Mr. Benjamin:

That is not true.

Mr. Dorin:

It is true. I believe that farmers are in the best position to decide how to allocate their resources and, in doing so, would introduce the greatest efficiency into the grain handling and transportation system. As such, I would suggest that the Crow benefit should be paid to producers, thereby giving the widest scope for choice to be exercised in the market-place.

Very soon the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will be introducing amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to allow for the creation of a national tripartite red meat stabilization program. Hopefully, this will be passed with the co-operation of Members opposite in the near future. That is another example of how we are looking for ways of providing better services and support more economically.

Even a cursory examination of the present stabilization program shows its flaws. Farmers do not know how much support they will get under the program until long after they have made their production and marketing decisions. It is a case of justice delayed is justice denied. Furthermore, under the present program, farmers often receive their stabilization payments just at the time when market prices are recovering. That is not only bad timing, but can also distort production decisions.

However, the program which we intend to bring in will be prompt and voluntary and will provide an improved level of support, without costing the federal Government much more than the program which it will be eclipsing. In short, Mr. Speaker, the new approach to stabilization will be in keeping with the whole thrust of the Government's fiscal strategy to spend smarter rather than more.

To summarize, it is clear that farmers understand their fundamental responsibility for the success of their individual

November 23, 1984

Supply

operations. Second, an extensive system of supports is already in place. Finally, new, innovative programs and policies are being developed by the Government to provide more effective protection and encouragement for farmers, but in a more economical fashion.

Mr. Boudria:

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make and a question which I would like to ask of this Member and the Government generally. I have heard Members speak on various agricultural issues today. There was only a very brief mention made by the Government about the wine industry. I noticed that the Minister and another Member gave themselves considerable praise for so-called rescuing the wine industry for this year by buying surplus grapes.

There is a much larger concern there for Canadian consumers. That is the fact that we must make Canadian wines more appealing to the Canadian consumer. I am thinking especially of practices which are in existence now in the Province of Ontario which clearly discourage consumers from buying Canadian wines. I believe that in the Province of Ontario and other provinces Canadian wines should be made more readily available than are imported wines. I am thinking, for example, of wines being available in grocery stores.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this relates to the provincial authorities. I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Legislature in the Province of Ontario for a number of years. I introduced a private Members' Bill for the sale of wine in grocery stores. That was continuously refused by the Conservative government of the Province of Ontario.

Have initiatives such as this been entertained in the dialogue which the new Government is supposed to be having with its Conservative provincial counterparts? In view of the fact that the love affair between the provincial government and the federal Government is still on, I think it would be incumbent upon them to have this bedside chat about Canadian wines being available in grocery stores. Also, I think we should have a clear policy to serve only Canadian wines on-board Air Canada. Certainly if we want to demonstrate that we have a certain pride in this agricultural product in our country, we should do it with this institution. Has the Government entertained that idea as well?

Perhaps we could hear comments from the Member about that very important sector of agriculture. It is very important in certain provinces, especially in Ontario and British Columbia.

Mr. Dorin:

Mr. Speaker, I would have to preface my remarks by saying that I come from Alberta and we do not grow many grapes there. Therefore, I am not particularly familiar with the subject of the comments made by the Hon. Member. However, I believe that we can take some heart in the fact that the comments by my colleague, the Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz), earlier in the debate, seemed to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture is in fact reviewing with his provincial counterparts what might be done. It appears that

action is forthcoming in this area. I think he may wish to take that matter up with the Minister at a later time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):

If there are no further questions or comments, we will resume debate.

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):

Mr. Speaker, 1 too could not resist the opportunity as an urban Member to address the subject of agriculture, which is an issue that is critical to all Canadians. As Members well know, one in five jobs in Canada is dependent upon agriculture. Therefore, it is not simply a question of equity for farmers or the cessation of capital gains for farmers, but an issue of jobs for all Canadians.

Just as there are many Canadians who are directly employed as farmers or employees of farmers, there are many, particularly in my part of Canada, the Niagara Peninsula, who work in the processing industry.

I was very happy to see the quick action of the Government today on the question raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Not only did he raise the issue of the grape purchase in the area of Welland, he was able to get an answer from a representative of the Minister. I am sorry that the Member for Welland is not here because I would like to congratulate him for making that quick announcement, particularly in view of the fact that he acted very quickly as a result of the efforts made by Liberal members on behalf of his constituents.

Since there are no opposition members from the area of the Niagara Peninsula at the moment, I believe it is incumbent upon Members such as myself and the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and others to ensure that issues like the grape purchase promise of the Government are not simply a package of goodies which the Conservatives have no intention of delivering but are promises that will be kept in the future. [Translation]

Mr. Speaker, I might just stress that the crisis in the agricultural community is something which all my constituents and all Canadian electors share in. We are talking about food in Canada, but in a much wider context, there is the worldwide food issue, food to feed everyone on earth. In the past few days and weeks, and even in the past few years, we have been made aware of the difficulties faced by Ethiopians who simply do not have enough food to feed themselves.

We heard a Government member say that Canadians have spent only up to 16 per cent of our disposable income on food. This includes money that is spent on potato chips and similar items. Yet there is a situation in other parts of the world in which people are dying of starvation on a daily basis. I speak specifically of Ethiopia.

The spokesman for External Affairs was quite clear in pointing out to Canadians that the current Government recognized the work that had been done for Ethiopian family relief by the previous government before any other nations through-

November 23, 1984

out the world began to understand and recognize the very serious problem of famine in Ethiopia.

I am sure the Government would also agree, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) already stated, that the former Member for Windsor-Essex was a Member who was extremely effective in bringing to the attention of Canadian people the importance of not only a Canadian agri-food policy but of a world agri-food policy. In fact, as President of the World Food Council, he brought to the attention of the world the concern of Canadians that we have food not only for our tables but for people all over the world.

The former Member for Windsor-Essex had many years of experience as Minister of Agriculture as well as the tandem experience in his private life in the farming business and involvement in communications. I believe he had a real passion for the notion of expanding food policy in Canada and developing a buy Canadian policy by the former government. You can imagine my shock and dismay and the shock and dismay of a number of Members on our side of the House at the shabby way he was treated by the present Government when, in an attempt to sweep clean the slate of Liberal past sins, it decided to deny him a role which would have put him at the forefront of developing a food policy not only for all Canadians but for people all around the world.

I hope that at some point in the future the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will stand in the House and say that the cancellation of Eugene Whelan's appointment was an insult to all Canadian farmers and particularly those who have spent a lifetime trying to develop a comprehensive and universal food policy for people all over the world.

Politicians and parliamentarians are occasionally asked to take a more global approach. There are times when we must set aside our petty partisan differences. If there was one person who set aside those differences in the area of food policy and tried to develop an all-encompassing strategy to fight world famine, it was our former Minister of Agriculture. In the Government's deliberations about developing a more comprehensive approach to the situation of the Ethiopian famine, I hope it reconsiders the decision it made concerning the appointment of Eugene Whelan.

Mr. Benjamin:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. However, I believe there is a rule of relevancy. I do not see anything in the motion before the House concerning the welfare and good order of the former Minister of Agriculture. I do not see anything in the motion about foreign food aid or Ethiopia, as important as that is. I was wondering if the Hon. Member could address her remarks to the motion.

Ms. Copps:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member has such limited understanding of the importance of international trade with respect to the agricultural community. I am sure he must realize that in order not only for the Canadian economy to thrive but for Canadian farmers to venture into foreign markets, we must develop those markets with respect to an international policy. Incidentally, the agri-business was

Supply

referred to by his colleague in the House, to which the Hon. Member did not object. If he is suggesting that the current situation of farm bankruptcies in Canada is not at least in part due to our difficulties in marketing on an international basis, then the Member obviously does not have a very solid understanding of the agricultural community.

Mr. Benjamin:

It still is not in the motion.

Ms. Copps:

As I understand the motion, it deals with the critical situation facing Canadian farmers. It seems to me that if Canadian farmers could find markets for their products, they would not be in the situation they are currently facing in which, according to figures quoted by a Government member a few moments ago, at least 15 per cent of family farms will disappear over the next five years. I believe that my Party, and certainly the former Minister of Agriculture, have a clear record in trying to develop policies that will prevent the kind of bankruptcies that are currently being faced by farmers across Canada.

I think the other issue that I would like to touch on very briefly, bearing in mind the limitations of time, is the issue of the buy-Canadian policy, especially as it pertains to the wine and grape growers industry. Hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the lush vineyards of the Niagara Peninsula have produced some of the finest vintage grapes to be found anywhere in the world. Because of the limited marketing practices of certain provincial governments, it has been very difficult for farmers, producers, vineyards and vintners, to have full access to ready Canadian markets and international markets.

[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz) made some remarks a few minutes ago concerning federal grants to buy grapes, I think. I was thinking of eggs, I do not know why. I am sure that farmers will be pleased should the government decide to buy grapes this year.

That is why my colleague the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) made a representation, and that is why I also wanted to say something about that.

But the over-all problem is not limited to buying grapes for one winter or one fall season only; instead we ought to open up new markets to sell Canadian wines. As my friend the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out, will the Canadian government buy them, for instance, even if they cost more, and if we go eat in the parliamentary restaurant next week, will everyone be drinking Canadian wines? Do they always sip good wines from Kelowna or Niagara Falls? Most people drink foreign wines. Even now, a big advertising campaign is underway about the arrival of the Beaujolais nouveau. In my opinion, our Canadian markets would be much better off if the Canadian government were to promote Canadian wines, much as they are already doing in the Province of Quebec. People in every province of Canada should have the right

November 23, 1984

Supply

to sell beer and wine in small corner stores-Canadian beer and wine, of course-so as to give our farmers an opportunity to expand their markets.

1 think it is excellent and I am very happy the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz) made an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the purchase of one great crop.

What is needed in order to develop a comprehensive strategy which will mean more grape and wine sales in the future is a decision by this Government to enter into an aggressive buy-Canadian policy with respect to our agricultural products. 1 need not even look beyond the Chamber where we are today, or even beyond the House of Commons, to know that wherever we go we are constantly facing the promotion of wine coming from other countries. We are now seeing the embarkation of the Beaujolais nouveau campaign with the Beaujolais coming from France. Why not embark, along with our provincial agricultural ministers, on an aggressive policy of buying Canadian that would include allowing beer and wine stores across Canada to sell Canadian grapes, wine and beer? This would permit the small independent entrepreneurs, who I know are so dear to the hearts of my Progressive Conservative friends, the chance to get out and market a Canadian product. At the same time it would allow the great vintners of the Niagara region, which happens to be one of the golden regions of Canada-and I invite all of you to stop in on your way to Hamilton if you are passing by going to Niagara Falls or the new James R. Allan Skyway bridge, depending upon your perspective-to market its great grapes to all Canadians along with the great grapes of British Columbia and other areas of Canada.

We do have an excellent product which should be sold not only to Canadians but also world-wide. We need a government prepared to set an example in this area. We need a government prepared to say to its provincial counterparts across the nation-and I look to the great dry province of Ontario-"Let us give our Canadian entrepreneurs a chance, let us give our Canadian small businessmen and women, who are scraping the bottom of the wine barrel to make ends meet, an opportunity by giving them an edge." Why not give them a chance to sell their products in independent grocery stores across Canada?

There are many challenges facing us in the agricultural field. As I said at the beginning of my few remarks, I realize that the agricultural field is one of the primary producing industries in Canada and is one of the areas that will create jobs for all Canadians. I urge the Government to take up the challenge of a universal global food policy as proposed by the Minister's predecessor, the former Member for Windsor-Essex. The challenges are great, the rewards are many. If we can market the Canadian product on an international basis, we will find the jobs, jobs, and more jobs promised by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) will have some possibility of coming to fruition.

I think the Minister of Agriculture has some real challenges ahead. I know that we on this side of the House want to assist

in meeting those challenges because we recognize that where there is growth in the agricultural industry, there is growth for Canadians. I just have one comment to make on this in passing. I think it was one of the Members for Vancouver who aptly questioned one of the Government Members on this issue. He talked about how the Government felt that the percentage of Canadian income spent on food was far too small. He quoted figures ranging from 20 per cent, 25 per cent to 30 per cent as perhaps a more realistic expectation of what Canadians can expect to pay for their food dollar as a percentage of gross income. Would the Government clarify, for the purpose of those Members who are trying to determine which is Government policy and which are individual Member's meanderings, whether the figure of 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent, or 30 per cent most accurately reflects the percentage of gross income which the Government will expect Canadians to pay for their food?

I am sure Canadians are most interested in this departure into new agricultural policy for Canada. I am looking forward to some clarification from the Government and the Minister as to whether a doubling of the cost of food in Canada was one of the campaign promises which the Prime Minister either failed to announce or is one of the unannounced promises he intends to deliver.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the motion that is before the House, 1 would like to say a few words concerning the last paragraph of the motion which calls for parity prices for food produced for domestic use in Canada, and remind the House that of all the sectors of our economy just about the only people who cannot set their prices in order to recover their costs of production and maintain a decent standard of living, are the agricultural producers. Organized workers, organized labour can bargain for salary and wages to cover their costs of living and of raising a family. Our lawyers, doctors, chartered accountants and what-not can set fees to cover their costs of production and their costs of living. Our manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers set the prices to cover their costs of production and of doing business. With few exceptions, the agricultural producer cannot set prices. He is a price taker, not a price maker.

I do not know of anyone else in our society who would accept an income below his costs of production. He would not stand for it. For decades we have not only expected but required our food producers to operate at less than the cost of production. That is why we have lost three quarters of a million family farms in this country since the end of World War II.

I do not know of anyone else who would stand for that. It is only fair and reasonable that the Government should be able to implement a system of prices for farm products that are consumed in Canada that cover a farmer's cost of production.

November 23, 1984

If given his costs of production, which include high interest rates and high freight charges, he will be able to pay that. Until we do that, we will have nothing more than a perpetuation of the present situation.

The whole area of capital funds required to be borrowed by farmers for capital costs and operations has been a continuing problem since the end of World War II. There is nothing new about it.

I am amused when I hear the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and others who come here and tell us to leave them alone, they want the free and open market, the free enterprise system for the marketing of food. When the free enterprise system breaks down, however, who are the first to come to Ottawa with their hands out? It is the same free and open marketers. The so-called free and open market has not worked for food producers in the history of this country.

We expect our farmers to compete against the treasuries of competing nations. The European Economic Community subsidizes grain producers anywhere from $20 to $28 a tonne. The United States subsidizes grain producers $8, $10 and $12 a tonne. In Canada, the so-called Crow benefit amounted to $4 a tonne. Then we got the former Liberal government throwing the Crow rate out and the Tories acquiescing. They voted against the destruction of the Crow rate. They said they would put on a freeze. That still has not been done. Maybe by next spring they will put on a freeze on what has already been increased. They should be rolling back the statutory grain rates to what they were last January 1, or at least last August 1, if they want it to be a benefit to grain producers in western Canada.

I listened to a couple of Members on the Government side talk about private lending institutions, those poor fellows not being able to collect on their exorbitant interest rate loans from agricultural producers, fishermen and small businessmen. To hear them tell it would wring tears out of a jury full of bankers. Parliament and the Government have to tell the financial institutions, the banks and mortgage companies that they will get so much and no more. What they now collect used to be a criminal offence. It was called usury.

Farmers are still paying off loans at 18 per cent, 19 per cent and 20 per cent. That used to be illegal. Nobody can operate a farm or any other business with those exorbitant charges. There would be nothing wrong with saying to the financial institutions that, in light of the profits they have had, they must contribute to the welfare of our farm industry, fishermen and small businessmen.

They have been amply repaid in interest rates. Therefore, they should be told they cannot collect any more interest for the next year. A moratorium should be declared on all foreclosures and two choices given them: it is either compulsory or they have to, because they are not going to do it voluntarily. They have fleeced farmers for too darn long.

Supply

I remember in the 1950s the then Conservative Leader and members of all Parties talking about parity prices, that farmers were entitled to recover their costs of production and their living. Everybody agreed it was a great idea. We have accomplished it to some extent in a few small areas of agriculture, but we have barely scratched the surface.

We could be doing a lot more about self-sufficiency of food production in Canada. We need to be into massive greenhouse operations and using all available technology to make ourselves more self-sufficient.

We need to do something about the consumption of food that we produce. Two or three weeks ago, apples from France were being used in the Parliamentary Restaurant. In British Columbia they were throwing apples in the garbage. What the heck is going on? It is not a big deal, but it is a symptom of the disease in this country. We place too much emphasis on importing fresh fruit and vegetables from the United States during the winter. We have to import them because we do not grow them in the winter. Why not import from countries like Mexico, which desperately need foreign exchange and could use Canadian dollars? That gives farmers incomes that allow them to pay interest rates-

Ms. Copps:

I rise on a point of order to ask what this discussion has to do with the motion.

Mr. Benjamin:

The Hon. Member was not listening. 1 am talking about parity prices and exports that allow farmers to pay their present interest charges. I am not talking about Ethiopia, as my colleague was doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):

There are approximately two minutes left to this day. Let us try to finish on a good note.

Mr. Benjamin:

I think we are finishing on a good note. In fact, I would be game to sitting past five o'clock. I will sit down in a minute and somebody else can get up.

The proposed requirement of a moratorium on bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings has occurred off and on since the dirty thirties. There is nothing new about it. There should be some permanent legislation the Government can invoke when we are in a situation such as we are in now.

Finally, with regard to freight rates being charged to western grain producers, my friend spoke glowingly in favour of what the government did last year. I knew the Tories were hand in glove with the Liberals on that item. We got the evidence today. Farmers in my province, the Saskatchewan

November 23, 1984

Supply

Wheat Pool and the Association of Rural Municipalities do not support that. Those rates have to be rolled back to reduce farm costs of production in order to lessen this terrible financial plight. This is no time to charge them higher costs by way of freight rates. It is inexcusable and needs to be corrected. I am patiently waiting for the Government to roll back those rates as it said it would do in September of last year.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):

It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 62, proceedings on the motion have expired.

This House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, November 26, 1984