to my colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Ten minutes for questions or comments. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood only for questions or comments because the previous speaker used up the time.
Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, the member for Huron- Bruce.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to participate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I just want a point of clarification. Are you suggesting the full 20 minutes have lapsed from the previous speaker's time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to be very clear. I interrupted the previous speaker to tell him that if he wanted to share his time, I would consider that. However, I noticed that, as was his right, the hon. member used the 20 minutes allotted to him. Therefore, there is no time left for your party. On the other hand, I asked if there were any questions or comments and nobody rose. That is why I recognized the next speaker when debate resumed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, with your permission could I ask my colleague a short question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All right. I am prepared to be tolerant. I will therefore recognize the hon. member for a question or comment. I apologize to the hon. member.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Huron- Bruce.


Murray Cardiff: I know the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood indicated he would like to speak and I do not intend to use my full allotted time. I will make sure to leave at least five minutes for the hon. member to make some remarks if he wishes to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This is a fine example of parliamentary goodwill and I appreciate the comments made by members on both sides of the House. The hon. member has the floor.
February 9, 1993


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak about an issue that is always very dear to me and of concern to us. We share that concern with the producers of agricultural products right across this country and the processors of those products. The entire sector includes the major producers on the farm, through the processing plants to the consumer. We have to think of all of those people when we talk about food in this great country.
We also must recognize we have always had the ability to produce high quality foods much beyond the capability of our domestic consumption. We have always had to depend on export markets for those extra dollars that are so necessary to keep agriculture going. I know some provinces probably export 80 per cent of what they produce in the grains and oilseeds sector in particular, so that does cause an extra drain when it comes to difficult times. As times become more difficult we have a tendency to produce more to try to make up for the shortfall we have had in income.
This year we have been extremely challenged right across the nation because of the devastating weather effects we have experienced. In August of this year Alberta experienced snow and frost, which is a very unusual situation. In my province of Ontario we have had similar situations where the corn did not mature.
The Essex-Kent area of my hon. colleague suffered a severe drought last year although this year the crops were better. This year in other parts of the province we have all experienced an extremely wet summer and lack of maturity of crops. We usually produce top quality corn, capable of being used for distillers, the com sweetener plants, et cetera. This year the value of that commodity is somewhere in the number five grade, which is only fit for livestock feed and the keeping qualities of it are not as good.
We know we have to try to work with organizations and companies to find markets for that com because we want
Supply
to clean it up this year. We do not want to carry it through to another crop year and create problems then.
Despite all that, some sectors of the agrifood industry in Ontario have had some growth. There was a 28 per cent or $544 million increase in the value of those exports in 1992.
I will give you another example. Just last week the Canadian Embryo Exporters Association announced that Ontario breeders would be exporting bovine embryos to Japan, making Canada the first country to break into that Japanese market. At home, the dairy industry is strong and stable and beef prices have continued to rise.
It is high time that has happened because we have not seen a decent beef price for many, many years.
The Ontario average net cash income per farm before depreciation has shown a slight decrease from $21,592 in 1987 to $21,053 in 1991. That does not take into account any off-farm income.
I know some of the speakers have alluded to statistics that show off-farm income has been added but those figures do not include the off-farm income. Moreover, Ontario farms are holding their value. The net worth of the average Ontario farm has increased in the last four years from almost $395,000 in 1987 to almost $522,000 in 1991. That is an average annual increase of 8 per cent.
In 1991, the average equity held by Ontario farmers was 85.1 per cent. The proportion of Ontario farms with high debt loads and low cash flow has decreased in the last five years. In 1991, 7 per cent of farmers had less than 75 per cent equity and less than $20,000 in cash flow, down from 13 per cent of farmers in 1987.
Industry debt is now better held by those able to service it. In 1987 on average, Ontario farms with over $20,000 in cash flow carried 63 per cent of the debt. These farms carried 76 per cent of the debt load in 1991.
Debt is not a universal problem in the farm sector. Thirty-six per cent of Ontario farms reported no debt interest payments in 1991 compared to 26 per cent of Canadian farms. The outlook for the industry is still good.
Total cash receipts from Ontario agriculture for 1992 are expected to increase between 8 per cent and 10 per cent from 1991 to between $6 billion and $6.1 billion.

February 9, 1993
Supply
Total cash receipts for 1993 are expected to range between $5.6 billion and $6.1 billion.
Ontario agriculture is holding its own. At the same time, we realize there are some real problems in the industry. I have alluded to those problems before and most of them this year have been caused by the weather, compounded by the low prices of commodities over the last few years.
During the past year, for example, some farmers saw significant yield and quality loss to their crops because of the poor weather. The safety nets the government developed jointly with the industry and the provinces are attempting to address that situation.
In 1992, federal and provincial safety net program payments to Ontario farmers are expected to be between $633 million and $744 million. Because of the difficult growing and harvest conditions this crop year, the federal government in December announced emergency cash advances of up to $15,000 in unthreshed grain.
That program was not taken up to a great extent because of the unusual weather conditions we had in late December and again in January. It is the first time in my farming history that I can recall when the combines were out very close to Christmas and again in January harvesting corn that we had not anticipated would be harvested until spring.
We are fortunate in that way. We have to recognize the quality of that commodity. As I said before, it was not great but at least it gave some of those people the opportunity to get that commodity off the fields and be in a better position in the spring to get on with their planting for 1993.
We are eternal optimists and believe if we can get another crop in the ground, the next year is going to be better. I have farmed all my life and I guess that is how I think as well. By working together and trying to resolve the problems we have come through, we can achieve those things.
In addition, GRIP, the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan interim payments cheques totalling more than $96 million of which $39 million was for corn have been mailed to more than 25,000 farmers, including nearly 1,800 corn producers who are covered under that program.
There is also a projected $39 million to go out in April of this year to the farm sector. In October or November of this year the balance of that GRIP payment of $45 million will go out as well. A total of $180 million will be going into the farm sector for that crop year.
Since 1985-86 the federal government has spent more than $4 billion in support in the agrifood sector. This works out to about $7,000 per Ontario farm annually. About 60 per cent was direct income support to fanners. The other 40 per cent was used to fund research, inspection, marketing and trade activities, transportation, rural development and operating costs.
Through partnerships with the Ontario government and producers we will continue to provide those safety nets which allow farmers to ride out tough times. Meanwhile, the federal government is working hard to develop trade opportunities and a competitive business environment so that Ontario agriculture can continue to thrive in international markets.
As the minister and others spoke earlier, there are the long-term plans for agriculture that farmers can rely on and the continuity of present programs that were started by the former Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister. Everyone is familiar with the "Growing Together" paper which I was also involved with. It is the most comprehensive agriculture plan we have had to develop in many, many years.
That is because things have changed throughout the world and not just in Canada. It is a universal market and we have to compete in it. The U.S. farm bill of 1985 or 1986 has certainly changed the atmosphere of how we trade. We have done the best we can to compete and meet markets wherever we could. Of course, we brought in GRIP, NISA and crop insurance. We have tried to create those programs to sustain agriculture through those lows experienced this year.
It is unfortunate some Canadian producers chose not to buy into GRIP or crop insurance. It is a voluntary program and it was the choice they made. It is unfortunate that they do not have some of that protection.
Granted, the programs are probably not perfect but they are the best we have for today. We have to continue and as times change and as markets change we respond to the world and Canadian demands to put programs in place. With the dollars we have to work with we have to
February 9, 1993

stay within a budget and we have to put money into sectors the farming community believes necessary. Everyone in this House knows the situation of the debt, not only of this government but also the debts of provincial governments. Therefore we have to work only with existing dollars.
We have worked very closely with farm organizations across this country for many years. I know the previous government did as well prior to 1984. As I have said, circumstances have changed so much that we have had to come up with new ideas. I think everyone in this House has good ideas on how to develop programs but it is very difficult to know what to do in a situation such as we are facing this year with limited dollars.
Farm organizations and individuals who served on committees with great ambition have tried to help the farming sector in providing the tools to work with. We have tried to put a program in place whereby before a producer goes to the field in the spring he can predict a minimum amount of acreage payment. That should give some comfort to both the lender and the borrower. We hope there will be greater participation next year.
We have also introduced legislation, Bill C-54 I believe, and we hope to get that through the House fairly quickly. We feel that would help producers in the longer run with development and promotion of their products and buying Canadian.
The Farm Credit Corporation legislation has had first reading in the House and we hope it will pass fairly quickly also. Most people in this House have had the opportunity to examine that legislation. I believe it is another tool that the agriculture sector will be able to work with, with the extension of lending beyond the farm gate to farm related business. As well it will help with the generation of transfers.
We are trying to work with existing programs. We also are working continually in trying to streamline our export programs so that if we have an opportunity to make an agricultural sale we can put the export credits in place much faster. We have to be very cautious when we do those things. All of those things are hopefully helpful.
Supply
Another one is interprovincial trade. We recognize that there are problems there. We can understand why provinces are reluctant to give in some of their cases, but those are areas where we have to work together and see if we can smooth the trade problems we have and the irritants within our country.
Another area that we feel very good about and we think is necessary and should have been done years ago is the placing of qualified persons in our key embassies around the world who can talk about agriculture and thereby put us in a better position to talk about the food services industry and the things that we have to offer to the people of Canada.
I am quite prepared to give up my time now. I will take questions for a few moments, but I want to make sure the member from Greenwood has the option to make some comments as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not think it is necessary to split your time with the opposition member. We have question and comment period and then it is up to the Liberal Party to have the floor.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to acknowledge the member for Huron-Bruce who has always been a gentleman in this House and who has always done a fabulous job representing his constituents. I thank him for giving me this opportunity. I will actually take this time to ask him a question. With his experience and being a farmer, he is probably equipped to answer my concerns.
About six months ago I had an exhibit in my constituency window on Danforth in downtown Toronto. It was created for me by my colleague from Lamb ton-Middlesex. The exhibit was entitled "Compare the share". That exhibit contained miniature tractors and combines showing the capital cost of the basic implements needed to run a farm. There were examples of what a farmer would receive at the farm gate for milk and the rate that the consumer would pay; bread, wheat, et cetera.
I believe my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex earlier in the remarks today talked about the "Compare the share" concern that he and many of us in this House have.

February 9, 1993
Supply
Does the member from Huron-Bruce share my colleague's concerns about the obvious spread between the farm gate price and what the consumer has to pay? It is an egregious spread, I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg, but more important, and I am speaking now as an urban member of Parliament from downtown Toronto, citizens are concerned about quality of product.
One of the things that we have been so proud of in this country has been our marketing boards, not just in terms of protecting income flows to our farming community but that it has given them the opportunity to have the best quality in the world. We see in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution dated May 26 that 84 inspectors were interviewed and that thousands of contaminated birds are shipped every day instead of being condemned. Actually millions of birds are being shipped to consumers in the United States. The inspectors are actually saying that if you blow the whistle today, you are in trouble. What concerns me is that some of that cheaper product through quota is getting in here. Because of the cartel that is basically taking over this agricultural industry, I am concerned that those low prices on food being imported from the United States are being used to lever and put downward pressure on the prices that our farmers have to sell to market. I wonder if the member would respond to that.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member's comments, particularly about the "Compare the share" of the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex. I know he has done a lot of work in this area and has travelled across Canada as well with that message.
No matter what the situation, we always feel that someone else is making more than we are. I believe in the situation that from the farm gate this does happen. He mentioned the example of wheat. That included the box in the value of the wheat.
We wish that was double. You would think that somewhere there would be room to double that. I do not know but I understand that is a very competitive market. If we could find a way of doing that, I do not know how much more wheat we would produce in this country. It is an area that is of concern to all of us. With regard to the quality of food in Canada, we have always prided ourselves on the food that we have. Any food that is imported, everything that comes in here, is high quality food. I believe the Canadian consumer has been protected and assured of high quality products when he or she goes to the store to purchase products.
He talked about an article on contaminated birds. I do not know the substance of the article or anything about it. I do not know of any food chain in Canada that could afford to take any risk with food that did not meet Canadian standards. We have always felt our fast-food outlets in Canada have been extremely good and we have had virtually no problem with any food contamination. I believe that is because of the standard we have set and the inspection system that we have as well.
I believe that we have been competitive because of the high quality that we have and we intend to maintain that high quality.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary a question with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board, as the member will know, is something that is very near and dear to the hearts of western Canadians. As an institution, it is very popular and has done a great deal of good for western Canada over the last number of decades. In fact, the support for the Canadian Wheat Board became very clear at the recent rally that took place in Saskatoon when one of the speakers made the comment: "Please don't touch our Canadian Wheat Board". That comment received a standing ovation from 13,000 farmers. It is a very popular institution.
One comment that I get time and time again from farmers is if the government is going to make changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, will it at least put it to a vote. The reason is that the Canadian Wheat Board is paid for by farmers. The government does not contribute except at times when there is a pooling deficit. It is an institution that is for farmers, to represent farmers, and farmers are saying that the government should not be ramming changes down their throats. If there are going to be changes, there should be a vote.
Right now there is a study on the future of barley and a report will be issued. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can help me and farmers across western Canada. If when that report comes down it suggests that barley be removed from the Canadian Wheat Board for the North American market, can the member assure this House and Canadians right across the country that before any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to barley, there will be a producer vote. Can the
February 9, 1993

member give some comments with respect to that? That is something I am hearing, something that farmers want. Certainly farmers would like to hear some definite answer from the member if he can give it.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to prejudge a report before it comes to us as to the future of any recommendations concerning the Wheat Board and barley. I do not live in an area that comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board but we do have the Ontario Wheat Board in the province of Ontario. We have always been able to work extremely well with export permits, et cetera that the Wheat Board would issue on our behalf in the province of Ontario.
I would not even attempt to answer the question until we know what the report is. I know if that report comes in that regardless of what it says consultation would continue. I could not indicate whether there would be a vote or not. That would depend on what the report has to say.
I too would have to agree that the Canadian Wheat Board has done an excellent job for Canada and Canadians. It is not a government board, but we are responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in any pool deficit and other similar things that happen. Also, we set the standards for the Canadian Grain Commission that the Canadian Wheat Board has to work within.
We have had good co-operation from the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board. They have had to respond to the changes in the world markets because of the EC, because of the American situation and the export enhancement program as well. They have had their work cut out for them in these areas and challenges have been there too. It has not been easy trying to compete in a market where it is being subsidized with many dollars in a traditional market for Canadians.
We are very proud of the agreement Hon. Alvin Hamilton made years ago with China which was a very beneficial market for Canada for many years. We just wish we could continue to find more markets that would give us the continuity and the projections that one did. There was a lot of security in that as well.
Private Members' Business
The Canadian Wheat Board works well and we will continue to work with them.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: With the conclusion of the debate, proceedings on the motion before the House have expired, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17).
Unless there is indication to the contrary, I therefore suspend proceedings for a few minutes, until 6 p.m., the time provided for Private Members' Business.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.58 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, November 24, 1992, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fee that Bill C-305, an act respecting the award of the Victoria Cross, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to finally speak on this bill standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer. Bill C-305 proposes to reinstate the award of the Victoria Cross. It seems to have taken a long time to get to this point.
The Victoria Cross is the highest decoration that can be awarded by the British Empire to any member of the navy, army or air force, from the highest to the lowest ranks. This bronze cross, bearing the British lion above

Private Members' Business
the Crown of England and the words "For Valour", takes precedence over all other British orders or decorations.
Since the Crimean War, the Victoria Cross has been the Commonwealth's premier military decoration. It was a great honour to receive this decoration during the Second World War because only a very small number of crosses were awarded.
We are an independent nation, but we have no distinctive military decoration to recognize exceptional bravery by our soldiers in the face of the enemy.
This decoration is older than the Dominion of Canada. In fact, it was instituted by Queen Victoria in 1856. Among the first recipients was a Canadian, Lieutenant Alexander Robert Dunn. Over the years, Canadian recipients have totalled 93, including 10 Quebecers.
In 1972, we decided to create our own Canadian decorations and medals. However, we still have no decoration which recognizes acts of exceptional bravery. The government is now examining this situation.
The Victoria Cross is important because there is a proud tradition in this country, a military tradition, that most Canadians do not know or understand. Canada is a peace-loving nation. We have never initiated a war and, God willing, we never will.
Nevertheless, on several occasions, we have answered the call to arms in defence of liberty and freedom. We still have brave, courageous men and women in this country who even today serve under the flag of the United Nations, proudly wearing the Canadian flag on their shoulders.
These Canadians are prepared to endanger their lives and act very bravely for peace and freedom in far-off lands.
Nevertheless, for Canadians serving in the armed forces today, the highest military distinction ever awarded to Canadians does not exist since it has not been recognized in Canada's system of decorations and distinctions.
In resuming this debate, I ask the government to consider Canadians' request to respect our military tradition and create military awards that recognize the bravery and courage of our service people.
In closing, I ask that the Victoria Cross again be awarded to our heroes.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TFinity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to rise in the House to address the private member's bill put forward by my colleague from Red Deer.
I regret that I did not have the opportunity to speak before at different times and in different circumstances. However I am privileged and honoured to speak because this is a subject dear to the hearts of many Canadians. I know it is dear to the hearts of many veterans in my riding.
Because it is a private member's bill, members have been allowed to express their views without the concern of following party lines or following instructions from the Whip, the House leader or anything of that nature. I am glad it has taken on the position of a private member's bill.
We all know the history of the Victoria Cross. We studied it in books in school. Some of us have had the privilege of knowing Victoria Cross winners. In my particular case I am very proud to say that I have known four Victoria Cross winners, and two of them very well. I notice a number of things when I am in the presence of those who have the honour of having been awarded the Victoria Cross.
The Victoria Cross is the highest award for gallantry in the British Empire. It was conceived and put together in 1856 by Queen Victoria. It is known throughout the world. It has universal recognition as, if not the, certainly among the highest award for gallantry in the world. If it could be recognized in the universe, I would be so strong as to say that it could be recognized universally.
Since the Victoria Cross was initiated by Queen Victoria in 1856, it has been awarded to very few people. In fact the first Canadian to be honoured with this award was in the Crimean War for his part in the charge of the famous light brigade in the battle of Balaklava. Since the award to Lieutenant Alexander Robert Dunn, the first Canadian to receive this award, 92 other Canadians have been given it.
It is not parenthetic to say that the award is given for the most conspicuous gallantry in the face of the enemy. There have been occasions when the award has been
February 9, 1993

bestowed not in the face of the enemy but these are very few and far between. Some of the 93 Canadians earned this award posthumously.
If we speak to any military man, any military woman or military family and mentioned the name of the Victoria Cross, we see the response of reverence and dignity that it brings.
Canadians became ineligible for this award when Canada developed its own system of decorations and awards in 1972.
I suppose one could hope that Canadians would never be asked to fight in a skirmish like World War I, World War II, Korea, the Crimean War where the award of this decoration would be necessary. In our recent past, and as recent as the Falklands campaign, the Victoria Cross was awarded to those who were involved in the battle and showed conspicuous gallantry in the face of the enemy.
I believe that most members who have spoken have generally spoken in favour of it. I can understand why they would. They would for the reason that I am, because of the universal dignity and honour it brings.
There are some difficulties in having a Victoria Cross eligible for award to Canadians. I do not think any of these obstacles are insurmountable. I understand we will not be able to talk out this private members' bill, and neither should we because of the importance of it.
If it is the intention of this court, the highest court in the land, to move forward with the private members' bill there are ways around the difficulties. I have been told there are ways that would not infringe on the rights of the Sovereign. This would be a concern from the viewpoint of the Secretary of State since it is a medal for the British Empire and is conferred by Her Majesty the Queen.
I use as a precedent the Australian situation in which that country decided to adopt the Victoria Cross as its highest military decoration. However its government did not proceed by legislation. Instead, Her Majesty was asked to issue a letters patent signifying her will and pleasure that the Victoria Cross in this case for Australia, would be the country's highest declaration and that its award would be governed by regulations that her staff had set out in the schedule.
Private Members' Business
Her Majesty also agreed that the Australian Victoria Cross itself should be identical to the original. I think it is important so that the universal recognition factor would pertain.
In addition, some of the other provisions were stipulations that award of the decoration should be made with the approval of the Sovereign by instruments signed by the Governor General of Canada, in this case, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence.
There has to be some staff work done to accomplish this. However it is my belief that should this House vote in favour of retaining the Victoria Cross, which would be awarded for conspicuous gallantry, the highest gallantry in the face of the enemy, then I believe the same mechanism could be applied.
The Victoria Cross could then become Canada's highest military declaration without fear of degrading or otherwise qualifying those Canadian decorations like the Meritorious Service Cross, the Award for Bravery, the Cross of Valour and the other Canadian decorations that we now have.
I do not see it in any way, shape or form qualifying the national system we have had in place. It has been evolving since 1972 and is a very appropriate and fitting complement to this award.
In conclusion, I would say that I represent those veterans who I have spoken with and non-veterans. I have discussed this with at least two Victoria Cross winners and they are certainly in favour of it. I understand why they would be.
I will tell the House something that is rather unique in this case. It is unique that it is a private members' bill and I do not have to worry about how my party is voting. It is also unique that I have not spoken to one person who has had difficulty with this. When you come down to the crunch, providing it could be done without changing the qualification of the other series of decorations and awards, no one has any great difficulty with having an award that is as universally recognized as the Victoria Cross.
I speak in favour of this motion. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the member for bringing this to the floor of the House of Commons. I know the difficulty inherent in stick-handling a private member's bill through and I do congratulate him on it. I know that, certainly from my viewpoint and that of other members

February 9, 1993
Private Members' Business
and constituents and Canadians I have spoken with, they would generally be in favour of this motion. I will support this bill.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a brief intervention and, I hasten to say, an intervention in favour of the intent of this bill. In doing so I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Red Deer who has introduced the bill and, as his hon. friend indicates, stick-handled it very skilfully along the way.
I think it is important that we restore the Victoria Cross to its place at the top of the military honours list for this country, a place that it had for a considerable length of time. I think it is important that we do this. It is important that we in this way pay respect to those who have served our country in a number of wars in a number of theatres.
Within this House we still have members who served actively during the Second World War. I commend the member for Regina West who was one of those people as well as our member from Burlington and the member from Athabasca who served during the Korean conflict. I am sure there are others. I do not mean to leave them out. I think it is important that we recognize the kind of contribution and the kind of sacrifice they have made so that people of my generation have been able to enjoy a lifetime free of those concerns and free of having to make that kind of sacrifice.
I simply want to lend my support as a prairie member and as a member from Saskatchewan in support of the spirit and intent of this private member's bill which would restore the Victoria Cross and make it the medal awarded in this countiy as the highest honour for exceptional valour. I commend my colleague from Red Deer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Red Deer, I must say that he will be the last speaker since he is using his right to reply as the mover of this bill. The hon. member for Red Deer has the floor.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps rebuttal is not the word that is necessary because of all the speakers who have spoken on this bill in this House, there has not been a single word expressed in opposition to the bill.
At this time I want to express a fair bit of pride and a lot of pleasure that the bill has made it this far. I also appreciate the comment and the mechanical problems pointed out by the valiant and honourable member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
I look forward to following this bill through committee so that we can perhaps address some of those mechanical concerns. I think it is important that we address them, but it is also important that we look at the intent of the bill.
I want to thank the Legion members in my riding who supported and encouraged it. I want to thank the hundreds of people from coast to coast in this country who have written in support of the reinstatement of the Victoria Cross. I have not had a single letter of criticism from anyone, but I have had numerous people encouraging me and thanking me for the initiative.
I want to thank all of the members in this House who gave unanimous consent to make this votable. The member for Regina-Lumsden has already been pointed out. The hon. gentleman came in here on crutches to make a speech in support of this bill. I think that shows the type of support it has among the membership.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the table officers for their help. One should never presume what is going to happen in this House, but having heard no word of opposition I look forward to this bill passing and working in committee to get it back as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
February 9, 1993

Private Members' Business
[Translation\


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 10,1993