1979-11-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity on which I have had consultations with the government and other parties, and I thank them for their agreement to support this motion.
Whereas it is important for the sound economic development of Indian lands that the Indian people know exactly where they stand in money and land; whereas several Indian bands have written to the Auditor General asking him to conduct an audit of their Indian trust accounts administered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and whereas the Auditor General replied that under the law he does not have the authority to conduct such an audit unless he is directed to do so by Parliament, I move, seconded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Holmes):
That this House direct the Auditor General to conduct an audit into individual Indian trust accounts administered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and to provide reports to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it is possible to introduce such a motion for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Inasmuch as Statistics Canada announced yesterday that it had uncovered an error of $500 million in its trade figures since a major Canadian refinery, reported by the press to be Irving Oil, had failed to report to Customs, as required by law, exports of $500 million of refined oil so far in 1979 alone, thus seriously understating the volume of our exports and in my view calling into question to one extent or another the basis of government decisions on these balance of payments figures in areas like interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro):
That this House order a full and immediate investigation by an appropriate parliamentary committee into the circumstances of this incident, that the Minister of National Revenue investigate immediately whether other oil companies have also not made such reports to Customs, and whether the oil company in question and other oil companies have paid the taxes required by law on the income from such exports; that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources investigate, if the petroleum from which the exported oil was refined was imported, whether in spite of this, Irving Oil was paid public funds regarding it from the oil compensation program, and that these ministers report as soon as possible to the House on these investigations and the actions taken as a result of them.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) on Tuesday, November 13, that the tax auditing of corporations has declined from 6.5 per cent to 4.6 per cent, in view of the fact that this decline has resulted in the loss of several millions of dollars to the national revenue, and in view of the existence in Canada of an underground economy of several billions of dollars which also goes

November 15, 1979
5.0.	43
unaudited, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the President of the Treasury Board to mend his ways and provide for additional staff for the tax auditing and inspecting departments in the Ministry of National Revenue.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASING PROFITS OF OIL COMPANIES-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am sure my motion also will receive unanimous support.
Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have now received their marching orders from the Premier of Alberta at yesterday's meeting in Saskatoon-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -whereas, in particular, the Prime Minister has had to abandon his plans to tax oil companies on the basis of gross revenues rather than on profits only, and whereas it appears that the government intends to proceed with oil price increases which have already been described by the government of Ontario as "unjust, unnecessary and damaging to the Canadian economy", 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be instructed to refrain from taking any step that will further increase the profits of the oil industry, which the government itself has indicated as already amply sufficient to meet the future exploration and development needs for hydrocarbons.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented to the House for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. 
Ritchie) is a former vice-president of Imperial Oil, that two assistants of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) are former employees of Imperial Oil, that the executive director of the Conservative party is a former employee of Imperial Oil, that the brother of the Conservative Premier of Alberta is a vice-president of Imperial Oil, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has decided to involve the oil companies in the formulation of the fiscal policies of the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro):
That the Prime Minister complete his team by appointing Imperial Oil's chief executive officer, Jack Armstrong, to the post of deputy prime minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


BELL CANADA
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning a report that Bell Canada is making application to the CRTC for permission to experiment with charging telephone users for each call made, as well as for the amount of time a telephone is used, rather than the present system of flat monthly rates.
Having had an indication that this resolution was acceptable to the government and, I hope, also the opposition parties will join with me in the interest of the Canadian people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House opposes this move by Bell Canada which, in the opinion of the House, could constitute an unwarranted financial gouging of Bell Canada's customers, and finally that the House register its strong opposition to the proposal with the CRTC forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House-
November 15, 1979


An hon. Member:: How did you like the results of the byelection in Beauce-Sud?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -to have some silence. The rules must be respected-


An hon. Member:: Are you disappointed?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: To each his turn and all will be well.
Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an extremely important and even urgent matter.
Given that the building sector is now experiencing very serious difficulties which are compounded by the high cost of materials, especially wood products where a business cartel really seems to exist, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House recommend to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that an inquiry be set up to determine whether or not such a cartel exists, and if so, that legislation be introduced to favour greater competition in that sector of our economy, which step should contribute to lowering prices in the building trade and fight against inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas the recent disaster in Mississauga points out how vulnerable residents of urban areas are to possible rail disasters, whereas rail lines often run through densely populated urban areas, and whereas the federal government has been dragging its feet regarding several urban rail relocation projects across the nation-Regina being an example-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the federal government act immediately to finalize agreements between the government of Saskatchewan and the city of Regina for the relocation of the rail line from downtown Regina.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, before addressing my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, I want first of all, on behalf of the members of this House, to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the three federalists elected yesterday with an overwhelming majority in the province of Quebec, and also to Mr. Ryan, and I would like as well to thank my colleagues who over the past few weeks have spent many days helping those three federalists get elected.
In view of these results, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I do not think that one should, and the Prime Minister has stated the same thing, get the idea that these byelections have solved the problem. Is the Prime Minister willing to reconsider his role and is he determined, as Prime Minister of Canada and in view of the positive results of yesterday's byelections, to take action in order to tell Quebeckers and all Canadians that, after the results are known and Quebeckers have voted no to the referendum, there will be in the country a climate of joy and generosity in which Canadians will be able to say to Quebeckers that they can expect a lot of negotiating from federalists with the view to giving Quebec a new status and a better understanding by all Canadians of the problems of the Frenchspeaking in Canada?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have often indicated both in Parliament and throughout the country that I believe it is essential for us to continue to act in such a way as to demonstrate our flexibility as a new government. But I have also frequently indicated, and I have tried to make this point with all Canadians, particularly those outside Quebec, that it is essential for Canada to contemplate fairly deep changes in the constitution and in the relations between the two founding nations.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-STATEMENT BY CLAUDE RYAN ON ATTITUDE OF PREMIERS
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I might say as a prelude to my question that I, for one, as a Canadian, entirely

November 15, 1979
Oral Questions
support the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House that questions such as the referendum which go right to the essence of the survival of Canada should be non-partisan. I say that with all sincerity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: In the full context, then, of that introduction I would draw the Prime Minister's attention to a statement made by Claude Ryan as reported today in the press. It reads:
Claude Ryan told supporters there was a message Wednesday for the rest of Canada, especially for the premiers he expects reaction from on yet-unpublished Quebec Liberals proposals for renewed federalism.
"Now you know who speaks for the majority in Quebec," he said, naming some of the premiers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hate to crowd the hon. member but I think the limitations of the question period have to be respected.


John Carr Munro: At any rate, he concludes by saying that he wants reactions from the premiers of the rest of the provinces. I feel, and I am sure I speak for many Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I direct this question to the Prime Minister. It is not the premiers of the other provinces who should speak for Canadians and react to proposals such as this.


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Carr Munro: In terms of the importance and the symbolism of the office of Prime Minister of Canada, the leader of all Canadians, it is the Prime Minister of Canada who should speak-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member posing a question?


John Carr Munro: In that vein, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to rethink his posture with respect to expressing and voicing the concerns of all Canadians and lend weight to the concern that all Canadians, including those Canadians in Quebec, have on this fundamental question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I accept, and welcome, the sincerity of the preface of the hon. member. I have already, as he will know, met with Mr. Ryan and had some discussions with him regarding his view of developments in the province of Quebec and, indeed, seeking his advice-as I have sought the advice of others-as to the most effective role the federal government can play in the circumstances. I look forward to seeing the proposals that will be put forward for discussion by the Liberal party of

Quebec. I understand they will be coming out fairly close to Christmas.
Naturally, I have the intention of continuing to indicate, by the actions of our government and by my own statements as Prime Minister in the House of Commons and throughout the country, including in Quebec, the determination of Canadians across this country to encourage Quebeckers to opt for federalism, and to demonstrate to them that the federalism for which they are opting under this government will be a much broader federalism capable of the kind of change which we hope will allow Quebeckers to realize their cultural aspirations within the context of a united Canada.
The hon. member asked if I spoke with reference to provincial premiers. I would very much urge the provincial premiers also to express that similar view to the people of Quebec on behalf of the Canadians who elected those premiers in their respective provinces.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am pleased to hear his remarks about possible changes in the constitution, and I do not question his sincerity with regard to the Quebec question.
I wonder if he realizes how important his symbolic role as the leader of this country is in Quebec, and can he assure the House that he intends to exercise that symbolic role to make the federal presence known in Quebec? Also, would he ask his ministers from Quebec, both in this House and in the other place, to take an active part in the campaign in Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question. I certainly recognize not only the symbolic role, but also the substantial role that can be played by a Prime Minister of Canada and by a Government of Canada. Indeed, it is for that precise reason that this government has chosen deliberately to demonstrate, by actions, a more open attitude toward change in the constitutional status quo than we had thought was there before. We are going to continue that practice of demonstrating, both by the substance of what we do and by the force of what we say, the determination to encourage Quebeckers to stay in Canada and the determination to persuade the rest of Canada that, regardless of the results of byelections in the province of Quebec, regardless of the results of general elections in the province of Quebec, it is going to be necessary for this country to contemplate fairly substantial changes in the constitution of the country and also in the attitudes among the peoples in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to answer the second half of my question. Will he give his
November 15, 1979

ministers from Quebec the room to move into Quebec; will he give them permission to move into Quebec and participate actively in the campaign?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to do that because my ministers from Quebec are already active in that province, not only speaking for federalism but acting for federalism.


RADIO REPORT OF POSSIBLE GASOLINE RATIONING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have two areas of energy supply questions I would like to put to the minister. One of them is on Irving Oil, but first I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources based on something of which I have just become aware.
To avoid any confusion or panic among the public, can the minister confirm a report broadcast by CFRA Radio about an hour ago, and now on the news wires of the nation, that his department is in the process of recruiting some 700 people to administer a program of gasoline rationing for Canada to begin January 1, 1980? Can he comment on the accuracy of that report and whether rationing under any circumstances is being actively considered?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the question of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie which allows me publicly at the first opportunity to simply reject out of hand the story which has come over the radio station indicated by the hon. member, and to tell the hon. member that there is no intention, no plan, to in fact engage the number of people for January 1 or any time in the immediate future.
We are, I want to reiterate, at the present time indicating that we are going to be able to get through this winter-it will be a tight but a manageable situation-and that we are making plans, of course, in terms of existing legislation to put in the support structure in respect of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act.
[DOT] (M25)
These matters have been going on for some time and will continue to go on. There have been steps taken in that direction, but they are only precautionary steps so that we will be in the right position in the event an emergency does occur. We do not intend to bring in rationing. I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention.
Oral Questions FINANCE


IRVING OIL-FAILURE TO REPORT TOTAL EXPORTS-EFFECT ON DECISION TO INCREASE INTEREST RATE
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for clarifying that situation. I have a question for the Minister of Finance, and it also has to do with the accuracy of information. It relates to the startling news that Statistics Canada was not informed of a $.5 billion export sale from the Irving refinery in 1979 and several hundred million dollars of export sales in 1978 as well, thereby distorting the information upon which fiscal and monetary planning is based.
Can the minister tell the House if he was aware of this error prior to announcing the increase in interest rates and, if not, will he now reduce the interest rate because of our more favourable trade balance?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member will realize that I am being generous in considering his question to be a supplementary question.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly agree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In a way this is good news. There was an error in the export figures in 1978 of approximately $300 million, and $500 million to date for 1979. Omitted were 1.5 million barrels per month of refined petroleum products, gasoline and fuel oil, over the period April, 1978, to October, 1979. That means that the merchandise trade surplus for 1978 would increase to $3.7 billion from $3.4 billion, while the current account deficit would narrow to approximately $5 billion. That is good news.
It also means, for example, that this year's trade surplus could well be at least $2.1 billion which is an improvement over what we have been expecting. The reporting error is relatively small with respect to the total economy, because we have a GNP of over $250 billion and it is equivalent to 0.2 per cent in current dollars. The revision will affect the data on the trade surplus. Unfortunately, it is not a big enough error to affect interest rates. If it were a huge error-say $500 billion or something like that-then it would have helped, but unfortunately it is a relatively small error in the total picture. It is not an error of Statistics Canada, but of the oil company not reporting the figures to Statistics Canada. I understand that Statistics Canada discovered the error itself, but my hon. friend would have more information on that.

[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to follow up with the motion I moved a few moments ago under
1334

November 15, 1979
Oral Questions
Standing Order 43, I would like to ask the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he knows that there exists a cartel in the marketing of lumber, more particularly in the province of Quebec, that this cartel fixes prices which construction lumber dealers are forced to pay and that this process is one of the causes for the increase in the costs of construction? Is the minister aware of this problem?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have had no notice of the question and I have received no such specific information or allegation with respect to the matter. That is not to say, however, that the director of investigations in the department would not have received such an allegation.
If the hon. member has specific information that he would like to give me, I can assure him that it will be placed in the hands of the director of investigations forthwith and that I will report back to him in due course.


PRICE OF LUMBER USED IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY- INTRODUCTION OF COMPETITION LEGISLATION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister, according to the answer he just gave me, seems to be willing to look into the situation and take appropriate steps, could I ask him to order an immediate inquiry into this matter? As for the specific instances he asked for, I would love to be a member of the RCMP because then I would be in a position to inquire personally and it would be easier for me to provide the minister with these specific facts. But since there are very able officials in his department, could I ask him to examine the situation and, on the basis of the findings of the inquiry, to introduce legislation to put some order in that area?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is rather difficult, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of a general allegation such as that. Obviously the hon. member is concerned and, I am sure, quite justly concerned. I would really have to have some details-at least in respect of the geographic area-regarding the companies complained of an in respect of some of the practices, which I am sure the hon. member would have in his possession; otherwise, he would not be making those statements.
I can assure the hon. member that as soon as I get those details from him-or, if he would rather, I can put him in direct touch with the director of investigation-we would certainly be glad to have an investigation made.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday, as the government was still receiving editorial congratulations on the basis of reassuring statements by the Solicitor General for its apparent abandonment of the Prime Minister's election-time promise that he would allow illegal acts by the police through a minister of his cabinet, the Prime Minister apparently raised the issue again by reverting to his election-time position.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister squarely in this House whether he stands by the rule of law traditional to our society, or whether he is determined to introduce a new system of allowing illegal police acts under ministerial sanction. When replying, would the Prime Minister please give some thought to the words of his distinguished colleague from Peace River, to the effect that the implementation of the Prime Minister's proposals will mark the beginning of the disintegration of democratic society in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course I stand by the rule of law. That is one of the reasons we are determined to find some means by which we can ensure that all of the actions of the police in Canada are conducted in accordance with the law of Canada.
As the hon. member knows, as a result of activities which were alleged to have occurred during this period when the party he supports was in office, there is now a royal commission looking into various aspects of police activity. It will be making recommendations to this government with regard to new procedures that should perhaps be put in place. We will also be considering other sources of advice on that matter, but our goal is to ensure that we have securely in place in this country a system whereby the police respect and operate under the rule of law.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should remember that he is from the Canadian west and not from the American west with its vigilante traditions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a supplementary question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This proposal of giving the minister responsible for police the right to dispense with the normal rules would make possible the creation of just the kind of police state from which so many Canadians have fled. Does the Prime Minister not understand that giving this kind of power to the minister responsible for police, not changing the substance of law but making a procedural change to give this kind of unequal power to the minister responsible for police-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
November 15, 1979


Mark R. MacGuigan: Does the Prime Minister not understand that that is totally inconsistent with the rule of law as it has been applied in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member did not hear, or understand my first answer, so occupied was he with questions of geography. I can tell him that we are not planning merely a procedural change. Any change that occurs to assure that police activities are confined within the rule of law or any change that we contemplate I expect will be a change in the law that will be introduced into and debated by this House.
I would welcome the contribution of the hon. member, who has been a member of this House for some time and who is concerned about these questions. He could well have some valuable contributions to make to biing into place an effective law in a situation which I know he will admit is difficult.


MINISTER ASSIGNED TO DEAL WITH ILLEGAL ACTS OF POLICE OFFICERS
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, a large number of individuals have already contributed worth-while suggestions to the gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Speak up.


An hon. Member:: Present company excepted.


Mr. Blais:: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The question was asked quite specifically, whether the Prime Minister now withdraws his position that he has made public on two occasions whereby he would instal a minister who would be responsible for improving, on an ad hoc, arbitrary basis, illegal activity by the police.
I point out to the hon. gentleman that even the commissioner of the RCMP has found that that process would create as much nervousness because it would leave in the politicians' hands the power of determining what can and cannot be done by the police although that activity may well be illegal.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question, but I assume it was a repetition.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of levity that is attributed to serious matters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -and indicates the lack of seriousness on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of Privy Council was very free with his legal advice. It was pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of putting a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister listen to what the attorney general of Ontario has indicated, to the effect that notwithstanding any proposals that he has identified, whereby on an ad hoc basis authorization would be given to illegal activity, he would, in effect, commence prosecution under the criminal law if such activity took place?
Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of discussing his plan with the attorney general of Ontario, so as to receive from that minister the enlightenment that he fails to receive from his own colleagues on that side of the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, what I indicated earlier was that when the hon. member rose the first time to make his speech, I believe he neglected to put a question. He has now put a question.
I can certainly give him an assurance that as we look for means to ensure that under this government all the activities of the police forces proceed under the rule of law, as we look to a means that will ensure that that occurs under this government, we will naturally consult the attorney general of the province of Ontario and any others who have useful advice to give, including the former solicitor general who was responsible for the activities of the police during a period which is now in part under investigation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Alex Jupp (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. A week ago yesterday, the hon. member for London West-the defence critic for the official opposition-raised the sprectre, in a question to the Prime Minister, that Canada may well lose the $545 million cruise-missile business that had previously been committed by McDonnell Douglas. My understanding is that the matter raised by the U.S. defence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member putting a question?


George Alexander (Alex) Jupp: The prospect has seriously upset the employees of Defence Production units in Mississauga and Toronto. May I ask the minister if the defence critic for the Liberal party is correct, or is this a simple bookkeeping matter, which is my understanding of it?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing this up as a kind of late addition to the defence critic for the official opposition. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question of

November 15, 1979
Oral Questions
them cancelling the contract. The contract will go into effect. This came about through a rather unusual letter wherein the deputy undersecretary, acquisition policy, of the United States government said:
-it was agreed any offsets relating to such an award would accrue to the U.S. government and neither of the two respective U.S. competitors for the new fighter aircraft. However, the amount could later be used at the discretion of the U.S. by the winner to cover shortfalls in the offset program.
There was no mention whatsoever of cancellation of the contract.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that planes from Iran cannot land at Kennedy international airport, and to emphasize our continuing shock at the blackmail and terrorism taking place in Iran, can the minister assure the House that the Canadian government will not under any circumstances authorize the rerouting of Iranian planes to Mirabel or to any other Canadian airport?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is one which perhaps refers to a plane from Iran which had already landed at Mirabel and which landed, in those circumstances, as the only alternative at that time. I am sure she will understand that in those circumstances it was necessary to provide landing rights. There has been no discussion of such a practice continuing.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that, in effect, the minister has said there will not be any authorization of the rerouting of those planes.


An hon. Member:: She did not say that.


Pauline Jewett: I take it that she said that.


HOLDING OF U.S. HOSTAGES IN IRAN-MOTION PASSED BY HOUSE OF COMMONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister, further, if she would indicate to the House whether the government has passed on to Iran the unanimous resolution that was adopted by the House on November 6, namely, that the Government of Canada extend its protest to the government of Iran against the latest acts of criminal aggression-the siege of the U.S. embassy and the kidnapping of its staff and their families?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, in response to

a similar question of that nature during the time we were in Committee of the Whole, that resolution asked the government to extend its protest to the Iranian government. We did so that same day, through the charge d'affaires of the Iranian embassy here in Ottawa.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister following up the questions asked by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and the hon. member for Nipissing.
What the Prime Minister has told us today about the approval of illegal acts seems quite different from what he told the country during the election campaign, when he said that he would have a senior minister approve of certain illegal acts. It is also quite different from what he appeared to say last week. Does this mean that he has abandoned the position that he tried to sell the Canadian people during the election campaign? Is this another flip-flop?


An hon. Member:: Of last Friday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what I said today is that whatever procedure we adopt to ensure that the former situation is changed, where there was not an ironclad assurance that the activities of the police were conducted under the rule of law-whatever procedure we adopt to accomplish that will be adopted by a change in law that will be introduced in this House and subject to debate in this House.
As the hon. member knows, as a former minister active in this field, there is a precedent. There has been the practice in other jurisdictions for the kind of authority under the rule of law to be set out in a statute vested in the minister. That is an option we are going to consider as a government. But I repeat again to the hon. member my assurance that any action that is taken will be of a legislative and not of a procedural nature, and it will be subject to review and discussion in this House of Commons.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not confirmed what he seemed to say during the election campaign and he is certainly not making clear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: He seems to be disavowing what he said during the election campaign, but not making clear to this House or to the people of Canada what he has in mind. I would ask him what kind of illegal acts would be covered by his plan: illegal entries, mail openings, thefts, bombings; and does he intend to proceed by amending individual acts such as the Post Office Act, the Criminal Code and the Official
November 15, 1979

Secrets Act, or will he have a new act, a general "dirty tricks" act approving of all sorts of illegal acts?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, any change in the law that we introduce will be designed to stop activities of the kind that were alleged to have occurred under the former government, and any other acts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Speared twice, this week.


ILLEGAL ACTS COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RULE OF LAW
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Considering the evasiveness of the Prime Minister about the specific nature of ministerial authorizations for Canadian police forces to perpetrate otherwise illegal acts and since there is a real danger that the law could be abused, could the Prime Minister give the House his personal view of the rule of law and tell us more especially whether it is consistent with the classic definition of Dicey and I quote:

-the Prime Minister, down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen.

-so that the House may assess, Mr. Speaker, in light of the good or wrong interpretation of basic legal concepts by the Prime Minister, the probable extent of damages?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is seeking my personal opinion on certain questions. I think it is essential for the House and the government to want to make sure that in the future, contrary to what was done in the past, there will be a system under which all the activities of the RCMP or other officers of the Canadian government will be in accordance with the rule of law.


PRIVILEGE OF JUDGES TO REJECT EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD TARNISH IMAGE OF JUSTICE
Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, in 1977 the House adopted the concept of putting the administration of justice into disrepute. Can we prejudge, Mr. Speaker, that in his amendments the Prime Minister will maintain this principle which grants the judges
Oral Questions
the privilege to reject evidence which would tarnish the image of justice and, more specifically, would he authorize the minister concerned to appear in court?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we must take into account the possibility of an emergency situation. If there is any possibility for the government to apply this principle, it will be one of the options considered but in case of an emergency, it may not be possible to resort to it. We need a system that can assure the protection of the principle of the rule of law, in French-


Some hon. Members:: -la regie du droit-


Charles Joseph Clark: -la regie du droit.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, acting for the Attorney General. It concerns the recent three-year sentence imposed on Jacques Lanctot for kidnapping.
In view of the fact the Criminal Code of Canada sets a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for kidnapping, reflecting the serious nature of this crime, would the minister give consideration to amending the Criminal Code with respect to minimum term sentencing of persons convicted of kidnapping, extortion and high treason to more accurately reflect the will of Canadians regarding these serious crimes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may 1 take that question as notice? To be frank, there have been no discussions, to my knowledge, by the Minister of Justice respecting amendment of the Criminal Code along those lines. He may himself have some ideas on it which we have not yet discussed. I will be glad to discuss the matter with him and provide an answer to the hon. member.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who may be the most Progressive Conservative member of this government.


An hon. Member:: He is the only one!

November 15, 1979
Oral Questions


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, last week we heard the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Indeed!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: If hon. members could stop shouting. I am prepared to wait.
Last week then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated very clearly he found reasonable that the minimum hourly wage should stay at $2.90. We also heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare announce that some day thousands of mothers were bound to lose their family allowances. We also heard the Prime Minister say he found it normal that oil companies should make profits of 45 per cent. 1 would like to ask him today-since the Economic Council tabled a study indicating that the implementation of safety features in the workplace was too expensive-whether he agrees with the conclusions of this study and whether he considers that there is a price to pay to ensure the safety of Canadians workers?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: 1 want to thank the hon. member for a very important question. I have not seen this report, so obviously I cannot make any comment in that regard. But I have no hesitation in telling him that as far as this government is concerned, our human resources are extremely valuable to us. Accordingly, we are very concerned about the safety and health of workers in the workplace, and as long as 1 am Minister of Labour I do not intend to sacrifice health and safety for the sake of profit.
I would want to see this report because I cannot understand how they could possibly put a price on human life and the safety of human beings whom we need to bring about the economic development the country is crying out for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO AMEND LABOUR CODE TO REDUCE ACCIDENTS
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
1 thank the minister for his answer and most of all I am glad he agrees that we should not talk in terms of money about the life of workers or people who are risking their life every day.
Is the minister prepared, according to his remarks and his own logic, to strengthen the Canada Labour Code to prevent accidents? Is he also aware that more days are lost through accidents at work than through strikes? After the discussions he has already announced, would the minister also admit that time has come to introduce in the House some amendments to the Canada Labour Code aimed at guaranteeing better safety to employees so that Canadians do not serve as guinea pigs nor

become victims of public dangers when working in a manufacturing plant?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is a very good question, too, and I want to thank the hon. member for his concern. He may have noticed that a report has recently been handed down concerning unscheduled absenteeism, which I understand can run into ten times the number of man-days lost. My department is looking into this matter at the present time in terms of the format and the cost of the mechanism we might introduce to look into this entire matter. In the event that we bring in any amendments to the Canada Labour Code with respect to safety, the hon. member will be advised in due course in the ordinary way.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It arises out of his statement this morning announcing an increase of over 30 per cent in next year's expenditure on scientific research for the National Science and Engineering Research Council.
1 am sure everybody will welcome that announcement, but scientists are already asking questions about whether that increase next year will be in the form of new money or whether it will be taken from the research money for government research organizations such as the National Research Council or research institutes in other departments.


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: I thank the hon. member for his question. This morning we announced a $39 million increase to universities for research and development: we found that after ten years of neglect they were in a deplorable state. This increase has been welcomed by the university community. Reaching 2.5 per cent in relation to the gross national product in the eighties, which is our challenge, is one concrete step to redress the imbalance of the last ten years.
We are committed not to cut back on research and development; it is an essential aspect of our economic development program. We will not be taking the extra moneys voted today from any other R and D program of government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
November 15, 1979

Given the commitment of this government with regard to human rights anywhere in the world, of which she spoke recently before the United Nations General Assembly, could the minister tell the House whether the Canadian government did or will make representations to the government of Israel asking it to liberate the mayor of Nablus, Mr. Bassam Shakaa, and to give up the idea of deporting him from Jordan?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, many organizations throughout the country have expressed to us their concern over that matter. I have asked our embassy in Israel to review that situation in order to help the government determine how to react.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs. Its subject is the concern felt by families of war veterans who are in hospital, many of whom will not come out. The minister will be aware of the increasing number of complaints hon. members are receiving concerning deteriorating services for our veterans.
Is the hon. gentleman monitoring the situation in hospitals which have been referred to provincial jurisdiction, and will he assure the public that there will be no further cuts in those hospitals which are still being administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs? The cuts are resulting in some deterioration in the services provided to our veterans.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are indeed monitoring the treatment given to our veterans when hospitals have been turned over to provincial auspices. We are also watching carefully the treatment given in the ones we have retained. We have had some success in this area in recent months. I am particularly pleased to tell the hon. member that we have put a new doctor in charge of the hospital in Victoria which was turned over to the B.C. provincial service some time ago and there has been quite an improvement in the care. We are watching the situation closely, and I share the hon. member's interest in this matter.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Recent reports issued by the corporation indicated that several major Canadian cities have a vacancy rate of less than 1 per cent in the rental
Oral Questions
housing field. Can the minister tell us if the corporation and the cabinet are aware of the gravity of the situation, and whether they plan to take initiatives to develop new rental housing to meet the new demand?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: We are aware of the gravity of this situation. As the hon. member has suggested, it is particularly acute in some areas. We recognize that substantial assistance is being given to the corporation in the form of public housing, graduated mortgage payments and other non co-op housing efforts, but the fact remains that for the present time we have not yet devised any meaningful strategy which will bring short-term relief. We are looking at the situation as closely as we can and we would welcome any initiative the industry or members of the House could provide.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last October 5, in a letter to the president of the Attikamek-Montagnais council of Quebec, the minister recognized the validity of the territorial claims made by the Mon-tagnais and the Attikamek of Quebec. Therefore I would like to ask him if he could tell the House why he refuses to make the Attikamek-Montagnais council eligible for loans to be paid back through compensation as was done previously in the case of the Crees of James Bay, the Yukon Indian Brotherhood, the Naskapis, the Denes and the Labrador Montagnais?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the hon. member that representations have been made to me on the matter he has raised. There was an initial request for some funding on the part of the Quebec Indians. The department forwarded $35,000 initially. That money has now been accepted by them, and they are going forward with their claim.
[ Translation]


REVISION OF POLICY ON TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I find it difficult to accept such an answer when a request for $1 million has been met by granting a mere $35,000. Can the minister tell us when he plans to be through with his review of the policy regarding the territorial claims because meanwhile Indians all across Canada are being

November 15, 1979
Oral Questions
deprived of their lands without any possibility of defending their rights?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the question of land claims right across Canada obviously is a pressing one, but it is also important that the government of the day does a very specific and very complete review of the situation as it exists today. That has been my purpose, and when the cabinet has made a decision it will be announced.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. This morning I received a report to the effect that the radar system at Dorval has been out of order for three or four weeks and that the air traffic controllers now have to use a dangerous and much less effective system. Could the minister tell the House what measures he has taken to correct the situation at Dorval?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for giving me prior notice of this very important question. I am informed that there was no system failure. Part of the antenna system had to be changed to resolve some problems which developed. This required that the terminal radar be shut down and the en route system used for all functions. The antenna replacement was unsatisfactory, and the terminal radar has been out of service since October 2, 1979. Additional equipment has been acquired and installed and, assuming that the above action is successful, the sytem should be back in service before the end of November.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, we have had similar problems in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary during the last two months. Could the minister tell the House whether he intends to instal a new radar system in the near future, a system that would prove more effective than the one we now have in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian air transport administration is in the process of determining the requirements for surveillance throughout Canada through to the year 1995. That review is currently ongoing.
The situation at Vancouver is that there was no system failure. There were some technical adjustments which were required in order to improve the operation of the equipment.

Calgary did have a problem in August of 1979. Repairs were undertaken and the operation was returned to service on October 18. There is a new system that is in the process of being installed. The target date for completion is December 31, 1979.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. It is a follow-up to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park. Will the minister tell the House directly whether the Canadian Transport Commission has suffered a reduction in man-years as a result of government cutbacks?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleased that the hon. member has asked this question once again. 1 indicated yesterday that I would check into this matter, and 1 have found, first, that the Canadian Transport Commission makes its own allocation as to where its personnel will be used. The fact is that under the previous government a review was made jointly by CTC people, the bureau of management consultants and the Treasury Board to determine if there were person-year reductions possible within the CTC. As a result of that review the CTC agreed that 100 person-years could be reduced.
Mr. Benson, the chairman of the CTC, was so notified on June 6 of this year. Our understanding is that he agreed to the reduction. At no time since then have we had any indication that the CTC is objecting to the suggested reduction which the former government said was in order.




Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have received two notices of privilege, but again I want to call to the attention of the House today that I extended the question period a few minutes. It was an arbitrary decision which 1 will not make again, but I do want to bring this matter to the attention of the House and to ask for co-operation from both sides of the House.
If we examine the record of the question period today, we will find again a phenomenon occurring to which I have referred several times in the past. Members who put and answer questions in the early stages of the question period seem under some constraint to make the questions and answers long, whereas in the latter part of the question period it is expected-and in fact it happens-that the questions and the answers are much shorter, under the pressures of the time. I am inviting the House please to examine this phenomenon and, in the interest of greater and fairer participation and distribu-
November 15, 1979

tion during the question period, which 1 think all of us want, 1 invite those who perform in the early stages of the question period to be guided by the same disciplines which affect those in the later stages of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege which I should like to reserve the right to bring up tomorrow. If I understood correctly, in the second answer the right hon. Prime Minister gave me, he alluded to the fact that I may have authorized the commission of illegal acts by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police while I was Solicitor General. I should like to look at the blues to ascertain exactly what the right hon. Prime Minister said, and then bring up the matter again.


MISS BEGIN-ALLEGED CHARGES BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
I hesitated before rising on this question of privilege, but I feel I must. It concerns the answer the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) gave the House in one instance yesterday, November 14, when according to Hansard he said, and I quote one short excerpt: " ... it is important to carry out a social security review-because this government is determined to make sure that the review takes place. It is something that should have been done by hon. members who were in this House ten years ago." The present minister also said, on November 5, and I quote: "When I took over the department, I carried on the work she had begun"-speaking of me-"with regard to looking at all the social security programs that the Department of National Health and Welfare offers. It is in the spirit of those reviews that the "proposal" came out in the newspaper. I think that she well knows .. ." speaking of me once again.
I would like to tell the House that the Minister of National Health and Welfare misled the House about a matter that 1 consider as very serious because it affects the everyday life of people waiting for their old age security or family allowance cheques. I do not usually rise on such matters. 1 read carefully Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and I think the only way I can let the House know that the minister misled the House and that he should set the facts straight is the one I am using today. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall briefly that in June 1972, the then minister, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Munro), had before the House a family allowance proposal called FISP, which was rejected by
Privilege-Miss Begin
the Canadian people and was not brought back since the government was re-elected on October 30, 1972. Later my colleague and fellow frontbencher, the hon. member for Out-remont (Mr. Lalonde), reviewed the whole matter of social security in the paper titled "Background paper on social security", published on April 18, 1973, examined at eight federal provincial meetings, the last one being the famous meeting of June 1 and 2, 1976, after-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the interest of the minister's ability to hear the question of privilege which concerns him, I wonder if we could have a little order on his side of the House.


Monique Bégin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This very important federal-provincial conference dealt with the whole social security issue in Canada. I had a number of research papers prepared which were all published at the time and which touched upon specific areas of social welfare problems in Canada. There was also the Harvey Lazar report concerning pensions which the former government had approved just before the election and which has not yet been published. This report dealt only with old age security pensions. I should like to add that when I left the department, the object of research was the guaranteed annual income.
Canadian women have heard it said on several occasions that sooner or later the Progressive Conservative Party would cut off family allowances. The minister has said that I initiated this action. This is not true! When he was appointed to his department, he stated in the House that he had found a document to that effect. This is not true either.
I did not launch any study to cut family allowances. I want to make that very clear. What he did find in his research branch was a group studying the guaranteed annual income and it does not have anything to do with family allowances. On another occasion he said that there had not been any over-all review of social security in Canada. He is contradicting himself because on two different dates he said the opposite. There has been one. There has been an exhaustive study which lasted several years, three years in fact; it was stopped because Ontario among others rejected that proposal made to all provinces.
So I object when the minister tells Canadians that during ten years nobody ever did anything in Canada to update our social security system and hides behind that to tell people it is essential to cut family allowances by 1981. I would simply like him to familiarize himself enough with that file so as to be able to answer about each one, as it exists, because it has a name, and a research team behind it. He should refrain from muddling up the issue and putting up smokescreens to hide what exists or does not exist in terms of reviews. I would urge him to confirm or correct the list of reviews I just mentioned
1342

November 15, 1979
Privilege-Miss Begin
so Canadians will know where they stand when we ask questions in this House and we are not told the truth. I know he is still new in his department, and that is why I simply ask him for an explanation or a retraction so he can set the record straight. 1 know Beauchesne talks about allegations, facts, which might be contradictory in the eyes of the opposition or the government. Those facts seem so important to me at this time that 1 would like them to be considered a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, so the minister will have a chance to set the facts straight as they existed when he took over that department.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to respond, but does Your Honour regard this as a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: I know it is very close to the difficulty which we have been trying to treat recently in the area of a disagreement as the result of an interpretation. However, without examining the record of what the minister had said previously and without hearing from the minister, it is often difficult for me to tell whether it is simply a disagreement. If it is, perhaps the minister might want to correct whatever misinterpretation there might have been. The difficulty the Chair faces in these cases is that if I do not give the minister an opportunity, sometimes ministers feel deprived in not having equal time. If I do, it appears that I recognize such disagreements as questions of privilege. Without hearing from the minister first, it is difficult for me to give a ruling.


David Edward Crombie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may want to examine all of what the hon. member had to say. I would like to say that in the first couple of minutes there was some confusion because a glass of water had been spilled and it landed on my chair, and so I had some difficulty in hearing. And later, I missed some other comments from the hon. member because I had to change seats in order to hear her. So I would reserve the opportunity, if I can, to consult the record.
It seems to me that the concern of the hon. member is that when I commented in the House in response to a question from the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) about the last ten years, I had hurt her feelings because somehow I was not giving a clear understanding of her record as minister of health and welfare and that of her party in the last ten years. My concern in answering the question the other day was to point out that there were a number of injustices which were raised by the hon. member for Oshawa, and indeed the purpose of my review was to try to deal with those injustices. If the hon. member is suggesting that a number of things were done in the last ten years, then I would agree that of course there were. My concern was that the injustices to which the hon. member for Oshawa and I were referring to had not been dealt with. If they had been dealt with, then of course I would not have to go through the review in order to deal with them.
I might say in particular with respect to the review the hon. member mentioned that it involves not only the question of

pensions, which is before the standing committee, not only the matter of the select committee with respect to the handicapped, but a premise which was not carried out in the previous ten years, and, what is most important, the review involves participation by the provinces. I would invite the hon. member, if she would like, to visit those provinces and ask them how they feel about participation in terms of the review over the last ten years. I think she will get a pretty strong earful.
So I have no apology whatsoever for the comment I made with respect to the last ten years. I would suggest that in beginning with the Lazar report, the previous government did a good thing and it is now about to come before the committee. Indeed the reviews that were undertaken by the hon. member's predecessor were worth doing at the time but did not deal with all those injustices with which the review I have undertaken is supposed to deal.
I have one final comment with respect to whether or not the former minister carried out certain revisions.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the area in which I think we may be getting close enough to warrant some consideration of the matter as a question of privilege. The rest is a straight disagreement on performance in the last ten-year period. However, the area in which the former minister complains that the present minister has created the impression that she had initiated a study, which in fact she now claims she did not, may be close enough to a question of privilege.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, 1 can deal with that comment. 1 have dealt with it in previous answers to the hon. member's questions and indeed to another question from an hon. member of the New Democratic Party on the question of the principle of universality in relation to selectivity. I questioned at that time-and I believe it was one of the first questions in the House-whether or not previous governments had changed the family allowance in relation to the other two factors in the family benefits system. Indeed, the House did so on the recommendation of the former minister and reduced the family allowance, diminished the child tax exemption and established the child tax credit. That measure was adopted by the House and was one which I applauded, and indeed, as Hansard will show, I indicated my support for it at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister seems to me to be standing by the response which he made, which takes it out of the area of privilege and, it seems to me, puts it in the area of disagreement. I am sure that both hon. members will have ample opportunity to pursue the debate vigorously, but it seems to me to be a debate and not a question of privilege.


MR. ORLIKOW-MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE HOUSE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the statement made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Graff-tey) this morning. When the minister and his colleagues were
November 15, 1979

on this side of the House in the official opposition, whenever a Liberal minister made a statement of policy outside the House when Parliament was in session and/or when the committees were meeting, the present minister and his colleagues protested, quite properly, that such a statement should have been made in the House or in committee where members of the opposition could ask questions or make comments on the statement.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long but I want to say to the minister that Canadians in general, and people in the science community specifically, can greet his announcement of this morning with enthusiasm and approval because it will mean an increase of over 30 per cent for one section of the scientific community and for scientific research and development, which is long overdue. However, there are some very important questions which arise out of what is not in that statement, such as, for example, what will be the role of institutions such as the National Research Council, and of scientific research institutions in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Environment Department. None of these questions is answered. The government has said on other occasions that they want to encourage the private sector. That is all right, except that in some fields, such as agriculture and forestry, virtually nothing is being done in the private sector. So if the government institutions continue to be starved as they have been, we will continue to be in trouble.
1 want to say to the minister that 1 personally-and 1 think I speak for many members of Parliament-wish he would follow the kind of advice he gave when he was on this side of the House about making important statements in Parliament where comments can be made and questions put, or in the committee where we can go into much more detailed questioning on and discussion of what the government proposes to do, more than we can when the minister makes a statement as he did today.


Mr. Speaker:: The House knows very well that several times this has been decided to be out of the area of procedure. It is neither privilege nor order. The minister can do as he wishes, but I will hear him just briefly.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, 1 am fully cognizant of the traditions, rights and privileges of the House. In many ways 1 sympathize with what the hon. member has just said. May I simply say that in this particular case the estimates of my department are before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. We are meeting Monday night.
I will not say that it is an overly complicated question, but in terms of the time of this House-and there is room for debate here-I ordered my staff to distribute to every senator and every member of Parliament on both sides of the House a full explanatory kit of this announcement a number of hours before 1 made it in the press building. I felt that was the better procedure. It is open for debate. I do not want to impose upon the privileges of this House, but I thought, in terms of time
Business of the House
and the fact that it was before the committee, that the hon. member will have ample time to question this in much greater detail on Monday night.


TREASURY BOARD
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). Your Honour will recall that in the hon. member's anxiety to discourage the privatization of de Havilland, he asked if I, as President of the Treasury Board, would confirm or deny that my department has been sitting for two months on approval by a committee in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the de Havilland corporation be given a grant of some $2 million.
At the earliest opportunity 1 want to do what I said I would do yesterday, that is, look into this and inform the House. The fact is that we have received no submission with respect to the $2 million amount raised by the hon. member. I understand the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, where the project recently received approval by the DIPP committee, is considering submission to the Treasury Board with respect to this amount. But to date it has not received senior management or certainly ministerial approval.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Drummond.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the business of the House.
1 would like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he can confirm that next Wednesday will be an opposition day. Could he also indicate what order he has in mind for the business of the House next week?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might allocate next Wednesday, November 21, as an allotted day, which I understand will be utilized by the official opposition.
While I am on my feet, I should like to indicate the business of the House. As everyone knows, today is an allotted day; there is a motion standing in the name of the hon. Leader of

November 15, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Herbert
the New Democratic Party. Tomorrow we will finish Bill C-23 because of the order, for which 1 thank the House.
Next week we will proceed first with Bill C-18, the customs tariff bill. I believe we are in Committee of the Whole with respect to that bill. Following that we will deal with second reading of Bill C-20, the property tax credit bill, and then Bill C-6, the old age security bill.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I put two questions to the government House leader with respect to future business? As he knows, this is the sixth week in which this Parliament has been in session. As he also knows, in each of those weeks 1 have asked when we are to get the veterans' legislation. The answer has always been "soon", but last week the answer was, "I hope it is next week". Can he give us a precise definition of "soon"?


An hon. Member:: Soon next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other question relates to hazardous products transportation legislation which is something that has been hanging around for a long time but has been brought into focus recently. Will there soon be legislation in that area before the House?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the veterans' bill. I regret very much that today I am not able to give my friend a time when that bill will be introduced. But I want to assure him that, as a matter of priority in the government, I will inquire specifically into when a bill might be ready in that field. I will inform him, as best I can, with respect to that. I know his concern; it is one 1 share.
With respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, the new government had a bill ready. It was ready to be introduced, but in view of the incidents which occurred in Mississauga last week, Mr. Speaker will recall that the minister indicated he was anxious to review that bill again. He undertook to introduce the bill in the House within ten days; I think that is what he indicated. That review is being completed. Of course, all of us are aware that there is another review under way now, and that is an inquiry by the CTC. The government has that bill, and I do not think there is any reason why the minister will not live up to his undertaking.


POINT OF ORDER
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is really to seek your guidance. I put a question to the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) which dealt specifically with deteriorating services in hospitals for war veterans attributable to budget cuts. In his answer the minister dealt only with an administrative problem in a hospital in his own riding. I wanted to zero in, in my supplementary, on the cuts, particu-

larly the morale problem in the hospitals when the bilingual bonus is terminated fairly soon and its effect on service to our veterans. I ask why I-and it seemed I alone-was not permitted under those circumstances a supplementary question today?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member checks the record, he will realize that he was not alone. I wish he had been but he was not. Several of his colleagues received the same treatment today. Although I regret very much having to do that to members, it is either that choice or else further restricting participation in question period. I cannot remember them specifically now, but several of his colleagues who sit nearby had questions. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) had a question which 1 thought could easily have had a supplementary. There were two or three other members sitting closer by who had questions which could easily have been pursued with supplementaries. I did not grant it to him and one member of the New Democratic Party, simply because the early part of the question period put such heavy constraints in time on the latter part of the question period. It is something I regret very much and to which 1 alluded at the end of today's question period.
Only if we have a little greater balance in the treatment between the first and second parts of the question period can I be relieved of having to make the difficult choice. The hon. member knows that he was attempting to seek the floor yesterday, as were several of his colleagues who again did not succeed today because of this. It is a very difficult choice for the Chair, in the last minutes of question period, to decide whether to take two members and give them one question each, or to take one member and thereby leave another one standing another day. The only way we can help avoid that is if we receive co-operation in the early stages of question period so that I do not have to do that. There was nothing at all about the hon. member's question which made it in any way less deserving of a supplementary than many others which received supplementaries. If it is of any consolation to the hon. member, he had a lot of company today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. Coates.
November I 5, 1979

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 94, 140, 210, 311, 349 and 402.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Stage Direction]
YOUNG CANADA WORKS PROJECT FUNDED IN THE CONSTITUENCY OF RIMOUSK!
Mr. Allard: Since 1968, did the Department of Employment and Immigration finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski as part of the Young Canada Works program and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was the delegation to classify in the public service withdrawn by the Treasury Board and, if so (a) from which categories and levels was it withdrawn and what is a definition in detail of these categories and levels (b) on what date was it withdrawn (c) which departments were affected (d) for what reason was it withdrawn (e) in what manner and how was it withdrawn?
2.	Does the withdrawal affect senior levels only in the public service?
3.	Which branch within the Treasury Board now has the full responsibility to classify as a result of the withdrawal?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1.	(a) The Treasury Board has withdrawn from deputy
heads and chief executive officers the delegated authority to classify positions in the following groups and levels
Economics, Sociology and Statistics (ES) Group, levels ES-5 to ES-8 inclusive;
Financial Administration (FI) Group, levels FI-5 to FI-7 inclusive;
Personnel Administration (PE) Group, levels PE-4 to PE-7 inclusive.
(b)	The withdrawal took effect from February 9, 1979.
(c)	The withdrawal affects any department in connection with the proposed classification of any position in any or all of the groups and levels identified in part 1 (a) of the question.
(d)	To maintain consistency and appropriate classification relationships between departments for positions in these occupational groups and levels.
(e)	Departments and agencies were notified by telex of the Treasury Board's decision followed by a letter to each deputy head and chief executive officer.
2.	The answer to part 1 (a) of the question identifies the groups and levels affected by the withdrawal.
3.	The personnel policy branch is responsible for the over-all management of the classification program.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Ministry of State's (Multiculturalism) payroll on March 31, 1979?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: (a) 31; (b) Ten.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the present average waiting period for those war veterans requiring medical examinations following an application for a veterans pension?
2.	What is the longest that anyone presently has to wait for an examination?
3.	Is there a shortage of qualified doctors and, if so, does the government intend to take action to improve the situation?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1.	An up-to-date medical diagnosis is usually provided with the application for disability pension. When the diagnosis is not provided, the Canadian Pension Commission will arrange for medical examination to establish such a diagnosis. The average waiting period is six weeks where no consultation is required and ten weeks where consultation is required.
2.	In some districts a delay of five months has occurred where a psychiatric consultation was required.
3.	There is no shortage of qualified doctors to perform medical examinations in the Canadian Pension Commission district offices.


Mr. Herbert: Is the government aware of widespread complaints that many tourist travellers who purchase package tours (a) do not receive all the items advertised (b) are not notified of significant changes in the tour before departure (c) Find great difficulty in establishing liability in cases of change to the contract and, if so, what measures are being contemplated by the government to protect the tourist who purchases a package tour?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: (a)	The federal government is not aware of any widespread complaints that tourists who purchase package tours have not received all the items advertised. Any complaints that do arise in this area can, however, be brought to the attention of the director of investigation and research who would examine the matter in relation to the misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
(b)	There has been no noticeable number of complaints registered with my department that would indicate any material problems in this area of travel.
(c)	Provincial jurisdiction over sales contracts has apparently brought about sufficient legislation to take care of most contractual travel problems of a recurring nature that have faced the consumer in the past. Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have specific legislation regulating travel agencies and their activities. Most of the remaining provinces have in the past expressed no intention of initiating any legislative
November 15, 1979

action, given the number of complaints which they actually receive.


Mr. Evans: What is the salary paid to (a) Jean-Carol Pelletier, Special Advisor (b) Jacinthe Lavigne, Special Assistant (c) Brad Addison, Special Assistant, exempt staff in the office of the Minister of Supply and Services?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a)
Jean-Carol Pelletier, special advisor, up to $47,500; (b) Jacinthe Lavigne, special assistant, up to $26,700; (c) Brad Addison, special assistant, up to $26,700.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Kilgour). Last week or some ten days ago, I requested answers to certain questions. I notice today that he is answering one of those questions. But, Mr. Speaker, a large number of questions were put. Questions Nos. 274, 292 and 295 in particular are extremely important. There is also question No. 384, put by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). Despite the government's philosophy of being an open government, we cannot get answers.
So, Mr. Speaker, I demand that the parliamentary secretary inform his minister that we want immediate answers because our parliamentary system does not allow every one to question ministers every day. The best way to have accurate and precise answers and to save members' time is to table questions and have them answered by the parliamentary secretary. I therefore hope that this government will understand once and for all that it should reply immediately to the questions once they are tabled.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to reply to this question of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). He asked certain questions last week and asked me why we had not replied to questions Nos. 140, 150 and 160, I believe. The facts are as follows: we have replied today to question No. 140. We replied to question No. 150 on October 30. As for question No. 160, it concerns the presence of public servants at nongovernmental conferences. We have asked the ministers to reply. We are expecting 22 answers. In short, Mr. Speaker, I want to note for the record that we have replied to 116 questions out of 625 during this Parliament. This means that we have replied to 18 per cent of the questions on the order paper. During the last Parliament, the government had replied in the corresponding period to 46 questions, which means 7 per cent of the questions. We are, therefore, making some progress on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Grain Transportation


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Shall the remaining questions by allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the farmers of Canada, as demonstrated (a) by the imposition of unconscionably high interest rates (b) by its determination to follow the policies of the former Liberal government in continuing to ignore the grain transportation recommendations of the Hall commission, and (c) by proceeding to abandon the Crowsnest Pass rates for the movement of western grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Members are reminded that, pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on this motion shall expire at the ordinary hour of adjournment later this day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on May 22 of this year hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country registered their disapproval of the preceding Liberal government. There was no question in the minds of Canadians in almost every province of the land, when they voted for substantial change-understandably, given the abysmal record of the Liberal party, particularly as it pertained to the economy- that change was desired, and that is the way the vote went.
The key area of concern of the people of Canada was, of course, in the economic domain. The key area of concern of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) during his debate in the election campaign was the economy. The key area of backtracking in almost every aspect of election promises by the present government is also the economy. They have backed down on virtually all aspects of central concern as they outlined them in the campaign. Tax cuts were promised before the election. We have been told since by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that we could not afford them. New job-creation programs were promised before the election and not one has been produced since. Particularly in the context of today's debate, Conservatives in opposition promised low interest rates and promised unequivocally the maintenance of the Crow rate and the implementation of the Hall royal commission report.
In these three areas as well we have consistency-consistency at least in one respect by this government-and that is that never has a party abandoned so fast and so completely all of its central election promises as has the Conservative party of Canada. That is the one thing they have been consistent on. None of these promises, in terms of the negative effects on the people of Canada, has been worse than the government's

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
abandonment of the commitment to provide the people of Canada with a low interest rate policy.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Today I particularly want to speak to the joking member, that backbencher in the Conservative party who thinks high interest rates are a joke. I tell that member that his constituents and the people across this land do not think they are a joke. Some 50 yards from the House of Commons they do not think they are a joke. 1 understand even half of his own caucus does not think they are a joke. I do not think they are a joke.
Today 1 want to speak about the effect of high interest rates on the farmers of Canada. Interest rates of the present kind are causing extreme hardship for many farmers; indeed, 1 would say for all farmers. They are discouraging investment in agriculture and forcing many young farmers literally, for the first time in many years, to leave their farms. This is terrible for farmers, but-and this is a point I want to make because the connection has not recently been made at all-it is also very bad for Canadian consumers.
The Liberal-Conservative policy of high interest rates in this important agricultural sector will result before many months are up in a virtual zero increase in productivity in the agricultural sector. This is an observation made not by New Democratic Party researchers or farm groups directly affiliated with the New Democratic Party, but by a number of independent observers, the most recent among whom is Professor Macfar-land of McGill University. Productivity is going to go down to zero in the agricultural sector. We are going to experience long-term food shortages unless there is a turnaround. The inevitable consequence of this, and this is the emphasis I want to make today, bad as it is for Canadian farmers, is higher food costs for Canadian consumers from coast to coast.
Following seven successive interest rate increases by the Liberals, the Conservatives, not to be outdone by their friends, have continued this grotesque policy with four increases of their own, increasing the interest rate by almost 3 per cent since they have taken office.
Most farmers cannot live on a year-to-year basis without credit. It is the kind of operation or economic activity that requires credit on a continuing basis, even for successful farmers. We estimate that the increases in the interest rate under the Conservative government and the Liberal government this year alone has meant that Canadian farmers will be paying over $200 million more in interest charges in 1979 over 1978. It is good for the banks, but it is good for neither Canadian farmers nor Canadian consumers. For example, a typical farmer in Saskatchewan must borrow between $12,000 and $15,000 a year to buy chemical fertilizer, and this does not include his other costs. That means for that farmer interest charge expenditures of approximately $2,500 this year, thanks to the Conservative government.

The continuation of high interest rates means that the farmers will be unable to improve or expand their operation. For example, many beef producers will not be able to purchase breeding stock to expand their herds. This is happening precisely at a time when there is a shortage of beef in Canada. Most cattlemen must borrow money to buy feed to fatten up their cattle for market, but with the last Bank of Canada hike, farmers will now have to borrow at 16 per cent to 17 per cent interest. Many cattle farmers cannot afford to restock their herds at these interest rates. If herds are not restocked there will be a decline in the supply of beef, which means an increase in the cost of beef for the Canadians who live in cities. Those are the damaging facts in terms of the effect of interest rates on beef prices.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Whose side are you on now, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: Unlike the minister, we have been clear as to where we stand. We were for low interest rates both before and after the election. It is the minister who did the flip-flop, not us, and we make the same speeches in western Canada as we do in eastern Canada.
I have talked about beef producers. Let me now turn to the dairy farmers.


Mr. Malone:: Do that.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, I will do it. The hon. member indicated a moment ago that he likes high interest rates. 1 wonder if he will like what is happening to the dairy farmer.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has not changed at all.


John Edward Broadbent: That is right, the hon. member for Crowfoot has not changed at all. A typical dairy farmer in Ontario by the name of Bob Kerr has said that the monthly payments for his herd of 130 dairy cattle will rise from $2,200 to $3,000. That is only the monthly payment. This is because of the way in which the bank rate has gone up. Mr. Kerr has indicated that he would like to purchase more cows, but a 16 per cent interest rate on a $2,000 cow means $320 in interest charges alone. He has concluded that he will not expand his herd. This conclusion means only one thing for the Canadian consumer, and that is that with fewer cows producing-there will be less milk and therefore the price of milk to the Canadian consumers in the cities will go up, thanks again to the Conservative government's high interest rate policy.
I would like now to turn to the typical western wheat farmer who is operating a combine that costs anywhere from between $50,000 and $100,000. He, too, is paying an interest rate on the loan for this machinery of 16 per cent to 17 per cent. For many such farmers the interest rate on that kind of capital investment makes it virtually impossible for them to expand. If the output by Canadian farmers declines in the coming year, as we are being told by experts outside the House of Commons, it will be as a direct result of this insane high interest rate policy of the Conservative government. In terms of the long-range development of our country and the kinds of com-
November 15, 1979

munities we want to maintain and expand, and as bad as the situation is for the established farmer, it is virtually calamitous for the young farmer who is just starting out. For the young farmer in western Canada just starting out, the high interest rates make the venture almost prohibitive.
Approximately two weeks ago 1 visited the community of Weldon, Saskatchewan. 1 had one of the most moving experiences of my life there while talking to an older farmer in his early sixties. He was telling me about his son who was interested in starting his own farming operation. This gentleman spoke with great directness and simplicity about how just a month ago his son had plans of going into farming, but after the last interest rate increase he had decided that he could no longer afford it. 1 do not claim to have any direct experience with farming, but 1 have tried to learn about the problems which farmers face. 1 would like to put on record the reason why a young farmer on the prairies today cannot go into farming with the current interest rate being as high as it is.
A typical young farmer, such as the young farmer I just mentioned, would start out by purchasing probably one section of land. For those of us in the east who are more accustomed to talking in acres, that means 640 acres. That is a humble beginning in the prairies in grain farming. The going rate per acre is $500, so the total cost of the section would be $320,000. If this young farmer was able to get a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation at 12 per cent interest, which is 3 per cent below what he or she would be paying the banks, the interest charges alone would be $38,400 a year.
Let us assume that this man gets under way in spite of these costs and he produces the average long term yield of a farm in Saskatchewan of 23 bushels per acre. Let us also assume that he is using 60 per cent of his land and leaving the rest in fallow. The total net revenue if he or she gets $5.50 a bushel would be $48,576. If we take this young farmer's annual interest charge of $38,400 and subtract it from his or her net revenue of $48,576, he or she is left with-and I am sure that even the cabinet ministers on the other side can make this calculation-a balance of $10,176.
Some people might quickly conclude that the $10,176 is his profit, but I have not included what this young farmer would be putting out if he or she were buying equipment. If he or she were to buy the minimum equipment necessary, it would cost approximately $75,000 and $10,000 a year for the interest charges. If we subtract the $10,000 he or she pays for interest charges from his balance of $10,176, the young farmer is left with $176 for a year's work. That is $176 for a year's work, without having talked about what he would have to spend for fertilizers or chemicals, or any other costs.
The conclusion is obvious and tragic for those of us in this country who believe that we should perpetuate a small, efficient farming operation. The conclusion is that because of the high interest rate policy of this government, young Canadians cannot go into farming. That is the conclusion, Mr. Speaker.
Grain Transportation
Understandably, all farm organizations across the country have blasted the Conservative party for its high interest rate policy. These include the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, The National Farmers Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to name three. The National Farmers Union just recently petitioned the Minister of Finance asking him to reduce interest rates. 1 hope at long last he will respond to that.
On the interest rate question, Mr. Speaker, this House has discussed many times already its direct effects on urban Canadians-the direct effects of driving up the cost of housing, the cost of living in every respect. I have tried briefly to show that, bad as it has been for those in urban Canada, it has become a disaster in rural Canada. It is time for the Tories to live up to their election promise and bring down the interest rate structure in Canada.
I want to turn now to another central area of concern for the farmers in our country. Before the election it was an area of expressed concern for the Conservative party. I refer to the Hall royal commission. I should like to put on record what some notable Conservative had to say before the election. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) called the Hall report the "Magna Carta" of the west.
In a speech to this House in May last year the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said that the Crown rate should be maintained and Crow related rates should apply even to processed products. He not only wanted to maintain the Crow rate but wanted to extend its application.
I am delighted to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in the House. No doubt he will be taking part in the debate. I will quote what he said for the hon. member for Crowfoot who is talking so much. I hope he joins in the debate officially at some point.


Arnold John Malone: I will catch you.


John Edward Broadbent: On April 25, 1978, the Minister of Transport said in this House:
-my party endorses the Hall recommendations not only as a transportation charter for the west but also as an economic manifesto.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before the election, in a campaign statement issued on April 19 of this year, the Conservative party stated that the Crowsnest Pass rate is to be maintained. That is what the Conservative party said before the election, Mr. Speaker. Before dealing with what the Conservatives said after the election, I should like to say something about why the Crow rate is important, not only to western Canadians but to Canada as a whole.
Basically, in the national context, the Crow rate is important because it is part of this national bargain. It is one way of viewing the country but by no means the only way of viewing it. It is part of the national bargain that is involved in a country as geographically diverse as our own. Industry in the geographic heartland of Canada, in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, historically has had economic measures taken to

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
ensure industrial growth. In return for this there has been an historical commitment, certainly on the part of my party and also it was thought on the part of all parties in the past, that what was good in terms of encouraging industrial growth in Ontario and Quebec ought to hold good in terms of the Crow rate for western Canada. I want to say on behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, that I have made that point, not only in the province of Ontario but also in western Canada. We say the same thing in both parts of the country and just as we defend industry in Ontario, we defend, without qualification, the Crow rates in western Canada.
Let me put in concrete terms what it means for a farmer, let us say, in Saskatchewan in a small community by the name of Wakaw. The Crow rate from Wakaw to Vancouver is 24 cents per 100 pounds. The commercial rate that CN has filed for domestic grain from this community to Vancouver is $3.12 per 100 pounds, 13 times the Crow rate. If the Crow rate goes, farmers in this community would lose $1.73 per bushel or 29 per cent of today's wheat price.
The Crow rate in general gives Canadian farmers a competitive edge over their counterparts in the United States. American farmers have to pay anywhere from four to six times the transportation costs of Canadian farmers under the Crow rate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Crow rate, while enabling Canadian farmers to obtain export markets, has enabled the same farmers to contribute some $2.3 billion to our balance of payments in 1978. Once the Crow rate is gone, as it seems is the clear plan of the government, in my view it would be gone forever as long as we had either the Tory or Liberal parties around.
Payments to individual farmers-and that is what is being talked about in terms of a replacement for the Crow rate- would appear to be some kind of welfare to the Canadian farmer. Such schemes, as in other welfare schemes when they are seen by the Tories, would be abandoned whenever it was politically expedient or when we had someone like the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) get up on the wrong side of the bed some Monday morning and decide it is time to take a whack at the ordinary people of this country.
It has been argued that the Crow rate should be abandoned because the railways need a financial incentive to haul grain. That is the classic argument heard from the backbench Tories who are so vocal on the point. They need an incentive, they say, for their good friends in the CPR. I should like to consider the effects of such incentives, Mr. Speaker.
In the United States, despite grain rates that are, as I have said already, four to six times higher than the Crow rate, rail cars take longer to get to port than they do in Canada. There is a chronic car shortage which is worse than it is in Canada and tracks are, believe it or not, on the whole in worse shape than they are in Canada. So much for financial incentives as a method of improving grain handling facilities as we have seen it in the United States.
We do not have to go to the United States to find a comparable grain shipping situation, however. We can consider our own farmers in the maritimes, for example. They, too, have experienced financial incentives given to the railways. For

example, the potato rate in that part of Canada is six times the Crow rate. This does not mean better transportation of potatoes for farmers in the maritimes or an improvement in conditions. Between 1974 and 1977, potato rates increased 53 per cent. That is the charge to the farmer. The supply of refrigerated freight cars, so essential to the same farmers, fell at a rate of 6 per cent and, as a result, potato shipments from the maritimes dropped by some 32 per cent.
Regrettably, incentives have never worked with the CPR in the past nor are they likely to work in the future. At the present time CPR owes some $679 million to the people of Canada in deferred income tax. Public gifts to the CPR have simply enabled it to make $227 million profit because of the way bookkeeping is permitted in this country. That profit is for the first six months of this year, while still owing some $679 million in deferred income tax to everyone in the land. The point is that the railway companies just ought not to be coddled by some kind of financial incentives. They are compelled by the Railway Act passed by this Parliament to provide suitable and adequate accommodation for all grain offered for shipment, and they should live up to that obligation by law to the farmers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I suggest in this context it is no more proper for the railways to demand an incentive to haul grain than for a private citizen in Canada to demand an incentive for obeying the speed limit on the highways. The law holds for the ordinary citizen; it should hold equally well for the CPR.
The Hall royal commission said that the government should make the railways obey the law. It said that the railways should have to buy the hopper cars and fix the tracks, and then, and only then, should it come to the Government of Canada for subsidies, after they have completed their actions. Surely, Mr. Speaker, Hall was right. We said Hall was right before the election; we repeat it now. I wish the Tories were doing the same thing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Where are they?


John Edward Broadbent: I want to point out the Hall royal commission recognized that the Wheat Board is doing a good job for the people of Canada and for our farmers. It suggested that the Wheat Board should be given more power, not less power, in terms of its responsibility in the co-ordination of grain movements.
Western Canada and the NDP greeted the Hall report with open arms in 1977. None of the major recommendations I have talked about today were implemented either by the Liberals before the election or the Conservatives since the election.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are fibbing again.


John Edward Broadbent: I welcome the hon. member's participation in the debate. He had better watch his language or we will have a question of privilege.
November 15, 1979


Lloyd Axworthy: Touchy.


John Edward Broadbent: The Liberals had their chance for two years after the Hall royal commission report. They blew it. They did nothing.
1 have already quoted several Conservatives and their statements made during the election campaign before the election. 1 would like now to turn around and show what the Tories said after they formed a government. Here is what they said; I have three examples. In July, two months after the election, two provincial Tory governments, one in Alberta and the other in Manitoba, suggested that the Crow rate be scrapped,-completely contrary to the Hall report. In October, the Conservative government in Ottawa stripped the Wheat Board of its powers to co-ordinate grain movements and transferred that power to their good friend, Mr. Hugh Horner, a well-known Tory, who promptly announced that the quota system should be abolished. I might add he had already indicated that he too wanted the Crow rate abolished.


Arnold John Malone: That is false.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Horner wanted to get rid of that as well.


Arnold John Malone: That is false.


John Edward Broadbent: The Tories are getting excited again. One thing a Tory cannot stand is the truth.
Some bon. Members: No.


John Edward Broadbent: It puts them in a state of apoplexy. The Hall report recommended that the Wheat Board play a more prominent role, as I said a minute ago, in the co-ordination of grain transportation. Who do they appoint for the task of co-ordinating grain? A man who is opposed to the very principle.
Finally, on November 7, about a week ago, the Minister of Transport, who is sitting over there chuckling this afternoon-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Chuckling at you.


John Edward Broadbent: -suggested that the Crow rate be changed. 1 hope he gets up. I have his speech here and I would be delighted to read it at length back to him. This is specifically what he did. In his speech of November 7 he said that the Crow rate ought to be changed. He said "under a lot of conditions", of course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: A lot of conditions. I say to the minister his own party's propaganda before the election was that there should be no change in the Crow rate. After the election he is now saying it should be changed.


Arnold John Malone: List the conditions.


John Edward Broadbent: Let him square those two facts. 1 shall watch for him-
Grain Transportation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank hon. members. I will try to conclude my remarks and I will listen with interest to what other hon. members have to say.
The Conservatives have simply shelved the Hall report. They have been continuing the very programs of the Liberals in this field, that before the election they were so critical of. They are in fact perfect students of Otto Lang. They talk one way before an election and act completely differently after. The Liberal government did not like the Hall report, so it set up other studies to stall the implementation of the report and tried to come up with other proposals. That was the purpose of setting up all these other studies.
The Conservative government, I regret to say, is doing the same thing. We have the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) heading up the Conservative grain task force, for example. He too has suggested the Crow rate must go. Indeed, he went to a secret meeting with the railway companies before the election specifically to discuss the abolition of the Crow rate.
The Conservative CPR gang in western Canada, and that is what I will call them, say they will somehow maintain the value of the Crow rate. That is the new language they are coming to. They will maitain the value of the Crow rate by abolishing it. That is a nice step of logic. They are going to abolish it, but they are going to maintain the value by compensating the farmer for the higher freight rates he will have to pay. This scheme, specifically rejected after careful consideration by the Hall commission and described by the Hall commission, and I quote, as "appalling", sounds very much like the spirit of Otto Lang reincarnated in the Tory party. Hall said it was appalling precisely because it is stupid to send out to more than 160,000 farmers individual cheques, which is what is involved in the scheme. Talk about government waste! What should be done, as Hall indicated, is to compel the railways to live up to their legal obligations, repair the lines, produce the hopper cars and then, after they have met their obligations, if a subsidy is needed, pay it. That is the way it should be done, Mr. Speaker.
I want to add by way of conclusion two final points that remain important to my party about the Crow rate. Scrapping the Crow rate means permitting the railway to give preferential treatment to foreign-owned inland grain terminals. This could, in our view, mean the end of the line, if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker, for co-ops. Second, railroads would be allowed to set high rates on branch lines and low rates on main lines, thus giving them control over which lines will be abandoned. This could mean the end of the line for rural lines as we know them in a good many parts of the country.
In his speech to the United Grain Growers a week ago to which I referred earlier, the Minister of Transport said:

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
I am frustrated at present because we are passing up sales-perhaps worth one billion per year-because of limitations in our transportation system.
1 share the concern. I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that he need not be frustrated. He simply needs to compel the railways to live up to their legal obligations. He simply needs to meet his own party's election promises and implement the Hall report. Canadian farmers are tired of studies and backtracking. They do not demand special privileges; they simply want fairness. We say it is time they got it.
Mir. Mayer: Mr. Speaker, would the leader of the New Democratic Party permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Since the hon. member's time has expired we would have to have unanimous consent for him to do so. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mayer:: I would like to ask a brief question concerning one of the commodities to which the Leader of the New Democratic Party referred-beef and beef cattle. I noticed that during the election campaign a member of his family complained loudly and publicly about the price of beef, saying it was too high. The leader of the NDP said today that he did not know a lot about farming. He told us he was learning. In the light of that learning experience does he still think the price of beef is too high? I wonder what he would tell the people of Wakaw about the price of beef.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to answer that question. The hon. member is quite correct that during the campaign my wife said she found, as an ordinary Canadian who lives in an urban community, as a consumer, just as I have farmer friends living in Saskatchewan and in many other provinces, housewives as well, that the price of beef was too high. As a consumer, I understand that and I am sure most other Canadians do too. One of the reasons it is too high, as the hon. member would know if he was listening to my speech, is not the fault of the farmer at all, and she made that very clear. It has lots to do with middlemen in the system and it has everything to do in the immediate context with the high interest rate policy of his own party.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in talking today to the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. I just want to say that the Leader of the New Democratic Party proves to me he knows one thing about agriculture-and that probably has to do with the male species of the beef cattle family.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The motion of non-confidence put before the House today could be qualified by some as crass political exploitation to influence a byelection in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Eugene Whelan: But I do not think voters in Saskatchewan will be taken in by this game, by this act. It is, in fact, an exercise in hypocrisy. In between the parts of the motion that make good common sense there are allegations which are absolutely incorrect and which cannot be substantiated, although the leader of the NDP sure tried hard.
I agree in principle with most of what the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) had to say about this government's unconscionable handling of destructively high interest rates.


Mr. Rose:: Talk about hypocrisy!


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member says "Talk about hypocrisy." The situation today is much different from what it was at that time. Because of Liberal government programs, inflation is lower in Canada now than it is in the United States, so when we talk about interest rates today we are in a different position from that which prevailed a year or nine months ago. These interest rates will, no doubt, cripple many farm operations and businesses and cause the cost of food to Canadian consumers to skyrocket. The other direct consequence will be an increase in the cost of imported food. Also, we will have to search for more food in other parts of the world resulting in an unhealthy increase in consumers' dependency upon foreign food and a parallel shrinking of our own agricultural base. It will mean further expenditures abroad, expenditures which ought not to be necessary since producers have the know-how in this country. It will mean a worsening of our balance of payments position.
The foods affected will be especially those which are marketed outside marketing boards or national agricultural marketing agencies. There were a couple of good articles in one of the western papers I was looking at the other day-the Western Producer dated October 25. One of them carried the headline "PCs say Whoa to some Liberal Ag Projects". You know, they should be speeding ahead with some of them- most of them they are just carrying on. If they were speeding ahead with some of them-for instance, harmonization of stabilization-the farmers would get 100 per cent of the cost of production. They would not necessarily make any money but at least they would not fall behind; they would maintain the status quo, because one of the basic things used in harmonization of stabilization is the interest rate and it figures in the costing formula.
The other agencies which have a cost-pricing formula and which have stayed below the national inflation rate are concerned with products which are being grown, produced and marketed under national agencies in this country. Some of them are not under national agencies, they are under provincial agencies, but those pricing formulas make sure that the products stay in production. It is the producers who fall outside what is called the great free market system who will back off and quit producing; some of them are in dire trouble at the present time.
Unless the government wakes up and, more particularly, unless the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) begins to realize that high interest rates are no joke, unless he realizes that the
November 15. 1979

crushing burden he is placing on food producers in this country will seriously weaken the ability of our farmers to supply Canadians in all security, unless he is willing to quit his smart alec remarks and, instead, redress the untenable situation in which he is placing farmers, the farmers and consumers of Canada will have his hide. I do not know what they will do with it, but they will have his hide, that's for sure. Does the government realize that farm businesses and farm operations today are run on 50 per cent or more of open-ended loans? Only yesterday a farmer feeding cattle in southwestern Ontario indicated he had lost $20,000 solely as a result of increased interest rates charged him by his bank since the government took office in June. He does not know what he is going to do.
I invite members opposite to do a little calculating on the basis of the 16 per cent rate presently paid by farmers. A feeder with 250 steers at 400 pounds who had to pay $1.20 a pound to purchase the animals faces an operating open-ended loan costing almost $20,000 a year. That feeder will have to try to get $19,200 to be exact, from the sale of his fattened cattle to send to the banks without any relationship to his competence as a farmer. Nothing for his work, nothing for his feed and so on. He has to make close to $20,000 for the banks before anything else comes back to him. Is he going to be working for nothing? The government said this would not happen, but that is what is going to happen. Either our farmers across the land are going to get a beating they never imagined, one they never imagined they would have to face under the previous administration, or Canadian consumers will face an unwarranted jump in their food costs.
1 wish the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) was in the House today. I remember when he was on this side of the House as critic in the field of consumer affairs. Boy, when eggs went up a cent a dozen did he raise Cain in this House! Did he make a lot of noise! And, boy, is he quiet today! Yet that is infantile alongside what this is doing to the cost of food and the way in which it is going to hurt production and people. The very thing that he condemned, the egg marketing board, for instance, is one which has the cost-pricing formula installed in it which guarantees there will be eggs produced in Canada under that system and that producers will make a profit if they are efficient.
The hon. member asked about beef. The economic developments that took place in connection with beef should have never happened as far as I am concerned. But do not blame the government for it because I can remember going into cabinet meetings here and receiving telegrams from every beef producing organization. They were not all the same, but practically all of them said the same thing: "Don't let Whelan do anything for the cow-calf producers; don't let him intervene at all." My colleagues went along with that view. But I was up in that great area of Prince Albert the other day and 1 can say this to the Conservative members: a former member of the executive of the late right hon. member's constituency organization was my escort for one day. The next day two young people who before that were strong NDP supporters were my
Grain Transportation
escorts. So I am just saying that in that area they know what we did. This is why I say that this motion is full of hypocrisy and fault. It is because of the very things which were done.
The Western Grain Stabilization Act was condemned by them. It is heralded by those who joined it voluntarily as one of the greatest things ever to hit the west because farmers are getting their cheques for their crops. They know what good it has been. The NDP say nothing was done, that there was no care and that no concern was shown for farmers. That is not true because the Western Grain Stabilization Act is looked upon as one of the greatest things, and the harmonization of stabilization would be doing the same thing, perhaps not to the great extent that the Western Grain Stabilization Act is helping those farmers who suffered depressed prices a year or so ago, but it had that same principle involved in it, that it would be voluntary for them to join. Again, what happened? Beef producers said, "Don't get involved in that; we are going to get over-production of beef'.
What is happening to beef farmers today? As late as last night in the area of Wellington and Waterloo where I was, a farmer came to me and said: "My son-in-law is being helped both by myself and by his father. He already has a debt. He knows that just the interest rates on the cattle he has bought for the feedlot amount to $40,000 before he gets a penny for himself'. The price of finished beef is not as high as it should be to give returns for the capital outlay that is involved.
1 just want to say that I am concerned about some of the statements which have been made here. It would be one thing if interest was the only cost increase that producers and consumers have to face, but this government seems to be hell-bent on hitting Canadians with a double whammy by cranking up the rate of energy costs twice as fast or even faster than the previous administration was prepared to do. This is a costly, costly thing.
There are some countries in the world which have special programs for energy used in food production. Some of them have costs as low as 17 cents a gallon for the diesel fuel used in food production. 1 understand that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has once more been convinced by Premier Lougheed that the latter's stand on the need for higher energy costs and on the distribution of income resulting from these higher prices is correct. What kind of leadership is that? Never have so many Canadians been sold down the river of convenience by one man for the benefit of partisan gain. I almost feel as if I am a citizen of a foreign country, not because of the Parti Quebecois problem in the land and not because of the tough bargaining Premier Lougheed is able to put up for his people and province, but because of the weakness of this present government-its shameful posturing which is inconsistent with the facts, its inability to bring home the bacon when the going gets tough and its naivete in having even the bacon which was on its plate taken away through sheer incompetence.
But enough of that, Mr. Speaker. Let us just turn to grain transportation for a while. When I think of some of the things

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
which have been said and read some of the speeches which are being prepared by the ministers and others I am concerned. You would almost think nothing had been done before.
I return again to the limp, hollow and inaccurate NDP motion before the House, because it almost says the same thing. The NDP knows very well that the previous administration was effective in improving grain transportation since 1973. We acted and put in place useful helpful programs, while at the same time studying the possibility of further improvement. This government seems to think it is enough to appoint committees and negotiate away advantages.
It was way back in 1973 that a Liberal government started by acquiring rolling stock, without which grain movement in this country would not only have some problems but would in fact be in serious trouble. The government started by buying 2,000 grain hopper cars in 1973. By last year 8,000 were delivered with an average 3,000 bushel capacity. That makes an increase of rolling stock capable of moving an extra 24 million bushels of grain.
If we took all the rolling stock used for grain, they could carry 36 million bushels if they were all loaded at once. Just imagine! That is about ten million bushels more than the total storage capacity on the west coast. Rolling stock, rolling grain containers, rolling grain elevators-whatever you want to call them-are there. I am not saying there is not a need or some need to co-ordinate this in a better fashion to move it more quickly, but there has been this accomplishment.
That effort was accompanied by pressure being put on the railways to improve their turnaround of cars, which in fact improved from a 21-day cycle in 1974 to an 18-day cycle this year, with the possibility of another day being knocked off by next year. That exercise in itself increased rolling stock capacity by another 20 per cent. At the same time the Liberal government spent $100 million in 1977-78, $70 million in 1978-79 and committed $70 million this year for 1979-80 to rehabilitation of rails and beds to improve the movement of grain to home and export markets.
When I think of some of the things which have been said and some of the claims which are being made, I think it is almost like a cook in a kitchen baking a cake and preparing the icing. Then somebody comes in, puts the icing on the cake and says, "We did it all". Practically all this government is doing in some instances is putting the icing on the cake. In some instances it is missing part of the cake with the icing, as far as I am concerned, by not following up the programs which were installed by the former Liberal government.
These efforts were made in the full knowledge that the Crowsnest rates-whether you are for them or against them- have left a huge problem of deferred maintenance to be dealt with. My point is, rather than watch the grain movement in this country decline year by year while studying every aspect of how to deal with the Crowsnest rate problem fairly and to the benefit of producers, a Liberal administration acted to the point where in fact almost one billion bushels of grain have been moved on a yearly basis over the last five years. That is a lot of grain. At today's prices that represents the movement of
(Mr. Whelan.]
that product, by a small "c" conservative estimate, in an amount far exceeding $5 billion.
Then Dr. Hugh Horner was appointed. I knew Dr. Hugh Horner when he was a Conservative member of Parliament. I knew Dr. Hugh Horner when he was a Conservative minister of agriculture. 1 knew Dr. Hugh Horner when he was a Conservative minister of transport and deputy premier. I never knew him as a transport expert. I knew him as a politician, and a Conservative politician. I do not think he knows any more about a train than a former member of Parliament, who was removed from the chairmanship of the board of Air Canada, Mr. Mackasey, knew about a plane, as far as that goes. Dr. Hugh Horner is being paid $75,000 a year, more than the Prime Minister, to run around and tell them how to shunt cars. The other day in Toronto he said that he finds the CPR and the CNR main lines the best in all of North America. We have known that for a long time. He has already received pretty near a month's pay to tell us what we knew. I think that is great. One of the greatest things I know about Dr. Hugh Horner is his brother.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us more.


Eugene Whelan: A further 2,000 hopper cars have been acquired by the Canadian Wheat Board, and what is this government doing about hopper cars? Get this, it is going to rent some hopper cars! Ain't that great? The Liberal government bought them and paid for them. The previous minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board got the Canadian Wheat Board involved and bought cars, but the Conservative government which claims it is doing so much, is out renting cars. Can you imagine?
The western provinces will acquire 2,400 hopper cars by the end of 1981. That wealthy Conservative government of Alberta is going to contribute 1,000. It has more than $6 billion in a heritage fund that it does not know what to do with. Hon. members opposite know as well as I that Peter does not know what to do with that. If I were minister of transport in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, I would go to Peter and say, "Come on, Peter, you can do better than that". I am sure he would listen to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) because the minister is from Vegreville and is respected tremendously in that area. I know of the tremendous respect he has in the House and I know that if the Minister of Transport, who is that member, went to Peter and said: "Look, you can do more", I am sure he would, because I am sure he would talk to the Minister of Transport. I had the impression that there was no communication between the first minister of Alberta and the first minister of Canada, and there seems to be a lack of will to communicate, from what we have seen of events in Saskatoon last night after three hours of discussion. Certainly it did not sound very progressive to me, that's for sure.
But let us go now to the political allies of this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hurray!
November 15, 1979


Eugene Whelan: In Saskatchewan they fired the best cabinet minister they had.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: They fired one of the most honest men in western Canada.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Eugene Whelan: They fired him for no good reason. The premier wanted him to say he was sick, but he was as healthy as the Leader of the New Democratic Party ever was, and he knows a hell of lot more about farming than he does. He was born and raised on a farm and he worked in a factory, so he knows of what he speaks. He knows practically all the people in Saskatchewan, but they fired him because he would not resign on the ground of ill health. So then he resigned his seat. I was appalled when I went to Prince Albert and the NDPers said, "But your brother resigned, he was not fired." What a bunch of malarkey, what a bunch of boondoggling! That guy had given his whole life to that party from the time he was 18, but he was fired for no reason at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


An hon. Member:: He has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: But what did the province of Saskatchewan do? They are going to supply 1,000 cars. They got into the act too. They are the political allies of the party which put forward this hypocritical motion. They are the province which stands to gain most from improved grain transportation because of its geographic location and the importance of grain production to that province. They will only supply 1,000 cars. They have the lowest rate of unemployment of any province in Canada, probably because, as 1 was told the other day, the unemployed there have moved to Alberta.
The Liberal administration between 1974 and 1978 spent some $280 million on hopper car and boxcar repairs. At the same time, railroad rehabilitation subsidies from 1977 to 1980 equalled $240 million; the expenditures on improvements of grain movement through the port of Churchill between 1968 and 1978 were almost $16 million; and branch line subsidies between 1971 and 1978 amounted to $602 million.
Hon. members know full well the efforts the Liberal administration has made to export grain out of the west coast, both in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, B.C. The Minister of Transport knows full well that what he signed with regard to
Grain Transportation
Prince Rupert, etc., was all ready for him. All he had to do was to get the pen. 1 was involved in some of those negotiations. Perhaps even I could have got as much from Peter on that deal, 1 do not know, but I did not see any great advances being made by the new minister over and above the agreement that was negotiated at the time the election took place.
The unfortunate shipping accident disrupting the improved rate of grain exports is not being handled with sufficient dispatch by this government. I want to tell the minister that he had better cross his fingers because some farmers think that, because there is demurrage to pay on ships waiting as a result of that railroad bridge having been damaged and the inadequacy either of the ship's captain or the pilots supplied by the Canadian government, they will have to pay that demurrage. I said to them that the Minister of Transport in charge of the Wheat Board is a reasonable man and I know that in no way will he allow that to happen. You see how fair I am on the political hustings?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I was just going to say that if we go on to talk about other things, this government has once more adopted the policy of appointing a grain transportation co-ordinator, and that is encouraging. But partisan Conservative task forces, such as the grain movement task force named by the Minister of Transport in July, are unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. You can expect that sort of thing in a totalitarian type of system where there is only one party. You see that in other parts of the world. But this is an all party Parliament.
People are under the impression that that task force is a parliamentary committee. It is not a parliamentary committee, it is a caucus Tory group of politicians who are using government employees to help them. I never remember that being done, Mr. Speaker. It is just unacceptable. It is blatant partisan boondoggling reminiscent of the Ontario Conservative government's tactics, and it brings into question the privilege of members of this House. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger) should not have been given the privilege of constituting a Conservative caucus partisan committee usurping the function of Parliament.
I know that another member of the House, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), has brought to the attention of the Chair a similarly unacceptable situation with regard to the task force on beef established by the government. If there is anything that anyone wants to know about beef, there are piles and piles of documents on hearings, etc., and yet we appoint another committee. We used a highly paid person who was our chief agriculture negotiator at GATT to be secretary of that beef committee. His name was Mike Gifford. I have known him for years. He was one of our most qualified people out there, but he is paid by the taxpayers of Canada to work for the Conservative caucus. It is a shameful use of funds.


An hon. Member:: Open government!

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eugene Whelan: This government's habit of establishing a Conservative task force and giving then an aura of a parliamentary investigation instead of giving the country action in government is entirely unsatisfactory, undemocratic and highly questionable political behaviour and morals. Yet this comes from a government which purports to be the champion of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 want to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for presenting this motion because it gives the government an opportunity to respond to some of the statements that have been made by the NDP. It also gives us an opportunity to respond to the somewhat inaccurate thrusts contained in the motion itself. I could not help but recognize the torture which the leader of the NDP so obviously went through when he read his speech, which was probably prepared by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Eugene Whelan: He is not that capable.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a great deal of respect for him. He is the only rural member in that caucus, I think, although I am not sure whether he ever drove a tractor. But I think he has seen them. Notwithstanding the fact that he has never driven a tractor, I do have a lot of respect for his ability to deal with agriculture, and I am sure he helped his leader out immensely today, notwithstanding the torture that his leader had to go through.
There are a couple of points with which I want to deal and, as well, a couple with which 1 take issue.
I should say at the outset that, knowing the leader of the NDP to be a very skilled and competent debater, I would have thought it would not have been necessary for him to distort a speech and to quote it out of context. Because he quoted a portion of a speech 1 had made to the UGG in Calgary a week ago wherein I stated that I was frustrated because we were passing up sales worth perhaps a $1 billion a year. What he failed to do is to put that statement in the context in which 1 put it, in the summarization of the issue as I saw it.
I want to put what I said on the record because I think that to quote that passage alone tends to distort what I wanted to say. I am surprised that the hon. member would use such tactics, because he certainly does not have to; he has the ability and skill to make his point very well without attempting to distort or to quote passages out of context. I did say that if I were to sum up my views on Canada's grain marketing and transportation, I am disappointed with the past and somewhat frustrated with present conditions, but extremely optimistic about the future. It was in that context that I made my statement.


John Edward Broadbent: I left out the optimism.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would say further that I am disappointed because of our well documented inability to put grain into the export position and to take advantage of high prices and strong demand. That is what I said. It is interpreted quite differently in its total context than in the manner in which the hon. member quoted that portion.
1 have a tremendous amount of respect for the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan). 1 think all of us enjoyed his contribution today. I am not sure he was quite as well prepared today as he used to be when he was a minister. Nevertheless, the hon. member always is enjoyable and makes his points very vigorously. I know very well he is a sincere man when it comes to dealing with the problems of agriculture. I know of the sincerity of his devotion to trying to improve the grain handling and transportation system. In making those comments, I can conclude only that either he was not listened to by his cabinet colleagues in the government of which he was a member, or he was much less vocal than he was during the debate today. I am not sure which of the two comments apply.
Needless to say, if what the hon. member said today was listened to by the former administration, probably they would have been able to achieve a lot more in the improvements of grain handling and transportation, and perhaps they would have had a little better showing in the election of May 22. I suppose we can say only that the hon. former minister of agriculture was simply not in the right clan to assert his influence, because if he had been I am sure we would have had a co-ordinator then, which is something he suggested to me he had advocated for quite some time.


Eugene Whelan: Nothing new.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Essentially the motion deals with three points. It reads as follows;
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the farmers of Canada, as demonstrated (a) by the imposition of unconscionably high interest rates-
This is a very serious matter. I accept it as a serious part of the motion. It continues:
-(b) by its determination to follow the policies of the former Liberal government in continuing to ignore the grain transportation recommendations of the Hall commission-
It is almost ludicrous and laughable. The suggestion that this government is ignoring the recommendations of the Hall commission is simply hogwash. It continues:
-and (c) by proceeding to abandon the Crowsnest Pass rates for the movement of western grain.
That is pure politics, to say the least.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a distortion of the government's position on the Crowsnest Pass rates. If it is not a falsehood, certainly it borders on being one. At a minimum it is deceptive and deceiving.


John Edward Broadbent: Where do you stand?
November 15, 1979


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 will tell the hon. member where I stand, "you betcha". I will quote passages from my election campaign document and my speech, so that the hon. member will see very clearly that there is no inconsistency in the position taken before or after the election.
I should like to deal with the question of high interests rates and their impact on farmers. I am not so naive as to suggest that high interest rates are not hurting the producers of Canada. It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that 1 have an immediate solution. In effect, the high interest rates reflect the problems of the economy. The government intends to deal responsibly with these problems. The challenge faced by Canada is not to provide merely a cosmetic solution which would cushion the immediate effect for some Canadians. Such problems would deal only with the symptoms and not with the root problems. Moreover, probably they would guarantee more serious problems in the future.
The new government took over office from the former administration with the highest dollar value budgetary deficit in Canada's history, over SI 1 billion this year, and an extremely high deficit in our international current account, in excess of $7 billion. These are the solutions in redressing those problems. Understandably there is a great deal of concern about the high level of interest rates. In fact, this concern has been reflected by the exchanges which have occurred in the House of Commons. My colleagues who will follow me later will deal in more detail with this particular matter, but let me add that if high interest rates are painful to some people right now, ignoring the serious underlying factors would be even more harmful to our over-all economy and indeed to Canadians.
As far as grain farmers are concerned, the subject to which this motion is addressed, it seems to me the best way to help grain farmers is to get on with the job of improving the grain transportation system in the country and to support some of the initiatives we have advanced to improve that system.
It is funny to hear the NDP condemning the former Liberal government, the Liberal party. We had a very serious vote of confidence a couple of weeks ago wherein members of the Liberal and New Democratic parties ganged up in a non-confidence motion. It is very interesting to see what was reported in The Globe and Mail. It reads as follows:
The exercise in brinksmanship which saw the government survive a Liberal non-confidence motion by only two votes was entirely political. The motion put forward by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau attempted to chastise the Conservative government for failing to do in six months what the Liberal government had failed to do in 11 years.
That is the sum and substance of that particular phoney motion of confidence which was supported by the NDP.


An hon. Member:: With glee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With glee. The motion refers to the alleged fact that we are following the same policies of the former government and that we are not following the thrust of the Hall report. It is very interesting to read what Mr. Hall had to say about this government. I should like to quote from
Grain Transportation
the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix dated Friday, September 21, 1979. This is what he said.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You cannot find it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I was pausing because I wanted to save the best part for the last. Mr. Hall is reported as saying the following:
Transport Minister Don Mazankowski's goal of increasing grain exports 50 per cent by 1985 can be achieved if more hopper cars are built, says Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, author of a major report on western grain handling.
The extra exports "can be achieved with the existing rail lines but not with the existing equipment," Hall said Thursday ...
"There's going to be a considerable number of hopper cars brought into the transportation system as quickly as they can be built," Hall said . . .
The previous Liberal government acted on few of his grain handling recommendations, made in 1977, but the Progressive Conservatives seem inclined to put more into action, he said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The article continued:
A major initiative will be appointing a co-ordinator for grain car movement, Hall said. The government is trying to decide who to hire.
I must say that the appointment of Dr. Horner, while it may not have been approved by the hon. member for Essex-Wind-sor and members of the NDP, was applauded very warmly and enthusiastically by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. The article continues:
A July meeting between Mazankowski and the four western transport ministers produced "a unanimous and co-operative view that much more was going to be done," Hall said.
This is the part I wanted to save for the last because the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville will appreciate it:
Mazankowski is a "very able and active minister and I think he's really going to accomplish his intention of increasing exports."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He is also very modest.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Mr. Kempling:: One cannot hide the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I should like to deal with this in some more detail, because the motion suggests that we have been following the same policies of the former Liberal government. It is very clear from the words expressed by Mr. Justice
Emmett Hall that indeed we are following the basic thrust of the Hall commission report.


John Edward Broadbent: He did not say that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As well I must say that I meet with Mr. Justice Hall on a very regular basis. I can assure the hon. member that indeed the details of our initiatives and policies are approved by that very, very distinguished gentleman.

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
Our policy is not only different from the Liberals' in terms of substance, it is different in terms of emphasis, because grain transportation has been our number one priority. It is an area on which we have placed the greatest kind of emphasis because we do know-we have said it before and we say it again-that we have been losing far too many sales in the export field, millions and billions of dollars. We have tried to turn that around and we are working towards doing that.
The other thing is attitude. We have approached the resolution of these problems employing the co-operative and consultative approach. We have replaced confrontation with co-operation, working together with the Canadian Wheat Board, working together with the Canadian Grain Commission, working together with the grain handling companies, working with the railways, working with the industry at large, working with labour and working with provincial governments.
The leader of the NDP may not realize that it is a very complex system and each and every component of that system must function well. The whole system must function in a harmonious fashion in order to achieve the maximum degree of throughput. That is one of the essential differences.
The other difference is the degree and the intensity with which we place our emphasis upon the movement of grain, particularly to export positions. We have approached this on two basic fronts; the short-term and the long-term. We set out very quickly after assuming office to get the Prince Rupert project back on the rails because negotiations had broken down. There is a site evaluation committee which is concluding its work right now. It will be reporting to me by the end of November and we will then be taking a decision. I would expect that construction of that facility would commence in the early part of 1980.
We are looking at ways and means of increasing our export capability through the port of Churchill. Yesterday we had a very historic and significant event. We visited Churchill and witnessed the loading of some 24.5 thousand metric tons of barley being loaded in the MV Arctic for movement to Poland. This is the latest movement, a month after the season had closed. We hope to repeat that in the early part of the season and to repeat it again next fall. Nevertheless, we need not only Prince Rupert, we need Churchill, we need Vancouver and we need Thunder Bay.
I see Canada as a major grower of grain and a major exporter of grain utilizing four spouts; the port of Thunder Bay, the port of Churchill, the port of Prince Rupert and the port of Vancouver. We are going to need each and every one of those ports if we are to achieve the 30 million metric ton export target figure which we have pledged to do by 1985. We will do it given the time and given the kind of initiatives we have taken, and I am confident we can.
In the area of additional rolling stock, the Canadian Wheat Board has 2,000 hopper cars coming on stream right at the present time. They are being delivered right now. The federal government did engage in leasing some 2,000 hopper cars and

they will be coming on stream in the early part of next year. There were basically two reasons that we leased; firstly, the Liberals did not leave us any money to spend on that item so we had to lease; and secondly, the matter of leasing cars allowed us to bring cars on stream much quicker than if we had purchased them, so we will be receiving these cars in the early part of next year. There will be 2,000 from the Wheat Board, 2,000 from the federal government, 1,000 from the province of Saskatchewan, 1,000 from the province of Alberta and some 400 from the province of Manitoba; that is 6,400 additional hopper cars coming on stream right now.
In addition we have renewed the boxcar rehabilitation program, which is going on in the city of Winnipeg primarily. Some 5,000 rehabs will be coming on stream between now and the middle of next year, so that is a total of 11,400 boxcars and hopper cars which will be coming on stream between now and 1981.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is being done, not by any miracle, but by employing a co-operative approach. We think that much more can be done employing the co-operative approach. The solutions are not easy. We are now going to have to concern ourselves with ensuring that there are adequate and sufficient numbers of locomotives and motive power to do the job. We are presently in the process of discussing that matter with the railways.
These are some of the initiatives. I am glad the hon. member for Essex-Windsor brought up the matter of the work of the task force involving members of Parliament. We on this side consider members of Parliament to be "somebodies". They want to work, they have expertise and they have done an excellent job. They have gone out and examined in minute detail, here again in co-operation with members of the grain trade, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission, ways and means of improving the system. They looked at new innovative techniques which we might be able to employ. They looked at ways and means by which we may be able to cut down the turnaround time. Their report is due to be handed in to me within the next couple of weeks, I presume, and it will be turned over to the grain transportation coordinator so he can implement those many innovative recommendations which will flow from that committee.
The member who just spoke before me said he supported the concept of a co-ordinator, and so did the official spokesman for the Liberal opposition. I think we are very fortunate to have been able to acquire the services of a man who has outstanding qualifications, not only as a politician but as a grain transportation expert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: His appointment has been lauded clear across the country from Halifax to Victoria and there can be no doubt about that. I can assure the House that the job of co-ordination and of utilizing our grain handling and shipping systems to their maximum will be achieved under the direction
November 15, 1979

of Dr. Hugh Horner. I have no doubts about that at all. As a matter of fact, I am sure that we will come very close, notwithstanding some of the breakdowns-bridges falling down and some being burned-to increasing our exports by the 20 per cent figure which we have set as a target. That is Dr. Horner's target, that is my target and that is this government's target.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not everyone agrees with the solutions and not everyone agrees with the diagnosis of the problems that are before us. There are different views. There are different views with respect to whether we have enough hopper cars or whether we need more; there are different views as to how we might best turn the system around. The UGG convention that the hon. Leader of the NDP referred to was a rather interesting occasion in that the president of the UGG, a man very highly regarded in grain circles, said that the subject of the shortage of rail cars has been much overplayed. He indicated at that meeting that he did not feel we needed any more hopper cars; he said we have enough.
In the meantime the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Ted Turner, told delegates at the pool's annual meeting on Thursday that he is very optimistic about the future of Canada's grain industry, referring, of course, to the initiatives we have taken as a government. He went on to say that while he is happy with the purchase of hopper cars by the federal government and by the provinces, 1,800 additional cars are needed every year to maintain an adequate level. You have these kinds of differences.
Mr. Runciman also said:
-there has been an overreaction to the shortage of grain cars. With governments in Ottawa, Saskatchewan and Alberta responding to the Wheat Board's request for more cars, supplies would far exceed demand in about one year.
These are things we have to consider. The official spokesman for the NDP, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), said in The Leader Post of Regina on July
21:
He urged a three-point program: immediately placing all but the 155 miles in the permanent rail network: reducing from four years to two a program to upgrade track; immediately ordering 6,000 to 8,000 new hopper cars.
That statement was made in July, and this is now November. There are 7,400 hopper cars coming on stream between now and 1981. The news article goes on to say:
Benjamin opposed any change in the Crow rate and approved appointing a transportation czar to co-ordinate grain movement.


John Edward Broadbent: Not Horner.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Within the Wheat Board.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Now they are splitting hairs. The hon. member first said that he did not approve of the concept of a co-ordinator. I can assure hon. members that the appointment and concept of a co-ordinator has clearly been endorsed across this country; but, more importantly, the appointment of Dr.
Grain Transportation
Hugh Horner has received accolades from Halifax to Victoria, as I have said.


John Edward Broadbent: From his family.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would now like to turn to the portion of this motion which deals with the matter of the Crow rate. I would like to place on record a statement which my party used during the election campaign relative to the Crow rate. We said:
To provide incentives to move increasing volumes of grain, and to rehabilitate and maintain adequate plant and equipment, the railways will be adequately compensated for the hauling of grain. They, in turn, must guarantee adequate service levels for grain movement.
Here is the qualifier:
The benefits of the statutory freight rates will remain for western producers.
The federal treasury will meet the difference between statutory and compensatory rates on a basis to be decided upon through consultation with the producers.
Essentially that position is not changed. That is what we said then and that is what we say now. I do not need a lecture from the professor from Oshawa on what the Crow rate is all about.


Eugene Whelan: None of my kids are going to that school.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 know the historical and economical significance of the Crow rate and what it means to the average western farmer. This government has no intention of removing the value, benefit, or advantage of the Crow rate as it now exists from the producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Eat crow, Ed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wish that the NDP would stop distorting and deceiving the facts, although they are masters at that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If I got overexcited, Mr. Speaker, and said some things that were unparliamentary, 1 must say right here and now that 1 did not mean them in that context. If there were any offensive words related to the statement which I just made, I want to withdraw them and apologize to the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What a nice man.


John Edward Broadbent: Now get back to the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There have been representations, even from members of the NDP, about modifying the application and the structure of the Crow rate. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and I have discussed this matter on many occasions. I am not trying to distort his position, but we have had a lot of discussions on the matter, and there have been representations from provincial governments and several farm organizations as well.
Concern has been expressed about the processing of grain products. I know that the NDP would say, "Well, we'll pay the

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
railways the difference, whatever they want, and if there is not enough from the federal treasury, then the provinces will dig in and give them some more." This government does not take that position. I want to assure this House that any change in the structure application of the Crow benefit, value or advantage will only come after there is full consultation with the producers, if there will be any changes at all. We believe that the producers of Canada should have some say in this matter, and we are prepared to capitalize on their expertise and ideas.
The second point I want to make is that our government believes that the railways have a firm obligation to move our grain expeditiously, effectively and efficiently in the producers' interests and, indeed, in the national interest. 1 want to make it very clear that under this government the railways will not be allowed just to run the gravy trains. We do not accept as fact the formula of Snavely, just as we have not accepted the PRAC report or the totality of the Boze-Allen report.
If there are any changes in the application of the Crow rate, they will have to be coupled with adequate service guarantees. Because we believe that grain is a national asset. We in the federal government will not shirk or squelch upon our responsibilities in backing up the commitment of providing adequate revenues to the railways, but not so as to affect the benefit or the value of the Crow rate in statutory form as it is presently applied. That is a firm commitment; and we have honoured it and we will continue to honour it.
I would like to conclude by saying to the Leader of the New Democratic Party yes, the people of western Canada did vote for change. They voted for change, they voted for improvement in the grain transportation and handling system and for retaining a greater portion of the branch lines than that which the former government wanted to retain. They voted for a party that was committed to moving more grain. The NDP had a policy for western Canada as well and, as I said, they set out to distort the position we took throughout the campaign and have continued to do so. I would remind hon. members that that party did not elect many rural members on May 22, and I do not think that they will elect many more either. I agree with the former minister of agriculture who suggested that this motion, particularly as it relates to the Crow rate, is simply political posturing because they have their eyes set on Prince Albert. The people of Prince Albert will deliver a message on Monday, and they will deliver it in our favour.
We will continue to work out the problems and continue to work with components of the grain handling system, with the railway, with the Canadian Wheat Board, with the Canadian Transport Commission and with the producers. We will work on these problems together. We will not promise instant solutions or miracles, but through co-operation and consultation we will get the job done. We will achieve our 20 per cent this year and 50 per cent by 1985.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I recognize at the outset that the minister checked what he had to say about a point shortly after he said it, but since I courteously accepted a question from a member on that side, I wonder if the minister would accept a question from me in the
[Mr. Mazankowski.J
context of his comments when he said that we were deceitfully misleading. That was a rather serious accusation, and I wonder if the minister would permit a question in that context in order to clarify the record?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Even if the minister agrees, the hon. member will need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister prepared to accept a question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that I believe in toughminded debate, but like the minister I do not believe in deception on the other side. If I am guilty of an error, 1 welcome correction.
1 have with me a campaign bulletin issued by the Conservative party of Canada dated Ottawa, April 19, about a month before the election. That campaign bulletin does not say that the "benefits" of the Crow rate, the "value" or the "advantages" of the Crow rate would be maintained. It says categorically, and I quote:
Wc have proposed that: the Crowsnest Pass freight rate be maintained.
I referred to that earlier and indicated that since the election the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and Hugh Horner, who has been appointed to a position by the government, have all changed that statement. They have "withdrawn". Those were my words and if I am wrong I want them corrected and the record corrected. They have suggested no longer that the Crow rate be maintained, but something that they ascribe to the benefit of its being maintained.
That is the only accusation I made in my speech; nothing more or less. I said I did not accept that policy and that there was a change in the Conservative party policy. If I am wrong, I should like the minister to correct the record now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my remarks once again so that there is absolutely no question. I apologize to the hon. member and to members of his party if I was overexuberant in my description. I also have to say in the same vein that the hon. member is wrong. I have the policy paper in my hand. It is a policy which was written by myself and other members of the Conservative transportation caucus committee and ratified by the party. 1 quote it again so that there is absolutely no misunderstanding. I am not sure what the hon. member is quoting from but I-


John Edward Broadbent: A Conservative party document.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not know what the hon. member is quoting from but I can certainly substantiate this. I have taken his word and he is simply going to have to take mine. I think
November 15, 1979

this will be endorsed and ratified by other members in the House as well. Very simply, the words that we used during the election campaign are these:
To provide incentives to move increasing volumes of grain, and to rehabilitate and maintain adequate plant and equipment, the railways will be adequately compensated for the hauling of grain. They, in turn, must guarantee adequate service levels for grain movement.
And in capitals, for emphasis, it continues:
The benefits of the statutory freight rates will remain for western producers.
It goes on to say:
The federal treasury will meet the difference between statutory and compensatory rates on a basis to be decided upon through consultation with the producers.
That is the right policy and that is the one we presented to the Canadian people before the election of May 22. We continue with that policy as I have just read it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Inquiry of the ministry-Inquiry whether Prime Minister met Pequiste candidate; the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan)-International trade-Automotive industry-Fair share for Canada of capital investment; the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe)-Unemployment insurance-Seasonal workers-Request for revision of benefits system.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the farmers of Canada, as demonstrated (a) by the imposition of unconscionably high interest rates (b) by its determination to follow the policies of the former Liberal government in continuing to ignore the grain transportation recommendations of the Hall commission, and (c) by proceeding to abandon the Crowsnest Pass rates for the movement of western grain.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The topic
Grain Transportation
that is under discussion should be, and we hope will be, a matter of major importance to this House.
We have spent a great deal of time since Parliament opened talking about the issue of energy as a natural resource, yet for members from western Canada, and in fact for all Canadians, the question of grain is in its own way as important, and perhaps more important, as the basis of the Canadian economy.
If we can put aside for a moment the somewhat blatant political purposes of the resolution and the somewhat peevish nature of the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party, who seemed to build most of his case upon the science of character assassination rather than hard fact, going after a Lang or a Horner or whatever-if we can put those particular problems aside, it is important for members of the House to have the opportunity to express their points of view on the critical issue of the grain industry, and that is the effect of current policies. In particular, we welcome the opportunity of hearing from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and other members of the Conservative caucus about what the policies, programs and directions of the government will be. I think those members would concede that there is some degree of confusion at this stage about exactly what those programs are.
This confusion, of course, is caused by the retraction of many of the statements and proposals made prior to the Conservative party becoming the government, both in the form and content of how they intended to tackle grain handling programs.
The Minister of Transport was very eloquent in his defence of the need to initiate a wide variety of studies and examinations. I, for one, do not object to his using members of Parliament to do some research and investigation, except that this runs totally counter to what he said he would do when his party became the government. In a June 14, 1978, news release, the minister said that more studies were not needed, that what was needed was to implement the key solutions outlined by the Hall commission. That seems to be pretty straightforward, except that one of his first actions after taking office was to set up all kinds of new studies.
In another news release issued on May 29, 1978, the minister said that Progressive Conservative members believed that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was an appropriate forum where issues dealing with the Wheat Board, the Hall commission and grain handling could be pursued. Now we learn that this is not to be the case. Instead, there are to be somewhat privileged and protected task forces and parliamentary groups composed only of members of the Conservative party who are providing the only contribution and making the only statements. This raises some real doubt in the minds of the public as to whether these reports and investigations will ever be publicly proclaimed and whether there will ever be any formal hearings.
I can only refer to the position taken by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who was reported in a recent issue of the Manitoba Co-Operator as saying that the Crow will be exam-

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
ined, that the government will move in a couple of weeks to set up a special committee and that he was not sure whether there will be public hearings on the matter.
We must be excused if we complain to some degree about the confusion that surrounds the movements and directions of this government. We are not really sure who is making policy. Obviously the hon. member for Lisgar has taken it upon himself to make certain statements of major policy commitment which, because of this special appointment, take on the weight of real significance. His remarks are reported faithfully in all the agricultural papers and the western newspapers as being articles of faith.
The Minister of Transport denied what the hon. member for Lisgar said, explaining that he did not really mean it,-"We are not going to do anything about Churchill even though the hon. member for Lisgar says we will, and we are not really going to have a special committee on the Crow even though the hon. member for Lisgar says we will."
1 hope that in the course of these discussions today the Minister of Transport will firmly declare who is making policy for this government. Perhaps he will be good enough to go through his record of statements, the record of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) when he was leader of the opposition and the commitments that were made at that time, of which there is a great list. None of them has been carried out and, in fact, most of them have been contradicted. They have not denied them wholesale but certainly they have denied and rejected the very clear and unequivocal commitments that they made to implement things.
This brings me to the statements made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who presumes to be leader of the opposition. The problem with the Leader of the New Democratic Party is that he has not learned to count. He does not realize that there is only a group of 26 members in his party. While he takes on the airs and pretentions and the posturings, you can tell the inner turmoil and frustration of the poor man as his peevishness and verbal pollution pour out. He cannot stand the thought that that great breakthrough which he was predicting on May 22 in fact turned out to be a fizzling firecracker.
There was not much electricity or activity on the part of the New Democratic Party. They were still gumming with their teeth to hang on to some political group. I suppose it may be a trifle unfair, but this gentleman who postures about his position as a national leader when his party-had trouble finishing-in fact did not finish-behind the Rhinocerous party in the province of Quebec, a province which only elects a major proportion of members, can be excused for his frustrations. One can understand the sort of the internal bile that builds up over periods of time.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party, skilfully evaded in a kind of gutless way the real issue. He was very strong and vehement in his castigation of Liberals for their non-confidence motion. We were prepared to put one. We were prepared to go to the wall on this one. Instead, what did the New
[Mr. Axworthy.J
Democratic Party do? They weaselled out on this one. They made sure the motion was so designed that other opposition parties could vote for it. That is a tactic. I can understand their particular position. They do not want to get into another campaign because the 26 might be further reduced. They were able to find a nice sort of polite way of avoiding having to go to the wall again. When they stand up on their sanctimonious soap boxes and talk about their purity in the political world, one has only to look at their record. It speaks much louder than their words.
Let us deal with this question where the Leader of the New Democratic Party tried to pretend his statements were based on nothing but pure unadulterated facts. Of course, the motion itself contradicts that. When they suggest that somehow there has been a total and complete ignoring of the Hall commission report, that does not square or meet up with what the previous government did.
Within eight days of the publication of the Hall commission report, many of its major recommendations were brought into effect by order in council. Some 14,000 track miles were made permanent. A serious commitment was made to the rebuilding of the lines. A commitment of close to $700 million or $800 million was made to that particular commitment to rebuild the lines. The Liberal government included an additional 5,000 track miles that the Hall commission was uncertain about and brought in under the Prairie Rail Action Committee track mileage on the branch lines that the NDP, in their slavish devotion to Hall, were obviously not prepared to accept. These have always been brought into the permanent category. If the NDP are going to stand on the sacredness of the Hall commission, then what they are denying are some of the major advances that have already been made on behalf of western farmers. If they want simply to become devotees of the written word as opposed to practitioners of real action, that is their business. I do not think that members of this House should be beguiled into thinking that somehow their words necessarily lead to proper and effective progress.
In fact, what is interesting about the New Democratic Party is their interest in proclaiming their openmindedness that they are the party of progressive reform.


An hon. Member:: Sneak back into the subject.


Lloyd Axworthy: They like to say that we are the ones who are the initiators and the innovators, and yet no party has been more closed-minded, reactionary and obdurate about the whole question of grain handling in western Canada than the New Democratic Party. They are not prepared to budge an inch or to recognize that there is a serious difficulty in moving grain in western Canada, and that part of the problem is the statutory rates. What they try to do is to take sheer political partisan advantage and say that everybody else is trying to get rid of it as opposed to asking themselves the real question.
The real question is: How do we try to come up with a proper program to bring about grain transportation improvements in western Canada so we can get the grain to market? That is not a partisan statement, Mr. Speaker. What we are
November 15, 1979

saying is: Here we go again; are you for or against it? Even the New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan is prepared to go to meetings and discuss alternatives, but not the federal wing of the party, they are much too pure for that. At least the NDP in Saskatchewan who have had some years of pragmatic politics are prepared to. In fact, they commissioned a report in the province of Saskatchewan which they are not prepared to release at this time. They are not prepared to release it because it probably says some things that the NDP do not want to hear, but they commissioned a report to look at the problem. I know that the blindness of the NDP in its federal wing would not permit them even to go that far.
The fact of the matter is that we all know that improving the grain handling system of western Canada is absolutely essential to the improvement of the basic grain industry and the export of grain. You cannot look at it in isolated segments, Mr. Speaker. You have to look at it in totality. You have to look at the hopper cars, the trackage, the railways and their obligation, the statutory rates and the area of subsidies.
Why these paragons of progressivism, who love to posture in this House about their sort of innovative outlook, are so absolutely rigid and reactionary simply is that what they are trying to do is to have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways.


Eugene Whelan: They have not changed their philosophy a bit in 35 years.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. You can be a reactionary and get rid of those manifestos, but boy, you are not prepared to budge an inch. Manifestos are no replacement for wisdom.
We should begin to look at one of the fundamental questions that faces this Parliament and this country in terms of the grain industry, and that is the present high interest rates. The ability to improve productivity, to get more products grown on the farms, is being seriously impeded by the existence of high interest rates. This is not a further progression of previous policies; there are major economic differences. I would suggest again to the souls on the left that they go back and look at transcripts of the committee hearings. There is a significant difference between the real rate of interest and the nominal rate of interest as compared to the American system at the present time.
Furthermore, the Canadian economic cycle is different from the American economic cycle at the present time. One of the major economic facts of Canada is that we have a substantial oversupply of capital because we save far more than the Americans do. All those reasons argue for a different interest rate policy than what the Bank of Canada is following. We should be shortening the supply of money and not using interest rates to do it. We should let the interest rate find its own market level.
We should also recognize a tradition that has been quite common in this country and accepted by the federal government, which is to provide protection and cushioning when there are economic hardships being faced by holders of monetary instruments. I categorically reject the position taken by
Grain Transportation
the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that nothing can be done. That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. There are many things that can be done to provide for transitional credit and to ease the kind of burden that farm producers and home owners and small businessmen are facing. They are a particularly vulnerable part of the economic sector. They do not have the same cushion that a large corporation has with large capital reserves sitting at the bank or which has the capacity to weather out its investment programs. The lines of credit of a farmer, small businessman or home owner are short. They must go to the bank. They are working on one, two or three months' credit.
1 would like to bring to the attention of members opposite- there are some members from Manitoba here-the results of a recent survey taken by the Brandon Sun. Thirty-five questionnaires were sent out to Manitoba farmers in preparation for a major conference on agriculture to take place after Christmas. Over 50 per cent of the questionnaires that have been returned by farmers in that province indicate that they are going to have to cut back farm production as a consequence of high interest rates. Over 50 per cent will be cutting back production in the next seed year beginning in the spring. That is a serious fact. It means that if the intention as expressed in those questionnaires is followed through, then grain production in western Canada will be substantially down. Our ability to sell and to export will be reduced. It will have a multiplier effect throughout the entire western Canadian economy. It will reverberate among the implement dealers, the fertilizer firms; all the industries which are based upon agriculture will face serious consequences. I am, frankly, surprised that the weight of representation in the Conservative caucus from western Canada has not so far been able to pressure the inner cabinet into making some changes and bringing in fiscal means to provide for the cushioning that is needed. We are not talking about massive expenditures of money. We are talking about a transitional period, and easing of terms for a short period until the rates come down. This is something which has been done before. We are not breaking new ground. Such measures are necessary, now.
I cannot accept the argument put forward again by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), or by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), that the reason the government makes the decisions it does is because of the heavy deficits left by the previous government. Hon. members opposite have had six months in which to bring in their own policies, yet the only policy they have talked about is to add to the deficit for this year's $575 million for the mortgage credit plan. They are not talking about reducing the deficit, they are talking about adding to it.
How can they castigate the former government when they are proposing to add to the debt? They can't have it both ways. You can't have a minister of the Crown get up and say, "Boy, those Grits left us with this deficit and we can't do anything about it." Well, you can do something about it. Don't spend money on a foolish, economic program. Don't spend money on

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
a program which has no economic impact. Don't simply fall sway to the Svengali of the Senate who tells the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) he has to live up to his promises so as to look macho or something.
The fact is that the government is committed to heavier deficit spending purely and simply for political purposes so that it can look strong and tough, and the Prime Minister can pretend he is John Wayne when he is out in Alberta, or something. The fact is, you are adding to the deficit. You are committing the federal government to expenditures close to $3 billion over the next four years without having any idea as to what the economic conditions will be. You are buying a pig in a poke. You are entering into a major economic program without knowing what the economic conditions will be. If the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, or somebody in that inner cabinet, has all of a sudden acquired the talent to see far into the future and tell the Canadian public that in 1980 the economy is going to need a further $1 billion stimulation, he shouldn't be in Parliament, he should be in a side show doing magic tricks. No one has that power, and we should not be tied into this economic program based on it. So we simply cannot buy this hollow argument about deficit financing.
If members of the Conservative caucus were so concerned and so upset about deficit financing, the solution would be obvious to them: talk to the Minister of Finance. I challenge hon. members over there: get up on your feet next week when that mortgage plan comes up for debate, and oppose it. Oppose it for the sake of your own constituents, farmers and small businessmen and homeowners who will not benefit by that program at all. That is the challenge you gentlemen should be facing, not trying to do a cover-up, not trying to whitewash that program.
Let us forget all the nonsense about deficit financing and get back to the issue at hand, namely, that the government is acquiescing in a policy of high interest rates even though the economic facts of Canada argue against it. Furthermore, ministers are refusing to introduce any form of protective measures to ease the hardship on those who are severely punished by those high interest rates. The consequence of that policy will be-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to decide where to begin when you listen to the former minister of agriculture talking about all the wonderful policies he had and talking about the fact that the western grains stabilization plan was such a tremendous thing for farmers in western Canada.
I just want to tell the House that the average payment under that plan that Otto brought to Canada was $1,100 a year, and when you compare that to the typical interest charges now paid by a farmer which amount to $20,000 or $30,000 a year, it is peanuts. Or you can listen to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). I don't know whether he has been on a farm. He is a machine dealer. He was chastising the leader of
our party for not being a farmer and he was talking about the policy of the Conservative party on the Crow rate.
My leader quoted from a document put out by the Conservative party, headquarters in Ottawa, on April 19, a month before the election which said very clearly that the Crowsnest Pass rates would be maintained. I would like to take the word of the minister who said this was not the policy of the Conservative party, except that I have just been provided with some more information, it was handed to me a moment or two ago. It is an article in The Western Producer of May 10. Spokesmen for all three parties, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan), myself, and the spokesman for the Conservative party had outlined their farm policies. The Conservative farm policy says very clearly: "the Crowsnest Pass freight rate be maintained for grain producers." Note the words "be maintained for grain producers". One of the Conservative party members says "Hear, hear!" But the minister says this is not the policy of the Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: He did not.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If you go back to the record, you will find he said, "I want to make it very clear that that is not our policy." What he said in this House was that the policy is to make sure that the value and the benefit and the advantage of the Crow rate be maintained for the farmer; he said the benefits of the statutory freight rates would remain. The benefits. This is what the debate is about. Our party is making it very clear that we want the statutory rate to remain as is. But what the Conservative party is doing along with the CPR-that Tory-CPR alliance-is discussing changing the Crow rate and providing the benefit, they say, in some other way.
But what is that other way? The minister says he does not really know but they are going to talk to farmers about it, and perhaps they will take money from the federal treasury and pay it directly to the farmers to compensate them for the difference between the Crow rate and the commercial rate. That is one of the possibilities. First of all, it involves sending out all kinds of cheques to individual farmers and is terribly bureaucratic. Another suggestion is that the railways be compensated directly for the difference between the statutory and the actual rate for hauling grain. That is what Hall is saying.
If you make a direct payment to farmers, it is a legitimate concern of Hall, of the government of Saskatchewan and of a great many farmers, that the time may come when a minister a few years down the road in another government is going to say, "This is a place where we can save money." Some future government will say, "We can save money by not increasing those payments, and by cutting down on them."
Some hon. members opposite laugh, but I say to them that we have seen many programs in the past which have been almost carved in stone by governments of the day. The intention was not to change them in the years ahead. The intention was that there would be subsidies on bread, milk or what have you, but all of a sudden there is a different minister. With

November 15, 1979

regard to family allowances we have the commitment from the minister that universality will stay until 1980, but what happens after 1980? What about medicare? Ministers and governments have said to this House that those programs would never change, so I cannot take the word of the Minister of Transport when he says that the value and benefit will stay but that there is no commitment that the Crow rate itself will stay.
The only protection the farmer has is the engraving by law in stone, in the statutes of this country, that it is a statutory rate which will stay there regardless of whether the present member for Vegreville is the minister or the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is the minister.
We need the assurance that the Crow rate will stay there and be guaranteed to the farmers of this land. That is the position of this party. I thought that was the position of the Conservative party as well, but apparently it is not. I think it is very enlightening that we should know about four days before the byelection in Prince Albert that the Conservative party's policy now is not to guarantee that the Crow rate stays and that it remains a statutory right, but that it is considering changing the Crow rate in this term of office.
As the Minister of Transport has said, we do not need any more lectures about the value of the Crow rate. We all know the value of the Crow rate to farmers in Canada. We know about the guarantees which were made back in 1897 when the Crow rate first came into effect. We know about how it was guaranteed by Parliament in 1925 that the Crow rate would stay, and that farmers would have this low freight rate indefinitely for shipping their grain out to market.
The reasons for that guarantee are very simple. In return for the Crow rate, the CPR-the buddies and bed partners of the Conservative party-received all kinds of mineral rights and land. The CPR received much more land than did the Indian people of this country, for example. The CPR got all these benefits in return for providing the Crow rate to move western grain.
Another thing which is important is that the farmers of western Canada have to haul their grain to market farther than any other farmers in the world. If we want to remain competitive, we need the Crow rate to haul grain. For example, the average haul for farmers in Canada is 906 miles. In the United States it is 383 miles. I remind the House that in the United States there is a system in which river barges are heavily subsidized for moving farmers' grain. In the U.S.S.R. the average haul is some 533 miles. So, if our farmers want to remain competitive they need this statutory rate.
My experience tells me that the railways of this country are much more powerful than are farmers in terms of bargaining for adequate compensation to move grain. If the Crow benefit is provided by direct cheques to farmers, who will guarantee that those amounts will go up every time there is an increase in the cost of hauling grain, or that they will keep up with inflation? There is no guarantee that that will happen. It is much easier to assume that the railways will have more
Grain Transportation
bargaining power and clout than will the individual farmers of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I leave it to your judgment, but it seems to me that it is very clear where the Conservative party stands on the issue of the Crow rate. Just yesterday in the House of Commons in answer to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), for example, the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Howie) said with regard to maintaining the Crow, and I quote:
The answer to the first part of his question is in the affirmative, in that it is the intention of the Department of Transport to preserve for farmers the value of the Crowsnest rates.
"The value of the Crowsnest rates". In the speech the Minister of Transport made to the UGG in Calgary on November 7 he said, and I quote:
1 want to assure you that any change in application of the Crow benefit will come only after there is full consultation with producers.
If there is any change of application of the Crow rate it will have to be coupled with adequate service guarantees.
And, because we consider grain to be a national asset-
The minister went on and talked about the problems of grain movement and grain handling in the country. He also said in his speech:
-we as a government have no intention of removing the value of the Crow rate from the producer as it now exists.
There arc, however, pressures to modify its application-to review its structure, and there are differing views-
I think it is very clear, and it has been confirmed in the House today, that the policy of the Conservative party is not to keep the Crow rate as a statutory rate. The policy of the Conservative party is to take it out of the statutes of this country, to make sure it is not guaranteed as a statutory rate and to leave it up to the good intentions, the good wishes and the benevolence of future governments to make sure that the value or benefit of the Crow is applied to the farmer in some other way in future years.
That is not good enough. I know that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) would not agree. Were he in the House, I know Mr. Diefenbaker would be up chastising the government. I can just see him talking about reneging on the commitments of the Conservative party. The people who buy The Western Producer are the people who take the policies of the Conservative party seriously. I know the voters in Mr. Diefenbaker's former riding will be following the Crow issue and the transportation issue very seriously. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is agreeing with me. He agrees that the Conservative party will not guarantee the Crow rate.


Mr. McKnight:: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He says no!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I say I do not agree.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He disagrees with the Minister of Transport, and I will be looking forward to hearing the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster disagree with the Minister of Trans-
1366

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
port because my leader made it very clear when he quoted what we thought was Tory policy, and the Minister of Transport said no. He said, "Take my word, it is not Tory policy that the Crowsnest freight rate be maintained for the grain producer". He said, "Take my word," and, of course, we will take his word. We believe he is speaking the truth, so I would be very pleased to see the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster get up and say a few words in this House.
Another thing which strikes me as extremely interesting is to see how many Conservative backbenchers are happy that their party is a high interest rate party. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) really went after the leader of my party when he was talking about the fact that the Conservative party is the high interest rate party. He was in agreement with that interest rate policy.


Arnold John Malone: False statements.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the hon. member has made any false statements, 1 want him to get to his feet and speak.


Arnold John Malone: Then you sit down.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I can hear him muttering right now, but I wish he would get up and speak in this House, because we have not heard him speak very much since the May 22 federal election. He has been muted. Perhaps he is like the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). The hon. member for Athabasca sits on the back benches sulking because he did not get a cabinet post. In any event, the hon. member for Crowfoot is proud.
Another hon. member who is proud of the high interest rate policy is the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Nylander). He was very proud that the Conservative party raised interest rates so that it is very difficult for farmers. Of course the Minister of Transport said it is very difficult for farmers. No one can deny that. Well, if it is, why does the government not listen to the credible economists in this country and, indeed, around the world, who say that a high interest rate policy is not necessary? Why does the government not listen to them?
Across the way we have a party that is in the saddle. In a few short months this country has had the highest interest rates I have seen in my lifetime. They are driving many farmers off the land. I have met two or three farmers recently who, without their sons and daughters-


An hon. Member:: Farmers don't give up that easily.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Ah, I hear Tories laughing as they drive farmers off the land.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Now they are nodding.


An hon. Member:: Disgraceful!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The expert on beef across the way, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), is laughing as well because the interest rates are so high that farmers are being driven off the land. I invite him to come to Prince Albert with me. 1 was out there last week. I bet he will not find any farmer who agrees with little Joe and crazy John in the fact that they have raised their interest rate right through the ceiling in this country.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is embarrassed. He nods his head in agreement with the policy of his party, but he is embarrassed by it. I want to see him get up and defend the high interest policy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). He is embarrassed. They are very quiet over there. The only member who is not quiet is the hon. member for Crowfoot. I think he has picked up a disease that afflicted his predecessor who sat in the House for many years. He tends to talk from his seat all the time.
We heard the Minister of Transport boasting about the hopper cars his government has provided. May I remind members that they have not provided the 5,000 or 6,000, or is it 6,500 or 7,000 hopper cars he talked about? Of course, I would never accuse him of deceit, I know that is not parliamentary, but I want to lay the facts on the table. The federal Tories have leased 2,000 hopper cars. That is all the government across the way has done since it has come to office.


Arnold John Malone: That is false.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member across the way says it is false. He is getting excited. He better be careful. 1 would not want to see him develop severe chest pains because he is getting very excited.


Arnold John Malone: That is false, that is wrong.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The farmers, through the Wheat Board, and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are providing some 4,400 hopper cars. I just ask the government what kind of commitment that is. The hon. member says it is false. Is he therefore accusing me of lying? He is nodding his head. Let him get up and say that. I can see him nodding his head from here, but it would be more audible if he would articulate those words, because the more I see of the government across the way, the more I see the ghost of Otto Lang being resurrected in the government across the way. I know the hon. member for Essex-Windsor would see that with disgust because he knows in his heart how much damage was done to the western economy by the former minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
In response to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who was chastising our party for the policies we have, I want to say simply that if he wants to see whom the people in the west believe, he should just look to see whom they have been electing. There are three Liberal members of Parliament, one Liberal MLA, and, I am told by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), that perhaps there is a Liberal mayor in some village in his riding. But that
November 15, 1979

is all that exists of the Liberal party in western Canada. He would probably not admit it anyway.


An hon. Member:: He is a closet Liberal.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have nine members in the prairies, we have a government in Saskatchewan, we are the opposition in the province of Manitoba, we have eight members in British Columbia and we will soon form the government in that province. So I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that he is living in a glass house when he says that we do not say things that are wanted by people in western Canada. He is making a serious error and he is, indeed, skating on thin ice.
I am glad we had this debate today, Mr. Speaker, because we now know the Conservative party will not guarantee the Crowsnest Pass rate as the statutory rate. They will change that rate, and once it is changed and taken out of the statutes, as the former member for Prince Albert would say, it is only a matter of time before the benefits of that rate will no longer go to farmers of western Canada. More and more farmers will be forced to leave the land, and the Conservative party with its gang of three, the Conservative party together with the CPR, will have the day.
1 am very anxious to sit down and hear the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is disgusted with his party and embarrassed, and the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time of the hon. member has expired. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has the floor.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in this great chamber it is expected that we would have some good debates and differences of opinion. From time to time we have had some between the Liberal party and our party. In this debate today we have heard from the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I could not repeat everything they said, naturally, and that is not expected. Nevertheless, at least they did not throw false statements at the House, as has been done by the NDP, and there are no words I can find to let you know how bitter and angry 1 am at the continuing practice of the NDP, be it regarding PetroCan or another subject, of trying to make the Canadian people believe somehow that they could have cheap oil in a day when they should recognize that we are only six years away from the time when light and medium crude will start disappearing in this country.
To come here even today when we are talking about such things as statutory rates and to say that somehow they are going to disappear, when that has never been our policy, and to leave that kind of an illusion across the country, is shameful. Those statements are so false they have no place in this House of Commons. Whether they made those statements deliberately, or whether they made them without having done proper research, either way they have done them out of ignorance, and they are incompetent and do not have the right to serve here.
Grain Transportation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: The fact of the matter is that there will be 7,000 new hopper cars on the prairies as of January next year, and that is as a result of the initiative of this government. What is one of their resolutions? It is to ignore the grain transport on the prairies. There will be 20 per cent more grain moved off the prairies to port and out of port into international markets this year than there was last year, and 50 per cent more grain will be moving by 1985. That will come about because of the initiatives at Rupert, increasing the capacity from 30 million bushels to 45 million bushels out of Churchill, and increasing the hopper fleet which, as the members of that party ought to know, is taking place.
Then we come to their position on Petro-Canada. I cannot believe that they would think they could use words like "disintegrate", "tear apart", and "dismember" when they know that this is not the policy of our party. It is now not just a day but a succession of days, and that particular party has come to the House to load us with false information. They should know better, and they should have taken time to research to find out what the position of our party is.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Do you want a copy of the Mazankowski speech ? I will give it to you.


Mr. Peters:: Don't bother; he can't read.


Arnold John Malone: Mention was made of the Alberta heritage fund giving more money for the purchasing of more hopper cars. What they misunderstand very badly is that the heritage fund is for the benefit of the province which has a resource that is rapidly disappearing, because in six years the conventional crude will be gone. The money in the heritage fund will not even cover one year of government operations in that province, and it will certainly not last five weeks in terms of the federal government's operations. That party, like many other people, is always looking for a way in which it can spend someone else's money.
Today we have heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) say that the Wheat Board was being diminished, as if somehow the Wheat Board was being torn apart and was not being allowed to operate because we appointed a grain transport co-ordinator. The fact is that the co-ordinator now allows the Canadian Wheat Board to do what it was set up to do, that is, to sell grain. The transport co-ordinator will now relieve the Wheat Board of a major headache by organizing the transport system so that, as sales are made internationally, the grain will get to market. In the past the situation was such that the Wheat Board would sell grain, and then during the later part of the season would have to face the awkward problem of having to move large amounts of grain.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the time has run out, so I will conclude with this final sentence. I really hope the NDP will quit loading this House with false statements as they have done ever since the start of this Parliament. I hope they will learn to be above that.

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the Elouse took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this evening to speak to this motion which has been presented by my hon. colleagues to the far left.
I wish to take this opportunity to talk a little about some of the grain problems which are addressed in the motion, but from the point of view of the west coast. I should like to take this opportunity to talk just a little about the two major west coast ports and to urge the government, which is examining both of them but particularly the port of Prince Rupert, to pay very serious attention to some of the issues before it in the case of Prince Rupert and in the case of Vancouver.
In the case of Prince Rupert, as we all know, the former government found a measure of agreement with the province of Alberta and the grain companies to proceed with the expansion of the port of Prince Rupert. As it stands right now, there is a committee appointed by the present government to recommend on the choice of two sites, namely, Casey Point and Ridley Island. I should just like to express the view of a member from the west coast in favour of taking the long-term view on this issue.
All too often those of us who are in politics are discouraged by the views we hear from members of the public that politicians do not often enough take the long view, that they too frequently take the short view on things, and that in the long run this is costly to the public and the whole country. I think we have a classic case in point here in Prince Rupert, because the government will be faced with a dilemma. There is the desire to move quickly and speed up the handling of grain. There is the desire to save money. Everyone understands and shares that point of view, but there is a dilemma. There is the case before us of Casey Point which is a much smaller and potentially less advantageous port site than we have in Ridley Island.
1 am glad the minister is here now. I should like to address my remarks directly to him because I know this is an issue which will concern him. I am talking about the issue of Casey Point versus Ridley Island. I believe it is a classic case of taking the short view or the longer view. As a member from the west coast I urge the minister to take the long view on this issue for a number of reasons.
Casey Point will be attractive, because probably it will be indicated as being more economical and quicker. But there are some potential drawbacks. I understand that there have been a number of geological surveys in the vicinity of Casey Point that indicate potential landslide problems and potential delays
because of this. I am sure the report will cover those points and may even conclude that, in spite of that it would be quicker.
I would urge the minister to take a long look at this issue because I believe that the opportunities opening in the Pacific rim and on the west coast of Canada are just enormous and that we have to have the vision to look ahead at those opportunities.
We are dealing here with a committee that is essentially made up of people in the grain business, and yet we are dealing with a situation where much more than the grain business is involved. In the case of Ridley Island, if we look ahead at the future growth, we can not only accommodate greater grain capacity, as 1 understand it, in that area, but more important it has the potential to do other things. It has the potential to handle coal from northeastern British Columbia, and this is going to be one of the great growth areas for the province of British Columbia and for all of the west. We know, as we are more and more conscious of energy concerns, that coal is going to become a more and more valuable commodity. This site of Ridley Island is sufficiently large that it could handle coal.
We know, too, it could handle metal concentrates, and there are a great many mining opportunities in the province of British Columbia to mine copper, molybdenum, zinc and so on, which could be shipped out through the Port of Prince Rupert if a site like Ridley Island were chosen. I am given to understand that it is even possible for a small steel mill to be put on that site. The site is sufficiently large that that could be done and could handle our ores and concentrates and could in fact, provide the basis of a manufacturing industry right on that site.
One of the cost factors that the minister should be taking into consideration is the fact that the premier of British Columbia has indicated that they would share the cost of a road to this site, which is an important cost; they would share it 50-50 with the assumption that DREE would pay the other half.
In addressing my remarks to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that on this issue I urge the government to take a long look, and I can assure him that, as a member from the west coast, if they decide to take a longer look and it means some short delays in the production of the port for grain export, he is not going to find criticism from this member, but that, indeed, he is going to find praise from this member for taking a long-sighted decision.
I wish to shift my comments, if 1 may, at this point, talking again about the shipment of grain and other commodities out of the west of Canada and through the port of Vancouver, and talk just briefly about the port of Vancouver itself.
Part of that port is in my riding, part of the port is in the ridings of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), on the north shore, and Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and part is even in the riding of the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) because Roberts Bank is all part of the port of Vancouver. The port of Vancouver is, as

November 15, 1979

many of you know, the second largest port in North America, the largest port on the entire west coast, and it is about twelfth in global terms as a port. It is an extremely important port. It is, of course, the reason why Vancouver exists, basically, because the port and the connection with the CPR that linked those two important transportation modes formed the city. We are very concerned about our port and very proud of it. We are very concerned because we do not feel that it is operating as well as it could be operated. This, in my view, is not a partisan political issue; it is a matter that all of us as Canadians, certainly I as a member from Vancouver, are concerned about.
It is a fact that we have lost business to the Port of Seattle, containerized business, over the years, and that has hurt the city of Vancouver and hurt the country. It is a fact grain shipments have not always moved as smoothly as we wished through the port, and it is perhaps a much more important fact than all of those that there are numerous opportunities in the future for the growth of shipments of goods from Canada to the entire Pacific rim, and all of us must be concerned with how we can move those efficiently across the country and out by ship to other countries.
A recent article, just last month, indicates, for example, that the volume demand in the next 20 years will far exceed the present capacity of the Vancouver area ports, particularly for coal. According to a very recent study, it envisages total demand rising to more than 122 million metric tons from the current 45 million tons for the port of Vancouver; an enormous 20-year growth, more than doubling, almost tripling the volume in physical terms, let alone dollar terms, going out through that port.
What is the problem? The problem is not one of money because the port of Vancouver makes money, unlike many ports in Canada, and the port in fact has accumulated surpluses of nearly $30 million that are currently invested in treasury bills and so on. They have all sorts of projects on which they would like to spend that money. They can see the expansion potential in the port because the managers are able people. We have able management and we have a good, skilled, and experienced labour force in the port of Vancouver. We have those ingredients and we know what needs to be done in the port, but there is a missing link. What is the problem?
The problem, as I see it, is that it is managed by the National Harbours Board out of Ottawa, also by very good, dedicated, and concerned people, but the system works against them.
I can remember when I was mayor of the city of Vancouver, when I was at that time concerned about the lack of local autonomy in our port, urging the government to examine the situation. 1 know that they did examine the situation. I know that a bill was brought in last year and I also know that bill never did get through Parliament, but that that bill would have given greater autonomy to the port of Vancouver, and in fact would have changed the structure of all ports in Canada. I have talked to the minister about that bill and I know that he is re-examining the bill and may introduce some variation of it in the time to come.
Grain Transportation
1 can sympathize with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). There are many things on his plate, and it is my guess that that bill will not hit the top of the pile very quickly.
What I want to urge this Parliament is that we examine the port of Vancouver and single it out for special treatment; not special benefits or any sort of special treatment in the sense of plowing money into it, but an examination of the picture of the port of Vancouver separately.
In fact it is my understanding that a good deal of the motivation behind the national bill that was brought in for the revision of all our ports was specifically to deal with the problems of the Port of Vancouver, and the fact that it was managed by long distance, that it has to go through National Harbours Board, Treasury Board and all this kind of stuff, and by the time you do all that it just takes too long to get through the whole process.
I think there is a very simple solution to this problem and I would like to urge the minister to examine this solution. In fact I have put in a private member's bill, but I think it is marginal as to whether it is going to come up in the draw by the end of this Parliament. Even though I know the new government is committed to giving serious treatment to private bills, the draw is certainly one that is going to make this a little bit tough because it is not right at the top of the draw.
In any case, the private member's bill is something I would like to speak to very briefly here today because I think it is in the interest of the minister and the government, and in fact of all the citizens of Canada, to examine this particular bill. It is a very simple solution to a very complicated problem. It would be simply this. It would take the port of Vancouver out of the National Harbours Board and make it a Harbour Commission port, the same as is the port of New Westminster. The port of New Westminster has functioned very well with the degree of local autonomy that one gets from being a Harbour Commission port. This means that the port would have, if it had a five-person board, which is conventional for harbour commissions, two representatives appointed by municipal governments surrounding the port, and it would have three representatives who live locally in the area, appointed by the federal government. That would give it a five-person board made up of local people, still with ultimate control federally, but able to deal with the problems of the port there.
This port does not need money and it does not need expertise from Ottawa. It has the expertise it needs in Vancouver. It has the money it needs in Vancouver, and it generates a good cash flow every year. It has $30 million in the bank, and it cannot unlock the problem. I suggest that there is a simple solution and that we need not have another bureaucracy in a very complex system for the whole of Canada. We do not need to solve all the problems all across the country at once, and this is a classic case of how we can use the existing systems, namely the Harbour Commissions Act of 1964, to solve a complex problem.

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
1 would urge the minister and the government at this time, even if my private members' bill does not surface in this session, to consider the solution of separating the port of Vancouver from the National Harbours Board and including it with all those other ports that are Harbour Commission ports under the Harbour Commissions Act of 1964.
I believe that all of us, as Canadians, would benefit from such a move, not only those who live on the west coast and represent the greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, but those who come from the prairie provinces and who are equally concerned with the smooth functioning of the port of Vancouver, those who come from the interior of British Columbia who have coal and other goods they wish shipped out through the port of Vancouver, and those who import goods through the port of Vancouver. It is a classic case where a simple solution would solve a complex problem. I urge that the government consider this very important change for the port of Vancouver.


Mr. Friesen:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Arthur Phillips: Yes.


Benno Friesen: There is a fair amount of attractiveness to the proposal put by the hon. member to make the Vancouver port a Commission port rather than what it is today. Is the hon. member aware that if he were to follow that pattern under the present legislation introduced by the previous government it would lose not only taxes, but grants in lieu of taxes? So, under the present system it might be good for the port itself, but it would not be good for the city. The hon. member was making quite a pitch for Ridley Island in Prince Rupert. I was wondering if Cec Koslich and Rivtow Straits have an interest in that island.


Arthur Phillips: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second question, I have no idea. I have not spoken to Cec Koslich on this matter. I have spoken to the former member for that area, Iona Campagnolo, but I have not investigated the ownership of those properties, and I do not know who owns what in which area. I have read a good deal on Ridley Island and Casey Point. I was simply making a judgment on what I have read and on my conversation with the former member.
With regard to the question about the city of Vancouver losing tax revenue under the Harbour Commissions Act, the hon. member is absolutely correct. The law does not require the payment of taxes, but it does not prohibit the payment of taxes. In my judgment if the port of Vancouver were made a Harbour Commission port, it should continue the practice of paying grants in lieu of paying taxes as it does now. That should be a basic understanding in the switch from the Harbours Board to the Harbours Commission.
I have discussed this matter with members of the Vancouver Port Authority and with civic officials. I think that they all saw the improvement that would be brought about. The hon. member is quite correct, that they would not be required by

law to pay taxes, but they would certainly be allowed by law to pay taxes and they should do so.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be a member of the Thirty-first Parliament. I want to offer my congratulations to you, sir, on your re-election to office. In the short time that 1 have been here, I have been impressed with your ability to preside with fairness and dignity over this chamber. I would also like to add my congratulations to the Clerk, who comes from my province of Saskatchewan. Also I want to thank the people of Kindersley-Lloydminster for allowing me to serve them.
Like so many western Canadian families, my family came from Ontario seeking a new way of life, and suffering the hardships of settlers in the west, as did most of them whether they came from within Canada or from abroad. Some of the land I now farm was homesteaded by my great grandfather, farmed by my grandfather and my father. The strengths of western Canada, as we all know, come from the rich resource of the people who live within it. Our rural way of life may not be that of bright lights and tinsel, but it is a life of closeness, of family, and of sharing the labours of the farm and the family business. These are the things that the citizens of Kindersley-Lloydminster value. These are the things that this government values.
My riding stretches from the North Saskatchewan River to the South Saskatchewan River and runs west to the Alberta border. It contains a great mix of people. There is a substantial population of the first Canadians, an area known as God's Little Acre, a settlement near Wilkie where Father Swares, the first pioneer missionary, held mass in the early 1900s. Canadians came to my area of Saskatchewan from Great Britain, the rest of the British Isles, and from Europe. Over the years there have been many representatives in this august House from my area, and to name just two of them, there was M. J. Caldwell, the leader of the CCF party, and Dennie Hanbridge, former lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan. These gentlemen, and others, represented my constituency well, and I will do my best to carry on their tradition.
1 had one regret on entering this chamber, and that was that I was unable to do so at the same time as the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. Mr. Diefenbaker served the people of Canada and the people of Saskatchewan with a compassion and understanding that never will be forgotten.
As a new member entering this House, I find it a bit confusing after today and days past. What I find confusing is that I was always under the impression that debate was carried on with facts and not fiction. A debate should be based on fact and not on misrepresentations to make political hay.
The terms of the motion before this House were worded in such a way, I am sure, that the Liberal party could not support the NDP. That shows the willingness of the NDP to enter into an election at this time. The wording was deliberately chosen so that they would not have to go and face the people of Canada on the policies of their performance in this House over the last month. I am sure, too, that this debate was planned to
November 15, 1979

assist the faltering campaign of the NDP candidate in Prince Albert. I think we all understand that it is a desperation move on behalf of the NDP to gain votes in the province of Saskatchewan.
One of the problems that party will face in Prince Albert is that the people in Saskatchewan understand what the NDP government can do from the time when the socialist sickle swept across Saskatchewan and took individual initiative away from people who believe in individual initiative and individual effort. 1 do not think that the rural people of Saskatchewan will return an NDP member to this Parliament.
I am sure that it is a great consolation to the farmers in Saskatchewan and in the west to know that the agriculture critic for the NDP, as diligent as he may be in attendance and his concerns, has a very deep understanding of the situation from his past, which was on a farm in Saskatchewan. But he appears to be much more at home in other areas. If he would spend more than just a vacation on the farm in Saskatchewan, he would understand the problems and represent the people of western Canada in a much better way. The members of the official opposition do not understand western Canada, but 1 give them credit for understanding some of the problems in the east.
The plight of the farmers in Saskatchewan and western Canada over the last 16 years did not come about by design, but by ignorance. The former minister of agriculture spoke of how shabbily his brother was treated in Saskatchewan. 1 can understand that because 1 think, along with a lot of members of this House, that his own party has treated him shabbily in the past and probably will continue to do so in future. I think the hon. member had his heart in his work but had great difficulty getting the members of the former cabinet to pay any attention to him. I understood him to say, earlier this afternoon, that the people of Saskatchewan were pleased with the policies of the Liberal government in the past. 1 heard him quote several instances. I think they were so pleased, Mr. Speaker, that they did not elect a single member in the province of Saskatchewan and probably will not do so in the very near future.
There is a byelection coming up in Prince Albert where the candidate for the Liberal party, supposedly, was ashamed up until last week, to put a Liberal sign in his committee room. He is running as an independent. That is very disturbing to the strong Liberals-the three of them-in Prince Albert.
There is a great deal of talk about the byelection in Prince Albert today. It deals with a lot of the problems in the past and with the legislation presented by the former government. I will give two examples, Mr. Speaker. The first is the metric conversion that has been rushed and pushed on the people of Canada by the former government, and the second is the gun control legislation that is very harmful to the people of northern Saskatchewan and rural Canada. I feel that these things will have a great bearing on the byelection on November 19.
Grain Transportation
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and this government have taken steps over the past few months to provide 7,000 hopper cars for the movement of grain and an additional 5,000 rehabilitated boxcars for the farmers of western Canada. This was done with the co-operation of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, and in co-operation with the Canadian Wheat Board and the CNR. Indeed, with co-operation, this government has brought about a new era in the mode of transportation of grain. This government has taken steps to implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, one of which was the appointment of a grain co-ordinator. Our party compaigned on that promise throughout western Canada, and it has been fulfilled. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have had a small part in that decision, along with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). Dr. Hugh Horner, a man of the west, born and raised in the riding of Prince Albert, who ably served in this House and in the assembly of Alberta has made a lifelong commitment to the people of western Canada, which is well known and understood. He has now renewed that commitment with his acceptance of the responsibility of the position of the grain co-ordinator. Hugh Horner is a man who placed the interests of western Canada ahead of his own. I have every confidence in his abilities to fulfil this role, as does the government.
In the past we have heard that the Canadian Wheat Board objected to the appointment of a co-ordinator. I should like to take a moment to read part of an article from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of September 19, 1979, as follows:
Powers of the federal government's proposed grain transportation co-cordinator will complement those of the Canadian Wheat Board, according to the board's chief commissioner.
In an interview Tuesday, Esmond Jarvis said the board has accepted the government's decision to name a co-ordinator, and the government has designed the powers of the co-ordinator to complement the board's powers,-
I think that should put an end-if anybody understands that-to the problems that have been alleged between the board and the co-ordinator.
Mr. Speaker, the difference between this government and the last administration is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) knows that members of Parliament have a contribution to make, whether they sit on the front bench or the back bench. We are not called "nobodies" in this party; we are used to serve the people who elected us.
The party opposite has hired consultants in the past, sometimes from the United States or elsewhere, at a great cost to the Canadian taxpayer. We on this side have had the opportunity to serve our government. We have used the abilities of such members as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), who is studying the abandonment of and will save the rail lines that were scheduled for abandonment under the Liberal administration. I am sure the people of western Canada will be pleased when his report is brought forward. This government has used the abilities of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) to study the beef import quotas which, under the last government, almost ruined ranchers in western Canada.

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
The Minister of Transport has taken steps to bring about the reality, not the shallow promise, of the port of Prince Rupert. At least when we decide to go ahead with a facility on either point in Prince Rupert, we will have more than just an ecological survey of 40 feet to find out the foundation structures in that area. The port of Churchill has been and will continue to be used as an additional outlet for the people of western Canada in the shipment of their grain.
1 can understand the difficulties of the New Democratic Party in grasping the problems that face the farmers of the west, as they are so poorly represented in that party by those members. It does not excuse them from misstating the facts concerning the Crow rate. The Prime Minister, ministers of this government and members on this side of the House, have said time and time again, and will continue to say, that the value of the Crow rate to the farmers of western Canada as it now exists, will not be changed. There are many things more important to this government than changing the statutory rate for the movement of grain.
We know that the parties opposite stand for the status quo; they stand for a three-bushel wheat quota which almost broke the farmers of western Canada last year. That is what they stand for and that is what we have to change. If we cannot continue to grow and sell wheat in western Canada, we cannot continue to survive.
Members opposite stood for the removal of branch lines from the communities of Saskatchewan. This government has taken steps to save those lines.
We have heard some discussion today about Conservative policy, Mr. Speaker. On page 442 of the speaker's manual that was issued by the Conservative Party of Canada there appears the following statement:
The benefits of the statutory freight rates will remain for western producers.
That is obviously not good enough for members of the NDP.
I am sure they will continue to misrepresent the facts, for political gain.
I should like to thank the people of Kindersley again, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to say that on Monday the people of Prince Albert will probably return another Conservative to carry on the tradition of the late John Diefenbaker, and 1 should like to thank you for this opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski);: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate and I want to thank the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for giving us the opportunity of examining once again the consequences of the lack of an economic recovery policy. Since I came to this House one problem has constantly troubled me, that of the difficulties which farmers face. Over the years the agricultural sector has become an increasingly important economic activity in terms of production and investments. Despite this fact, our farmers unfortunately run up against ever more bureaucratic annoy-

ances. We have in this country as many marketing agencies as we have agricultural products.
Farmers who have to fight increasingly complex government directives also come under all those marketing agencies. It is entirely understandable that a small farmer should feel completely defenseless against that, particularly because a number of decisions are made by agencies and pools without consultation with farmers or even adequate communication.
The whole issue of industrial and whole milk quotas was instrumental in weakening our small producers by giving them access only to a limited share of the market, thus making it impossible for them to progress. During my three terms I have had many cases of small farmers faced with Draconian decisions with respect to their quota allotments.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that farmers are facing major problems. In this area as elsewhere, small farmers suffer, and big farmers profit.
I believe this government should protect the weaker groups in our society. Unfortunately, we have put little importance on that. We think in terms of maximum yield and consider that only big farmers and businesses can and must prosper. That judgment which characterizes our development plan can be found in nearly all areas of our economy. Let us remember the insecurity facing independent heating oil distributors. The same thing goes for several economic groups. In the ocean, bigger fish eat smaller fish. It is the same thing in our human ocean.
The system in which we operate does not allow small producers to develop. Up until recently, little had been done for small producers and small business. Only in recent years have governments awakened to the potential of small producers and small businesses. We on this side have always said that small businesses, not multinationals which pocket profits and go and invest somewhere else, are the backbone of our economy. But despite this new awareness, small producers are still faced with an unfavourable system. In order to develop and prosper, they need funds. Of course there are farm credit corporations designed to help them, but at what rates? This government does not seem to have any more control over interest rates than the previous government.
On October 18 last, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced that the Farm Credit Corporation's allocation had gone up by $50 million. This is all very well. But on that date that corporation raised its interest rate from 10% per cent to 12 per cent, which blocks the road to many small farmers who cannot meet such payments.
Of all economic groups, farmers may be the most vulnerable. In addition to having to deal with numerous government agencies and bodies, to being exposed to natural hazards, to seeing middlemen pocket large profits at their expense, to
November 15, 1979

being unable to sell their products, very often because our market is flooded with foreign imports, now they are being hit by skyrocketing interest rates. As if that were not enough, they are always the first victims of labour conflicts in grain transportation. For example, the last strike in Montreal harbour jeopardized the production of many farmers who had to pay much higher prices for cattle feed. Here again the government reacted too slowly. It is obvious that our farmers feel insecure with the succeeding governments. As I said earlier, it is obvious that our system is serving our farmers badly.
Mr. Speaker, I am nevertheless pleased to see that the hon. member for Oshawa included in his motion the issue of grain transportation. I entirely agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party when he says that the Liberals have neglected the recommendations of the Hall report. The previous government was known for commissioning reports and shelving them. If our country is to offer equal opportunities to all small producers, we must be able to depend on an efficient and reliable transportation system. The undependable supplies facing eastern producers are entirely unacceptable. The whole system needs to be set right. The situation has been debated in the House for many years. At the beginning, I really believed as many of us did that the government would come up with a sound policy in grain transportation. Once again, proposals still have to be made. I hope it is because they have something really constructive to submit.

I have stressed the negative consequences of high interest rates on our economy as a whole. I do not really believe at this point that this government is considering doing anything about them. In fact the new government is proving to us that it cannot do better than the former Liberal government. There is a total absence of long-term economic policies; there is even very little short-term action. They seem to be saying, "let us wait and see."
The Liberals have been raising hell recently about high interest rates. They have even tried to bring down the government because of this situation. How can they possibly blame someone else for their own mistakes? On the other side of the House, any unpopular move is explained this way, "blame it on the Liberals, they were here before." I do not know how long we will see these two parties throwing the ball at each other. Politics is not a ball game. Politics is action. The Canadian people want action from our government. They do not want to hear people blaming each other for the mess we are in now.
It seems that no one in this government has a say in the running of our economy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Cros-bie) was telling the finance committee on October 30, that high interest rates were needed as a response to American rates of interest. The Americans are deciding what our interest rates should be, and we follow. The Canadian economic dependence on foreign finance is such that another country almost decides what we should pay for loans.
Grain Transportation
Is anyone worried about our debt and the interest we will be paying on it? Our deficit now runs at 5.6 per cent of the gross national product. This is one of the highest in the industrialized countries of the world. This represents close to 25 per cent of all savings of all Canadians. Faced with this situation, what is the government doing? It is buying time, and the Canadian people are paying the bill.
Mr. Speaker, on October 18 the Canadian Board of Trade made certain suggestions to fight inflation and pave the way for economic recovery in Canada. Two major points emerge from their proposals: higher production and capital formation. This shows that businessmen do not agree with the government as to the means likely to restore economic stability. Neither do Canadians.
As for us, Social Crediters, we have always stated that the monetary system must serve the people, not vice versa. The present system does not allow individuals to develop their potential nor the economy to work at full capacity. Since we must be patient with a new government, especially when it inherits the chaos left by the Liberals, I am willing to let this new government prove itself. However, 1 suggest that it should listen to the opposition parties, for they often make very positive comments which should receive the full attention of the government.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part tonight in the debate on the motion of the New Democratic Party. However, I first wish to join the other hon. members who have mentioned the byelection to be held Monday in Prince Albert. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this byelection is the cause of the motion before us this evening. I have had the opportunity to visit Prince Albert and to meet many residents of this constituency and tonight I want to congratulate them and thank them for their warm reception. I wish to thank more particularly the people of Debden, St. Louis, Victoire, Conway, Hoey, Prince Albert and all the other cities where I was received.
Mr. Speaker, when I was a lawyer with the Canadian Transport Commission and later a member of the staff of the minister of transport, 1 had several opportunities to travel throughout Canada. Of course, I was always especially interested in transportation matters. I have indeed a special feeling for Saskatchewan because my former employer was the minister responsible for Saskatchewan as well as the minister of transport. My in-laws themselves are from Saskatchewan and I often have the opportunity to go there to see my wife's uncles and aunts.
Mr. Speaker, I am foremost a Canadian, a Quebecker, and a Francophone. If I rise to speak tonight it is precisely because, in my view, the grain issue is one of national interest, which means it concerns all Canadians and all members of this
1374

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
House. That is why I have trouble accepting that a member from Alberta, who also happens to be the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) of all of us Canadians, refuses to concern himself with the sovereignty-association and referendum issues in Quebec.
If I, as a Quebecker, can be concerned with national issues and especially with the western wheat issue, I do not see why our Prime Minister should refuse to consider or participate in the sovereignty-association and the referendum questions in Quebec. If the Progressive Conservatives think that Quebec members do not care about the 157,000 farmers out west, they are mistaken. I have the good fortune of having relatives out west who also happen to be farmers and I am and always will be interested in their problems.

You know, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is a unique system in our economy. It is unique in the sense that producers operate under a very difficult series of uncertainties. It is a high risk business. First of all they face the uncertainty of the weather. I often reflected that when we were criticized as a party in power in the last Parliament, one point they failed to get over was that we were responsible for the weather-we know the opposition tried to blame it on us but the people of Canada did not believe that, at least.
There is also the uncertainty of price, another high risk factor-the law of supply and demand. The farmer has no say in the price he gets.
There is also the uncertainty of the rail networks in delivering crops to market. The very success of our farmers is reflected by the difficulty the rail networks find in delivering their products. It is eloquent that the problem which has arisen with regard to the transport of grain came into being because western farmers have been able to produce so much.
Today there is a new risk aside from the weather, price, and transportation. It is the government opposite. When I was in Prince Albert recently I had occasion to talk to several farmers who expressed grave concern in relation to interest rates. 1 shall not cite the examples used by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or by my hon. friend from Essex-Windsor, the former minister of agriculture. They were right on. The consequences are disastrous. A further element of high risk to western farmers is presented by the oil policy of the new government. Farmers will now have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for new equipment. I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that though times do, indeed, follow a Tory government, and if the Tories of the thirties gave us the Bennett buggy, I think the Tories of the eighties will give us the Clark carts.
I think the interest rate policy is disastrous. If I could support in its entirety the NDP motion, as of course I could not, I would support the first part, the part about interest rates. I had the occasion, while doing some research before my speech this evening, to look into the figures for grain production in past years.


So, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for 1977-78, and I noticed that from 1958 to 1963, when Canada was governed by a Progressive Conservative government, exports averaged ten million tons over those five years, while during the last few years when my former boss was minister of transport and minister in charge of the Wheat Board, that is 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978, the average was closer to 20 million tons. So the Liberal government doubled exports of Canadian grains and grain byproducts.
The Liberal government did a good job, in co-operation with the western farmers, to sell their products on the international market. I have tremendous respect for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). However, I miss his predecessor, but I respect the new one enormously and I am a little bit disappointed, indeed very disappointed, because the minister felt he had to set up parliamentary committees.

The Minister of Transport calls for parliamentary commissions. Yet they are only to be composed of Tory members. Because of my background in rail matters with the CTC I would have enjoyed being part of the minister's commission, or being part of the Moose Jaw commission or of the Medicine Hat commission. However, I was not even asked. 1 was not even allowed to be part of that so-called parliamentary committee.
When I spoke in this House in the throne speech debate I said I agreed with the freedom of information legislation and that 1 agreed with the open government which was proposed to us by hon. members opposite. I have since realized that it is indeed an open government, open only to hon. members opposite, not to us.


Walter David Baker: Oh, my!


Pierre Deniger: The minister referred to the necessity of purchasing rolling stock and he is entirely right. Indeed the policy of his predecessor, the former minister from Saskatchewan-Humboldt, has always been to purchase rolling stock to ship wheat. Mr. Speaker, only 15,000 additional cars would be enough. However, members opposite would have to be prepared to allow a few wheat inspectors from Vancouver to paralyze the entire system. That would not solve anything because the wheat problem in western Canada does not stem only from a shortage of railway cars, there is also a question of weather, of strikes and of willingness to act. I must admit the Minister of Transport seems to have this willingness to act. Of course, 1 am looking at him now and he may not seem really concerned, but I still think he is interested in the current wheat situation in Canada. And when the co-ordinator was appointed, the famous czar, Dr. Horner, I heard deprecating comments from the New Democratic Party and I heard very flattering remarks from the Minister of Transport. So, during supper I also went to check the sources, as did the member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight); I checked what were the exact reactions of western Canada to Dr. Horner's appointment, and 1 soon discovered that the National Farmers' Union, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and even the government of Saskatchewan, which indeed wanted a co-ordinator, have been really disappointed with Dr. Horner's choice. On the other hand, the governments of Alberta and Manitoba, and certainly members opposite, are very happy. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the position taken by the-

-United Grain Growers Limited of Alberta, which summed up the Horner appointment in this way: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Basically the bottom line is going to be my evaluation of Dr. Horner. If he does the job he is required to do, very well. The job has to be done, but so far what has he done? He has done nothing. Do hon. members know why he has done nothing? It is because he has waited for the Murta report which should have been presented several months ago. Where is the report? Surely we are not holding it up. We were not even allowed to sit on the committee, nor were members of the New Democratic Party. Where is the report? Where is the Neil report? 1 raised these questions in the House, and hon. members told me, "It is coming, it is coming, it is coming."


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is being translated.


Pierre Deniger: Well, good. I am pleased that it is being translated and that we are just about to have it. I must say that the minister has always been one who was willing that we Francophones, who have some difficulty in both languages, should have all documentation in both languages. I thank the minister for that, and I am looking forward to it, although I cannot agree with an hon. member who spoke before me who said that the government opposite prevented the abandonment of 1,900 miles of rail lines because those were the lines not yet
Grain Transportation
addressed by the CTC. He is basically presuming a judicial decision of a regulatory agency. It had not been decided to abandon them, and they were referred to the CTC-two very different positions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The gospel according to PRAC.


Pierre Deniger: I am glad the minister is now awake. Let me conclude by wishing the minister well in this very important issue, because it is a national issue. It interests all Canadians. I am proud to be able to participate in this debate because when I was growing up in my riding, which has no farms, I never thought that I would be speaking in the House of Commons on farming and on western grain movement. I think I am very lucky to have had the opportunity to do so. In committee the minister is always willing to have us give him our points of view. I appreciate that, but I am disappointed that he did not feel that way when he set up the Murta committee, the Neil committee, and the Hargrave committee.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of western Canada are pretty good at producing agricultural products. Over the years they have been quite resourceful. They have fought through some pretty tough times over the years, climatic hard times and economic hard times. When the depression hit in 1929, many farmers were just getting on their feet. The crash knocked them down, and a short time later the elements ganged up and kicked them again. Through good times and bad, western grain farmers persevered.
Over the years the number of farmers in Canada and Saskatchewan has been rapidly dwindling. Every year more and more farmers are forced off the land and into urban communities, in most cases the larger cities of the west. Government policies, economic booms and busts, and the weather, are all formidable obstacles in a farmer's life. I realize we cannot do anything about the weather, at least nothing good, but we can do something about government policies and the economy.
For too long the people of the west have had decisions made for them by non-resident experts either working for corporations or the federal government. You only have to take a quick look at some of the more recent government policies to see how the people of the west have been treated over the years. It was not too long ago that farmers were paid not to grow wheat. LIFT, I think they called it. Imagine, we live in a world that is short of food, and farmers were being encouraged not to grow wheat. The cabinet minister who thought that one up is not around any more. He is not pretending to speak for farmers any more. Now he has an open arrangement with those whose interests he has promoted for so long anyway. The farmers saw the light.
Now another federal government policy which farmers do not appreciate or want is rail line abandonment. The same fellow who gave us LIFT wanted to transform totally the agricultural patterns of the west. Grandiose plans! "All you have to do is assume that bigger is better; let us do whatever is

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
necessary to streamline rail transportation; forget about the way of life of those affected."
The plan is quite simple. Through wholesale abandonment of branch rail lines the railroads would streamline their systems. Thousands of miles of rail lines would be abandoned. Hundreds of small communities would lose rail service, and elevators would close. As the number of delivery points is reduced, farmers would be forced to transport their crops further and further. Instead of hauling ten or 12 miles, farmers would have to haul 20 or 25 miles. Farmers would be faced with higher transportation costs. Many would have to borrow to buy bigger trucks. Municipalities and provincial governments would have to spend millions of dollars to keep road systems in good repair, road systems which would be damaged as the increased traffic of heavier vehicles would pound toward the huge centralized inland terminals.
Saskatchewan people understand the history of the Crow rate. They know that the CPR was given incredible gifts in return for moving our produce. They are suspicious of any attempt to change this historic agreement. We are all aware of the benefits the CPR received. Over the years it has used these gifts to build a diversified multinational corporation.
Let us look at that empire. It is more than a railroad. There is a steamship line, a hotel chain, a trucking company, an airline, a resource company, and a real estate empire. But they are not interested in hauling wheat, and they have already given up on passengers. They have forced the Canadian taxpayer to look after rail passengers. They do not need the railroads any more. It is too much of a loser for them with the Crow rate, the branch lines and all that. They would rather get out of rail transport altogether.
The CPR now derives over 60 per cent of its revenues and over 72 per cent of its profits from non-railroad sources. It is easy to see why they are not interested in moving grain. As of September of this year, CP investment had a 60 per cent rise in net income over a nine-month period. Per share earnings rose from $2.99 to $4.72. Income from mining was up 185 per cent, forest products were up 177 per cent, iron and steel were up 66 per cent. As well, each year CP investment expands its business interests, diversifying into other areas and into other countries. The people of Saskatchewan know that the CPR has done well by its agreement. They expect the CPR to live up to its commitments.
The CPR already has shirked many responsibilities. It has downgraded services, abandoned rail lines, and let boxcars deteriorate. When it should be buying boxcars, it refuses, forcing the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, along with the Wheat Board, to buy the running stock. The people of western Canada realize they must have a rail transportation system which serves their needs, not just the interests of this greed monster.
The former government has taken the side of the railways. That party has little support in the west today. If this government treats the west in the same fashion, it will suffer a similar

fate. They had better rethink some of their policies before it is too late. Farmers want the Crow rate protected. They want relief from inflation and high interest rates. They want Canadian control over our economy. To date this government is failing on all accounts.
Earlier there was a variety of debates on the Crow rate. It seems to me there is some confusion about this. Some of the backbenchers opposite feel their party is committed to retaining the Crow rate. There seems to be a debate over the interpretation of words, that is, the difference between Crow rate and Crow benefit. Some hon. members say that this might be splitting hairs. To me the Crow rate means the Crowsnest statutory rate. It means that it is statutory. Crow benefit means that it is not a statutory rate. It allows for flexible rates-the railroads can increase rates on the lines they want to abandon.
As I mentioned earlier, Otto Lang used to talk about maintaining the Crow benefit. He had visions of 50 grain handling points in Saskatchewan instead of the present 700 points, approximately. The railroads thought this was a great idea. It would mean the farmers would have to truck their grain to some 50 points, and then they could haul it away on unit trains. The bureaucrats thought it was a great idea because it would clean up the map and make things easier for the administration. They wanted a bigger centralized operation. The farmers did not want it. They did not want to lose their communities. They were leery of the schemes and the fast talk. They did not trust Otto's seductive talk about Crow benefit. Westerners wanted the continuation of the statutory freight rates.
A great champion of western Canada in former days, as reported in Hansard of May 17, 1977, said the following:
In view of the recommendation which re-affirms the continuation of the statutory freight rates for the movement of grain, will the minister seize the opportunity to ensure the producers of western Canada that this very important recommendation will be accepted as government policy?
Who is this? Who made this great statement on behalf of western Canadian farmers? This was delivered by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) when he asked the then minister of transport, Mr. Otto Lang, to state that the government would back the Hall Commission report. I am afraid we are not hearing the same words today from the minister.
I should like to refer to some other quotes. Another great champion of western Canada was Judge Emmett Hall. What did Mr. Hall say? I understand the Minister of Transport is claiming that what the government is doing is right in line with what Hall recommended. On June 13, 1978, Mr. Justice Hall, when referring to Snavely, said the following:
... he says in his report that if you give the CPR or the CNR money in one cheque, they are not going to be very competent, but if they get it in a number of small cheques from the customers, they will be extremely efficient, which seems to be a condemnation of the management and if that is the kind of management we have, let us throw them out and get some better management... if that has not been done with the CPR, there is always a possibility that maybe the nation can handle it better than they.
November 15, 1979

Again what did Mr. Hall say? Also he said the following:
There is a school of thought which keeps repeating that, yes, we favour the Crow rate, but maybe there is another way of doing it. My frank opinion-and it is only my own and it is only because I am an old man after 70 years in a western gallop-is that the other way is to load it on the backs of the grain producers.
No ifs and buts about it. Let us not tinker, let us not fool with the Crow rate. None of this Crow benefit, none of this equal value; let us keep the Crow rate.
There is another quote I should like to offer to the House. It is a quotation from another great western Canadian, a defender of western Canadian farmers. On November 29, 1978, the following motion was presented under Standing Order 43:
That this House declares there shall be no interference with these rates and that they should be continued in full force and effect.
On an opposition day debate on the Hall report on May 26, 1977, the same gentleman said the following:
We do not want any more equivocation. We want a definite, clear and undiluted statement that there is going to be no tinkering with the Crowsnest pass rates. That is all we ask for.
That was said by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker said: "That is all we ask for," and, "we do not want any more equivocation".


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Simon Leendert de Jong: He said: "We want a definite, clear, and undiluted statement that there is going to be no tinkering with the Crowsnest pass rates." That is the question I would like to ask now of the present government and the Minister of Transport. Will he answer Mr. Diefenbaker's question? I challenge them to answer.
What are the people in the west to think of the present government? They got rid of Otto and his visions on how he could reorganize western Canada in a somewhat better administrative and cleaner form-those delusions! The Conservative party was supported by many western Canadian farmers. They believed Mr. Diefenbaker. They believed the then minister of transport. What are we to make now of the statements of the minister? The statements of the minister are not clear. His statement is not one which was the same as his party's statement reproduced in The Western Producer of Thursday, May 10, 1979. It was pretty clear then. It was stated that the Crowsnest Pass freight rate should be maintained for grain producers. What are we finding today?
I should like to refer to notes from a speech by the Minister of Transport delivered on November 7, 1979, in Calgary. He indicated that his government had no intention of removing the value of the Crow rate from the producer as it now exists. He indicated that, however, there were pressures to modify its application, to review its structure, and that there are differing views as to how it should affect the total western economy. Later on he said that he wanted to assure us that any change in application of the Crow benefit will come only after there is
Grain Transportation
full consultation with the producers. Further he stated that if there was any change of application of the Crow rate, it would have to be coupled with adequate service guarantee. Mr. John Diefenbaker said, "Leave it alone, let us have a clear statement." He said:
Wc do not want any more equivocation. We want a definite, clear, undiluted statement that there is going to be no tinkering with the Crowsnest Pass rates.
These are the words of Mr. Diefenbaker's motion. None of this tinkering, it says.


An hon. Member:: This is from John Diefenbaker, not John Crosbie!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the changes occur. Sometimes I wonder, being a new member of the House, what the difference is between the Liberal and the Conservative parties. Obviously one is the government and the other is the opposition-that is the obvious difference. But one becomes somewhat more progressive when it sits on this side of the House and the other becomes more reactionary on the other side. The difference is that when they sit on this side of the House, they have to listen to the people because they want to be elected, but as soon as they sit on the government benches they start to listen to the boardrooms and they lose all contact with the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Geoff Scott in particular.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the people in western Canada thought that with the election of the Tory government they would finally get some support from Ottawa. But all we got was confusion on the Crowsnest Pass rate. We have a grain commissioner who has stripped the Canadian Wheat Board of its powers to co-ordinate grain transportation. Indeed, as the Minister of Transport mentioned, our transport critic, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), agreed that we needed a grain transport co-ordinator. Indeed, he was right. However, he did not quote the whole statement made by the hon. member for Regina West, which I quote as follows:
Canada needs a grain transport co-ordinator, but that person must be an employee of the Wheat Board with power to allocate available grain cars and power to require the railways to provide adequate supplies of locomotives and cars.
It was not just a transport co-ordinator the hon. member foi Regina West was calling for, but a transport co-ordinator who is part of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are afraid that with a grain co-ordinator outside the Wheat Board there will be a gradual erosion of the powers of the Wheat Board.
What about railroad abandonment? During the election campaign the Conservative platform was that there would be no railroad abandonment; they were totally set against it. Now that the election is over we have a committee studying it. Are they having second thoughts? It sounds like Otto Lang- another committee, another study. Why not just state, as they stated before the election: no railroad abandonment. We are

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
not going to see communities go down the drain; we have had enough of this. I thought that this was what people in western Canada were saying when they elected hardly one Liberal. Don't you fellows ever get a message? I am sure the Liberals do, because they are not talking about railroad abandonment in this debate any longer. But what did the western farmers get? We got higher interest rates. I will not get into the subject of higher interest rates; it has been well discussed. The effects of higher interest rates on the Canadian farmers have been discussed.
What else did we get? Now we have a new oil policy. What effect is this going to have on western farmers? Nobody has spoken about this yet. Well, the Canadian farmers used 9.7 million barrels of diesel oil and 20.5 million barrels of gasoline in 1977, for a total equivalent of 28.1 million barrels of crude oil. The Conservative policy to raise crude oil prices by $4 per barrel each year will take $112 million out of farmers' pockets in 1980, $224 million in 1981, and $336 million in 1982, for a total of $672 million over the next three years. Farmers have no choice but to use petroleum. This is the gift, the jack in the box, that came out on May 22 so far as Canadian western farmers are concerned. Not only does this apply to the oil they use, but there also is an increase in the price of chemicals and fertilizers which farmers must use.
Certainly the government we have today is not a great friend of western farmers. 1 think we will hear that message next week. I think there will be a reaction. I, too, was in Prince Albert and 1 also spoke to farming people. I spoke to people who voted for the Conservative party in the previous election. They had expectations, but what they were expecting and what they got were two different things.


An hon. Member:: Bye, bye, Prince Albert.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I spoke to farmers who are telling me that they had notices from the bank saying they will be charged a 17 per cent interest on their farm loans. It is insane. There will be a price increase on fertilizers, chemicals and gas, as well as an increase in interest rates. On the other hand the whole question of the Crowsnest Pass rate is undecided. Western Canadian farmers thought they were through with this type of uncertainty and nonsense from Ottawa. It is just a continuation of the same thing.


An hon. Member:: Crosbie's Crow.


Eugene Whelan: Never were we that bad.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Maybe that is true. Maybe the Liberals were not that bad. I feel that for the poor western Canadian farmer it has gone from bad to worse. It was definitely not good to begin with, and they gave their message on May 22, but when the next opportunity comes for them to give a message, we will get a new message, and I do not think it will be all that encouraging to government members opposite.
Farming has always been a shaky economic venture. People stuck with it because it also was a way of life, a life of a closer community, a life closer to the earth and to the very basic human values. But we have seen farmers being pushed into a lifestyle very often not of their making. They have had to expand their operations in order to be economically viable. In the process they have become more indebted to the implement dealers, they have become more indebted to the banks, they have become more indebted to the chemical companies. They have increasingly lost their freedom.
I think there was an expectation that with a government which would represent the interests of western Canadian farmers they would have a government policy that would allow them to gain a sense of economic control over their lives, that they would be able to increase their own economic freedom. That is why the farmers in the west, when they were being robbed by the grain companies, joined together and formed wheat pools in order to have some economic control over their lives. As a result of the interest rate policy of the government, the increase in the price of oil, and with the uncertainty about the Crowsnest rate, the western farmer will become more dependent upon multinationals and financial institutions, and less free. Therefore, in the name of freedom for the western Canadian farmer, 1 can do nothing else but support this motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Farmer John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Canada can rest satisfied that they have in this government a government concerned about them, and that they have friends here in Ottawa at last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Not short-term friends, not fair weather friends.


An hon. Member:: It is you who will be short term.


An hon. Member:: High interest rate friends.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not people who are content to use the cosmetic approach that members of the NDP would use, not a government that will spout simplistic sophistries that we have heard from the hon. gentlemen of the NDP, but a government that wants to deal with their problems in a long-term fashion, a government that wants to deal with inflation, inflation which is the enemy of the farmer, just as it is the enemy of the fisherman, of the pensioner, and of all those who are unorganized. That is the kind of government they have here in Ottawa now.


An hon. Member:: It is an enemy of all those people, not a friend.

November 15, 1979


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight because part of this neurotic resolution says:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the farmers of Canada as demonstratedand I will only deal with (a), the first part of this nonsensical resolution.
-(a) by the imposition of unconscionably high interest rates-
In the first place, this government has not imposed any rates in this country, high, unconscionable or otherwise. This government has come to office and now faces a certain set of economic circumstances that dictate in this country at the moment a condition of high interest rates, not a policy of high interest rates. Our policy is a low interest rate policy and our wish is for lower interest rates. That is our policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: But this government is faced with the economic circumstances.
Not only this government, but the government of the United States of America is faced with certain economic circumstances, and the government of the United Kingdom is faced with certain economic circumstances, and the government of Italy is faced with certain economic circumstances, and the governments of all the western industrialized countries are faced with certain sets of economic circumstances that dictate that at the present time we have a condition of high interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, wherever I have travelled this year since becoming the Minister of Finance-Washington, London, and the IMF meeting in Yugoslavia, and Tokyo, wherever eminent groups of economists and impartial observers gather, financial experts, their analysis of our situation was the same, and their remedies were the same. We are in an economic state where governments have to be very careful. If I might just quote to you a certain statement-and it is hard to make a sensible speech when members of the opposition opposite in the NDP are guffawing, giggling, and hee-hawing. That shows how seriously they treat their resolution. Look at them grinning like apes over there. If the farmers of Canada could see them now, that little knot of frustrated frenetics, they would know what to do with this resolution.
I quote from the statement by Mr. J. Delarosiere, the chairman of the executive board and managing director of the International Monetary Fund, who spoke in Yugoslavia on October 2. What did that gentleman say? What was his message to the assembled Finance ministers of the world, the 140 or 150 of them who were there? He said that the biggest problem the world economy has to escape from now and the greatest fight is the fight against inflation.
At page 3 he pointed out:
Inflation is socially unjust because it attacks those with the least means to defend themselves against destruction of their savings.
Grain Transportation
That is why we wage the battle against inflation, Mr. Speaker. It is to save those and to defend those who are having their savings destroyed; those who are so essential to society that we need to save, and see that their savings don't go down the drain because governments are unwilling to fight inflation. He pointed that out, and he pointed out at page 4 of his release-he was dealing with the failure to bring about any abatement of inflationary expectations:
The main source of difficulty in this regard has been unduly high rates of monetary expansion, often caused by excessive budgetary deficits.
That is what has been the cause in this country, Mr. Speaker-unduly high budgetary deficits and high rates of monetary expansion. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
Monetary policy has allowed interest rates to remain generally too low for too long periods in relation to rates of inflation. Greater decisiveness and firmness will need to be exercised in the conduct of monetary policy, and this change will have to be supported by fiscal policy.
We cannot leave it all to the Bank of Canada, to the central bankers or to monetary policy. Fiscal policy has to support it. He goes on to say:
The fundamental aim must be to achieve credibility of fiscal and monetary policies so as to roll back inflationary expectations and restore confidence. Such a change in the stance of general demand policies is called for not only in industrial countries, but also in most other countries.
I could go on and on and on with the advice he gave there, Mr. Speaker, and the perils he pointed out.
That is what high interest rates are all about, because the world, the western industrialized world, has not conducted its economic and monetary system properly, so that we are in a period of high inflation. That high inflation has to be dealt with, and that is our main enemy if we are to have any kind of progressive society in the future here in Canada. That is why interest rates are high.
Why are interest rates high? They are high because we have an inflation rate at the present moment not of 6.5 per cent, as the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) forecast last November, but an inflation rate of 9.6 per cent, year over year, at the end of September, and an inflation rate annualized during September of 14 per cent, and because the United States of America has an inflation rate in excess of 13 per cent. That is our main customer to whom we sell 70 per cent of all our exports. It is the United States from which we import 70 per cent of all our imports. Seventy per cent of everything we import comes from the United States, and the United States has an inflation rate of 13.5 per cent. We are importing their inflation, Mr. Speaker.
Because our dollar has fallen in value to 83 cents or 84 cents, those imports are costing us more and adding to our inflation. Therefore, we have to try to protect the Canadian dollar, to protect it from falling much further because of the effect that will have on the inflation we are importing from the United States.
We do not have high interest rates because this government wants high interest rates. That is not our policy. As politicians we do not want high interest rates. The people do not want high interest rates. Nobody wants high interest rates, so it is

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
not a policy of the government to have high interest rates, it is a condition that the government cannot do anything about at the moment. It is not through choice.
In addition to everything else, costs to the government are formidable. Look at the additional cost to the Government of Canada itself because of the higher interest rates of the last year or two; the cost of our debt. This year we are going to have our debt increased by something like $10 billion because of the budgetary situation we were left in by the last administration. We have to borrow that money, and we are unable to borrow it at 6 per cent, we are unable to borrow it at 8 per cent, we are unable to borrow the money at 10 per cent, we are unable to borrow the money at 10.5 per cent, we are unable to borrow it at 11 per cent because of the interest rate situation in Canada. From our own point of view, from the government's own point of view and the tremendous cost to the government, we are against these high interest rates and want to get them down as soon as we can.
The hon. gentlemen in the NDP are members of the neurotic, demagogic and paranoid party. They are the party of professional whiners, they are the professional groaners, they are the professional moaners, they are the down-at-the-mouth-ers. They are down at the mouth. They are moaning, groaning, whining and complaining in this House, day after day, without anything to offer, not offering any solutions, but just making the welkin ring with their complaining.
The people of Canada know that this is a temporary condition. The people of Canada know that we are attempting to do something of a long-range nature for them. The farmers of Canada know the same thing. They are not interested in having a small group of moaners, groaners and whiners in the House of Commons trying to batten on their problems to make political gains. The farmers of Canada know that the welkin is only ringing here today because those hon. gentlemen are "sminging" and "slinging" around in Prince Albert constituency trying to get another member elected. The only way they can get them elected is in byelections. When there is any fear that they might be able to form a government, they cannot get them elected.
Some hon. Mlembers: Oh, oh!
Mir. Crosbie: I heard somebody say something about a socialist sickle; they are socialist sickies, not a sickle.
Now, who gains, and who loses from inflation, Mr. Speaker? Let us look at who the gainers are and who the losers are. Hon. members opposite have never thought of who gains and who loses. They are waiting now in anticipation. 1 will give you the message. Here is what inflation does, Mr. Speaker, and I quote from the Economic Council of Canada:
It redistributes wealth in ways that may reflect group power rather than effort or productivity.
That probably has some attraction for the gropers opposite. It states:
Individual gainers in the process are those who can best protect themselves, shift income sources, transfer assets, and adjust expenditures. The losers tend to be
those who have little or no access to alternative sources, who have relatively fixed incomes or nominally fixed savings, such as pension,-
The hon. gentlemen are not worried about the pensioners of this country when they oppose our battle against inflation, when they oppose the high interest rates that are necessary to try to deal with it. They are not worried about the pensioners of the country then. They are not worried about the savers. Those wailers, the groaners and moaners, they are not worried about those who have rising expdenditure expectations and obligations. That is who is suffering, and that is who the gainers and the losers are in the inflation game.
On page 3 the Economic Council of Canada concluded that the federal government was the principal benefactor from inflation over the period that they had studied. These are the people who gain. Those who lose are the unprotected, and they are the people we are determined to protect.
Before moving on to our Canadian farmers, I want to deal with our Canadian hypocrites, the princes of hypocrisy, the height of hypocrisy that we have had to listen to from the hon. benches opposite since this House opened. I would like to quote a couple of short selections to illustrate how those hon. gentlemen have dumped, crumped, crumpled and stepped on the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), who is not here tonight because he does not want to hear about interest rates any more. He is fed up with having himself stepped on by his colleagues opposite. Here is what the hon. member for Saint-Maurice had to say in the finance committee meeting of February 8, 1979, as it is reported at page 39:28:
I think if we were to see a major fall of the Canadian dollar, at this moment, it would put more pressure on inflation. There is no doubt about that and that is why I agree with the Governor when he says that the reduction in interest rates like you are advocating at this moment will put pressure downward on the Canadian dollar and create more problems on the inflation side. I agree with him on that.
Those are the words of the Minister of Finance. Since the hon. gentlemen opposite have come into this House with their new finance critic and the lugubrious approach that he brings to his job, they have been attacking the opinions and statements of the former minister of finance. He went on to say:
I think the balance of payments of Canada has been a problem in Canada for years and years because we are, in a sense, a developing nation, and we have always compensated that by the flow of capital development. We have to create the proper climate in Canada to do that. It is not only through the trade side, but the compensation is being done by the flow of capital for development in Canada.
I do not mind the hon. gentlemen from the NDP opposing the high interest rate condition, but they know there is no reasonable alternative at the moment and that they are not able to give an alternative. They have never had the responsibility of power and they will not have the responsibility of power. They will always be a tiny little knot of malcontents and mope-mouths sitting over in the corner trying to raise discontent and trouble throughout the country, without ever making a constructive suggestion. They may get over to this side of the House when there are only four of five of them, like the party which we have with us now.

November 15, 1979

Going back to the high priests of hypocrisy, on November 6, 1978, in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice was speaking on all the implications of the interest rate increase. He said the following on that day, as it is reported in Hansard at page 809:
Of course, with the balance of payments deficit in Canada, we have no choice but to make sure that the bank prime rate in Canada is higher than that in the United States.
That was the Liberal policy, that the bank prime rate in Canada always had to be higher than that of the United States. That is not our situation now. When the motley crew opposite moved that resolution the bank prime rate had to be higher, but today the prime rate in Canada is 15 per cent and the bank prime rate in the United States of America is 15.5 per cent. If the Liberals were in power now, our prime rate would be at least 16 per cent, based on the policy enunciated in this House on November 8, 1978, by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, who has been forgotten and scorned by his colleagues in the opposition. He is never consulted by the finance critic of that party, so I would refer the critic to Hansard of November 6, 1978.
Our policy is to keep the bank prime rate in Canada down as far as we can keep it within reason, so that we do not wreck our economic system. Our policy is not to always ensure that our bank prime rate is higher than the rate in the United States. I can refer the hon. members opposite to other quotations by the former minister of finance in bygone days. He goes on to say, as it is reported in Hansard on that same page:
-of course we are aware that the increase in interest rates is causing some problems in the economy. We had to act because we had no choice, having a balance of payments in a deficit position in Canada.
That was in 1978 when the deficit was a measly $5 billion, whereas this year we are facing a deficit in the balance of payments and current accounts, left to us by the hon. gentleman opposite, in excess of $7 billion. But the Minister of Finance of the day said that he had to act because he had no choice with the balance of payments in a deficit position in Canada. Yet, hon. members opposite have the gall and audacity to get up and get on in this House as though we were doing something that they would never have done, never would have thought of, or heard of. It is the most shameful example of absolute, irresponsible, hypocritical drivel that I have come across in my whole experience, and 1 have a lot of experience in that line.
1 wonder if the hon. members opposite have had enough punishment, or shall I go on with a bit more? They have all fled, there are none of them there. The former minister of agriculture is still here. He is mired in his seat. He is a strong man. Let me see. The former minister of finance mentioned that 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States. He recognized that in the short term there are disadvantages to increasing the bank rate and that the whole thing is due to other factors, namely, the present stability of the Canadian dollar, which was very much affected last week by the United States decision to increase its interest rate.


Eugene Whelan: Read what you said in 1978, John.
Grain Transportation


John Carnell Crosbie: I could go on and on, but I do not want to flay the hon. gentlemen opposite any further. That is what we are facing. That is the kind of opposition this government faces, but the people of Canada-the farmers, workers and businessmen-know that they have a government today that is trying to get Canada out of the mire in which it has been left and is shooting for the long term, and that we are not afraid of the hon. gentlemen opposite.
Let us look at the resolution. In reading the resolution one would think that the farmers of Canada have never been in worse stead. One would think that the poor farmers of Canada were crushed and depressed under a fantastic load. I am informed that gross farm cash receipts this year in Canada are expected to break last year's record high.


Eugene Whelan: Thank God for my policies.


John Carnell Crosbie: Statistics Canada reports that from January to September, 1979, farm cash receipts were $10 billion, compared to $8.5 billion last year for the same period. We know that farmers have problems and that their costs are rising, and we know that everyone has problems because of our present economic state. We also know that we are doing what we can to ensure that this does not recur in one years' time or two years' time. We are going for the long haul so that farmers, the workers and everybody else in Canada will not go through this situation again. We are going to ensure that there is no Liberal government that will permit this to go on as they have for the last ten years.
One would think that the government never gave help to farmers. With prairie grains and other storable crops as collateral, interest-free loans are available from the government.


Eugene Whelan: Don't tell me you are going to claim credit for that, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: The NDP are not out in Prince Albert advertising that fact. They are out in Prince Albert yakking, complaining, moaning and groaning about the interest rate, instead of saying to the farmers of Prince Albert, "Gentlemen, take advantage of the free loans available from the Government of Canada".


Eugene Whelan: Come on now, that's not your program.


John Carnell Crosbie: Am I right?


Eugene Whelan: That's not your program.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member's government was in power for 16 years and surely they had to come up with some programs that were half decent.
Let me now look at what a few impartial, highly respected economists have had to say. Here is a quote from Mr. Carl Beigie from the C. D. Howe Research Institute-C. D. Howe, get the connection? He is quoted as saying on November 8, 1979:
Interest rates should fall substantially over the next year if the federal debt does not get further out of control.

November 15, 1979
Grain Transportation
Can the people of Canada imagine where the federal debt would be if the hon. gentlemen down in the corner were in power? If they were in power, the federal budgetary debt this year would not be under any kind of control. It would be stupendous. It would not be $10 billion; it would be $20 billion, because they would have promised everybody in Canada everything under the sun. The result of that would be that interest rates would not fall.
If the official opposition were in power we know that the interest rate would be higher because of what they have said in past statements, and if the hon. gentlemen in the corner were in power, we know what they would do to the deficit because they love deficit spending. The love what they call stimulative deficit spending. If that party were in power, interest rates would never fall next year. So Mr. Beigie has said:
Interest rates should fall substantially over the next year if the federal debt does not get further out of control,-
The federal debt is not going to get further out of control, Mr. Speaker, because the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) and I are going to wrestle it into shape. We are going to see that it doesn't get out of control.
Mr. Beigie also said that he thinks interest rates will tumble. Well, the hon. gentleman opposite will be pretty sad looking when the interest rates start to tumble. They have been pretty happy looking as the interest rates have been going up. They will be pretty glum, they will be pretty numb, we won't hear much from them when the interest rates start to go down. No, we are only going to hear from them when they are on the way up.
Now, Mr. Speaker-I won't get into this, I suppose. Mr. Shiff, chairman of Bramalea Ltd., the big developer, said the Clark government's initiative to provide tax credit for mortgage interest and property taxes deserves a chance. The newspaper article quotes him as saying:
Already we are seeing a reawakened interest in home ownership among Canadian families, which had resigned themselves to living in rented accommodation-
We will come to that later. The hon. gentlemen had better support our bill or they will be very, very sorry about that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. minister because his time has expired. He could only continue with unanimous consent.


John Carnell Crosbie: If I get unanimous consent to continue-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: They can't take it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


John Carnell Crosbie: I sympathize with that, Mr. Speaker. They can't stand it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to use my opportunity as coming last, to respond to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). But I think I will leave it to the judgment of the House to perceive what we have just heard as the partisan buffoonery that it is, and try to get down to some of the serious agricultural issues that we ought to be considering under the auspices of such a motion.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who, I understand, deferred his intention to speak in order that I might have this opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kaplan:: That is the only nice thing you will say about the Liberals.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The kind of legislation that I wish to talk about tonight, and which we in this party oppose, is legislation intended by the former government, and intended by this government, to encourage commercial plant breeding through giving the developer of a new plant variety, control over its sale and reproduction for seed. This proposal to grant patents and royalties on seed hybrids raises some very critical issues and I will try to show this evening, briefly, what some of these issues are, and what perspective is appropriate to discussing them.
The first critical issue that it raises is the increasing tendency of government in this country, first under the Liberals who started us in this direction, and now under a Conservative government, to shift responsibility for important tasks from the public sector to the private sector. This is the hidden agenda of this bill both from the point of view of this government and of the last one-the desire to step up private activity in seed development so that eventually, even though it be denied at present, the government can get out of the business of research and development of seeds.
This is the wrong way to go, Mr. Speaker. Important areas of our economy must not be abandoned to the profit motive. We already have a proud record of public endeavour in seed development. We in this party would like to see this country work toward a proud record of public endeavour in energy development through Petro-Canada. In both cases the government is leading us in the opposite direction.
Seeds are, Mr. Speaker, self-evidently at the source of life itself and are the most important link in our whole food system. To suggest that this should be left, or, in this case, eventually turned over to institutions whose first priority is profit maximization, is a terrible mistake.
A second critical issue in this regard is the power that would eventually reside in the hands of those who would have the wealth to buy up the rights to whatever new seeds are developed that would greatly benefit the farmer and the consumer through greater yields and/or decreased costs. Those who have this power to control new and important hybrids could hold up our whole country, indeed, the world, to ransom, in the same

November 15, 1979

way as those who own various energy resources have threatened to do from time to time recently.
Earlier in this Parliament I spoke in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne about the question of power. This issue illustrates what I was talking about. Power over such an essential thing as seed must remain accountable to the public, to the general well-being of the human condition, through the instrument of democratic government.
A third critical issue at stake here, Mr. Speaker, is also one of power, that is, the danger of arriving at a situation where one company or, for that matter, a handful of companies, are in control of our total food system, from the ground to the kitchen table. A not unlikely scenario unfolds in my mind of the day when the seed companies own the seeds, the grain, the pesticides, the fertilizers, the flour mills, and the food processing industries. The idea of seeds bred by a multinational corporation in order to need the pesticides or fertilizers made by the same multinational corporation, is a nightmare that cannot be written off as just a bad dream, when we look at the way in which similar things have happened over the years in other areas of concern.
A fourth critical issue raised by the proposed plant breeders' legislation is a combination of genetic and technological concerns. By genetic, I mean the concern that through increasing global monopoly control of seed development, the variety needed for a healthy and reliable food plant world will be compromised in the interests of profit or, less cynically and more certain, in the interests of fitting plant life to the demands of the machine technology increasingly employed by growing multinational corporations which are now extending their already worrisome control over human life through aggressive expansion in the Third World, where many strong varieties of seeds are found but which, nonetheless, do not fit well into the global profit strategies of the multinationals.
Much attention has been paid of late in Canadian politics, and indeed in the politics of the world, to the problem of who should own such vital commodities as oil and gas. The Seven Sisters, the multinational energy corporations, have received much attention for their power and for their wanton disregard of the public interest. In the meantime the longstanding and growing power of the multinational corporations dominant in the grain and related agricultural enterprises, has gone almost unnoticed.
If a multinational grain company like Cargill had received as much attention over the last ten years as Imperial Oil, then perhaps what I have had to say about the dangerous trends in the food industry would not be as unfamiliar as it is likely to be to many members of the public and, indeed, to members of this House. We must be as concerned about concentrations of power in this critical area of concern as the public has come to be with regard to energy in the last little while.
As a final remark, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to a particular situation in which the direction 1 have warned against tonight, is being taken already. In Manitoba we have had a publicly-owned seed company since
Adjournment Debate
1962 when the late Mr. MacKenzie of Brandon willed his business, MacKenzie Seeds, to the province of Manitoba. This small, local seed company, is up for sale, on the auction block of Premier Sterling Lyon. There are many other criticisms that could be made of this sale if time permitted, but I will stick to the criticism which fits into the context of my remarks this evening.
There is no doubt that if returned to the private sector, MacKenzie Seeds will either immediately, or eventually, become the property of a large multinational seed company in the business of taking over smaller companies all over the world. This would contribute to the concentration of power that I have warned against this evening, and which could be used inappropriately. I hope that this trend will be perceived as the dangerous trend it is, and that it will be stopped before it is too late and we have surrendered control not just of our energy supplies but of our food supplies as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, last November 5 I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) why he had agreed to meet in Montreal Mr. Jacques Desmarais, the PQ candidate in the byelection for the Montreal-Maison-neuve riding. The Prime Minister did not deny that indeed he had met Mr. Desmarais, but he tried to show with his reply that ever since his election to his present position he had tried with his openmindedness and concrete actions to demonstrate to the Quebec population that there is a new administration in Ottawa which is more willing than the former government to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Quebec people.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Prime Minister must be extremely embarrassed to know that the same Mr. Desmarais he met in Montreal lost his election yesterday in a decisive way. There is no doubt that this meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada has not contributed to the good fortune of this PQ candidate; on the contrary, it was probably detrimental to him. On the other hand, the Prime Minister said that he

November 15, 1979
Adjournment Debate
wanted to demonstrate through concrete actions the good faith of his government. Well, the only concrete gestures toward Quebec which the Clark government has made since the election were in areas which only pleased PQ supporters and the Quebec government, and not the federalists and those of them who live in the province of Quebec.
First the Clark government abolished Loto Canada. Second, it got rid of the Tellier working group within the secretariat in charge of federal-provincial relations, the only group which would have been capable of preparing a document seriously and decisively refuting the PQ white paper which advocates Quebec separation. We know now that the Prime Minister does not want to draft a federalist white paper for the Government of Canada which would refute the PQ white paper. Third, the Prime Minister's government has decided not to table the bill providing for a federal referendum, and the Clark government has also instructed federal Crown corporations such as CN and Air Canada not to finance pro-federalist groups in the Quebec referendum campaign.
These are five concrete steps taken by the new Clark government, five concrete steps which in fact have but one aim, namely, to please the Quebec separatists. Mr. Speaker, 1 am asking myself the following question: just what does this Progressive Conservative leader want? When he supposedly takes these concrete steps to please Quebec, he actually does nothing to please the federalists in the province of Quebec, he only pleases the separatists. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if this Progressive Conservative leader would not prefer the Parti Quebecois to win the referendum and Quebec to secede from the rest of Canada.
Everything the Prime Minister does and says in the House leads us to that conclusion over any other. Would not this Progressive Conservative leader like to be rid of those 70-odd Liberals from Quebec who sit in the House of Commons, so he could head a majority Progressive Conservative government elected mostly in western Canada, to change the whole political map of Canada? I feel this Progressive Conservative leader is not assuming his responsibilities. He should be looking after the problems of all Canadians, particularly those who live in the province of Quebec, who wish to remain within Canada and who do not approve at all those good will and appeasement gestures the Clark government is making towards the Levesque government in Quebec.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to enlighten the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who wanted to change somewhat his question tonight, because he was asking for information about the last August 20 meeting around which there was no mystery and even less secrecy.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) did go to Montreal to meet with businessmen, newspapermen, a well-known Quebec politi-

cian and, finally, a group of workers. More precisely, the Prime Minister met, first, with a group of about ten prominent businessmen of the province of Quebec. The meeting was held in the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, and it is a fact there the economy was discussed.
Secondly, at the same place the Prime Minister met with reporters of the daily newspaper La Presse and if the hon. member wonders about the subjects raised in that interview, all he has to do is read the press reports of the next day. Early in the evening the Prime Minister was the guest of Quebec Premier Levesque for dinner at the Meridien Hotel. The event was in no way secret or mysterious since it had been announced in advance and since it was following the premiers' conference of this summer at La Malbaie. In any case, several reporters interviewed the Prime Minister after his talks with Mr. Levesque.
Finally, before coming back to Ottawa, the Prime Minister met with a group of workers from the port of Montreal who wanted to voice their concerns to him. The meeting took place in a lounge at the Meridien Hotel and Mr. Jacques Desmarais did attend part of that meeting to which he had been invited by the workers. But again, there was nothing secret or mysterious about that meeting since the press was there.
That is what actually happened in Montreal on August 20, 1979, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the hon. member for Papineau will find my answer satisfying.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE-AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY-FAIR SHARE FOR CANADA OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary automotive trade figures between Canada and the United States for the first nine months of this year are startling. The over-all Canada-United States trade deficit for this period is $2.2 billion, derived from a favourable balance of $700 million on automotive assembly and a deficit of $2.9 billion on parts. This total deficit exceeds the deficit for the whole of the worst previous year, 1975.
The federal government's sector profile discussion paper of last year indicates that this is part of a developing pattern. 1 quote:
Over the next several years Canadian automotive demand growth will exceed North American demand growth. There will therefore be a trend of long-term deterioration in the automotive trade balance with the United States. A deficit of $2.4 billion (1976 dollars) is projected for 1985 if Canadian production continues to grow at the North American average rate.
Unfortunately, the rate of deterioration in the trade balance has exceeded even this prediction. Already this year it will be beyond the deficit projected for 1985, and the new projection for 1985 by the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association is $5 billion. Without new policies by the federal government, this prediction, too, will be dwarfed by reality.
I congratulate the Progressive Conservative government on continuing and expanding the Liberal policy of duty remissions
November 15, 1979

for foreign companies which will induce additional sourcing of parts in Canada by Volkswagen, Fiat, Nissan, BMW and Mercedes. This will help create more manufacturing jobs in Canada, but it will not help with respect to the parts deficit vis-a-vis the United States, since the companies affected are not American ones. Much more is needed.
The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association has recently urged the government to encourage investment in the Canadian parts industry, redirect parts sourcing decisions by the automotive companies, stimulate the economy generally, and meet foreign competition. I endorse those proposals.
Investment in the Canadian parts industry could be increased by a repayable loans fund at, say, 1 per cent to 2 per cent over the prime rate-and therefore at a rate competitive with that usually prevailing in the United States-for purposes of investment, tooling, and research in Canada. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) has spoken unfavourably of this proposal by the APMA, but I urge him to reconsider his apparent unwillingness to act on it.
Equally important, in my view, is a policy of inducing the Big Three to source automotive parts in Canada. The fact that the unfavourable exchange rate on Canadian funds is currently causing such a sizeable net loss to the Canadian automotive companies results from undue importation of parts from the United States. Recall if you will, Mr. Speaker, the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, when Canada had a modest over-all automotive trade balance with the United States of $446 million for the three years together. The U.S. government, through then Treasury Secretary Connally, talked tough with the Big Three in the United States-as well as with the Canadian government, incidentally-and succeeded in quickly reversing the incipient trend in our favour.
The United States also introduced the DISC program, a tax incentive plan to promote exports by requiring capital development to be made in the United States to be eligible for the tax advantages.
It is worth noting in passing that the United States government, which has always resisted the Canadian "fair share" interpretation of the auto pact by emphasizing the absolute priority of the free market, hesitated not a moment in interfering with the free market when it appeared that it might advantage Canada rather than themselves.
We need to talk, if not "tough", at least "insistently", with the Big Three with respect to sourcing parts in Canada, and in particular with respect to their own decisions on capital investment for in-house production of parts, as well, of course, as with respect to capital investment for assembly of cars and trucks.
General Motors' new $2 billion investment is most welcome in Canada, particularly in Windsor, but it must not be allowed to represent our total Canadian share of $38 billion of prospective investment.
Adjournment Debate
At the present time in Canada we need an incentive program both for the parts industry and for the economy generally, and in my view and that of my colleagues on this side, no great economic stimulus can be expected while the government keeps interest rates at the highest point in our history and generally follows a tight money policy.
I would also stress the importance of participating more fully in automotive research, development, and engineering. If 1 am right in my guess about Chrysler Canada's proposal to the Canadian government, we are being offered an unequalled opportunity of doing just that, by assisting Chrysler Canada in expanding in that respect. We must take advantage of this opportunity.
I hope these considerations I have advanced on the automotive industry are not taken as partisan ones. These matters are too important, especially in my city of Windsor, where we have at the present time probably the highest rate of unemployment in industrial Canada, to be the prey of mere partisanship.
I genuinely hope the government will solve our problems in the automotive industry. I am prepared to support any reasonable initiatives, whether those I have proposed or others. All I insist is that there should be government initiatives, and soon.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight to hear the representation of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). 1 realize that this whole subject matter and this industry are very close to him, and he is doing his job here tonight in representing that constituency.
However, may 1 remind the hon. member that many of the problems with which we are faced today are the result of short-term, ad hoc planning, election to election planning in the auto pact and in that industry? I have been told in meetings with the president of the Ford Motor Company, and in meetings with the committee of the Canadian Auto Parts Association that much of our trouble is that we were delivered into the assembly of the high horsepower large automobile, two-thirds of which were shipped to the United States. The energy crunch came in the United States, and that export market dried up on the Canadian assembly plants.
At the same time when the energy crunch hit North America, the United States industry, decisions of which are made in Detroit, had already put in place the energy efficient vehicles for American production so that now two-thirds of the Canadian demand is for American vehicles. That is in large part the problem and the reason for the growth of the deficit in the auto pact that we are dealing with today, and it is a very serious problem for us. We do not take this lightly. I have met with pretty well all sectors of the industry.
I am glad that the phraseology tonight is a little better than the question of the hon. member in the question period as reported in Hansard at page 1082 because I am quite frankly very pleased with the fact that General Motors, without government insistence and without coming to the government

November 15, 1979
Adjournment Debate
for money, was able to deliver $2 billion of capital development in that industry in Canada.
The same thing that I was speaking of in terms of the Auto Pact and the assembly of automobiles in Canada is now going on in the tire industry. We have a tire industry established in Canada exporting tires for the high energy using cars, and yet new technology in tires is now going into the United States, so we are aggravating the problem. We are aware of these problems.
Dealing with the Auto Pact, Mr. Reisman said that the factors which were wrong in the Auto Pact needed renegotiation but the time was not right. I appreciate that. Only last week 1 met with the Auto Parts Association and 1 asked them to come back to me with an agenda of the basic structural flaws that are causing us the problem of the imbalance in the Auto Pact. They have promised to do that.
I do not have to speak on the duty remission program that is in place. It is having an effect and the auto parts industry in Canada is grateful for the benefits that are starting to accrue for them.
One of the problems we have to address and one of the problems we are facing as a nation-again to take the partisanship out of it-is the bidding game that is going on between the United States and Canada for industries, between the states within the United States and the provinces within Canada, as well as between the provinces and the states. This matter will have to be addressed because the bidding game is emptying the public wallet and is interfering with the redistribution and the delivery of resources for the creation of wealth. These are all problems of which we are well aware and I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville. We will look for his assistance in resolving some of these problems.
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-SEASONAL WORKERS- REQUEST FOR REVISION OF BENEFITS SYSTEM
Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, following the question I put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) last October 15 concerning the boundaries of economic zones for unemployment insurance purposes in the Charlevoix area, and following the answer I got then, I thought I would ask the House of Commons for a little more time to listen to the representations I had to make on behalf of the citizens of Charlevoix who are treated unfairly and unduly denied unemployment insurance benefits to which, I think, they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, last August 24, I sent a letter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration informing him that a group had been established in his department to study the feasibility of changing the boundaries of the Charlevoix economic zone. Right now, Mr. Speaker, to explain the problem more clearly,

the western part of my riding, from Baie Sainte-Catherine to Saint-Fereol-des-Neiges, is included in the metropolitan area of Quebec City which artificially reduces the unemployment rate for that area, while the eastern part of my riding, and 1 am glad of it, Mr. Speaker, and so are the local residents, the eastern part of Tadoussac County up to Hauterive is included in the larger economic area of the north shore where you can get unemployment insurance benefits after ten weeks of work.
Last August 24, as I exchanged correspondence with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1 told him that a task force had been established in his department to work on new boundaries for the economic zone to do justice to the residents of Baie Sainte-Catherine, Saint-Simeon, Saint-Fidele, La Malbaie, Pointe-au-Pic, Cap-a-l'Aigle, Clairmont, Notre-Dame-des-Monts and all the other villages in the western part of the constituency, and I wanted to ask him in all sincerity and even urge him to speed up the work of this task force to change the boundaries of economic regions.
Mr. Speaker, my area, Charlevoix West, is essentially dependent on the tourist industry, and as we all know this industry is active only from roughly the second week in June until Labour Day, that is the first week of September, which means that people in the tourist industry work from 11 to 13 weeks a year. Furthermore, in the western part of the Charlevoix constituency, 60 per cent of the labour force is employed in the tourist industry and try as best they can to find a job which will last no more than ten, 11 or 12 weeks. The situation is impossible for these workers who only want a job and not unemployment insurance benefits. Because of the new boundaries of economic regions and since Charlevoix West is included with the Quebec City area, the people who work ten, 11,12 or 13 weeks in the tourist industry, whether for the Manoir Richelieu in Pointe-au-Pic, which employs nearly 300 people, or in the other summer hotels which employ a number of people throughout the constituency, for the first time this year, these people find themselves with no income and must turn to welfare against their own will.
Mr. Speaker, those people are humiliated because they worked during the only period when employment was available to them. Those people have worked and want to work twelve months a year, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately, because of the economic weakness in the area, because of the national economic difficulties, there are no jobs available for 12 months and those people must turn to the tourist industry and work ten, 11 or 12 weeks. So, since this fall, hundreds of people in the riding of Charlevoix have been refused unemployment insurance benefits. I believe that a serious injustice is being caused to people in an underprivileged economic area, and I hope, as the minister already invited me to do in his answer, to suggest to him ways to help those people. He invited me to give my opinion on the situation and also to say what the specific problems in my riding were. I would like tonight on behalf of the people of Charlevoix West to beg him to speed up the work
November 15, 1979

of that study committee within his department that is supposed to change the economic zones in Charlevoix or the economic zone of Charlevoix, and to come up with something in the coming days, Mr. Speaker, because there are people being refused unemployment insurance benefits every day.
I want to beg him to change the economic zone definition which unfairly excludes the people of Charlevoix West because in the months of December, January, February and March, in the riding of Charlevoix, the rate of unemployment easily reaches 35 per cent. Nobody in this House-and 1 am convinced the minister himself is extremely concerned by that situation as I am myself-can be happy with that. I think that notwithstanding Progressive Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Social Credit political considerations, we must try to do justice to those people who only ask to work.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his very sincere representation on behalf of his constituency. The question raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), which has been raised from time to time by other members, is whether we have the most appropriate and reliable measures for calculating unemployment rates for the unemployment insurance program. This question relates to two issues: first, the drawing of the boundaries of the economic regions for determining initial entitlement for unemployment insurance and for calculating regional extended benefits; second, the method for estimating the unemployment rates.
By way of explanation it should be emphasized that the Unemployment Insurance Act requires that the boundaries of the regions used by Statistics Canada in its labour force survey be followed. The act requires that regional unemployment
Adjournment Debate
rates be those produced by Statistics Canada; Unemployment Insurance Act section 58 (t) and (u). Thus, any change in either respect would require a legislative amendment.
As the minister stated when the matter was raised by the hon. member, a task force representing Statistics Canada and the department has been established to review current arrangements. I confirm that, as soon as the report is received, it will be made available.
Without prejudging the findings of the task force it should be pointed out that there are some obvious difficulties in making changes in the existing arrangements. For example, if boundaries were redrawn to achieve a higher unemployment rate for one region, the adjacent region would experience a corresponding reduction. It may readily be imagined what difficulties this would create.
There are also difficulties in changing the method of calculating unemployment rates, and particularly with the proposal to use unemployment insurance beneficiaries as an indicator of the number of unemployed. Beneficiaries were used in the allocation of Canada Works because labour force survey data are not available on a constituency basis. Moreover, serious questions could be raised about any program which uses its own statistics for the determination of its own entrance requirements and benefit provisions.
An additional consideration is the substantial cost that could be involved in any attempt to enhance the reliability of labour force survey data.
These and other difficulties are being examined by the task force whose report, as indicated, is expected toward the end of November.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.


Friday, November 16, 1979