1983-05-13

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, as new technologies advance, Canadians will be working fewer hours and shorter work weeks. The most significant result of this development is the time not spent at a regular job when people individually and collectively can create new technologies that will develop our basic industries and natural resources.
Canadians can exploit their traditional image as hewers of wood and drawers of water. We can, for example, advance new technologies for growing trees, producing higher volumes of grain, and cleaning up our great resources of water.
Someone once said to me that he can imagine a time when he will work three days a week. He will be able to devote over 50 per cent of his time to his own interests, and yet retain the same basic income and maintain his standard of living.
Imagine the benefit to this country from people with new ideas and new concepts. It will be very exciting, but we have to identify what people are going to do with their time.
There is potential for an exciting future, but unless it is properly planned it could be disastrous. Canadians will have to change their way of life so that the time not spent at a regular job is less passive and more structured and productive to provide self fulfillment. Canadians can become a creative society.
And so I ask the Government today to ensure this creative future for us and recognize and study ways to deal with the social implications that will arise from the new technologies.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, on the page opposite the editorial page of today's Globe and Mail is an article by one of this nation's most illustrious
barristers, Mr. Morris Shumiatcher of Saskatchewan. His article is entitled, "Going Down the Drain with Metric", and its thrust is that the decimal system is far less practical for everyday use than is the duo-decimal system that was the free and voluntary choice of the people of Canada before this Government, with its mania for controlling people and things, stepped in.
The lead editorial in today's Toronto Sun is on the same theme. Amongst others, it makes the point that, while the U.K. and the U.S. have abandoned their metric commissions, ours has gone from having a budget of $44,000 a year to spending some $32 million annually. Mind you, it does serve to provide employment for 20 commissioners, 19 of whom are "Liberal hacks".
That this issue is so alive after these many years of Liberal pressure and propaganda speaks volumes about how deeply Canadians still feel, not only about the practicality of the metric system but about the Government's tactics in forcing its adoption. When will the Government admit that on this issue above all others it has misread both the requirement and the public will? Metric must be voluntary.


TRADE UNIONS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is surely aware that in Poland Mr. Lech Walesa and nine other unionists representing a majority of Polish workers sent a letter this week to their Government calling for the release of those convicted for union activity and political beliefs, and reinstatement of persons fired for union work or membership.
The union leaders pointed out that "disregarding the will of society can profit neither the Government nor society". The letter further noted that "re-establishment of union freedom is one of the indispensable elements of a much desired and genuine national agreement".
The New Democratic Party urges the Government of Canada to voice its support for the re-establishment of free trade unions in Poland, in the strongest terms possible, and actively to seek unanimous support at the International Labour Organization to be held in Geneva at the beginning of June.


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
[Stage Direction]
May 13, 1983

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, a curious anomaly exists in Parliamentary procedure. Not infrequently a Member of Parliament must vote along with other Members of his or her Party on a resolution which he or she favours but which he or she must oppose on the grounds that the vote is a confidence vote. Voting against it would defeat the Party.
The rational question is: why must there be a separation of voting in Parliament into two broad categories, confidence votes and non-confidence votes? The parliamentary rules indicate that all expenditures of money are considered confidence votes, as are resolutions arising out of the Throne Speech. As for non-confidence votes, these include motions in Private Members Bills and Bills proposed by the Opposition on so-called Opposition days. However, each year the Opposition may declare not more than two of these motions as confidence motions. Accordingly the Government in power must vote against these motions whether it agrees or disagrees with them.
It is little wonder that the general public labels politicians as primarily interested in maintaining themselves elected or ensuring future election, rather than supporting enlightened and constructive legislation.
I feel that the rationale for having these two broad categories of motions should be discussed in some detail before the Committee on Parliamentary Reform for clarification and possible revision.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Paris, and a world reknowned authority in this field, has stated unequivocally that life begins at conception, that there is no diversity among his fellow scientists as to the truth of this statement, and that they are at a loss to understand the continual controversy regarding this matter.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is now constituted does not recognize and does not apply to the fetus or the unborn as a living person. This is one of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that I and 23 other Members of Parliament voted against the amended Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the Charter gives everyone the right to life, liberty, security of the person, and the right not to be deprived of the same except by due process of the law. This right must also apply to the living unborn fetus because such persons are obviously not in a position to speak for themselves.
It is up to us to speak on their behalf to save and protect their lives.
Therefore, I call upon the Government to correct this monstrous inequity in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by making the necessary changes and thus eliminate the wilful slaughter and murder of some 60,000 to 80,000 Canadians every year across Canada.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, this is the relevant part of a telegram from a constituent:
-our business is pig breeding. We are proud of our western Canadian base and of our accomplishments as a world exporter of breeding stock and a major supplier to the industry in western Canada. We now face legislation which threatens our future. We see the impact so great so as to have us consider moving our base to a location favoured with a better future freer of political interference.
-concerning the Crow question we totally oppose the capitulation to Quebec as aided and abetted by the wheat pool bureaucrats. We fully support the 67,000 farmer commodity coalition position that Gilson compromise be adopted completely.
We feel the Pepin proposal of 50 per cent to producers, 50 per cent to the railroads with a review is absolutely the furthest we can afford to go.
The current legislation before Parliament will cost our own operations $217,000 in direct feed cost disadvantage each year. This type of distortion over time will reduce and then eliminate our customers and industry and us with them.
-secure a future for diversified agriculture in western Canada. Failure to get amendments will mean the sentencing of western agriculture to primary grain production, marketing its grain through an inefficient handling system reliant on subsidies to compete in world markets.
Bill C-155 unless amended, will impair and perhaps destroy the hog industry-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


INCOME TAX
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, it is becoming more and more obvious that the Income Tax Act and the forms are far too complicated for the average Canadian to understand. In 1979, 43 per cent of the returns submitted were revised by the Income Tax Department. In 1980 that figure grew to 45 per cent, and in 1981 it was 46 per cent. When almost half of the returns submitted have to be revised by the Income Tax Department, it is an indication that the form is too complicated.
In addition, I would point out to the House that the federal Government sends refunds to 11 million Canadians each year. That is 75 per cent of Canadians who submitted returns. Clearly, the income tax tables are adjusted and weighted in favour of the federal Government. I suggest to the House that
May 13, 1983

the Government should look into this. First, why the form not be simplified and, second, why is the federal Government charging 75 per cent of Canadians too much income tax as a result of the income tax tables?


ABSENCE OF MINISTERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about the absence of some crucial Ministers. In fact there are now 36 Ministers in the cabinet. I had some questions for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on an international matter.


Mr. Nielsen:: There are only five Ministers here now.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is not here. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) is not here. Then I had a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). He is not here. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) is not here. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is not here. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) is not here, nor is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne). I have named over a half a dozen Ministers with whom we intended to raise questions.
The point is not, of course, that every day Ministers should be here. We understand they have obligations. But there are 36 Members of Cabinet and there are only seven present in the House this morning. That is not acceptable in terms of a Ministry which has a sense of responsibility to the people of Canada.
I conclude with the observation that it is Friday the thirteenth. That is normally a day when bad things happen. Normally we are not pleased with the answers we receive, but we do not think this is an appropriate response even for a Liberal Cabinet on Friday the thirteenth.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the Minister's non-answers yesterday about the criminal investigation into the activities of the Chairman of Air Canada, and in view of the amazing nonchalance of the Prime Minister in allowing his friend to continue in office pending
Oral Questions
the outcome of the investigation, could the Minister tell the House that the investigation involves allegations that the Chairman of Air Canada fraudulently conspired with Montreal developers Isaac Gelber, Bernard St. Jacques and Pierre Jolicceur to receive secret kickbacks of $3.6 million in the relocation of Air Canada's headquarters in Montreal, contrary to Section 423(1 (d) and 338( 1) of the Criminal Code?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the answer has been given now at least 15 times. My hon. friend would probably like the Minister of Justice or me to say something and then he could interpret it as a guilt accusation on our part of the Chairman of Air Canada. He is a lawyer. I think he respects that no one is guilty without having been charged with anything. There is no presumption of guilt in our system of law. I suggest that anything I could have said in the past or could say now could be interpreted as that. Consequently, the position of the Government all through this-and I dislike it as much as my hon. friend in terms of not yet having the report of the RCMP-has been not to talk about it. I have referred to it so many times that I am even bored with it myself.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate part of the Minister's answer. He is quite right; this is a delicate matter which can be distasteful.


MINISTER'S TELEPHONE CALL TO CHAIRMAN
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, this is not an ordinary situation of a Canadian citizen being investigated. This is a public official of a Crown corporation who is still continuing in office, even though a policeman on the beat who is under investigation in any type of affair is suspended until the investigation is completed.
I find it intolerable that the Minister or the Minister of Justice, inside or outside the House, has not made a statement about the investigation, as to when it started, its status, and when it will be concluded, notwithstanding the fact that this Minister in early December, according to his answer in Hansard on December 20, 1982, telephoned the Chairman of Air Canada to warn him about the criminal investigation long before the RCMP raided the Chairman's offices and home. In view of that fact, could the Minister tell the House what he told the Chairman when he telephoned him to warn him about the investigation? Is it not really a double standard of justice, to warn someone under criminal investigation? Is that what happens to other citizens?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, it is precisely because there is not a double standard of justice that we are not able to answer my hon. friend's question. The rule of law, as he ought to know, applies equally to everyone. What he is trying to do is to establish selective standards for the rule of law so that in those cases where he wants more information he would have it. That is not the tradition of this country and I hope it never will be. I am sorry my hon. friend cannot live up to our traditions.

May 13, 1983
Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not have to take any lectures on political or legal morality from the Minister of Justice at all, especially when the Government seems to be more concerned about protecting the reputation of its political friend than the reputation of Air Canada, which will have a stain and a cloud over it as long as this matter remains undefined.


REASON FOR CALL
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Justice gave a little longer answer than he usually does, does he consider it part of the normal procedures of justice that a Minister of Transport telephones the Chairman in early December to warn him that he is under criminal investigation, long before the police have had a chance to raid the office and find the documents which are part of the subject of investigation? What kind of double standard is that?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I understand, with respect to the small matter that my hon. friend raised about the telephone call, that the call of the Minister of Transport was authorized by the investigating body, the RCMP. He obviously does need a lecture. He obviously does not undersand our traditions or he would not get up here, day after day, in a manner in which he knows would be contrary to all our traditions in this country to answer. He should understand that. He should give some consideration to his role as a Member of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ontario.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, further to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Oshawa, I was going to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, I understand, will be in the House some time later today. Therefore I would like to defer my question until then.


Madam Speaker:: How many times do I have to say that if Hon. Members do not want to ask their question at a particular time, the only thing they need to is not rise and I will not recognize them? If they rise, I assume they want to ask a question. It takes a lot of time to say, "I cannot ask a question because the Minister is not here."


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Earlier in the week he attempted to answer questions with regard to Canada Lands Mirabel Limited wherein it is suspected that, by virtue
of Order in Council and application to Treasury Board, through job reclassification certain people were able to avoid the six and five restraint on salary raises. On Tuesday last the Minister was asked why an original Order in Council was revoked just two days after the issue was raised in the House of Commons, and replaced by a subsequent Order in Council dealing with the same matter. He failed to answer that on Tuesday. I wonder whether he would take this opportunity to do so.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can assist the Hon. Member. The Order in Council first issued did not make clear that the Order in Council was being issued pursuant to Section 16 of the Public Service Compensation Restraint Act and was being published because the compensation plan in question conformed to the requirements of the six and five program, and that the directors of the Canada Lands Corporation had stipulated in writing that that compensation plan, conforming as it did to the six and five program, would not be changed during the life of the program. We simply wanted to make that clear to avoid the kind of misunderstanding which my hon. friend is trying to clear up, and I appreciate his question in that regard.


REQUEST THAT SALARY SCALE BE FILED
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, it will be a great day for clearing up misunderstandings, because it is a natural suspicion that reclassification is done deliberately to avoid six and five and to favour those in the higher income brackets and not those in the lower-income brackets. In order to avoid that and to clear up any misunderstanding or suspicion, and I direct this to either Minister who is capable of answering, would they file the salaries of those involved in the Crown corporation, Canada Lands Mirabel Limited, before the initiation of the six and five program, and file the salaries that presently exist today? That would clear up any misunderstanding whatsoever.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to consult with my hon. friend, the Minister responsible on this. I should point out that the compensation plan in question and the reclassification system were under discussion at the time the six and five law was passed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In order to go into effect, the increase that would have ordinarily been permitted under the Public Service Compensation Restraint Act, as I recall it, was actually somewhat less than 6 per cent, but I would be very happy to consult the responsible Minister so that we can provide further details and provide the reassurance which, quite properly, my hon. friend is seeking.
May 13, 1983


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday we learned that the Department of National Defence has decided to mount an information program headed by an official from NATO headquarters in Brussels, which will include a 40 minute slide show and a resource kit for speakers, that is designed to convince Canadians of the Government's wisdom in testing the air launched Cruise missile in Canada, a program that the Minister admitted yesterday in committee would be biased. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell the House on what basis the Government decided that such a program would be necessary, and can he give us an idea of what this program would cost?


Stanley Hudecki: Madam Speaker, I might answer the Hon. Member in this way. The subject of nuclear warfare is a very complex one, and using nuclear weapons as a deterrent requires a very profound knowledge of situations leading to the present conditions. I believe that this kind of information has not been adequately presented to the Canadian public. If anything, it has been biased on the side of those who feel that this deterrent mounted by NATO is proliferating the arms race and is, in a way, contributing to the insecurity of the country. It is therefore, very important in order to achieve a balance that the Department of National Defence place the complexities of the issue on the table and allow the public to make a decision. I feel that what we have been seeing in the press has been biased toward downplaying the goal of the Department of National Defence, which is to create peace on the basis of using deterrence. As far as the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY FOR PROGRAM
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the same Parliamentary Secretary. I find it surprising that the Government can commit money to a program that it has admitted it has not agreed to as yet. I would also like to point out that the umbrella agreement clearly states that the United States shall bear all costs and expenditures incurred in the Test and Evaluation program. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell us whether that commitment applies to the information program? Specifically, will he assure us that no Canadian taxpayers' money will be spent on this program that is designed to sell an American weapons system?
Oral Questions


Stanley Hudecki: Madam Speaker, I think that there are two components to that question. One is that undoubtedly the costs that will be incurred in maintaining and carrying out the test will certainly be the responsibility of the American Government. The cost of informing the public as to the complexities and problems associated with nuclear warfare will be borne by the budget of the Department of National Defence. I might inform the Hon. Member that no advertising company has been hired and no extra facilities are being used. The cost of spreading this information that will create a balance in the country will be borne completely within the budget of the Department of National Defence.


PETRO-CANADA EXPLORATION FOR CHINESE OFFSHORE OIL RESOURCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The other day, Bill Hopper, the President of Petro-Canada, our state-owned oil company, stated that one of the reasons Petro-Canada was involved in spending Canadian taxpayer dollars developing offshore oil resources off mainland China was that Petro-Canada hoped to access oil that it may find off mainland China to Canada because Canada is still importing oil. Is it the mandate of Petro-Canada to reach oil self-sufficiency in Canada by developing China's offshore oil reserves?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, as I explained the other day, Petro-Canada has been invited, along with 45 other companies from around the world, to bid on the prospect lands off the coast of China. It would be a good commercial proposition for Petro-Canada. One of the possible benefits would be that it would be possible, if they find oil and if we in Canada need oil, to import that oil into Canada.
Happily, we are at this time self-sufficient in Canada because we produce as much oil as we consume, but we must be prudent about the future. Because we were invited by China to participate, and because of the commercial relations that specifically western Canada has with China, it was important for us to accept the offer of the Government of China. If a Canadian corporation is in a position to export Canadian technology and improve the commercial relations that Canada has with China, every Member of this House, expecially those from western Canada, should be happy about that.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, it is good to see that Petro-Canada is going to make China oil self-sufficient with Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

May 13, 1983
Oral Questions


WITHDRAWAL FROM ALBERTA OIL SANDS PROJECT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources why Petro-Canada is removing itself from the oil sands project in Fort McMurray and northeastern Alberta? Why is it in the doldrums in the Beaufort Sea? Why is it not moving into the offshore of Newfoundland and developing our own oil, for God's sake? I cannot understand the Minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member thinks that when he speaks very loudly we will listen more attentively. I have to tell him that Petro-Canada is involved in projects in Canada; it is involved in projects in the North; it is involved off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and it is involved in some other projects in Alberta. I hope to be in a position to make some announcements about it.
I am glad the Hon. Member knows there is a role for Petro-Canada in Canada. It is playing a big role. Often some of his friends tell me that there should be no Petro-Canada, but today I am happy to see that the Hon. Member wants even more involvement by Petro-Canada in Canada.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works that is almost as farcical as that last answer. Early last week the Minister of State for International Trade announced the construction of a $52 million federal Government office building in Halifax. The regional director of Public Works has said that the $52 million will in fact be $5 million. Can the Minister tell us which of those figures is correct?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member qualified his question as being farcical. That is for him to decide.
I know that the program to put a major building in Halifax is well beyond $5 million. It is a very important construction. It will enhance Halifax and strengthen it as a place where a lot of decentralization of this Government has taken place. I hope the Hon. Member is not complaining that his area, metropolitan Halifax, will benefit from a major asset which is a good, new federal building.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I am objecting to the construction of a $52 million office building on the waterfront of Halifax.


NEED FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could be more explicit. He says the building will cost much more than $5 billion. His colleague has said it will cost $52 million. This is proposed at a time when we need fast tracking, as he has described it, to get
such massive construction programs off the ground quickly in order to put people to work. Would the Minister not feel that it would be more speedy and more appropriate, for example, to consider putting that money into the Camphill hospital project and get that off the ground, so that it could go ahead immediately and provide much needed medical services for Nova Scotians, and very particularly for Canadian veterans?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is for me to determine the priorities between two Departments in terms of their needs.
I suspect that the confusion between the figures in the Hon. Member's question, of $5 million and $52 million, may come from the fact that this is intended to be a lease-purchase which is to trigger the use of private sector money. The federal Government would rent from the private sector. That is the approach, and may account for the difference between the $5 million and $52 million. This is a major project, and the figure of $52 million does not appear to me to be very far from the facts.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In late January I drew the Minister's attention to the serious problems affecting the dairy producers of Alberta who had lost their market quota and were facing very serious consequences. At the present time in Alberta some 400 to 500 producers out of a total of 1,800 are without quota. In January the Minister said that if we could demonstrate that there were cases of severe hardship he would take some action. Since the position has deteriorated further, is the Minister now prepared to take action to alleviate this problem?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that I deal with the Canadian Dairy Commission. I report to the House on what the Canadian Dairy Commission does. He knows that the operation of the Canadian Dairy Commission is conducted by the dairy farmers of Canada themselves. They decide how the natural quota will be divided and how cutbacks will take place in an equitable fashion all across the country.
Dairy farmers in Alberta are not being treated differently from dairy farmers in any other part of Canada. Quotas are being administered by farmers themselves, not by me. If there are 500 dairy farmers in Alberta without quota I have not been informed of that. It is news to me that there are 500 without quota. I find it very hard to believe that there would be 500 dairy farmers who have been producing milk either on a straight industrial quota or on quotas through their provincial milk marketing board, who would be without quota. I
May 13, 1983

cannot believe that number of producers could be without quota.
When the Hon. Member brought this matter to my attention, 30 or 40 farmers were affected by a reduction in the quota. It is news to me that there are now 500. It is unbelievable that there would be 500 farmers without any quota.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, for the information of the Minister, the statement has been made by the Chairman of the Alberta Dairy Control Board, Mr. Jim Gylander, that 400 to 500 of Alberta's dairy producers will be out of quota by the end of this month.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Minister also undertook to look into those areas where there was undue hardship. He cannot weasel out of this; he has responsibility for the producers of Canada.
Does the Minister expect these producers to go bankrupt or is he going to undertake his responsibility and act on behalf of these producers? That is his responsibility.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I fully accept my responsibility to the dairy farmers of Canada. We have the best run policy in the world. Does the Hon. Member want something like what is going on in the United States where they are piling up mountains and mountains of produce and spending millions and millions of dollars on subsidies, but still do not know what to do with the produce? They are destroying the markets of other nations, markets that normally belong to Canada.
I met with the dairy farmers of Canada and they are still 100 per cent in accord with the dairy program we are running. They say it is fair under world conditions. The Hon. Member knows that world conditions have shown there is a tremendous surplus of dairy products in the world. Canada still has surplus conditions for industrial powder and butter under a manageable type of operation.
When the Hon. Member asks me to accept my responsibility, I would point out that I do not interfere in the operation of the dairy farmers' organization in Canada. They are running it, and they are doing a good job. It is too bad that they do not meet with the Hon. Member and inform him of what is going on.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister who is responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank, or his Parliamentary Secretary. The federal Government has long stated its concern for assisting Indian bands across the country with economic development. It has indicated its interest and support for the
Oral Questions
development of industrial parks on the reserve lands where appropriate.
We find, however, that when businesses go to the lending institutions to support their applications to build a business on reserve lands, or to start a business in an industrial park on reserve lands, the chartered banks of Canada are willing to support them, other financial institutions are willing to support them, but the one bank that will not lend money, at least in British Columbia, on federal property or Indian lands is the Federal Business Development Bank. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain why this discrimination is taking place?


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Government has definitely no policy against lending money to the Indians whether on the reserves or not.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am aghast at that response. However, I want to-


Madam Speaker:: It was a short answer. I would encourage the Hon. Member to ask a short question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFUSAL OF LOANS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, this particular problem justifies more of a response than it has received. What I am saying is that at least in the Province of British Columbia-I have not had the opportunity to check in other Provinces-the Federal Business Development Bank is refusing to loan money to leaseholders on Indian lands. There are many, many businesses which are going to the FBDB requesting funds to start businesses on reserve lands and they are told there is no money available for any leaseholder on Indian reserve land. The chartered banks do not have that policy. Other lending institutions do not have that policy. If the parliamentary secretary is unaware of this policy, may I ask him to get in touch with the Federal Business Development Bank officials, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and resolve this issue immediately?
[ Translation]


René Cousineau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member would like some explanations. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that when an Indian on a reserve applies for a loan, the first problem he encounters is the fact that he does not own the land. I realize people would say that he could mortgage his house, and I agree that would be a possibility. The second problem, which is in fact the main one, is that a decision made by one band council is not necessarily binding on a subsequent council. This is a major obstacle

May 13, 1983
Oral Questions
to obtaining the best possible guarantees on mortgage loans, and is a very real problem when a loan must be called.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It relates to the Morgentaler clinic in Winnipeg. Up to this point of time the Attorney General in Manitoba has argued that there is nothing wrong with the establishment of a clinic. However, the clinic did not receive hospital status and did not establish a therapeutic abortion committee. Therefore, now that Morgen-taler has said that abortions are being performed, it is obviously in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada.
While I know, and the Minister of Justice recognizes, that the administration of justice is a provincial matter, has he discussed this matter with the Attorney General of Manitoba? Obviously it is now a very public flaunting of the Criminal Code of Canada, a law which is passed through this House, through the Parliament of Canada. Obviously this has some very serious implications for the administration of law and the perception of law in the country. Would the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had, or what methods of remedy he is recommending in this case?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I have not had discussions with the Attorney General of Manitoba in this case. I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I would feel that to be approriate. The law, as my hon. friend knows, is made by this House, but its administration is in the hands of the provincial Governments.
It is certainly my impression that the Attorney General of Manitoba has indicated that, when the proper information is provided to him by law enforcement authorities in that Province, he will take the appropriate action according to the law. However, Madam Speaker, even if, in a hypothetical case, a provincial Attorney General were to take a different view of the law, I do not believe, as Minister of Justice in the federal Government, I would have any authortiy to overrule or in any way countermand the role which the provincial Attorney General is taking in carrying out his duties. That is a matter for the people and the Government of that Province. I have no reason as yet, Madam Speaker, to think that that, in any event, is the situation here.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN MANITOBA
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I appreciate the sensitivity in which he relates to the division of powers between the federal and provincial Governments. I appreciate that. However, up to the present time the provincial
Attorney General has always argued that there was no breaking or breaching of the law until in fact an abortion took place. The fact is that they have now taken place, and are taking place. That is public knowledge, if we are to believe Morgen-taler's word.
The law is being broken. That is public knowledge. Therefore I ask the Minister, in fulfilling the law and carrying out justice, does it not seem passing strange, in terms of that administration, that the defence of the Attorney General of Manitoba now is, "Well, it is a police matter"? He is again washing his hands of it. If the administration of justice is in fact the responsibility of the Province, how can the law be upheld when the Attorney General of Manitoba now says that it is not his responsibility, it is a police matter? He is washing his hands of a matter for which he directly has to take responsibility.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is in effect asking me, as federal Minister of Justice, to pass judgment on the manner in which the Attorney General of the Province carries out his office. I do not feel, Madam Speaker, that I have the constitutional jurisdiction to make such a judgment. I think it would be improper for me to do so. I have my own opinions on the question, but I believe I am not entitled, by virtue of my office, to give vent to those ideas in public. That is a question which my hon. friend must address publicly, if he wishes, to the Attorney General of Manitoba.


FISHERIES
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I also would like to ask a question of one of the few Ministers here today, the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, according to press reports, at the direct request of the federal Department of Fisheries, certain Fisheries inspectors on the East Coast, in relation to the lobster dispute, were issued firearms, including shotguns. My question is in relation to this rather extreme step. Are Fisheries inspectors "peace officers" under the required provincial and federal statutes? What is the legislative authority for issuing firearms to Fisheries inspectors?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, for whom I am taking questions, I will answer what I know of the past precedents. I am not familiar with the legal interpretation of the words used by the Hon. Member. In the past we have authorized the Fisheries officers who have been trained-more recently they have been trained by the RCMP in Regina-and who are in dangerous situations, particularly on the Pacific coast where they go into deep canyons on the Fraser River and other places, to carry weapons for self-defence.
May 13, 1983


LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF WEAPONS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, the point I am trying to make here, and I do not care which particular Minister answers it, is that it is not a question of ministerial discretion as to whether or not a person in the employ of any Government in this country can be "issued weapons". There are very strict legislative requirements at both the provincial and federal levels. My question simply, and that is why I directed it to the Minister of Justice, is: what is the legislative authority for granting weapons to a Fisheries inspector?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice. I encouraged my hon. friend, who is answering for the Minister of Fisheries, to answer out of his knowledge because I had no knowledge of this matter which is raised by the hon. gentleman until he mentioned it. I will certainly get an answer for him.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration said in a speech that rosy expectations for high technology had given way to widespread fear and outright panic about job losses. Last week there was a report leaked that two million jobs in the manufacturing sector are likely to disappear as a result of technological change. Would the Minister tell us whether his Department, and the Department of Employment, are giving consideration to convening meetings with representatives of the provincial Governments, the federal Government and with management and labour, to assess the whole question of job losses which are resulting from technological changes? And can he also tell us what steps can be taken to cushion the shock of lay-offs for workers, with more equitable severance pay, and to retrain workers who are likely to be adversely affected and lose their jobs in the plants?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I have just completed a round of consultations which began in late February, with both labour and management, on the whole question of technological change. The Hon. Member may recall that we initiated a study which was produced by Margaret Fulton last November, entitled "In the Chips", with recommendations flowing from it. The consultations to which I am referring were based on the recommendations in the report.
Finally, may I also draw the attention of the Hon. Member, whose concern I welcome, to the fact that in the budget there is a proposal for the institution of a centre which would deal
Oral Questions
with productivity and employment growth, with a clear attempt at coming to grips with the whole question of the management of technological change. We will certainly welcome the support of the NDP in this particular matter.


APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF CANADA LABOUR CODE
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows by now that workers and their unions do not consider discussions about a general question to be consultations when, later on, the Government works out a policy and brings in legislation to which they have really had no input. However, I would like to ask the Minister a specific question flowing out of this problem. Would the Minister introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code to provide adequate notice for workers who are displaced by technological change, and to provide workers with a clear right to bargain over the introduction of such technological changes?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member does not know that that clause already exists in the Canada Labour Code and has also been the subject of discussion on a number of occasions. As to meaningful consultations, may I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that the top officer of the Steelworkers Union agreed several months ago to serve on the McDonald Commission. That would reflect the importance and understanding that labour gives to consultation and consensus reaching processes.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Government knows, in October of 1982 it cut off financial aid to over 400 refugee claimants in Montreal, men, women, and children. Since then these refugees have had to survive with about $180,000 from the Quebec Government and non-governmental organizations, and $50,000 from the federal Government in March.
Given the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration promised in February that there would be 200 jobs created under the NEED Program for the assistance of those destitute people, and given the fact that he reiterated that promise last week and said to the labour committee that those jobs would be starting last week, will the Acting Prime Minister tell us why the jobs have not yet started and when they will start, or when the Government will give some aid to those destitute people?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, in the

May 13, 1983
Oral Questions
absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I want to reassure the Hon. Member that his question will be referred to the Minister for a reply.


MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of Communications, is with regard to the Public Works project announced in Halifax, a matter which was raised earlier by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth. Could the Minister please tell the House, and those members of the arts community in Halifax who are terribly upset about the decision, why the long-standing commitment to an art gallery or an art complex in Halifax has been abandoned in favour of an office building?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, there were a number of discussions initiated by my Department with the authorities in Halifax, particularly with the present Conservative Government in Halifax. There was no indication on their part of any interest in participating with us in trying to develop that land, those buildings, for those purposes. We had a general program, as the Hon. Member knows-


J. Michael Forrestall: That's absolute nonsense.


Francis Fox: -under the special program of cultural initiatives which made funds available for those purposes. Any overtures on our part were met with a decision on the part of the provincial authorities of the Province of Nova Scotia, which the Hon. Member does not like me to say, to the effect that they, for their own reasons, were not ready to give necessary, priority to that building and therefore were not ready to participate financially.


J. Michael Forrestall: That's nonsense. You know it's nonsense.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister knows that that is not quite right.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, since the Minister has now abandoned his long-standing commitment to a gallery, what plans does he have to provide to the residents of Halifax and Nova Scotia, for the first time, a proper art gallery, with federal assistance? I ask this, particularly in view of the fact that part of the justification given for the announcement of the new National Gallery last year was that all the regional galleries, including Halifax, were in place.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, with due respect, the Hon. Member knows not what he speaks. What we have done over the past few years during the course of federal-provincial meetings with Ministers
responsible for culture and historical resources on the provincial side has clearly not been to impose any new buildings on the Provinces, since in many cases the Provinces had to meet the operating requirements for these buildings. Any new buildings in the Provinces respecting the areas of arts and culture, unless they were indeed purely federal buildings, would only be built with the full co-operation of the Provinces.
The Province, for its own good reasons, and I am not disputing that it may have good reasons, has not wished to give priority to that sector at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, through you I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently I raised a problem of the potato industry in the Province of New Brunswick. Has the Minister taken any steps to speed up application processing with positive answers from the Farm Credit Corporation? Has he taken any action with respect to the deferral of repayment of storable crop loans? Has he taken any action with respect to any possibility of price stabilization?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, to the first three parts of the question, yes; to the last part, no.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Fred Alward McCain: Very briefly, I would like to ask the Minister when can the potato farmers anticipate an answer. I would like to point out to him that a late answer is a non-answer and will be of no assistance. We have another week, Madam Speaker, to put them in business.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the provincial Minister of Agriculture and I were trying to set a meeting to decide what further action should be taken.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him what progress has been made in the complete transfer of abandoned rail rights of way in the Province of Saskatchewan owned by Canadian National, rights of way which were to be turned over to the federal Government.
May 13, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not
sure that I understand the question. Would my hon. friend care to explain it?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I know I should not do this, Madam Speaker, but to explain, I am referring to the abandoned rights of way owned by Canadian National, with the agreement between CN and the federal Government in 1977 that those abandoned rights of way would be turned over to the federal Government.
What progress has been made with the negotiations on the transfer from Canadian National to the federal Government of Canada of the rights of way owned by CN in Saskatchewan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That took place some time ago. That is why it was not currently in my mind. My memory is to the effect that those rights of way have indeed been offered back to the Provinces. They have been offered. I should not say that they have been offered "back", because they never had them in the first place.
My memory is that Alberta has accepted. My memory is that Manitoba has accepted. My memory is that Saskatchewan has not accepted, but my memory does not tell me if it has changed its mind with the coming of the new provincial Government. I will check on that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Everything is new.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It involves a matter I have raised in the House with the Minister of Agriculture, the very heavy-handed federal tax placed upon farmers for farm fuel, which amounts to about 66 cents a gallon. The Minister of Agriculture said that he would make representation to the Cabinet. There was nothing in the budget. The farmers are preparing to seed their crops this spring. The heavy tax is there and it is very counterproductive to the production of grain by farmers and to all of agriculture. Would the Minister give consideration to removing some of this heavy tax?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I am always willing to give some consideration to all types of problems-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Do something.
Order Paper Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I see the Hon. Member for Vegreville-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Looking after your constituents.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Most of the talk coming from his Province is to the effect that the price that we have in Canada is too low and that we should let the price go to international levels. If you compare the level of taxation from the federal Government in Canada, it is very comparable to the situation which exists in the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, if the taxes are higher in some parts of Canada, mainly Ontario and Quebec, it is because of the infamous essence surtax as in Quebec which costs 40 per cent on top of everything to the farmers of Quebec.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 12, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,780, 4,781 and 4,782.

May 13, 1983
Order Paper Questions
lText]


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many permanent married quarters are in the establishment at CFB Chilliwack?
2.	How many married personnel are stationed at the base?
3.	Are there any restrictions on what ranks may rent PMQ's at this base and, if so, what are the restrictions?
4.	What was the average monthly rent paid in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 for a three-bedroom rowhouse style PMQ, or the equivalent, at the base?
5.	What was the average monthly rent paid in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 for a three-bedroom detached house at the base?
6.	Will PMQ rents at Chilliwack be raised in 1983 and, if so (a) for what reason (b) by what amount, on average?
7.	Have any rental credits been established at the base to help offset the increased financial burden imposed by having PMQ tenants pay for their own heating fuel?
8.	What is the usual fuel used for heating PMQ's at the base?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	Four hundred and eighty.
2.	Seven hundred and eighty-eight.
3.	None.
4.	(a) 209, (b) 221.
5.	(a) 280, (b) 297.
6.	Shelter values may increase depending upon the outcome of the 1983 CMHC appraisal of DND MQs. Any increases in shelter charges paid in 1983 by occupants will, however, be limited to a maximum of 5 per cent above current charges.
7.	Yes, for all houses with insulation below CMHC standards where the occupants are paying directly to commercial suppliers.
8.	Natural gas.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many permanent married quarters are in the establishment at CFB Lahr, West Germany?
2.	How many married personnel are stationed at the base?
3.	Are there any restrictions on what ranks may rent PMQ's at this base and, if so, what are the restrictions?
4.	What was the average monthly rent paid in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 for a three-bedroom rowhouse style PMQ, or the equivalent, at the base?
5.	What was the average monthly rent paid in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 for a three-bedroom detached house at the base?
6.	Will PMQ rents at Lahr be raised in 1983 and, if so (a) for what reason (b) by what amount, on average?
7.	Have any rental credits been established at the base to help offset the increased financial burden imposed by having PMQ tenants pay for their own heating fuel?
8.	What is the usual fuel used for heating PMQ's at the base?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1.	One thousand one hundred and ninety-one.
2.	Two thousand four hundred and sixty-nine.
3.	None.
4 and 5. There are no three bedroom row houses or three bedroom detached houses at CFB Lahr.
6.	Shelter values may increase depending upon the outcome of the 1983 CMHC appraisal of DND MQs. Any increases in shelter charges paid in 1983 by occupants will, however, be limited to a maximum of 5 per cent above current charges.
7.	No, direct metering of heating fuels has not been implemented in Europe.
8.	Oil.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many Permanent Married Quarters are in the establishment at CFB Cornwallis?
2.	How many married personnel are stationed at the base?
3.	Are there any restrictions on what ranks may rent PMQ's at this base and, if so, what are the restrictions?
4.	What was the average monthly rent paid in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 for a three-bedroom rowhouse style PMQ, or the equivalent, at the base?
5.	What was the average monthly rent paid in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 for a three-bedroom detached house at the base?
6.	Will PMQ rents at Cornwallis be raised in 1983 and, if so (a) for what reason (b) by what amount, on average?
7.	Have any rental credits been established at the base to help offset the increased financial burden imposed by having PMQ tenants pay for their own heating fuel?
8.	What is the usual fuel used for heating PMQ's at the base?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1.	Two hundred and eleven.
2.	Three hundred and thirty-six.
3.	None.
4.	There are no three-bedroom row house style PMQ at CFB Cornwallis.
5.	(a) $132, (b) $137.
6.	Shelter values may increase depending upon the outcome of the 1983 CHMC appraisal of DND MQs. Any increases in shelter charges paid in 1983 by occupants will, however, be limited to a maximum of 5 per cent above current charges.
7.	Yes, for all houses with insulation below CMHC standards where the occupants are paying directly to commercial suppliers.
8.	Oil.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 13, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 12, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, when 1 called it six o'clock last night I had made the comment that there was a consensus in western Canada that the railways were entitled to reasonable compensation for the carriage of grain. I also indicated that there was some doubt in the minds of many individuals and organizations about what the amount of that compensation should be and how it should be covered.
Of course, the Government says that the statutory rate should be set aside and the grain producers in western Canada should pay approximately double the present statutory rate by 1985-86 and five times that by 1990. However, the question is; can the western farmer afford to pay any more to move his grain? Prices of grain are down, the input costs are up and the farmers are facing a very real problem.
The Minister must be aware of the fact that there is a subcommittee on agriculture which is presently studying a private Members' Bill which would reintroduce the provisions of the old Farmers' Creditors Arrangements Act. The indications are that the farming community is running into more difficulty month by month and year by year.
I would suggest to the Minister, if he is not prepared to leave the statutory rate in place, that the very least he can do is perhaps to declare a moratorium on any increase and review the matter again in 1985-86 when a review is called for. The producers of western Canada are asking what they would gain if they had to pay an increase in the freight rate to carry their grain. The Minister says that they will gain a more efficient and better railway system, but is the cost of an improved system the responsibility of the producers? Is it not a national responsibility? Is not western Canada paying their fair share at the present time since it appears that the $3.7 billion that has been talked about is money from the Western Development Fund; money which came from western Canada that is now being funneled back into the West?
There are many questions to be answered. I have just touched on one which is of prime concern in the West. Can the producer pay more? As well, there is the question of the livestock producers, because they are upset. There is also the question of the validity of the argument put forward in the February announcement that these changes proposed by the Minister will develop secondary industry and industrial development in the West.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Let us suppose that they do achieve this. What will that do for the Prairie grain producer? It will not increase his income as a grain producer. He will not gain anything. When one studies the bare bones of the Bill, it can be seen that the Prairie farmer is being asked to pay more and really getting nothing in return.
Parliament must have time to consider all these issues. I know that the Minister is a fair man, but these issues cannot be considered in the short time remaining until June 30, which is the date he mentioned. While representations were made to Gilson and were considered, Parliament itself did not have the opportunity to consider these representations. There is no question that the people who appeared before Dr. Gilson had vested interests. There is nothing wrong with that. The commodities coalition group has certain vested interests with which it is concerned. The livestock producers are concerned about their vested interests. The elevators have vested interests which they are concerned about. I do not believe that these people, who made their representations at the Gilson hearings, were prepared to set aside their vested interests to ask what they could do in the best interests of western Canada and in the best interests of the western grain producers.
They all have legitimate concerns for which there must be compromise and consideration. I am suggesting to the Minister that this can only be done by allowing the committee to make an in depth study of these various representations and issues.
I see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that we have reached a milestone in the history and economic development of western Canada. The Minister has an opportunity to make a name for himself if he is prepared to listen and give parliamentarians and Parliament the opportunity to do the right thing with respect to the West. I would ask him to abandon his plans to have this Bill passed by June 30. Let the committee study it, make recommendations and report. On that basis I know that the Minister, who is fair, would consider the recommendations of the committee and bring in legislation which is fair, equitable and will serve us for many years to come.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which stems more from curiosity on my part but which I think is an important one. My old friend said he thought there was no agreement on the extent of compensation for hauling grain. My impression was there was quite a lot of consensus on that issue. Would the Hon. Member care to educate me as to where the opposition was to that? Other Members might know that this is basically 100 per cent of long-term variable costs of railways plus 20 per cent of constant costs phased in over a period of four years; 5 per cent in the first year, 10 per cent in the second, 15 per cent in the third and 20 per cent in the last. I had the feeling this was agreeable to most people. Is it not?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, my reading of the $651 million is that the accounting system of the railway is suspect. While the figure may have been accepted by the farm organizations, they

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
are not in a position, because of the complexity of the accounting system of the railways, to question it. They really had no alternative but to say that this was a ballpark figure. I can tell the Minister that if he talks to farm organizations and to individuals, he will find there is always the suspicion in their minds that the figure of compensation which the railways are asking for is far in excess of what they are entitled to. But how you get down to determining the figure is beyond me.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend looks at it from the point of view of the Crow rate benefit, and there was indeed at the Gilson hearings a discussion of this matter. The railways came in, if I remember, with a figure of $770 million, or something of that kind. I understand, and this is rather important, that the pools had a study made on their own. I understand the study projected a figure of about $600 million. Gilson came in at $640 million at the time, a figure which was then raised to $651 million.
I think it would be wrong to give the impresssion that there was not a high degree of consensus of the estimation of the value of the Crow benefit. Those are very important things. There was a great amount of discussion of this subject at the Gilson exercise. I tend, contrary to what was implied, to believe that people taking part in the Gilson exercise were motivated by more than their immediate interests. A good amount of consensus was developed there. There was consensus on the value of the Crow rate benefit. I think this was one of the acquired advantages of the Gilson exercise.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has talked about the railway's figure of $700 million and the pools figure of $600 million. There is a $100 million difference. I would suspect that the pools did not have the expertise that the railways or anyone had to understand the accounting system.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The consultants they used had that experience.


Douglas Charles Neil: There is a feeling in the West that the railway figures are much higher than they should be. Mr. Snavely has talked about that.
In so far as the Gilson hearings are concerned, I was not privy to those hearings. Members of Parliament were not privy to those hearings. It may be that there was a great deal of compromise, but if there was this compromise and Mr. Gilson's report was based on the compromise, that compromise has more or les fallen apart. I think the Minister would agree with me in that regard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To some extent, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, I found a couple of the points which the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) made to be very interesting. One was the railway costs and the suspicion in the West that the railway accounting is certainly not open- not above board. There is really a lack of trust. Perhaps the place where I found this lack of trust coming out most was in railway line abandonment hearings. Constituents have raised with me the depreciation costs that are being charged to various lines, for example off-line costs being charged to online costs. Can the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw explain a
little further about some of the concerns that have been expressed by farmers or producers with regard to these railways costs and if that is the type of thing he is referring to, or is he referring just to the additional things he was mentioning?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, if you talk to farmers who live alongside lines that are in receipt of branch line subsidies, you will find that this has caused them some concern. I recall a community that was quite concerned because there was a branch line where a train had not travelled across the line for some nine or ten years. Trees were growing between the ties and the rails. Yet the railways were being paid for that line. That caused some concern.
There are other matters with respect to costing. I think the problem is that costing of railway roads is such a complex issue that really no one, except for a few specialists perhaps from the United States, is able to understand it. It is because of that complexity that the suspicion is there. When you find a difference of $100 million between the railways' figures and the figures the pools were able to come up with, that creates even more suspicion.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was involved in a study. I liked the suggestion-I do not know whether he put it in these exact words-but it was about removing the Bill, as it were, and having it studied by the agricultural committee. Would his suggestion include the idea of having the books opened up, of CN and CP as well, so that we have re-examination of the formulas being used? Would this not be a much more profitable exercise of looking at those formulas again and re-examining them and all the unfounded assumptions? Would the Hon. Member be prepared to make use of all his background notes in his study and have them made available to the committee so that we could make additional comparisons of material to examine the basic problem that underlies the whole costing that CN and other companies are bringing to the Government of Canada?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I can see nothing wrong with that. I would welcome representations from the railways before the committee. However, I think perhaps it might be an exercise in futility. I do not think there would be anyone on that committee who understands accounting to the extent that it is necessary to ask probing questions. Maybe the committee should set up a special research group to investigate the matter. However, I doubt very much whether the Minister or the Government would agree to that. They will say that there has been the Snavely report, and that we have the railways' figures and the pools figures. I would be agreeable to making any information available that arose as a result of my study. But I was not so much concerned about the costing as I was about the viability of the lines at which I was looking.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) answer a question which the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan Lake (Mr. Lewycky) asked me yesterday? He was wondering why so few branch lines being reviewed by the CTC now are being maintained. I answered
May 13, 1983

him to the effect that all of this had been reviewed by three groups essentialy-the Hall group, the Pratt group and the Neil group. 1 was telling him that the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw had selected those lives which on the basis of preliminary research offered the best economic chances of continuation. He was not in agreement with me. Would Commissioner Neil answer this question?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the lines I examined were the ones studied by the Hall Commission and by the Prairie Rail Action Committee and determined not to be viable lines. I examined them based upon the cost of rehabbing and on the basis of what the elevator companies would plan on doing if the lines remained, if they were prepared to upgrade their house or build new facilities. If they indicated that they were prepared to do this and if the cost was within reason, I recommended that the line stay.
I could only say indirectly to the Hon. Minister that those were the bases upon which I conducted my study. As I say, I was the third man down the line, so I was looking at the hard lines. I appreciate that the CTC now has to look at similar types of information, as I did-the costs and what the elevator companies planned on doing with respect to these lines.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take the floor and participate in the debate today on Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certains Acts in consequence thereof.
From the outset, I would like to consider this Bill as one of the landmarks in the history of Canada.
In tabling this Bill, the Government of Canada is proposing another of those major reforms which have been undertaken by the Liberal Party of Canada through the years. I think it is particularly interesting to note that once again, it is our party, the Liberal Party of Canada, which has had the courage of its convictions in taking action that is controversial, not always easy to understand and upsetting to those who are opposed to change but which is essential to the prosperity and progress of our country. The Opposition parties-the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party-have never had the same vision and courage as the men and women of the Liberal Party of Canada in carrying out these major reforms.
In fact, this is the third major piece of legislation that has come before this Parliament, after the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and our national energy policy which was announced over the last few years and months.
As far as the economy is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that maximizing development of railway transportation in Western Canada is extremely important to the development of our resources and to the economic welfare of the entire country.
Western Grain Transportation Act
As far as the political development of our country is concerned, I may remind the House that it was the Liberal Party of Canada that gave our country a flag, a national anthem and a made-in-Canada Constitution.
In the field of social benefits, once again, the Liberal Party of Canada introduced social security services that benefit all Canadians, including family allowances, old age security, free health and medical care and our pension and retirement plans.
Economically, it was the Liberal Party of Canada which, after the war, created our economic prosperity by supporting the private sector and provided a solid foundatiaon for our trade structure by developing the St. Lawrence Seaway, by entering into agreements with the United States under the Auto Pact and by announcing an energy policy that has finally given Canadians a say in the development of their own resources. Finally, the Government has been able to table in the House its long-awaited plan for providing Western Canada with a transportation system that will meet both present and future needs.
Today, I think we should pay tribute to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who had the courage to table this Bill and to defend it over the objections and reluctance of some Canadians from all parts of the country who, for purely personal and often petty reasons, are opposed to change and to introducing much-needed reform in Canada. I believe the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party who are opposed to this reform are once again missing an opportunity to make history. Once again, these two political groups have failed to recognize the major benefits that will accrue to us in Canada through this new railway policy and this legislation.
It must be understood that in order to bring not only primary but also, eventually, manufactured products from Western Canada to ports on the Pacific Coast or the Great Lakes, we must provide for a better railway transportation network in Western Canada. It is absolutely vital that this part of Canada should be given the tools it needs to achieve full economic development. I think it is absolutely incredible that the Progressive Conservative and NDP Members from Western Canada should lack this vision and prefer to oppose the Bill for the sake of the short-term interests of a few voters who represent a small minority in Western Canada, and who may be affectd by this policy in the short term but will later understand the vision and the sense of history of the Minister of Transport who is at last giving this part of Canada a chance to achieve full development.
I think the present debate shows once again how many conflicting interests there are whenever the Government introduces a policy of any major scope. I am convinced that when the Government of Canada asked Professor Gilson to examine this question, in an attempt to find a compromise that would be acceptable to the parties concerned, we in the Government were right to do so, because we realized that in

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
order to achieve the three objectives that we had in mind, namely, to change this legislation which has come down to us from the last century and under which the cost of shipping grain was set at a minimal figure that now makes no sense at all, we knew that getting rid of what is commonly known as the Crow rate would not be a cinch and that, consequently, we would be unable to reach that objective without offering compensating benefits to those who would be directly involved in the first place-the grain shippers. The second objective of that reform obviously went far beyond repealing the statutory rate which we have had to live with for so many years, but probably the most important objective was to upgrade the western railway transport system-indeed it was the ultimate and essential objective of that major reform. At the same time, the Government wanted to be impartial and asked Mr. Gilson to make recommendations on ways to help diversify western agriculture.
With those three objectives in mind, Mr. Gilson got down to work and I think he did a good job. If I have one criticism to level at him, and it would be the only one, I would say that at the time he or his advisers should perhaps have foreseen that the reform of the western grain transportation system could not be the exclusive precinct of Westerners since it would also have an impact on producers in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. Unfortunately, the preliminary consultations did not involve those producers and perhaps that was what led to misunderstandings and prompted the dissenting opinions which have been voiced almost everywhere in Canada after the Gilson report was tabled.
Allow me to say immediately that a great many of the objections to the Gilson report were grossly exaggerated, particularly in the Province of Quebec on the part of a Government that is bent on taking Quebec out of Canada. It jumped on that opportunity to try to use that report-drafted in good faith and with the best intentions in the world-to launch a political battle, a separatist battle. The statements which were made at that time, particularly by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, were bordering on demagogy if not outright deceit. That is why a number of Quebec Members and Ministers attempted to set things straight and in their proper perspective. That is why the Sub-Committee on Agriculture, with Members of the Liberal Party in Ottawa, was striken under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois). That Committee has done a tremendous job in its discussions with Quebec farmers and the main agricultural organizations in the Province in an attempt to set the record straight.
A series of gratuitous statements had been made and I would like to mention a few. At that time we had to dismiss once and for all the gratuitous statements which led to believe that the supply and the price of grain feed in Quebec would be affected by this new Government policy by way of the
implementation of the Gilson report. There is surely nothing of the sort, the reason being quite simple: the price of grain is set by world demand in Thunder Bay and any amendment to the statutory rate does not change anything whatsoever in this respect.
As far as supply is concerned, we said it again and again to the Eastern farmers that they are protected under the stated feed grain policy which has endured throughout the years since 1974. However, when it was suggested to Quebec farmers that there would be supply problems, that the price of feed grain in Quebec would be affected by this new Canadian policy, this was a shameless lie.
Another rather weird statement was made by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture when he said that the price of beer and spaghetti would go up. Of course he is known for his usual antics and most certainly that statement came out of his best bag of jokes, which may not be the funniest nor the truest, but it still was one of his jokes. So, clearly, that proposal is basically false.
It has also been suggested that hog breeders in Quebec would be greatly affected by the policy, and sooner or later they would go bankrupt. And there has been a systematic campaign in the Province of Quebec to suggest that the Gilson report's recommendations would force breeders into bankruptcy-dairy, egg, poultry and pork producers. However, we know very well that the quota systems are managed by the Canadian marketing boards, which adequately protect people in the dairy, egg and poultry industries.
As far as hog breeders are concerned, there have been studies which indicated the opposite. They showed that certainly there would be an increase in pork production in Western Canada, but that the world market was open to Canadians and that there was room under the sun both for eastern and western pork producers, that there were markets waiting to be tapped by producers from either part of Canada. And by studying the data somewhat more closely, especially those gathered by Econometrics which compare Professor Gilson's overall recommendations to the assumption that the Government would assume responsibility for the whole of the railway revenue losses deriving from Western grain shipments. According to those forecasts, there should be almost identical growth in the various Western agro-food sectors over the next ten years, given either of these two scenarios. With regard to hog production, for instance, Chase Econometrics forecast that by 1992, the difference in growth between the two options in Eastern Canada would only be 1 per cent.
As for hog production revenues, they should double by 1992, and the difference between the two options would then only be 2 per cent.
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, there should be a difference of only about $20 million in the revenues of all Eastern
May 13, 1983

Canada meat producers by 1992, that is a difference of $20 million for an amount of over $9 billion. Therefore, that is a difference of only about one half of 1 per cent.
I must say that, in spite of all these projections and all the discussions that have taken place, the fear and suspicion spread by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Garon), first among the major Quebec farmers' organizations, and then among a large number of Quebec farm producers, has considerably inflamed a debate which should have been pragmatic, sensible and objective.
It is obvious that if Quebec producers had seen the Federal Government implement all of the recommendations contained in the Gilson report, they would have felt wronged and the survival of their farming operations would have been affected sooner or later. However, many farming interests in Canada has serious reservations concerning the method of payment.
Anxious to carry out his great project and fundamental reform, the Minister of Transport chose to tone it down and to bring about a reform which might not be as marvelous and as perfect as he would have wished, but which is still most significant and essential and will still achieve the main purpose of changing the Crow rate, improving railway transportation in Western Canada and promoting some agricultural diversification and extensive trade development in Western Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is wrong to claim, as some Progressive Conservative Members have done-and I am thinking about the reactions of the Hon. Members for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) who objected to the comments made by the Minister of Transport yesterday, saying that these changes were made only as a result of the representations of Quebec members and that the reform is not as satisfactory as it would have been under the original Gilson formula. This proposal was indeed changed because of the representations made by Quebec Members, but also because of all the representations made by many Western farmers' organizations which objected to the payments being made to the producers and also suggested that the entire amount be paid to the railways.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but his time has expired.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker I appreciate the remarks made by the Hon. Minister. He suggested that the original payment proposal outlined by his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), would not meet with the satisfaction of producers in his Province. I do not think I have to remind-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And in the West.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will ask the question, not the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien).
I do not think I have to remind the Hon. Minister that some strong views are held on the proposal that the Minister has advanced in this particular Bill. Having regard to that and knowing the Minister to be a reasonable person who recognizes
Western Grain Transportation Act
the difficulties and the differences of view across the country, how would he react to the proposal that I advanced yesterday which would give the producers the freedom to choose whether the Crow benefit should be paid to the railroads or to the producers?
The Minister has acknowledged that the whole question of method of payment would be reviewed by 1985-86. This review would provide an opportunity to test both systems and to receive some practical knowledge as to how both proposals might work. I recognize that the principle I am outlining has not been worked out in detail, but could the Minister give us some indication about what his reaction might be to a proposal such as that?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was present yesterday when the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) gave his speech. One thing that attracted my attention was that he said that the Bill is very complicated and that it is a bureaucratic nightmare, if I remember his expression correctly. I must say that the administration of his suggestion could turn out to be a terrible bureaucratic nightmare as well. I believe the Hon. Member will agree that his proposal must be looked at much more carefully and in depth before it can be considered. I do appreciate that the Hon. Member will be provided with a good opportunity to outline and explain how he would like his proposal to be administered when the Bill goes to committee.
My first reaction to the Hon. Member's proposal is that it seems to me it would be almost impossible to apply such a formula. I would indicate to him that obviously the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Manitoba pool elevator, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, and Unifarm of Alberta, have all expressed the view that payment should be made to the railway. I believe that these are important associations in the West and, along with other important associations in the East, they have felt that the simplest method at this time would be to make the payment to the railway.
I believe that we must progress step by step. I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) would like to take a giant step. I suspect his Bill is a big step, and I believe that it is a big step in the right direction. I would not like to see this step shortened by an administrative formula or procedure such as the one suggested by the Hon. Member, one that could not be applied and that would make the big step taken by the Minister seem almost irrelevant.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that I referred to the Bill as a bureaucratic nightmare. Implicit in that statement is the fact that there will be a huge bureaucracy, a huge network to administer it. So a whole lot is being added. The original proposal provided for a payment which would be split, 50 per cent to the producers and 50 per cent to the railways, under some form of acreage payments yet to be

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
defined. If the Minister is suggesting that that is not bureaucratic, I should like to know what is.
With respect to the pools, if they are correct in their assumptions, then the majority of the producers they represent will choose the option of paying the railroads. I repeat, it will give those others who feel strongly about this the opportunity to take advantage of the benefit. It will remove the distortion of the freight rate and thereby assist in the further diversification of western Canadian agriculture and will facilitate the further processing of products.
If the Minister is suggesting that we should have simplicity, and if he wants to adopt the "pay the railway" method, and he would have to do is to pay the railways the $650 million or whatever and keep things as they are. That would be the simplest way. The Minister has not opted for the simple route, however; he has opted for the bureaucratic route. The bureaucracy he is putting in place is going to serve to benefit the Government and the railroads, not the producers.
What I am saying is, give the producers some freedom of choice and some latitude. If it requires just a little extra bureaucracy, let us do something for the producers. That is what we are supposed to be achieving, the maximization of benefits to the producer and the agricultural industry in the country.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am very much surprised by the line of argument developed by the former Minister of Transport. Surely when he was in office for a few months he had a chance to see how impossible the operation of the railways in the West is and the tremendous improvement that could benefit western Canada if the capacity of the railway were enhanced.
When the Hon. Member insists that we make the payment a sort of freedom of choice decision by farmers, surely he visualizes the impracticality of it. One farmer might say, "This year I want the money; next year send it to the railway". Or he might say, "Send me 10 per cent of it and send 90 per cent to the railway, or 40 per cent to the railway and 60 per cent to me."


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Don't try to complicate it.


André Ouellet: I should like to remind the Hon. Member that at its annual meeting in February of 1983 the Canadian Federation of Agriculture unanimously passed a resolution asking that the Government payment be made in total to the railways. The farmers, through their national organization at the national convention, made that suggestion. That has been one of the main factors in bringing the Minister of Transport to accept a change in the payment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They also passed a resolution supporting metric.


André Ouellet: The Minister took into account the views of the farmers.
In his questions at one point the Hon. Member said that the simplest thing would be to pay the railways and keep the thing as it is, not charge an extra cent to the farmer. He knows very well that in order to improve the service and in order to bring some efficiency into the system-surely if he learned anything from his stay in the Department of Transport he must have learned that some efficiency must be put into the system. In order to do that it is important, and I think it is well accepted, that the producer will have to pay his share, which will be higher than it is at the present time. This is generally accepted, except, perhaps, by some Members of Parliament who have other interests.
Every human being with a decent knowledge of the situatia-on realizes that the way the payments are made offers no incentive. Obviously farmers who want to have a better service are ready to pay a little more for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to extending the question and answer period to one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be aware that a backbencher, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), has a private Member's Bill in committee to revive the old Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. It would appear from the evidence that has been presented to the committee by the Farm Credit Corporation and a number of banks and loan agencies that about 10 per cent of the farming population is in serious financial difficulty.
If that is the situation, how can the Minister justify any increase in the freight rate to farmers for moving grain? It will mean a substantial amount of money. How can the Minister justify that under the circumstances? Would he not agree that perhaps there should be a moratorium or that the question of increasing the rate to the farmers should be forgotten until 1985-86 and then considered again?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is presenting a very narrow aspect of the problem. When he says that there are farmers in difficulties, I am sure they are not all in one part of the country. There is a malaise and a difficult economic situation for farmers throughout Canada. The change of the Crow is surely not the prime factor in creating additional difficulties for all farmers who are in financial difficulty.
I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that the improved efficiency of the service, the savings on handling, the savings on storage, would help the producers. We must have a system that allows maximum sales abroad, and not the situation that we had some years ago when sales were denied because we were unable to move the grain to meet our international commitment. That is something we have to change.
The Bill would improve efficiency, and the appropriate person to take advantage of it is the producer. Perhaps the
May 13, 1983

ones who are in trouble now would be ready to pay a little more to have a higher return.
The Minister of Transport has put himself on record as saying he will bring in an amendment in committee that will guarantee an appropriate link between increased payments for transportation and the world price for grain.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question along the same lines.
The Minister in his speech has ignored almost entirely the effect of this on the grain producer, as has the Bill. I should like him to comment specifically on that. He suggests that the increases in efficiency are going to affect the farmer, who is spending $3,000 now and suddenly will have to spend $8,000, $10,000 or $20,000 on freight. He has never even seen a year when that extra $8,000 or $10,000 was available. His average income over the last few years has been $8,000.
Would the Minister comment on the effect of the increase on about 50 per cent of farmers in Saskatchewan?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member fails to realize that the implementation of this reform will be phased in. Moreover, it is anticipated that, in the first phase, grain producers will have to pay no more than 3 per cent of the increase in shipping costs, the government paying the rest. It is also anticipated that, in the second phase-I mean, three years from now-grain producers will have to pay up to 6 per cent of the increase in shipping costs, the government paying all costs over 6 per cent. Therefore, there are safeguards which will make it possible for producers to sell more and obtain better returns, without their having to pay for unduly increased transportation costs. I suggest that the Hon. Member should have more faith in the ingenuity of producers and their ability to feed the world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, no Hon. Member had the floor. It is the intention of the Chair to recognize the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). Before I do so, however, it is my duty pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes
Western Grain Transportation Act
of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan, 1983.
[ Translation]
Pursuant to S.O. 46.(4), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, at the time we stopped debate preceding the adjournment for lunch we were on Bill C-155, an Act to dismantle the Crow rate. We had just finished hearing a lecture on efficiency from the Minister responsible for Canada Post, a lecture which most of us found quite humorous. The Minister was pointing out the difficulties which one would have in adjusting the different freight rates and saying how it would be very difficult to impose two different freight rates within the realm of grain movement in western Canada. I take from that, Mr. Speaker, that he is very familiar with the Canadian Wheat Board permit books and the elevator managers in western Canada and knows how capable they are. I am sure the Minister responsible for Canada Post, the Hon. Member for Papineau, (Mr. Ouellet) is an expert in these matters.
We have heard, Mr. Speaker, from various Hon. Members on the Government side. We heard from the Minister responsible for Canada Post, the Hon. Member for Papineau. We heard from the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). We heard from all these expert pavement farmers, these asphalt assemblers of grain, producers of goods and feeders of the world.
When the election was fought in 1980 there was never any mention by the Liberal Party that it intended to dismantle the Crow rate, that it intended to do anything which would change the statutory rate which farmers had come to expect as the only positive thing, the only constant in the whole production cycle of food in western Canada. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan made a commitment that they would never touch it, that the Crow rate would remain. It was not mentioned in the Throne Speech which started this overly long session.

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Now we have this Bill before us, Mr. Speaker, but we do not have the whole Bill. We have a Bill which has been tabled after many, many days and weeks of discussion outside of Parliament, after many changes which have been made outside of the Parliament of Canada. We have it tabled, but along with the tabling there is a brief footnote informing us that two amendments will be introduced at committee stage because Cabinet has not given final approval to linking the cost of moving grain to the international price for grain. We still have not seen the amendment naming what specialty crops will be included under this Bill.
There are several provisions set out in this Bill, but we do not see anything which protects the benefits and rights of the grain producers in western Canada. There will be a body established called the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It will be composed, Mr. Speaker, of the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator, the Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Grain Commission, and 18 other members. Let us consider the 18 members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee who will be there to advise the Minister and supposedly to protect the rights of the grain producers in western Canada. Of those 18 members, representatives of the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the UGG will make up four. We can assume that those representatives of the cooperatives, will speak for their members and will have the best interests of the farming community at heart. However, then we come along to Pioneer Grain, whose motivation is profit for its shareholders, which I do not condemn, and Cargill Grain, whose motivation is also profit for shareholders, and Continental Grain, or maybe the Weyburn terminal. If I had my druthers, I think I would sooner have the terminal at Weyburn represented, because it consists of shareholders who live within the Province of Saskatchewan. Then we have representatives of the consuming Provinces, one from British Columbia, one from Ontario and one from Quebec. Then we have the processors represented by a crusher. Then we have the representation for the Great Lakes Shipping and the Dominion Marine Association which, I am sure, does not have the best interest of the grain producers at heart. Finally we have three Members, duly elected, representing the interests of the grain producers. We do not know whether those Members will be elected in the same way as the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. We do not know whether those numbers will have to be made up of bona fide farmers or of duly elected representatives, in the view of the Minister. Therefore, out of the 18 people placed on the Senior Grain Transportation Advisory Committee, ten do not have the best interests of the producers of grain in western Canada as their sole objective. As a matter of fact, I missed the railroads. CN and CP are represented by the 18 members of the Senior Grain Transportation Advisory Committee. I am sure that their best interests are those of their shareholders and not the producers of grain. However, the Committee is there to advise the Minister. All these players are there to advise the
Minister, but they are also there to establish whether awards and penalties with regard to themselves should be implemented in the next two years. I, or anyone else in the House, would have a very difficult time understanding how the railroads, the elevator companies, the marine shipping association, the crushers, the private elevator companies, would want or wish to impose penalties upon themselves.
There is nothing that makes me believe there is no conflict of interest in the senior grain transportation authority as it is established in the Bill. I know that perhaps these are just guidelines, but we in the House have had some debates on guidelines that the Government has put forth. We find that they do not really represent anything of substance.
Another point in the debate will be whether there is protection for farmers from an open-ended escalation of freight rate costs. In 1985-86, the producers will pay double Crow, and in 1990-91, they will pay five times Crow. By 1990, the railroads will have received an increase of about 1000 per cent for moving these goods. I am using these figures without, I admit, offsetting them with benefits which could accrue.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Rather important.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Minister of Transport says that they are important, but they are not there. Those benefits are not obvious when one studies the Bill. They are not obvious when one considers the projections in agriculture over the next two to three years. They may be obvious to the Minister, but they are definitely not obvious to the producers whithin my constituency of Kindersley-Lloydminster or, indeed, in western Canada. We have heard figures tossed around, such as that in 1983-84 S564.5 million will be paid by the Government. Originally it was to be paid, fifty-fifty, to the producers and the railroads. However, $651.6 million will be paid out in 1985-86. We thought that was the whole figure, but now we find that there is something called the CN adjustment payment for $14 million, which comes off the $651.6 million. This was certainly new. It was never mentioned in discussions between the Minister and the livestock producers, the commodity groups. The figure of $651.6 million kept coming up. However, that is minus $14 million.
We do not have information as to the safety net which the Minister says he will be proposing, the tying of the movement of grain to the return from export grain. We all know that the cost of grain could double, but the expenses to the producers could triple. I suggest to the Minister that with the Western Grain Stabilization Program, which makes figures on the cost of production available, it would be very easy to figure out a weighted average within the export price and the cost of production rather than just seeing a certain percentage as a traditional cost of moving grain. When we come to the traditional cost of moving grain, there are several figures available. The 30 years average is about 8 per cent of the return for the product. The 40 year average is about 7.5 per cent. However, the Deputy Minister to the Minister of Transport said that the average cannot be at 7.5 per cent or 8 per cent and that it
May 13, 1983

should be 10 per cent or 12 per cent. When asked why it should be 10 per cent or 12 per cent, he said that if it were 7 per cent or 8 per cent, it would be stabilizing. What a terrible thing to have, some stabilization of costs in the industry, a stable cost of which the producers would know in advance and which would never go above the traditional cost! We would like to see such stabilization. The Minister could consider stabilizing the freight increase as it applies to the movement of grain.
There has been statutory protection to the producers of grain. There is no longer any statutory protection in this Bill. There is a statutory framework, which is entirely different. If we consider the $651.6 million which the Government will contribute in constant dollars, and if we consider the last ten years of inflation at around 10 per cent per year, what will be left of $651.6 million? It will disappear. At the same time, the Government is requesting that the producers start to pay up to 3 per cent of the inflation and, in 1985-86, 6 per cent of the inflation. I am sure that the Minister of Transport, being a fair man, would recognize that if it is incumbent upon the producers of grain to share in the cost of inflation, the Government should also share in the cost of inflation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It does.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: But only if it is over 6 per cent, only if it is over 3 per cent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: So much the better if it is not.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would like the Minister of Transport to explain to the producers of grain in western Canada how they contribute to inflation. How does a grain producer add to the cost of inflation? How does he establish and inflate the price of his product when he sells it on the world market? When his costs go up ten per cent, he has no control over the price of his product, the return for his product. He cannot say, "My cost has risen 10 per cent, so I will ask 10 per cent more on a bushel of wheat this year". As a matter of fact, this year, the return to the producer has fallen from $5.17 down to about $4.63. The producers of grain in western Canada cannot contribute to inflation because they do not set the price of the product they sell.
When this Bill was to be introduced we heard that there would be guarantees on the movement of grain, guarantees to which the railways would have to be committed and guarantees with penalties for lack of performance. There are only guarantees for the railways and the Government, and none for the farmers.
The guarantees have been changed to "objectives". We now see objectives rather than guarantees of service. The Bill states that the penalties may be implemented after 1985-86, but the very people who would suffer from the penalties sit on the senior Grain Transportation Committee that will establish whether there should be penalties. I find that rather strange.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Those penalties will be tallied up until 1985-86, but they will not be levied. In that period the farmers will have lost the protection which they had in the past. But the Bill says that they may be implemented after 1985-86.
As I have already indicated, performance objectives could be cancelled. Clause 18 of the Bill states that the Grain Transportation Administrator, if he deems it advisable to recommend the Minister to cease any activities related to so-called performance objectives, may do so.
I have described the conflict of interest, as I have seen it, between the railroads, the elevator companies, the crushers, and the Dominion Marine Association. The most severe sanctions that could be implemented against the railroads would be up to 40 per cent. That is not a severe sanction when more than half of what the railroads could achieve under the changes will be left with them.
There is an air of uncertainty since the annual rate scale used to set the freight rate which the Canadian Transport Commission is empowered to announce under the provisions of this Bill has already been prepared. We are told that that rate scale has been established now, so why will they not tell us now what it is so that it can be included in this debate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will tell you in committee.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Minister says that he will tell us in committee. We are here to debate a Bill but we are only debating part of it. The rest of it must be debated in committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have it then.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: When the information is available, which it is, why is it not available to those of us in the House so that we can carry on a debate knowing more of the facts than we do?
How will farmers pay in the future? How will they know what they will have to pay? My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) read a clause of the Bill regarding payment. When the CNR appeared before the Transport Committee yesterday, I read the same clause to Mr. Ron Lawless, President of CN Roads. It states:
The annual rate scale in respect of a crop year shall be determined by multiplying the amount per ton for the movement of grain over each range of distance set out in the base rates scale by the quotient obtained by dividing the estimated eligible costs of the railway companies in respect of that crop year less the CN adjustment in respect of that crop year by the base year revenues within the meaning of subsection 2-


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I was quoting from the Bill yesterday, the Speaker drew to my attention that I was not allowed to do so. Now, I ask for fairness.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I hope this remark is not taken from my time, but in order to help the Chair may I point out that the Speaker said that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) was quoting from a clause of the Bill. For his information, I am quoting from a transcript of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Transportation,

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
which met yesterday. Therefore, I do not fall into that category-
I will continue reading from where 1 left off:
-as those revenues are adjusted in accordance with the grain tonnage forecast for that crop year provided by the Administrator.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), 'base year revenues' means the amount obtained by multiplying the rates applicable to the movement of grain under the tariffs of rates of the railway companies as derived from the base rate scale, taking into account sections 44 and 46, by the number of tonnes of grain actually moved by the railway companies from each point of origin on a line of railway in the Western Division in the most recent base year.
I ended by asking Mr. Lawless how much that is a bushel. He answered, "If I could tell you, Mr. McKnight, I would." That was from the President of the CNR. It is a simple rate and something which anybody should be able to understand.
There are other problems with the rate. My time is coming to a close, and I would like to put this on the record for the Minister to consider. When we consider the movement of grain with respect to East-West, there is a considerable difference. The Bill states in Clause 2:
'movement", in respect of grain, means the carriage of grain by any railway company over any line of railway now or hereafter constructed (a) from any point on any line of railway west of Thunder Bay or Armstrong to Thunder Bay or Armstrong,
That is all it says. The second paragraph states:
From any point on any line of railway west of Thunder Bay or Armstrong to a port in British Columbia-
But it does not stop there. It goes on to say: "for export". And paragraph (c) states:
From any point on any line of railway west of Thunder Bay or Armstrong to Churchill-
It goes on to state, "for export".
That means that feed grains that are destined to be consumed in British Columbia do not travel at the statutory rate, whatever that may be. It means that only feed grains traveling east out of western Canada travel to Thunder Bay at a statutory rate, with contributions from the federal Government in the form of subsidies. But the feed grain consumers of British Columbia pay the compensatory rate from wherever it travels in western Canada.
If the Minister were concerned about designing a Bill that would be fair to all Canadians, surely he would ensure that the people of British Columbia have the same protection as the people east of Thunder Bay and Armstrong.
When we became involved with this Bill, the Progressive Conservative Party had five principles on the Crow rate that were well established and well known throughout Canada. I would like to cite those principles. First, grain producers must have a statutory freight rate which preserves the benefits of the Crow and must be protected from open-ended escalation. This Bill certainly does not do that.
Second, the Government of Canada and the railway have a continuing obligation to provide a special low rate to assist producers competing with subsidized grain export nations. This Bill does not do that.
Third, producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost-effective and reliable grain transportation system. There are no guarantees to the producers in this Bill.
Fourth, railways should receive adequate and fair compensation for the movement of grain to provide the necessary capital and maintenance of plant and equipment. We believe that this Bill is only too generous to the railway companies, with their 100 per cent, 20 per cent and 20.5 per cent return.
Fifth, the distortion of the low freight rates in grain and oil seeds vis-a-vis processed products should be removed and the natural advantage retained. As I said with respect to British Columbia, the natural advantage in western Canada of shipping to feeders in B.C. is certainly not contained in this Bill.
Directly south of Saskatchewan is the State of Montana. The producers in Montana have continually paid a full compensatory rate for the movement of their goods. If one were to drive through Montana one would see thousands of whitefaced cows, thousands of acres with cattle on it, but not one processing plant. That processing in Montana is done in Omaha. Therefore, how can the Minister of Transport tell the people of western Canada that by charging a compensatory rate for the movement of grain, processing will build up in western Canada? We have more processing in western Canada now than any of the states south of us. I look forward to taking part in this debate at a later date.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made what I thought was a serious accusation with regard to the shortcomings of the Bill when he said that the Bill was imperfect. My recollection of Standing Order 73 is that it says that a Bill shall not be introduced if it is blank or imperfect. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is obligated to withdraw the Bill if it is imperfect? Could the Hon. Member elaborate on this point?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to take the place of the Chair, I would like to say that I would have no objections if the Minister of Transport felt that he could withdraw this Bill and bring it back in a more perfect form.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, partly because this is Friday afternoon and the time is conducive to this sort of thing, would the Hon. Member like to reason with me on the concept of a safety net? I am sure he has been to a circus. We have all been.


John William Bosley: That is what we have here.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is the distance between the wire and the floor at which the safety net is located?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Hon. Minister of Transport would equate a circus with the serious production of food in western Canada and the feeding of hungry people around the world. But when the Minister speaks of the distance of the safety net, let me say to him that the distance should be adequate to protect those who are going to
May 13, 1983

use the net. My objection to 10 per cent and 12 per cent of the cost of goods to be used on paying for the transportation of those goods is that it does not protect the people who need the safety net. When the Minister talks about the distance, he talks about the distance of a net. When you look at the base rate in Schedule 11, there is an increment every 25 miles starting at 375 miles, I believe. Every 25 miles the rate changes by 8 cents a bushel up to 1,200 miles. The minute you get to 1,200 miles, which is in Saskatchewan, from where 60 per cent of the grain is exported, the increment for 25 miles becomes 13 cents recurring. That, along with the safety net, is not acceptable to the people of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short, quick, to the point question for the Hon. Member. Does he support the position of the Government that the grain producers should pay increased freight charges for shipping grain, or does he believe those freight charges should remain at the statutory grain rate level?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, if I had to choose between the Bill as presented and the statutory grain rate as it exists now, I would be forced to choose the statutory rate.
But what I would like to say is that I am supportive of those farm organizations in western Canada, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Commodity Coalition, the United Grain Growers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and, I believe, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, that have said there should be an increase, that producers are willing to pay an increase. The argument in debate here is whether that increase is fair or will benefit the producers of grain in Canada.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be getting double messages here. The Hon. Member read the five principles, one of which is that his Party seems to be in full agreement that the Crow benefit must be protected. Is the Hon. Member telling us that the producer should not pay any more in transporting grain, or is he in agreement that the producer, because the costs of transportation are rising, should pay a little more? This is the same double message we have been getting from the official critic, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and from speaker after speaker. We on this side are really not too clear on his Party's position.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Listen then.


Jesse Philip Flis: What does the Hon. Member mean by saying the Crow benefit must be protected?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis) I know has several farms in that community in Toronto-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Arrogance.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It is not arrogance, it is the truth. 1 am sure the farmers sitting on the other side are fully cognizant of what can happen, if this Bill goes through as it is, to the
Western Grain Transportation Act
farmers in western Canada, and if they will listen I will explain. I feel, and my Party feels, that the $651.6 million is certainly generous enough, at least until 1985-1986. It is certainly the benefit of the Crow. If it were protected in inflated dollars rather than in constant dollars, I think that would be sufficient for the railroads to continue moving grain.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, over the years westerners have gained much from the subsidy on the shipping of manufactured products out to the West. Does he not think it fair that they should subsidize the grain coming back into Ontario?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, let me say, in answer to the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), that, as his riding indicates, he is from a rural part of Ontario. As subsidies have flowed both ways in this country, I think it would be only fair that the subsidies continue to flow both ways in this country rather than being stopped as grain starts moving from west to east. The subsidies on oil continue to flow out. As the Minister of Energy has stated, the Alberta and Saskatchewan Governments have done all they could to protect the consumers of eastern Canada from large oil price increases, but those eastern Provinces have taxed that benefit to the detriment of their own consumers. I think the subsidy should continue to flow both ways, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am still not clear. The Hon. Member says that he supports the position of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, and others who are prepared to go along with an increase in freight charges. But, on the other hand, he said that if he had to make his choice between the two, he would opt for keeping the Crow rate. Is the Hon. Member going to vote for the Bill because it includes an increase in freight charges for grain producers, along the lines of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, or is he going to vote against it because he would rather have the Crow rate?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would have thought the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) would have learned. After all, he is a more senior Member than I am in this House-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He is a slow learner.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I thought he would have known that you never make up your mind how you vote when you have not seen the whole Bill. We as democrats on this side of the House, knowing the Government and knowing that the Minister of Transport is very much a democrat, will probably be accepting amendments, very sensible amendments, to be proposed by our Party when we come to committee stage, and that may enable us to support the Bill.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should set the record straight about any transportation grain subsidies coming into Ontario and point out that Ontario is a net exporter of grain, not a net importer. Naturally, we are not the benefactors of such subsidies. However, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter of changes to

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the Crow rate because I believe it is necessary to address this matter from the viewpoint of the farmer and his family farm.


Walter David Baker: Are you talking about Ontario or about western farmers?


Ralph Ferguson: I am talking about Canadian farmers, true Canadian farmers.
Many people believe that the Crow rate agreement signed back in 1897 was good for Canada, for western Canada in particular. I agree with them because it helped to settle western Canada and led to the development of that part of this great nation. In fact, many of my relatives went to western Canada at the time of the building of the railroads and settled in all three prairie Provinces; some even went on to British Columbia. It is good for Canada because it enables us to compete in world markets. While it is true that establishing a fixed rate on grain and flour for export to Thunder Bay in 1897 assisted in the development of the West, the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations in 1913 indicated that a development of probably more far-reaching significance was the phenomenal decline in ocean freight rates.
In 1896 ocean rates were only one-half of what they had been during the 1870 to 1875 period. They continued to fall until 1908, while wholesale prices were rising. The prices of iron and steel, which largely determined the costs of the railways and the implements of production, were falling steadily in relation to the value of the products of farms, and interest rates were the lowest in recorded history. The British investor was willing to lend overseas in unprecedented volumes. At last Canada's hour had struck. Between 1896 and the advent of the First World War, the prairie Provinces attracted a million new settlers and the production of wheat expanded from 20 million bushels to about 200 million bushels.
By 1930 the rail system of the Prairies reached its peak in size with about 19,250 miles, and there were about 300,000 farms in operation. In Canada today we have approximately 318,000 census farms in all of Canada. Of course these farms were labour-intensive. They required harvest crews of perhaps 15 men to 20 men to operate thrashing equipment and steam engines. Many horses were involved, approximately a million horses, to haul grain to the elevators in wagons.
The Port of Churchill opened in 1931 and the statutory rate on export grain was applied to that port, which meant that the Crow rate of 1897 then applied to CN, CP and all four western ports. It was in the 1930s that significant changes began to appear on the family farm with the introduction of the tractor and the truck. Farmers became more efficient and productive, and many of the changing services required for effective agricultural production were best provided in various urban centres. This was a migration from the farm sector to the town and cities. As a result, the rural component in Saskatchewan in particular declined from 84 per cent to the total population in 1901, to 54 per cent in 1966 and to about 20 per cent today.
In fact, a review of the social and economic trends and developments in Saskatchewan since 1897 show that the Crow rate has not been a significant factor in maintaining the rural-oriented lifestyle advocated by some. The existence of the fixed rail rate on grain for 86 years has not prevented a signifcant shift of the population from rural to urban, where only about 20 per cent reside on farms today compared with 84 per cent in 1901. The same trend became evident in other Canadian Provinces, not only in the western Provinces. It did not prevent the consolidation of farms either in size or absolute numbers. The rate on grain did not prevent the consolidation of elevators and delivery points by about 50 per cent since 1930 or the demise of small communities. This has happened in other parts of the country as well. County elevators in Ontario, for example, had elevator legs which would elevate approximately 1,000 bushels per hour. Now there are many, many elevators which handle up to 5,000 or even 10,000 bushels per hour. This led to the demise of smaller elevators and smaller companies. Factors such as the growth of the road system and electrification have also had a more significant impact on small communities than has the Crow rate. The consolidation of school units, medical centres, newspapers, post offices, bulk oil and machinery dealerships has been on the same scale in all other parts of Canada as it has in the West.
It would be wrong to conclude that as a result of these trends the growth and development of the Prairies have been stunted. This is not the case at all. In fact, the development of the Prairies, particularly their move toward diversification into such areas as minerals and oil resource development, has put them in an enviable position vis-a-vis most other Canadian Provinces. In the words of the Prairie Rail Action Committee, "Whatever else these trends show, they demonstrate that the Prairies are dynamic, served by pleasant, sophisticated moderately large and growing urban areas."
Let us take a closer look at what is happening on prairie farms. There has been a steady increase in the number of acres in each farming operation. For example, the average Saskatchewan farm increased from 686 acres in 1961 to 939 acres in 1976. Today the average farm size is about 1,000 acres. The same thing has happened in Ontario and in eastern Canada in general.
In 1941 there were 138,713 farms in Saskatchewan. By 1951, the total had increased to 112,018. In 1981 the total was 67,318, or a reduction of 40 per cent in 30 years. The number of farms larger than 1,600 acres increased to 9,055 in 1981 compared with 2,931 in 1951, or an increase of about 300 per cent. There are approximately 145,000 Canadian Wheat Board permit holders in the Prairies. In 1930 there were approximately 300,000. Only one-fifth of the 145,000 currently produce about 50 per cent of total grain receipts.
The prairie farm of 1983 has changed dramatically since 1930. This is not only the case with prairie farmers. It also applies to farms in the rest of Canada. The farm today is capital intensive rather than labour intensive. It is almost possible for a husband working on the combine and his wife driving the truck to bring in the harvest themselves compared
May 13, 1983

with the fact that it took 15 men to 20 men almost 50 years ago. Most farms have their own machine and repair shops. They carry a limited supply of spare parts such as bearings, belts, bolts and other common items. Farmers no longer need to go to adjacent small towns to purchase half a dozen bolts. Today they purchase them in lots of 1,000 or more, often directly from suppliers. They have their own welders, cutting torches, hydraulic presses to assist with bearing replacements, gear pullers, and the list goes on and on.
In the context of today's farm, let us look at the impact of increased rates. The increased rates will hardly be a sledgehammer, as suggested by the Tory Government of Saskatchewan, since the rate will not even double in 1985. Although it will increase to 5.5 times Crow by 1991, this assumes a total grain movement of 41 million tonnes. Even at that, the rate will cover about 60 per cent of the real rail cost and will represent about 8 per cent of the price of grain forecast for 1991.
Although no farmer, whether he is in the West or in Ontario, likes an increase in costs, the proposed increase in freight rates by 1985-86 will be nominal when compared to a farmer's over-all costs, assuming a typical Saskatchewan farm of 1,200 acres with 700 acres sown to wheat. The total revenue would be about $81,200, using a 29 bushel per acre yield and a $4 per bushel farmgate price. The total production cost would be about $60,000.
Under the present Crow rate, the transportation bill would be $2,842. If one adds the transportation cost of $2,842 to the production cost, the farmers over-all cost would be $62,842. As a percentage of the over-all cost, the transportation cost represents about 4.5 per cent. Using the same logic, this 4.5 per cent would increase to 9 per cent of over-all costs by 198586, assuming we still have 1983 grain prices. One could hardly call such an increase a knock-out blow, as have some opponents. While an increase of some $2,800 may sound like a lot of money, it is not so significant when we consider that tractors today sell for as much as $80,000-and that is not the price of a big tractor but a large one by the standards of a few years ago-and combines today sell for $100,000 and up.
* (1450)
Prior to 1949 about 1 per cent of Saskatchewan resident farmers were supplied with electricity. By the end of 1956, approximately 47 per cent or 40,000 farms were served with the power grid. Today virtually every farmer on the Prairies has access to electricity. The Hall Commission reported in 1977 that:
Rural electrification has no doubt had the most significant positive social impact on rural life ... due to the ability to keep bread, fresh vegetables and fruits for a longer period, these commodities were purchased in greater quantity, farther from home leading to the closing of local bakeries and stores-
The advent of supermarkets and chains led to more dramatic shopping habits of farmers, not only in western Canada but across Canada. We have the same impact in the rural ridings of Ontario. Contrary to statements that changes to the Crow
Western Grain Transportation Act
rate will destroy the social fabric of prairie farms and communities, allow me to put the following excerpts from the Hall report on the record:
Increased cost of labour forced farmers to improve production technology through capital. This resulted in social repercussions in rural western Canada, i.e. the decline in farm population and in the number of community centres of service.
-tendency to equate the significance of the railway of 35 to 50 years ago with its significance today.
I could not help but notice that the shipping rate for a tractor-trailor truck-train in Ontario is less from Chatham, Ontario to Toronto than the equivalent rail rate. That truck can load at the granary on the farm without having to go to the local elevator and reload. It eliminates one whole handling process. It is the railways which have had to adapt to these changes in order to stay efficient. Again I quote:
Even bulk farm imports such as fertilizer, fuel, chemicals and equipment are increasingly hauled from regional distribution points by truck.
It is the people and the spirit of the people which gives the community viability, not the railways nor the elevators.
The commission was unable to locate any study which indicated that the viability of a community which was already declining would be served by the retention of the railway.
Again I refer to my constituency. We have had branch lines close down because they could not compete with truck transportation which picked up a product either at the farm or at the gate of the manufacturing plant, in turn taking it to its unloading point or point of destination.
Vastly improved roads since the early 1950s ... have enabled people to travel further for goods and services.
Towns being bypassed by modern highways, the development of regional health centres and hosts of other items have contributed to the phasing-out of many smaller centres with their own identities and social patterns. These changes have occurred and will continue to occur with or without the railway.
I must add that we are losing something of that way of life in rural Canada, but we cannot stand still. Improved facilities are being demanded by our population. Improved services go with it.
The evolvement of few centres rendering a large number of services has taken place only because smaller centres have decreased in size or disappeared altogether. This took place, not as part of a planned development, but as a result of many people making individual decisions on where they wished to shop, do business and socialize.
In a good many cases, this is because of the variety of the options opened to them in the larger centres. In many of the towns and villages throughout my riding, their downtown core has become empty because of supermarket chains establishing malls and shopping centres on the outskirts of those towns or villages. This has happened all over Canada.
All elements of prairie life have changed significantly since the 1930s, not only prairie life but in the rest of Canada, particularly elevator rationalization and road construction. An effort has been made to hold some items constant such as branch line retention and Crow rates. Such a position defies reality and the results are obvious. In 1977-78, following three successive record harvests, the system broke down and prairie grain producers had to lose or forgo major grain sales due to transportation problems.
25458

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
The change outlined by the federal Government to modernize the Crown rate will be consistent with all the other social and economic changes that have already taken place within the Prairies. Passage of the western grain transportation Bill will ensure that prairie producers, who are among the most efficient and productive in the world, will have a transportation system to match their performance.
We talk about subsidization. I wish to point out that in 1982 the Government of Alberta announced that four canola crushers in that Province would receive a $20.4 million subsidy representing $40 per tonne. This will grant the crusher a 91cent margin upfront. Coming from outside Alberta, such action may be interpreted as Government interference in the free enterprise system and economy, creating an imbalance across the country. The subsidy, if attached to crushing levels, could create a product-pricing war in competition with the crushers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as well as Ontario.
I am an oilseed producer. I have to compete not only with the subsidies being paid to the crushers but with my sales, transportation costs against the subsidized rates for western Canada. In the essence of equity to all Canadians, we have to look at and revise the Crow rate to a standard that is fair and equitable to all Canadians, and yet utilize the potential of our report capability.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he recalls that last week it was announced by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, or whatever passes for that Department now, that three grants had been made to western Canada establishments in each of the three Provinces, one being in Hamilton, Ontario, for the building of new canola crushing plants. This is action by the Government of Canada. The Hon. Member went to pains to point out that the Government of the Province of Alberta had been interfering with the market structure of canola. Now we have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion doing the same thing. I wonder what he would say about its actions?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those grants. I am also aware that the Government of Ontario made a grant of $4.5 million to establish a canola-crushing plant in Hamilton, Ontario. Perhaps there is a large area in the clay belt in Ontario which could utilize these plants, whether they are in the West or in the East. It is much easier to transport the raw products to these plants and then transport the oil or the meal by rail or by ship to the port of export than it is to transport the raw product.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am a little bit disappointed in the speech of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), just as I was earlier with the speech of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). In many ways both of these fellows have indicated an understanding of the West, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has shown with regard to the Post Office when. I have raised questions with him. I was really amazed at his position here.
Similarly, I find it very difficult to understand how the Member who just spoke could introduce a Bill and in fact solicit our support for introducing a Bill that deals with farm closure and the problem that farmers are facing and now try to paint such a rosy picture. I find it very difficult to comprehend this type of walking paradox.
The Member talked about equity and things that are equitable, and I wonder if he could indicate to me how far he has to transport his grain and whether he would consider it equitable that on the Prairies and in constituencies such as mine where there is still abandonment taking place farmers will have to transport their grain 100 miles to 125 miles. I wonder if he could expound on his principle of equity when he takes that kind of position. To me, it is a paradox that I do not understand; maybe he could enlighten me.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I was painting an exceptionally rosy picture as far as the farm income sector was concerned but perhaps I could enlighten the Member by telling him what some of the costs are. I did indicate that the cost of transporting soybeans was lower by truck from Chatham, Ontario, from my yard as a matter of fact, to Toronto. But for exports, we must pay the cost of handling and export preparation to the Port of Halifax and the Port of Saint John, New Brunswick. Perhaps I should give some examples-


Laverne Lewycky: How far does the Hon. Member have to truck his grain and does he consider 100 to 125 miles equitable?


Ralph Ferguson: Yes, that is the approximate distance from my own farm to the City of Toronto or the City of Hamilton. It is approximately the same distance to a crushing plant or an elevator. We could perhaps ship to a local elevator that is much closer with a tractor and several wagons tied behind it, probably 1,000 bushels at a time, or if we used a smaller truck, 600 bushels at a time. But if we want to sell directly to the terminal elevator, we must travel that far.
I should perhaps make some comparisons between the East and West, and I believe I could use Ontario winter wheat versus western wheat as an example. The handling costs per bushel of western wheat after it arrived at the country elevator was 29.6 cents, according to the statistics of the 1981 Annual Report of the Canadian Wheat Board. We in Ontario do not have the same rates available to us or the same facilities provided by the Government of Canada. We quite often have to load on board ship in Georgian Bay, but the average comparable cost to us last year was approximately 80 cents a bushel. We are not asking for the costs in the West to be raised to that level, but I believe that Ontario farmers have to face these kinds of transportation costs and there should be some system worked out that will at least meet half way and will put us out of competition for the export market but be more fair to all Canadians.
A comment was made a few minutes ago about subsidization of eastern products going west, and I would like to point
May 13, 1983

out that I have compared prices on a good many occasions, whether it be prices in a hardware store or a plumbing shop, and the prices in the West are almost equal to what I have to pay in my community because the manufacturing plants add in a transportation equalization factor when they determine the price of their product. They must do this to remain competitive, so we are in turn assisting to pay some of those transportation costs from the manufacturing areas to western Canada.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) brought in a Bill to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act a few months ago alleging that the farming community was in terrible Financial difficulty. He has been present at the same hearings and committees as I have and he has listened to the banks and to the Farm Credit Corporation where the indications given by the witnesses are to the effect that about 10 per cent of the farming population is in financial difficulty. The Member says that an additional expense of $2,800 on average will not hurt the farmer. Is he really sincere when he says that?
If the farming community is in bad shape and 10 per cent of farmers are in real financial difficulty, the average increase of $2,800 will in some cases be $6,000 or $7,000 extra in the West. This is enough to push the farmer over the edge. How does the Member justify doubling the Crow rate in two or three years and five times the Crow rate in ten years.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I think the point that has been missed here was that I used a 1,200 acre farm with 700 acres of wheat as an example. I would hope that that other 500 acres would not be in summer fallow. I would hope that that farmer would have a poultry operation there that would have 15,000 laying hens. If the farmer makes the average profit of 2.7 cents per dozen eggs, the profit from that would be $8,500, plus it would take 450 acres of barley to produce the feed for those birds. I would hope the farmer would have a margin of profit on that. Consequently, I believe that that farming operation could well afford to pay more of the cost of transporting goods to market just as farmers in eastern Canada do.
This example assumes that there would be no summer fallow on that 450 acres. I understand that there is a great deal of summer fallowing going on in the West but not as much as there used to be because farmers are now finding out that that is one of the causes of saline salts rising to the surface of the ground and making the ground less productive.
There are many other areas where you could have an additional income from a farming operation and feed the grain right on the farm. I used a poultry operation as just one example. That is something we must bear in mind.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask the Hon. Member a question. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) suggested that because the increase would not come into effect all in one year, it would not be a knockout blow as has been described, and he said that the Saskatchewan Government was exaggerating because they suggested that. I wonder if there is very much
Western Grain Transportation Act
difference between being hit five times and having the blow increased each time or being hit all at once, because that is what will happen.
Again, I follow the Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). My question, Mr. Speaker, is what about the farmer who just cannot bear the increase in cost of $3,000 and becomes part of the 10 per cent of farmers who are bankrupt or pushes the number of bankrupticies up from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, as suggested by the Member from Moose Jaw?
In the last five years, many of the farmers in my constituency have not been able to show more than a $4,000 or $5,000 profit. Paying twice the freight rate would put them in a loss situation right away. The number of farmers going bankrupt will be increased by 10 per cent almost immediately.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that my colleague would make a suggestion like that because, of course, the final payments for the 1983 crop year will not take place until 1984 and who knows what the prices of those farm commodities will be. I would certainly hope that the price of barley, which is $94 per tonne in Alberta for June delivery this year or $95 per tonne in Winnipeg, would increase in the coming crop year.
I would like to suggest as well that the wet, cool weather we have experienced and the delay in planting in the United States in combination with the PICK program of the United States Department of Agriculture has been a shot in the arm for the grain industry. Perhaps those changes have not taken effect yet but I suggest that as they do the farmers will benefit. The minimal effect of raises in transportation costs over the years will be absorbed with the higher prices.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-155, not because I am terribly excited about it but because, as the Minister said, this could be a very historic debate. I am glad the Minister is in the House to listen to my remarks.
When we consider handling grain in western Canada, transportation is not the only thing we must take account of. As was so ably pointed out by the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville, (Mr. Mazankowski), we must consider the distances faced by the Canadian farmer who has to transport his grain 1,500 to 2,000 miles to the open sea. We compete with farmers in countries who have access to open water within 200 miles or less.
In light of that and the many other problems that agriculture faces in this country we must consider the benefits agriculture has brought to Canada, particularly to the industrial sector. In that whole context we have to consider transportation. I feel that to some extent the Minister has failed to consider the movement of grain in the whole context of agriculture and farming today. I would be the first to recognize that the Minister is sincere in his approach to transportation but I think he has a very narrow perspective.

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
If you were to choose any time between the 1930s and today to come up with a new method of moving grain and making radical changes to the system, you would not be able to choose a more critical time than the present. The farmer faces some very serious problems. First of all, he faces competition in the international marketplace which puts additional stress on agriculture today.
According to Figures given to me by Dr. Andy Schmidt of the Unviersity of Saskatoon, the United States pays its farmers a subsidy of 33 per cent. European countries subsidize wheat production by $5 per bushel. The total subsidies in Canada, including the grain stabilization subsidy and the Crow rate, come to less than 17 per cent. I want to make the point to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that it is most important that our farmers be kept in a competitive position in the international marketplace. If they are not, we are in very serious trouble.
Bill C-155 makes a great deal of trouble for farmers and this has been vented in various ways across the country despite the fact that the Minister has said there is a consensus about what he is doing. Many agricultural communities, the towns, villages and municipalities and organizations in the Prairies aare concerned about the Bill. The eyes of the West are focused on this House today as people wonder about the decisions being made on Bill C-155.
I have before me a letter addressed to the Minister from the council of the Town of Gravelbourg. I should like to read it into the record because I think the research is very good. It begins as follows:
Dear Sir:
We as a Council have listened and studied your proposals to change the Crow's Nest Pass statutory freight rates and we feel obligated and compelled to write you.
Your proposals raise much concern and worry in our town and community. The general feeling is that instead of improving the economic and social position of our community your proposals will do just the opposite. This view is widely supported across the nation including Central and Eastern Canada.
Instead of improving the purchasing power of farmers which in turn generates economic activity in the industrial sector your proposals will transfer billion of dollars from the grain producers pockets directly to the railway coffers (this is called force transfer), bypassing our rural communities and cities. Furthermore, grain production will subsidize mineral transportation costs such as coal ore, potash, lumber, oil etc. Farmers are already paying freight both ways for the shipping of his products to market and for the farm inputs.
In our area served by the Town of Gravelbourg we have approximately 220 permit holders, whose average farm is about 960 acres each delivering approximately 12 bushels of grain per acre per year-
This takes into consideration the fact that about half of the farm land in that area is in fallow ground.
-which equals 11,520 bushels (or 315 tonnes) at pesent with the Crow's Nest Pass Rates in place of 4.89 per tonne. The average transportation cost by rail per farmer is approximately $1,533.00 per year.
That is as of today.
Collectively for 220 farmers the total cost equals $337,285.00. If the Crow rates are abolished and the cost of freight triples-
We are talking about increasing the rates five times by the 1990s.
-this amount will be $4,599.00 per farmer
By the year 1990 it will be about S8,500 per permit holder in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Collectively $4,599.00 x 220 farmers equals $1,011,780.00.
I wonder if the Minister can imagine what this outflow of capital will do to every town and village in western Canada, to the communities where branch lines service the farmers.
The Hon. Member who spoke earlier referred to farms becoming larger, and small farmers and young farmers having a hard time competing. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that this will just complicate further a very difficult situation. I appeal to the Minister that he take a new look at the whole perspective of what this Bill is going to do to the economic situation of the farmers in western Canada, particularly in the grain growing areas. Certainly, there is need for upbuilding the railways; no one would argue that. Certainly, there is a need to continue in a positive direction to provide a better rail line, and so on.
But let us look at the position of the railroad in this. I want to make the statement in this House that this Bill is very rich for the railroads. When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that hopper cars have been bought by the Provinces and have been bought by the Wheat Board or by the farmers, and the rolling stock for the most part belongs right now to the Provinces, the Government and the farmers, and when you consider the upgrading of rail lines and lines which are scheduled for abondonment and the amount of dollars being spent there, you must realize that the railroads have been treated very well.
We had hearings in my riding this fall at Big Beaver and the Colony Line, and it was really quite amusing because of an amount of money which was supposed to have been spent on the railway. I believe it was about $70,000. The question came up before the inquiry as to what happened to the money. The railroad said:	"Oh well, that was put on deferred
maintenance".
I want to suggest there has been a lot of money paid to the railroad which has gone into "deferred maintenance". As the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) so ably pointed out earlier today, there is a great deal of question about accounting and what the figures mean. The Minister has put before us in the House a very complicated Bill and, if I may say in all sincerity, a Bill not too well explained as to exactly what it means in terms of dollars and cents and guarantees laid out for the farmers in moving grain. I have a great deal of concern about that.
With respect to capital cost allowance, the railways are allowed 20.5 per cent for their capital cost allowance. Let me make a small comparison. For example, if we allowed a farmer who had an investment of $500,000-and that does not take a very big farm today with the cost of land and machinery, and so on-a capital cost allowance every year on that farm, that would mean that he could start at $100,000 income. From that he could start deducting his expenses and so on, and he would then have a pretty profitable farm. He is now probably lucky if he nets $10,000 on that farm.
May 13, 1983

There seem to be two sets of rules, one for the producers and the other for the railroads. Therefore, 1 have a great deal of concern when the Minister says he has-I believe these are words he used yesterday-"a great deal of sympathy for the railroads and the great losses which were afforded them". The shortfall has been paid to the railroads year after year by the taxpayer and, quite frankly, I do not see a great deal wrong with that. My position, and I believe the position made clear by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, is that the statutory rate remain and that the Government pick up the shortfall and hold the railroads responsible for rebuilding and putting in place a transportation system which will better serve Canada. And I say Canada and the farmers, because if you break the farmers, you will not be doing Canada a great service. I believe it was Sir Leonard Tilley who said: "Destroy the farmer and grass will grow in the streets of every city in the nation".
I believe it is important in this debate that we clarify in our minds, not only as farmers, not only as responsible people in this House, but as Canadians, exactly what type of Bill has been presented for the benefit of all Canada.
I would like to speak further on some of the more positive aspects of what I think this Bill should do and what it could do, not only for Canada and for the farmers, but also for the world. I would like to make a comparison with the national energy policy. I would like to ask the Minister what was accomplished by bringing in a policy under the National Energy Program which broke the oil fields, which put workers out of work, the Government then purchased oil from Mexico and other points around the world? Not only did the Canadian people in the oil fields of Alberta and Saskatchewan suffer, but all Canadians suffered because of that legislation.
I see a very close parallel in Bill C-155. What advantage is it going to be to Canada if the farmers are rendered bankrupt, as was raised in the questioning just a little ealier? What benefit will that be to Toronto, to Montreal or to central Canada? It will mean that the farmers will not have money to by combines, tractors, rubber and steel, and all those things which are bought from the manufacturing areas of Canada. That is why I appeal to the Minister to look carefully at this Bill, at the whole structure of agriculture, of transportation, and the results which will flow from it.
We are faced in agriculture today with some of the highest costs which we have ever known. I mentioned earlier the national energy policy. One of the highest costs which we face, and the Minister must take this into consideration, is the cost of fuel. It has gone up 90 per cent in the last two years, mostly directly related to the national energy policy. We have farmers today who are paying 66 cents a gallon for their diesel and farm fuel. It does not take a large tractor today to hold 150 gallons of diesel fuel, which means $300 every time the tractor is filled. What do the farmers do? They are wondering just how often they will work their fields. I can tell you that they are cutting back. The farmers in my riding are cutting back in the cultivation of their summer fallow, in their farming operations, simply because of the high cost. What is this going
Western Grain Transportation Act
to do? It is going to have a counterproductive reaction to producing wheat.
I would like to bring out this point as well, Mr. Speaker. The country of Canada produces for export for the benefit of all Canadians some $6 billion to $8 billion of surplus trade. This is not important only to the farmer but to the whole economy of Canada. In closing my remarks on this very important subject today, I suggest to the Minister of Transport that if the direction he takes through Bill C-155 proves to be counterproductive to the production of wheat and other agricultural products in Canada, it will have a long-lasting effect not only on agriculture, farmers, towns and villages, but on all of Canada. I ask him to reconsider this Bill seriously.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the heavy burden of fuel costs which are largely a result of the federal taxes imposed under the National Energy Program. In order to give us an idea of what the aggregate costs are on an average farm, could the Hon. Member roughly outline what an average fuel bill would be for a two-section farm and, in doing so, would he state what the fuel tax component would be?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer that question but I cannot be too specific. However, I did some calculations in terms of an average farm, an acre of land and production, and found that the tax alone on farm fuel today at 66 cents a gallon, which is a very exorbitant federal tax, would equal an amount to enable a farmer, in most cases, to ship the grain that that fuel produces. This is an important factor raised by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Just how much tax can the farmer stand?
We have talked about subsidies. I do not like the word subsidy and I think we should get away from it. The farmer does receive some subsidy, I believe 17 per cent, but he is also paying a very heavy tax in other areas. I think it is important that the Minister take this all into consideration to determine what it will do for agriculture in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems not to be at least theoretically opposed to the thesis that the farmer should pay a greater share of the cost of transportation of his grain. While he does not seem to disagree with that principle, he seems to disagree with that proposition in practice. He has said that now is not the right time. Could he tell me if there has been in the past ten years, for example, since the value of the Crow has been substantially inferior to the real cost of transportation, a time when that change could have been made? Can he anticipate a time in the future when it could be changed?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, of course that is a very hypothetical question but one must take into consideration the ability to pay. I said that the farmer does not now have the ability to pay.

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
To answer the question, let me draw a comparison with Crosby, North Dakota, where it costs $1.51 Canadian to ship a bushel of wheat. The Minister himself said that the charge will be 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the real cost of the movement of grain in the 1990s. Since it is difficult to equate the cost because of accounting, as the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw said, if we simply take the figures that we have for the Unites States, where it costs $1.51 a bushel to ship wheat to Seattle from Crosby, North Dakota, one can see that the farmer would have to pay approximately $1.11 a bushel in addition to what he is paying now. I can state to the Hon. Minister that every farmer in western Canada would be bankrupt with costs like that.
Certainly there might be some consideration for an increase in cost if the ability to pay was there. But the ability is not there.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member which is not hypothetical, because I think we should be dealing with facts in regard to the Crow. The Hon. Member mentioned the heavy tax burden placed upon the farmers by the Liberal Government. He gave some figures as to the amount of tax. Could he inform the House how much of that is federal tax? I know that the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan lowered taxes in order to help the farmer and the economy in that Province. It was a great boost.
What seems to be hampering farmers and economies in the West is these heavy Liberal energy taxes that have been brought on by the disastrous National Energy Program, which lost some 60,000 jobs in the industries in Ontario and Quebec, drove oil rigs out of the country, and indeed untold millions of dollars were driven out as a result of that program.
If the Liberal Government were to consider some of the policies that have been implemented by the Saskatchewan Government, does he think it would be of assistance to the farmer?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Just to clarify this difficult situation, there is no provincial sales tax in the Province of Saskatchewan on farm fuel. There is, however, a federal tax of 66 cents per gallon and the removal of that tax would certainly be productive. That is the point I was making.
Many of the Government's actions in the past have been counterproductive. Take metrication, for example. One can ask how that is counterproductive. The farmer can no longer clearly read instructions on how to mix chemicals. There is the fuel tax under the national energy policy. We now have another blow, Bill C-155.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. There has been a tendency in some parts of the country to view this Bill as probably only affecting western Canada. I do not represent a constituency in western Canada as the Hon. Member does. Could the Hon. Member enlighten me and other Members from other parts of the country on the effect this can have beyond what is considered
western Canada and the area which is considered to be affected alone? Is this a Bill that affects the country as a whole and, if so, how?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there could be a Bill implemented in the House that would have more effect on all of Canada than this one. Consider the impact that agriculture has on the entire country. If the industry becomes non-productive to the point where it cannot buy the necessities needed on farms, such as rubber and steel which go into farm machinery as well as other things that go into agricultural production, it would have an impact upon the factories in Ontario and upon every taxpayer in Canada.
I was considering that point recently. One needs only to consider a country in the world that is held in high regard. When one sees the agricultural community in that country and the policies that have built and strengthened the agricultural community, one can see a strong country.
At one time in North America, both in the United States and Canada, 97 per cent of the population was engaged in agriculture. Today, 4.5 per cent produce enough food in North America to feed North America and a great portion of the world. I want to say that this is a credit to North America and also a credit to Canada.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have one final question for the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), who explained the serious problems farmers are having in western Canada, and we know of the burden placed upon them by the National Energy Program. The Hon. Member also mentioned the metrication program. If that program were repealed, would this assist the western farmers?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, that would assist all Canada. First, it would probably save the country a lot of money. Second, we have farmers who do not know what they are doing in terms of measurement when it comes to spraying this spring. This point was brought forward very capably by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw last evening. He pointed out the importance of it. In addition, there are so many areas where metrication has had devastating effects. I am sure farmers would be much encouraged if that program were reversed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle) who is to take part in the debate-



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-35, an Act to incorporate the Eparch of the Eparchy of Saints
May 13, 1983

Cyril and Methodius of Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

[ Translation]



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, it is with-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not one who abuses the Chair or the Table on points of order regarding the rules, but I would like to ask you if you would take under advisement the question of debate at second reading, the time taken up thereon and the time limits placed upon speakers. I understand that the eight-hour limit of 20-minute speeches includes the ten minutes taken up with questions and comments of an Hon. Member following the end of his 20-minute speech.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration Standing Order 35(1) which reads as follows:
35. (1) Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, or a Member making a motion of "noconfidence" in the government and a Minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time in any debate.
The next words are crucial:
Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
You will note it says "Following the speech of each Member", which according to the previous wording is to last not more than 20 minutes.
In Standing Order 35(2), at the bottom of page 27, we find a repetition which reads:
(2) When second reading of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than:
(a)	forty minutes if that Member is the first, second or third speaker;
(b)	twenty minutes following the first three speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next eight hours of consideration; and following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto;-
It seems to me that means that only the 20-minute speeches of Members at second reading following the first three speakers should be counted in the eight-hour limit, and that the ten minutes for questions and responses is not part of an Hon.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Member's 20-minute speech, because the rule says "Following the speech of each Member". That is stated in both Standing Order 35(1) and Standing Order 35(2)(b). The 20-minute speech is the speech and the ten minutes are for questions and answers following, which is not part of the speech. The words are quite clear.
I make this point on the basis that if the ten minutes of questions, responses and comments are not counted as part of a Member's 20 minutes-and I do not think they should be because I believe it has already occurred that another Member has taken up most of the ten minutes with comment and it was not part of the Hon. Member's speech-I do not think that the ten-minute question and response portion can be properly construed as part of the eight-hour time limit. Only 20 minute speeches of Hon. Members shall make up the eight-hour period, not the additional ten minutes of questions and responses.
I would ask you to take this point under advisement, Mr. Speaker, because I know you and the Table are meticulously keeping track of the hours and the minutes taken up by all Hon. Members.
In fairness to all Hon. Members there are those who would be entitled to make a 20-minute speech and they should not be penalized by time taken up at an earlier stage in the debate that had nothing to do with the 20-minute speech time of a previous speaker.


Walter David Baker: I have listened very carefully to what my friend was saying and I have looked at the words of the revised Standing Orders. I am inclined to think that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) makes a reasonable submission of which the Chair ought to take cognizance. It is not one of those things that the Chair has to decide today but this matter will have to be decided fairly quickly. Perhaps it could be considered over the weekend.
I will not add to the argument of my hon. friend, but I will suggest for the guidance of the Chair that the Chair consider page 14 of the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. Item 3, "Length of Speeches", reads this way:
Your Committee is of the opinion that the time limits on speeches should be shortened wherever the standing orders provide for 40-minute (except as provided in the recommendation hereunder relating to second reading of Government Bills) and 30-minute time limits and that an effort should be made to introduce greater spontaneity and more cut and thrust into debate. Your Committee proposes that these speeches be limited to 20 minutes.
It goes on-and these are the important words:
But that an additional ten minutes following each speech should be made available, if required, for questions or comments to the member who has just spoken.
Not a speech, not a speech by the Member, not even an answer to the question or a speech by the questioner, but a comment. You use the words yourself when you ask whether there are any comments by Hon. Members. The paragraph goes on as follows:

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Your committee proposes that the amendments to the appropriate standing orders be as simple as possible, but that the new debating process be controlled by the Chair in accordance with the following guidelines.
It then deals with the ten-minute period and says:
Ten minutes set aside following a Member's speech should be used to question a Member or comment briefly on the speech in a manner strictly relevant to the content of that speech.
That all feeds back to what my friend said at the outset of his argument. A speech is a speech, a question in the context of the rules is a question and a comment is a comment. Considering the limitation thereafter on speaking time, one must bear that in mind.
I say with respect that the general principles which should be borne in mind by the Chair are the limitation on debates in terms of time in the broad sense and the right of an Hon. Member to speak. Members rarely have an opportunity to rise and speak forever; therefore there is a limitation, when the House has decided to limit the time of speeches even more, there should be no constriction put on the rules that would limit in any way the speaking time of Members, except to the extent of complying with the rules.
To put it another way, if the Chair should decide that four Members ahead of the ones who would be otherwise cut back should be cut back in their speeches from 20 minutes to ten minutes because of including the ten-minute period, the Chair would by that order and that decision be precluding those four Members from exercising their full rights. In other words, the rules should be construed to permit Hon. Members to utilize to the fullest the scope permitted in the rules.
My respectful submissions to the Chair are that the scope is 20 minutes and that the comments and questions or the new innovation is not to be considered a speech. In fact, the rules indicate that it is not a speech; it is a comment or a question and ought only to be so construed. The rules provide now for eight hours of 20-minute speeches or speaking time. I do not know where it cuts, where it falls or who it cuts out, but it seems to me that it is a reasonable interpretation to place on the rules, especially when we are moving into this experiment which seems to be working quite well.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the points raised by Hon. Members who preceded me, and perhaps they may wish to recall that the purpose of these changes in our parliamentary procedure was not to cut down on each Member's speaking time in the House but to give this parliamentary institution a more efficient set of procedures.
This Parliament is literally dying a slow death, because we parliamentarians have been unable to streamline our operations. The Bills that are languishing on the Order Paper are a monument to our collective shame. The lack of efficiency of this Parliament in passing legislation is incredible. Certainly, nobody can beat our record for endless talking, but when it comes to passing legislation we are incredibly ineffective.
I would therefore draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the new Standing Orders prescribe ... They refer to consideration of a Bill for eight hours, and not for periods of twenty minutes. The Standing Orders clearly prescribe that the House of Commons is to consider a Bill for eight hours.
And now we have this new interpretation, this new brainwave that would have exactly the opposite effect to what we wanted to achieve, which is to make debate more interesting and more lively. Enough of those long, repetitive forty minute speeches. Everyone agreed this formula had to be changed.
We therefore decided to have 20 minute speeches and allow another ten minutes, not only for speeches and comments by the Member recognized by the Speaker, but for dialogues and exchanges which allow the Member to complete his speech while replying to the comments of other Members.
It is appropriate to note, Mr. Speaker, that if we accepted the interpretation given by the NDP Member, we would unduly extend the debate and no longer spend eight hours considering a bill, but add many additional ten minute periods, which means that we would no longer be discussing a bill for eight hours, but perhaps for nine or ten hours. I believe that this interpretation is wrong. In any case, I know that you will take the matter under advisement, look fully into it and probably comment on it next week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) rising on the same point of order?


Laverne Lewycky: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I have to disagree with the feelings of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) on the matter. It seems to me that the rules indicate that time for questions, if required, shall be made available. They allow this additional opportunity for questioning, but I view it as being a supplementary matter to the eight hours of speeches that can be given.
It is similar to interruptions in the proceedings under Statements pursuant to Standing Order 21 or in Question Period. They are not included because they are something different. I think this provision is different in that regard. It is set out as a separate clause from the one dealing with the first three speakers and also from those who speak for ten minutes.
I would just like to say that I concur with my colleague and with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that it should not be included in the eight hours of consideration.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the comments of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). As a member of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform, I must say there was no doubt in the Committee members' minds on this point, and I
May 13, 1983

fail to understand how there can still remain any doubt in the minds of some Members, that this 10-minute period is part of the debate. Standing Order 35(2)(b) which applies in this case reads as follows:
(b) twenty minutes following the first three speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next eight hours of consideration-
If anyone suggests that the 10 minute question period following speeches is not a debate, I must wonder what we are doing in this House. It is a debate. It is simply a different type of debate. During the first 20 minutes, the Member makes his comments and in the next 10 minutes, there is an exchange, in other words a debate among members of this House on the speech just made.
I do not understand how the NDP Members who raised this issue can interpret the Standing Orders as they do, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you could even make your ruling immediately since there is no doubt as to the interpretation of this Standing Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), but unfortunately it is on the same point of order which, of course, is out of order. As the Hon. Member knows, it is not possible under the Standing Orders to rise a second time on the same point of order. However, it being Friday the thirteenth, we will conclude with the Hon. Member's remarks on something that he can consider a fresh point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is an additional point to the original point of order in response to the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). The wording in the Standing Orders is very clear. It indicates that no Member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at any time in any debate. Then it says, and it says it twice in the rule:
Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes-
That is following the speech. It says in two places "following the speech". His speech was 20 minutes. Otherwise, 30-minute periods are counted against all Members in the House for the purpose of arriving at the eight hours of debate instead of 20-minute speeches. That is all we are suggesting. This would provide four additional Members, if they chose to use it, an opportunity to make a 20-minute speech instead of a 10-minute speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Obviously, as Hon. Members have indicated and have requested, the matter will be taken under consideration over the weekend and a decision will be rendered on Monday. It is appropriate that on Monday it be rendered as early as possible because, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Regina West and the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in that order, we may be approaching, based upon how one does the calculation, a so-called eight-hour limit.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I do not have the figures in front of me indicating at which point a decision would have to be made, but I am sure that Hon. Members in the House will understand that the decision from the Chair will be made before it puts any Hon. Member at a disadvantage with respect to the interpretation of the eight hours.
Now comes the part which may not be so satisfactory to some Hon. Members, but I want to indicate, so that Members have an opportunity to consider in advance, how the Chair will rule on Monday. Perhaps Hon. Members can be advantaged in that sense so that they may raise the matter further, if they wish, on Monday. I must say that the present occupant of the Chair is inclined toward the same interpretation of Standing Order 35(2)(b)-

-in both versions as the one given by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). This means that I do not find much difference between the words "debat" in French and "consideration" in English.

My impression from a reading of both languages would indicate that the eight-hour limit would include the usage of ten-minute periods. However, that is not a final ruling. It is simply to advise the House that that is the present temperament of the Chair in reviewing the matter. There will be an opportunity for Hon. Members to raise the matter further on Monday. We will now continue with debate.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, after listening to those comments from Hon. Members well acquainted with procedural matters, I understand why this debate on the Crow rate policy has raised so much controversy. From what I have heard in the last few minutes, I can appreciate how something abudantly clear sometimes may become confusing for those who will not grasp simple matters.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for his courage in addressing a policy which will have an impact all across the land, a policy that nobody else since 1897 had the courage to tackle. That policy has been vilified and abused even before it was made public. I am far from being an expert in transportation matters, although there are several farmers in my constituency. However, in my area of Quebec, on the south shore, I spend more time dealing with other matters besides agriculture. But this time I thought I had a golden opportunity to get to know the issue, or at least familiarize myself with that policy.
I was surprised at the language used by the opponents of the proposal. And I am referring especially to the so-called coalition in Quebec that is headed by Minister Garon. I am surprised and shocked that although the Minister of Transport has now bowed to the will of the caucus sub-committee headed by the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), although he

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
accepted the bulk of their recommendations for paying all of the benefit to the railways.
I am surprised that no one made the point that throughout the debate on this issue, Mr. Garon does not really seem to have been protecting the interests of Canadian farmers, and I am also surprised to see that some Ministers of Agriculture in other provinces have totally ignored the national interest as far as agriculture is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, if in this country we are not capable of showing more concern for the national interest than has been shown during this debate, I think our country badly needs people with a more responsible outlook to defend it, at both the federal and the provincial level.
I was also somewhat astonished to hear the previous speaker mixing the Government's policy on the metric system and its energy policy in with his speech on the transportation policy, and making a kind of verbal hash as a result. I realize that he may be concerned and worried about these issues, but I do not think it is very sensible to air these concerns when the House is discussing a policy that is vital to this country. I explained to the farmers in my riding that I agreed with and understood the reasons behind the Minister of Transport's first policy statement. If we can doubletrack in the West, and we must, then we must do so in the interests of the entire country and not only of Western Canada. There were certain mechanisms the Minister was proposing and I agreed with them. In turn, I wanted some changes. I thought that if they did not pay according to acreage ... that did not go down very well with our people, and they had more or less convinced me on this point, that payment should be shared between the farmers and the railways. I went along with this point of view, and the point I made when I met farmers in my riding who were members of the Coalition was the following. I told them that I had trouble understanding why they were using the word equity, because for all practical purposes, what the Minister of Transport was proposing was to reduce subsidies on grain transport and to spend substantial amounts on developing the railway network in the West, in order to improve the country's economy, because if we can doubletrack, in the 90s Canadians will be able to ship and sell $2.5 million worth of grain.
Obviously, since farmers will have to spend a little more to get better transportation, they will probably make a bit less per ton of shipped grain, but they will be able to ship more wheat and more grain and more of everything, and in the final instance, their net income will be increased. And I told the Coalition farmers that they were objecting to the fact that because Western farmers would be making fewer profits, they would no longer be able to compete with the West, because Western farmers would be able to export pork, beef, and whatever they would be able to produce in Western Canada, and then I said that I found it somewhat paradoxical when on the one hand they were talking about equity, and at the same time they were saying that their competitive position was being
threatened because Western farmers would be subsidized a bit less per ton of wheat.
I said that perhaps we should look at a system where neither Eastern nor Western producers would be subsidized. Nothing. That is fair. There is nothing. No intervention, therefore total reliance on the forces of nature on what our land can produce with the help of the sun and its geographical location. And, may I ask at this point, what would Canadian agriculture be like if there were no subsidies? I would say that the gap which you are so concerned about would be still wider. Therefore, you might say that you would be less competitive, and on the other hand, with no subsidies whatsoever, without Government intervention, my friends, Western producers probably would be poorer because they would have lower incomes and would be unable all by themselves to totally fund the infrastructures they need.
And, when faced with that demonstration, people will say: Yes, maybe you are right. Then 1 say: What is to be done? What sort of intervention is needed from the federal Government to get the results that will benefit everyone? Because the test is national interest, and we should have this in mind while we make sure that nobody is to be penalized. And I hope that Mr. Caron, who led the battle, will never again contact me on the subject of transmission line corridors. I hope that Mr. Caron, our Minister of Agriculture, will be in a position to support the Minister of Energy if ever the Newfoundlanders, aware of their own interests, require a corridor for transmitting their hydro power across Quebec. Because it would be in the national interest for Newfoundlanders to get richer, and have access to a profitable market.
Throughout this debate during which the Minister has accepted to proceed at a slower pace, and has bowed to the request of a number of groups, including our caucus subcommittee, he has finally agreed in what probably is his wisdom and his greater understanding of Canadian society, and has told himself: Maybe we should go slower, by stages. He did not want to have people up in arms. And I thank him for this, not on behalf of the agricultural industry but because of the spirit of our common development. I hope that this magnificient proof of the Minister's generosity will serve as an example to all other Members. I hope it will be a source of inspiration to all Canadians. If we can show understanding rather than constant confrontation, it might take a bit longer but we should reach our goals.
Mr. Speaker, I thanked the Minister, not for what he has done for agriculture but rather for showing us that harmony has to be built up from scratch in Canada. I am convinced that if all of us on both sides of the House had supported the Minister, not for the policy he has introduced, but for everything he has done since the Gilson report, if Quebecers,
May 13, 1983

western NDP Members and Progressive Conservatives alike had had the openmindedness of the Minister, we could have defined the national interest and decided what is in the best interest of all Canadians and then tried to help and support the Minister in his quest for means to be taken to reach that objective. Then we could have explained our position to the people who had already made up their minds without quite knowing what the whole thing was all about. I am convinced that, at the meetings of the Quebec coalition where 400 or 500 people were gathered, seldom more than one or two of them had even read the Gilson report. I am convinced that if we could have met with each farmer-impossible, of course-they would have supported the Minister.
As a friend of Jack Horner's, I have met Alberta producers and I know as well a number of Saskatchewan farmers whom I have seen recently and whose needs I am aware of. I have been a Member for nine years now, and every spring and every summer I hear western Members talk about side tracks, what we in Quebec know as country lines. When Mr. Duplessis was Premier he won the elections by promising that those lines would be paved, whereas in Western Canada it seems that the way to win elections is to say that the side tracks will be maintained. I am not so sure. I discussed this issue with some farmers and I am not sure that it would be the most economical way to transport our foodstuffs. If we do not use the cheapest means, the result is that the farmer's net profit is lower. Our Minister of Transport has been trying to find ways so that everybody will be better off in the end. Finally, as it so often happens in Canada, the people took a tougher stand, thereby reducing the scope of the outstanding work which the Minister and the Department had undertaken.
In my opinion, we have a good policy and Bill C-155 is a tremendous step forward, but unfortunately the end result could have been even better, if their enthusiam had not been curtailed for fear of reaching the acceptable limit of change. I know the concern of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who certainly looks after the interests of his constituents, and his reputation and potential extend beyond the limits of his riding. That is a friend of whom all Albertans can certainly be very proud.
I am convinced that deep down-it was not easy to deal with organizations with negative attitudes-the Hon. Member for Vegreville has great admiration for the current Minister of Transport, having been himself for nine months responsible for that portfolio, having looked closely into the problems associated with the transportation of Western grain but without enough time available to carry out the courageous reform implemented by this minister. I am sure he is full of admiration for him, and I wish my friend "Maz" as we call him on this side, had met the various organizations and said: Gentlemen, the plan can be improved in order to better serve your interest. Unfortunately, I know Hon. Members from the Official Opposition are very busy entering races and they did not have time to enter this particular improvement race. However, I hope that during the months and the years to
Western Grain Transportation Act
come, the bill will offer us a golden opportunity to review this policy as a whole, around 1986, given the popularity of my Hon. friend from Alberta and I am convinced he will still be here in 1986 if he so wishes-


An Hon. Member:: On the other side.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Yes, on the other side! And it is my hope that at that time we will be able to go all the way and achieve all the benefits we have in mind for the Canadian agriculture.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Hon. Members of the remarkable personality of our Minister of Transport. It must be said again and again that he took into account the views of all the individuals he met, which is a rarity in politics, and especially he took into account our capacity to accept change. I can only hope that we will be able to go as far as he had hoped, in the best interest of all farmers in Quebec and in the West so that our agricultural industry will finally achieve its full potential.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Questions, comments? debate? The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in Parliament at this time and to take part in the debate on the transportation Bill as it relates to western farmers. I am pleased to be here because I am a product of the western farm. I grew up with the development and growth of western Canada.
I know that the Minister and others are amazed at the tenacity and energy with which farmers have opposed this Bill, this undermining of their trust in the country and a Government which they always thought did things for the benefit of the people. Those people trusted the Government because of the way they think. They have been betrayed before but they thought that most of the time the Government came up with something that was fair.
I know the Minister and others wonder why this issue has generated so much heat and emotion among farmers of the West. The Minister need only look at the history of the people to understand what they are fighting for. It goes far beyond cheap freight rates; they are fighting for a way of life which they built themselves.
Next Tuesday, May 17, in my community of Birch Hills the people will gather for a celebration. May 17 is Norwegian Independence Day. Some say it was the day that the Swedes got tired of the pesky Norwegians and kicked them out, but really it was a mutual decision between the Norwegians and the Swedes, reached through negotiation and understanding. That celebration is repeated in hundreds of communities in the West. Groups take time to celebrate and to remember. They might be Metis Swedes, Hungarians, Rumanians, Irish, English, Polish, Scottish, German or French, because in

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Saskatchewan about 60 per cent of the population comes from ethnic backgrounds other than French and English.
What are these people celebrating? To a great extent they are remembering their past or celebrating success. They are saying: "We are here in Canada and we made it; we worked; we believed; we hung on and look at us now. We are important Canadians, free and independent." Our children are the luckiest people in the world because we helped build a nation that is strong and fair and that believes in people.
Part of what they built is being attacked by this Bill-a way of life. It is not necessarily a way of making a living but of a way of life. To illustrate that building process I can only relate to my own experience, to what I saw, was told and felt in the process of growing up in the developing farming country. In the farms around Saskatchewan the Crow rate is part of that development.
The story of the West is the classic story of the development of land, homesteads, wheat pools, wheat boards, branch lines, pasture, cattle, pigs and even gardens. The people have a love for their land and for their country. They are people who trust and believe that if you work hard for the country you would be paid back with a bountiful harvest and fair treatment. Are we in this House going to betray that trust?
My father came to North America when he was ten years old. He came to a place called Weldon, one of a family of seven boys. He filed for a homestead before he was 16 and proved it before he was 18. Proving land in that part of Saskatchewan meant cutting and grubbing out trees, breaking 20 acres and building a house. My dad had the name of being a good man for the country because he and his oxen and horses broke a lot of land in that area in those first few years of development. He and his neighbours were builders who believed in the country. They grew grain when it sold for 20 cents a bushel and cost 19 cents per bushel to thresh. For a while they watched as their grain was purchased by line elevators for 50 cents and sold on the world market and even to the eastern market for $2 per bushel.
They built a wheat pool system to get around that kind of problem. They bypassed some of the speculators through the wheat pool and increased the amount of money that came to them. In the 1920s handling charges for grain went from 22 cents per bushel to two cents per bushel with the advent of the wheat pools. This is a telling commentary on the corporate enterprise rip-off.
The need for western grain was recognized but there seemed to be no reason to grow it because the cost of transportation by train was so exorbitant. Then the Government made a deal with the railways to establish lower rates in exchange for land, property and money, which went to the railways to help them build the lines and also went to contribute to the development of farming communities in the West.
Transportation is one of the things that makes the Canadian West possible. The roads which were the first trails had romantic names, such as Carleton Trail, Kelsey Trail and Edmonton Trail, the three trails which go near my home. Then
came the railways and finally the airplanes. These all make the West possible.
If you lop off any one of these modes you effectively change the base of the West. That is what this Bill does, Mr. Speaker. Over a period of time it will lop off the railways as the means of moving grain, at least for the first few steps for a farmer. The first few steps in the movement of grain for export are done by truck. If you remove the rail line you force the farmer to use another mode.
The Minister says: "So what? use another mode." It is possible but it would kill the way of life which is ours. The branch line system was built by the railway companies and they saw the benefits of putting lines within reach of the farmers and within reach of productive lands. The communities grew up along those trails and then along the railways. Communities thrived because they were easily reached by the farmers. Not many people lived more than ten or so miles from town in those days. Post offices, schools, churches, hospitals, curling rinks, hardware stores, machinery dealers, restaurants, skating rinks-in a word, all of the necessities of life grew up in those communities. From these small towns came people like the President of the Board of the CNR, the President of the Bank of Canada, the President of the CBC, people like Gordie Howe and John Diefenbaker. I could go on ad infiniti-um naming people who have grown up on the Prairies. These communities are still producing high-calibre leaders for Canada because their roots are deep and their support has been firm.
This way of life has been eroding quite quickly in the last few years, aided by trends which some abhor but others espouse, trends such as centralization of schools, hospital care, machinery agencies and so on. These trends have been aided and abetted by Government policies, in some cases the policy of a CCF Government in Saskatchewan. Some of these centralizations were not defensible.
However, I grew up during the Second World War which changed the demographics of the Prairies so that services either had to be centralized or become non-existent. But the death blows to many communities were dealt by rail line abandonment, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, when the railway left the elevator left, and the farmer did not go to that town. Schools closed, stores closed and eventually hospitals and the post office moved out, and another Prairie town was dead. Many westerners see this new direction as being symbolized by the withdrawal of Crow, by variable rates, and by further branch line abandonments. No one should kid themselves about the effects of this Bill and the effects of the elimination of Crow. It means more rail line abandonment and more decimation of small communities. That will be the effect of this legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Many westerners see this as one more devastating blow to their cherished way of life, to the way that they and their parents built their lives. Some will say it is inevitable anyway.
May 13, 1983

Market stresses will force this kind of centralization eventually. That is a fallacy which comes from a lack of understanding of the people and their way of life. It even lacks an understanding of the history of many countries throughout the world.
Centralization of the control of land in the hands of a few, an inevitable result of the present policy, has happened in many countries in the world. In fact, it was the place where many countries started. In Britain it was called feudalism and it took many years for that country to get rid of the situation where the lord owned the land and the people as well. They finally went from being tenant farmers to private owners of land. Many countries in the Third World, in Asia, South America, Central America and Africa, suffer from this problem of centralized ownership of land.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that that is going to happen here, but there is a parallel which should not be ignored. Even now in the State of Kansas a large portion of land is centrally owned and farmed by tenant farmers. That is not our way of life. Centralization is not inevitable or even necessary. Right now in Saskatchewan, viable farm size varies from a quarter section to ten and 20 sections. In many cases small farmers pay as much income tax as the large ones, which implies that ten families could make as good a living on those ten sections as one family does now.
The effect of this Bill will be to force centralization by elimination of the farmer who is small, regardless of how efficient he is. The day may come when there is a move back to small farms. Economic pressures and hig-tech may dictate the direction in which we move in the future where we will need those railways and those branch lines. The time may come when, because of the population of Canada and the need for food in the world, we will be forced to use more efficient methods of farming, of food production. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure no doubt in the mind of anyone who has lived on the Prairies, that the small farm is a more efficient producer than is the large farm. We are not planning for that in passing this Bill.
Many people are protesting this particular Bill. They protested it when it started as the Gilson-Pepin report, and they are protesting it now. How are they voicing those protests? We have received around 30,000 letters and signatures, and taking into account what the Minister must have received directly, probably many more than those 30,000 citizens have voiced their protests. We have had letters of endorsement of Crow retention from rural municipalities, from town councils, from cities like Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Yorkton and Mel-fort, from villages, from chambers of commerce, from church groups. In fact, just the other day the Minister received a letter from the Anglican Diocese of Qu'Appelle, a very conservative group.
The original proposal did not have consensus, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has admitted that. This Bill which he has put forward has even less, he is finding. The Minister should seek consensus for such important legislation. The essence of democracy is that the Government have the consent of the governed. The essence of democracy is that the Government
Western Grain Transportation Act
have the essence of the governed. This Government has forgotten that essence. The Minister has never had the consent of the people who are most affected by this Bill.
I have attempted this day, Mr. Speaker, to say why this legislation is tenaciously being fought by the grassroots western farmers, who feel betrayed by their own organizations and by the Government. These two groups are attempting to negotiate away part of the farmers' way of life, the part which they built and in which they took pride.
The committee will be considering the main parts of the Bill which we have been debating. I would advise the Minister to put the Bill away for some time and to reconsider it later. Let him return with a plan that allows the West to be what it has been and can be, as suggested in the amendment.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spent a lot of time on centralization. I believe this is a very important issue. Much centralization has already occurred. Delivery points have already been centralized and the sizes of farms and towns have already been centralized. There are small towns where I live such as Hendon, Saskatchewan and Wadena, Saskatchewan which still have branch lines but the towns are dying out. This trend has occurred even with the present Crow rate in place.
On what studies is the Hon. Members basing his allegation that the abandonment of branch lines will cause this centralization that he is talking about? Because it has already occurred with the present Crow rate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. There is a certain amount of centralization and it is affecting the way of life of the western farmer who has been there for a long time and wants to remain there. Centralization is resulting in larger farms which will produce less grain.
The Crow rate is simply one more factor. If we had had variable rates before, as we will have in the future, centralization would have occurred much sooner. We would not be concerned about that issue today because it would have already happened.
The responsibility of Governments is to do what is best for the people of the country, not for the big manufacturers. Right now the people in western Canada do not want to move off off the farms but they are being forced to do so. Where can they go but to the cities in order to get jobs which do not exist?
Our farm population could be doubled. The provincial Government in Saskatchewan has said recently that there are now 12,000 more people on the farms than there were a couple of years ago. There are 12,000 more because they had somewhere to go. In Kansas, however, where there are tenant farmers, there is nowhere to go.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to say to the Minister that I think the House owes a great debt to him for patiently listening to us today. We feel extremely sorry for him, being left out to swing

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
in the breeze and hang out to dry without the support of some of his major colleagues.
As the previous speaker, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), just said, the subject we are debating today not only requires a rational solution to a mathematical problem but is an issue which affects the whole fabric of our nation.
Ever since the nation began we have accepted the fact that it was a large geographic country and that we would help each other with transportation. I will return to that point later.
My remarks are going (a) to set the perspective and (b) to put forward some positive suggestions which might help the Minister follow some of the suggestions that have already been made.
First, I am sure everyone realizes that the question of railway servicing in Canada in the last 20 years has been first and foremost in this Parliament. The first royal commission report came to Parliament in 1962. We spent five years discussing it in Parliament. The Government changed its Ministers and the new Minister worked co-operatively with the then CCF and with us. We were able to draft a new Bill. When it came in, I believe the Opposition made over 70 amendments and all but two were accepted. The House worked well then. We put our thoughts down in a Bill called the National Transportation Act, and with the support of all Parties it laid down very simple objectives for all modes of transport that we knew could not be economically viable in the ordinary commercial sense until we had a much larger population. The principles enunciated by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) essentially carry out those objectives that were in the National Transportation Act.
The next major event in this discussion was the Hall Commission on boats, railways, transportation and grain handling facilities. I am sorry that I was not in the House yesterday when the Hon. Member spoke. To many of us in western Canada this was our Magna Carta. It reinforced what we had distinctly taken as a pledge from the CPR when it brought people from Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces and eventually Europe to fill up these empty spaces. Some people still carry the advertisements that were put in the European papers by the CPR saying that there was free land and a right to transport grain to markets. While there is not any written law, it is part of the common law of the whole country, not just the West.
The Hall Commission report recommended keeping the Crow rate as it is. If there are any losses that could be proven, we, the taxpayers from all parts of Canada, would pay them. That is the law as it stands today.
It also recommended that we should abandon 2,000 miles of line that probably has no chance for viability. The farmers would accept that. Another 2,000 miles of line would be provided for under the Prairie Rail Authority and run by westerners in order to haul grain and whatever other commodity people wished to transport. When they made money, as they would, the lines would be turned back to the railways with no charge. That was the second proposal.
The third was to build up traffic so that the railways could make more money. The Hall Commission report was not aimed at the railways or the grain companies. It was simply trying to make them more efficient so that they could make more money. The farmers would not have complained if the CPR, the banks and the grain companies could make more money. That is a brief history on the subject.
We now come to the Gilson consensus. It brings me to what I have said in the House, that there has been a great debate occurring in western Europe, the United States, Canada and elsewhere for the past 25 years about what to do with agriculture. One suggestion from Europe was that there were too many farmers and they had to be controlled and elected because the experts knew better what to do than the farmers. This became known as the philosophy of supply and demand. This philosophy was accepted by the Kennedy administration but not by the Diefenbaker administration.
We took the opposing point of view that since the world was hungry we would sell the grain. The price would go up somewhat and no subsidies were required for the farmer. He would feel good because he was feeding the world while making some more money.
The records show that from 1961 to 1968, we entered into the longest period of economic growth in all parts of Canada in our history. The credit for that rise was given to the then Minister of Finance, Walter Gordon, and the then Bank of Canada Governor, Mr. Rasminsky, because we had sold that grain in the export markets and had gone into the manufacturing areas of Ontario and Quebec and sold their products. That rise resulted not only from the export of goods but putting the dollar into a position where it could take advantage of the fact that we could increase our exports because it was down to its real value.
That is all history. But on the other side of the coin those who believe we should control the number of farmers and reduce production were still working away in Washington and Ottawa. They set up a task force for agriculture after the defeat of the Diefenbaker Government. The report is here for everyone to read. It is dated 1970 and recommended that we get rid of two out of every three farmers in Canada and that in the West we cut the acreage down to half so there would be enough living for the few that were left.
That is the philosophy of the elite, our experts, in all countries. The Americans are still looking for the domination of that group, but in Canada I thought there would at least be some sort of fight here against that philosophy.
The Government appointed Professor Gilson to take charge of this consensus based on an unofficial report from a nonexistent person as far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Snavely. The only group authorized to do studies on costs under the law is the Canadian Transport Commission. That was ignored by the Department of Transport and the Minister is now paying the price for that.
May 13, 1983

The Snavely report is so visibly and obviously fallacious that he even included as costs on grain the assets created by Government. The farmers gave the railways all this rolling stock, which was then depreciated and put in as a cost. That is as bad as what they have always done. For 20 years they have put in deferred maintenance costs, which they never spent, as a cost against grain. I believe the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) mentioned that.
I am simply pointing out to the Minister that he is suffering from the philosophy of these experts that really there is no place for the farmers in any part of Canada, and that you have to reduce their numbers just to supply the local population.
One of the Minister's predecessors, the Hon. Otto Lang, discussed this with me and decided to go along with this philosophy. He introduced four different proposals. One was called Lower Inventory For Tomorrow, LIFT. He forced the Canadian Wheat Board to ignore the law and said to the farmers: "If you do not follow this proposal to reduce production to nothing for grain, for wheat, you lose your right to sell". When the head of the Wheat Board could not accept my advice-he had no power in the Act-the Government got rid of him and put him in the Senate.
This is a sad story. Otto Lang, as able a man as ever sat in this House, paid a heavy price for going the way of the experts. I will not say anything more about that. When I look at how the railways accepted this advice and did not spend any money on maintenance, on buying new rolling stock for all the great opportunities that existed and when I look at how the grain companies held up their modernization, we were all to blame. But what is the use of going back and rehashing all of this history? We are here to decide, and only Parliament can decide, a change in the Crow rates.
The reasons this Bill is unacceptable have been stated well by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. He had 14 different reasons. Most of those reasons had a constructive tinge to them. Basically the trouble with this Gilson consensus is that the Minister is trapped into two separate problems. There is one problem he should be dealing with and that is the problem of transportation. That is difficult enough, but try to work into that consensus meeting the needs of the livestock people of Quebec and of the West and try to make them meld. There has been discrimination against livestock people. But to try and mix up the needs of additional value-added industries in western Canada is the basic reason for the failure of this consensus to work.
My suggestion, very briefly, is that we need some time in this House. You cannot handle this type of problem in three or four days of debate. There is a motion for a six months' hoist. That is hardly enough time but at least it would give time for the Government to bring in policies absolutely removed from the Minister's responsibility and provide justice to the livestock industry. We have the machinery now. With a little patience and a little work we could adapt it to give the benefit of the Crow rate, as they call it in the West, to the livestock industry without interfering with transportation whatsoever, It is there. Let us keep that problem separate because there is discrimination in fairness and equity. Let us deal with it. The same with the commodity groups. There are any number of ways to give
Western Grain Transportation Act
them roughly equitable positions in the export market for value-added industries.
The grain farmer is living in a new age today. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) was correct. Twenty-five years ago the average income of a farmer in my area was $2,000 a year. It is a lot higher today, we know that. The farmer has seen his costs rising and his income coming down and he is worried. But he is not panicking. This decision, known as the Gilson suggestion originally, then the Pepin suggestiona nd now the consensus, or whatever it is, has scared the living daylights out of him. Farmers think they are now fighting for survival. I would think that the way to bring back a little hope is to keep in mind some simple economics that have never been talked about too much in this debate.
The railway is still a fixed cost industry. That means the fixed costs do not change. Variables do change. Let me put it in simple terms. Supposing you get $ 100 revenue for hauling a certain unit of production and your costs are, say, fifty-fifty, variable and mixed. You just break even; you do not make any profit. Supposing you double the amount of goods moving. There would be $200 worth of revenue coming in. The fixed costs would still be $50 on a fifty-fifty breakdown and the variables would be $100, double. There is a profit of $50 just by doubling the traffic.
That simple explanation is the answer to the problem of the railways, and they know it. They have seen it happen before. They tried to prove they were losing money on the Crow rate, the last time in 1962-1963, and then the Hall Commission report came down. During the period the railways were talking to Parliament the export of grain doubled, from $300 million to $600 million worth of wheat. The railways admitted to us they were making money on the Crow rate. Even though the figures sound small, half a cent a tonne mile, if you can make half a cent a tonne mile on a heck of a big tonnage, you are making money.
Let us apply that same principle to other products such as coal, potash, gravel and lumber. Why is lumber hauled by the Great Northern Railway to Ontario from B.C.? All of the people who live in southern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta get their lumber via the Great Northern Railway. They haul at a charge that gives them a profit, not this high rate which the railways have set in Canada.
I see that my time is coming to a close and I shall come to my conclusions very quickly. I have a list of suggestions here. The Hon. Member for Vegreville had 14; I have only seven. There is a time factor. Take the principles enunciated by the Hon. Member for Vegreville and set a statutory committee instead of an advisory committee for Parliament, with competent help so we will have an over-all viewpoint.
Second, start the CTC working on the Snavely report right away. It will take the CTC about two years to figure it out, but at least we will know with what we are dealing. We will guarantee to the railways that we will pay their costs, maybe even a fraction more, if we find there is injustice to them.

May 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Finally, what is killing all parts of Canada but particularly the productive boys in Canada is interest rates. Give to the farmers and the small-businessman the principle of the Small Business Development Bond or any of the other things our fellows have been suggesting where you can get interest at half rate and no one loses. You can do a lot to restore the hope and confidence that there has to be in a producer's area at a time like this when the future is so great for us all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. Members will realize that it is five o'clock. The Chair has been privately advised that there might be a disposition to allow some additional time. I am in the hands of the House. If that is the desire of the House, we can do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has not completed his remarks I suggest that we seek unanimous consent for him to do so. I am not sure whether he has been able to round out his speech, but I believe we all found it to be
a very interesting, very positive and forthright speech. He is a distinguished Hon. Member and has a great reputation in agriculture and transportation matters. If the Hon. Member wanted to conclude his speech in three or four minutes, I would certainly seek the unanimous consent of the House for that purpose.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we would agree that the Hon. Member should have his full 20 minutes.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: The agreement of the House is a great courtesy to the Hon. Member, but he has just informed me that he will decline the offer.
It being after five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2.
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 16, 1983