1983-06-22

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that there have been some questions about the statement that I made in the House about the previous question. I would like to clarify that statement for the benefit of Hon. Members. On June 21 I did say that the motion on the previous question is not closure because, after the House votes on the previous question, the debate on the main question will, of course, be resumed. I should have added that it will be resumed, but only if that order is revived.
I would like to quote from the study in the procedural paper which we have prepared on the previous question, explaining what the previous question is all about. It states, "It is designed to limit debate, since until it is decided, it precludes all amendment to the main question."
That is the second point I had made on June 21, that is, that when the previous question is put, this is done only in order to prevent the proposing of new amendments, and that is the exact object of the previous question, to preclude further amendment and to deal immediately with the motion. If carried, thus resolving that the original question be now put, it forces the House to an immediate decision on the main question, in accordance with Standing Order 56(2), which states:
If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative, the original question is to be put forthwith without any amendment or debate.
I hope this clarifies the statement that I made in the course of some points of order, I believe, which were raised on the previous question.


Mr. Lewis:: I rise on a point of clarification, Madam Speaker. We were in fact wondering about your remarks and trying to relate them to the rules. In other words, this form of closure that the Government is using will mean that, immediately after the vote on the previous question, Your Honour will then call the vote on second reading unless, of course, the Government should reconsider and negative the vote on the previous question.
If there should be a change of heart on this closure matter, and the Government should vote against the motion of the Hon. Member, which was not moved by an Hon. Member on the front benches, if it were in fact to change its mind and
negative the motion, Your Honour is saying that second reading debate would then be revived the next day and that at that point there would be a chance for further debate. However, the way it stands now, if the Government votes for closure by approving the motion, it will then cut off debate.
[DOT] (ii10)


Madam Speaker:: Well, that is where I think the Hon. Member has been a bit responsible for the confusion by calling the previous question "closure".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Be fair. I was answering the matter of closure in my remarks rather than really explaining what the previous question was, so that is why the statement was not complete. What the Hon. Member says is right; if the matter of the previous question is resolved in the affirmative, then we proceed to take action on the main motion.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you very much for the clarification, Madam Speaker. I am sure the people of Canada will call it closure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: Briefly, Madam Speaker, last evening after the taking of the vote a question arose regarding whether the vote was accurate or not. I wonder if you would be kind enough to take into consideration that, if a point of order arises out of the vote itself, the vote is not complete until the point of order has been heard and ruled upon, notwithstanding the time of day.


Madam Speaker:: Well, you have to accommodate and adjust several Standing Orders. The point of order was raised once the vote proceeding was finished.


Ian Deans: Well, we were trying to-


Madam Speaker:: Yes. When the result of the vote had been given, everything seemed to be terminated as far as the Chair was concerned. Then the point of order was raised. The Chair assumed, perhaps wrongly, but since it was past eleven o'clock, the Chair assumed that the point of order was dealing with something else. That is not surprising because several points of order had been brought up during the day.
The Chair has the responsibility to move the House from one proceeding to the other. In all fairness to the Members who wanted to participate in the adjournment debate, at eleven o'clock the Chair had to give these Members that time. The Chair did not want to take away any of their time. Therefore, at eleven o'clock, since I assumed the point of order would be

June 22, 1983
Business of the House
about something else, not about the vote-the vote was finished and it seemed all right-the Chair protected the three Members who were to speak after eleven o'clock.
The Member's point is well taken, but he also has to remember that once a proceeding is started it is not to be interrupted, and that goes for votes. The voting procedure, once it has started, should not really be interrupted, and the Hon. Member will remember we did have a problem with that at some point.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 would not want anyone to take my raising this as in any way a criticism of the way it was handled. My concern is that we should know the procedure to follow. I can understand that at the adjournment hour, whatever it is, there is confusion. My only concern is that I want it to be clear that, if there is a point of order arising out of the taking of the vote, the vote is not complete until after the point of order has been heard. 1 think that is what the Chair said.
The timing is sometimes very difficult because it is almost impossible to be heard on a point of order until the Chair has heard the vote. We cannot tell how many people have voted one way or the other until the announcement is made. Therefore we cannot tell whether the totals the Chair has added up include the Member who voted improperly, or not. My only point is that in order to deal with it in a fair and equitable way, we must wait until the announcement of the vote takes place to determine whether the Chair has included the Member or Members who have voted improperly, before we can legitimately raise the point of order that someone voted who should not have done so. Therefore we must raise it after the announcement because, if it were done prior to the announcement, we would be prejudging whether or not that Member had been counted.


Madam Speaker:: That is perfectly true. However, I must tell the Hon. Member that in the course of proceedings upon taking the vote I could not allow any points of order. The Chair must wait until that proceeding is completed. That is what we did last night.
The Hon. Member is raising a point which 1 recognize and take into account. I do not think it is necessary to expound a principle on this. The Chair always listens to points of order. At any rate, had I not listened to points of order last night past eleven o'clock, we could have dealt with it again this morning. We could have had the record of the vote corrected. It was not definitive because something could have been done about it. It was neater to have done it last night, and I thank the Hon. Members who raised the point last night.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 21, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act 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 Motion of Mr. Lachance (p. 26521).
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, consensus or closure-


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


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the Hon. Member has already spoken in the debate on the previous question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. There may be some confusion as to the right of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski)-


David P. Smith: There is no confusion. He is on the list.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I anticipated this situation, if the Hon. Member will listen for a moment. It was obvious the other day when the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) moved his motion that the Chair reserved putting it to the House at that point. Debate continued on the main motion and the Hon. Member for Mackenzie, at that stage of debate, wes recognized to speak to the main motion. In the course of his remarks he moved the adjournment of the debate. The vote on that was proceeded with later in the day. Following the vote, the motion proposed to the House was read from the Chair at that point. It is at that point that it was formally before the House. Therefore the Hon. Member for Mackenzie was not addressing his remarks to the previous question but to the main motion. The Chair has no choice but to recognize the Hon. Member for Mackenzie to speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Rosemont.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, of course, I accept that ruling.


Mr. Epp:: Sit down then.


David P. Smith: I want to be fair, and I hope Hon. Members will be fair to me. I rose because I was going by a list of those who have spoken on the previous question which was provided to me by the Table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. There is no such list, either formally or informally. The Table officers are at the disposal of the Chair. They are the advisers of the Chair. While they may well establish certain lists from time to time to assist the Chair as to who has spoken and who may want to
June 22, 1983

speak, that in no way should be regarded as an official list. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates that point. It has no formal standing in the House. The only list by which Hon. Members ought to be guided is the list of speakers printed in Hansard every day.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on this last comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. I think he owes an apology to the Table because hie is impugning people who cannot speak back. I think that is most improper in this assembly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I appreciate the Hon. Member's assistance. The Chair does not feel slighted in any way.


Donald W. Munro: No, the Table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Or the Table. The Chair dealt with the matter of the Table officers. These incidents may happen. I think the Chair owed an explanation to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the whole House. I hope that situation is clear for the future. I do not think there was any undue or harsh reflection on the Table officers. I am sure it was not meant that way.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the matter, I am in no way reflecting upon the Table whatsoever. I simply mentioned that I had gone by a list which had been provided by them. I am not suggesting that it has any official status. If the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) would like to look at this list, if he would like me to table it, I would be happy to do so. 1 am casting no reflections whatsoever. I think it was a misunderstanding that has been cleared up. For anyone to cast aspersions on anybody in this matter would be unfortunate and unnecessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: May I have one final say on this matter? It is obvious that Hon. Members from time to time seek assistance or direction from the Table officers who are extremely happy and glad to co-operate and be helpful. But Hon. Members should be very careful in their remarks regarding the Table officers. They are not part of the debate. Their conduct is not a matter for reflection. The Chair deals with those matters, and 1 hope that we can now proceed with the debate.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I started off my remarks by referring to consensus or closure. I did that for a reason. I anticipated the Parliamentary Secretary or someone else might raise a question, and I wanted to put at least that much of my speech on the record in the event that a decision might be rendered otherwise.
However, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary at this particular time for rising. If there was ever any doubt in anybody's mind as to whether or not this was closure, his intervention indicating that I no longer have any right to speak
Western Grain Transportation Act
indicates to me, and to anyone else listening to or reading my remarks, that he was under the impression I could no longer speak. That, to me, is closure. They cut off speaking. They cut off the possibility for amendment. That is closure.
There are different forms of closure in the House, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, having studied the rules very carefully. He has tried to make use of them from time to time. There is such a thing as agreed timing. There was no agreement from this side that we should cut off debate.
What was the one intervention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in this whole debate? It was a notice of motion for closure.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley James Korchinski: The Minister of Agriculture is cutting off spokesmen for people involved in agriculture by saying that we will close off debate at a particular point. What form it was to take, he did not indicate, but the form that was taken now is a pretty good indication-


An Hon. Member:: Louder.


Stanley James Korchinski: I might have to speak louder for it to sink in. I hope it does. Eventually it will, I can assure you. I can vouch for that. The Hon. Member makes smart-aleck remarks at this point. That is the only kind of interjection he makes. I often wonder why the Members opposite, the bulk of whom are from Quebec, are so silent. Do they not know anything about the subject? Is that why the Member asks me to speak louder? Those Members do not even sit in the House. They just take off and flock in at the time of a vote. They flock around their Leader.
Is there no one opposite who will take up the challenge to debate? We had an interjection from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who said that they would impose closure. Is that an indication that there is consensus? This Government promised it would not move on the Crow until there was a consensus. We have now reached the point where the Government is imposing closure. Is that consensus?
Do you, Mr. Speaker, feel that we should not introduce any further amendments? Do you feel that the issue is not large enough? Do you think this is only a regional problem? It affects the West Coast and it affects the Prairies. I often wonder why they call it the Prairies, because we have a lot of forests, rivers, and so on. It also affects central Canada, Quebec, and the Maritimes. It has very broad implications.
Quebec Members were very disturbed in the past that the Government was going to move on the Crow. What has silenced them? Did any one of them rise and give us an indication why they will support closure? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) owes the Members of this House and all Canadians an explanation. What is he going to do? Where are we moving to? What guarantee do we have from the Government if we move by closure-and I repeat closure-

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish the Hon. Member would check Hansard, because Madam Speaker ruled very clearly that this motion was in order and that it was not a closure motion. Madam Speaker made that very clear. The Hon. Member can check that in Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is not a point of order. We are proceeding with debate. That is a matter of opinion at this stage.


Stanley James Korchinski: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. When historians look back at this debate, they will ask what happened to the Crow. They will ask whether, after 85 years, it died of old age or because it was no longer of any use. History will record that the Crow was choked. Debate on the Crow was choked. It can be called choking, or it can be called closure. I will call it closure. I will tell the people of Canada that it is closure, because that is what it is. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) confirmed that. Closure is taking place even though many, many problems will arise.
To attend this debate which began last week, I had to absent myself from a hearing on rail line abandonment. Rail line abandonment was occurring simultaneously with the attempt to change the Crow to charge the farmer more for transporting grain.
In addition to paying a higher price for moving grain from a point further from their farms, farmers will have to deal with rail line abandonment. If you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, a 13-mile long rail line will be abandoned so that CN would then have to transfer grain an extra 146 miles to get to the same point. Now that is economy! If anyone thinks that we have no reason to continue debating this question, think again, because that is precisely what is happening in the West.
That extra mileage charge that the farmer must add to his cost of operation, is that part of the blending formula of which the Minister speaks? The Minister does not speak. He owes it to the House to tell us whether or not he has made a deal with Members of the NDP. Members of the NDP kept telling us that the Conservatives were making a deal that would make paying either the farmer or the railway optional. What kind of a deal has been cooked up with Members of the NDP? We thought they said they were opposed to it. Now we hear on the CBC that they have made a deal. I wonder what is going on over there between those two. Now who is making the deal, and what are they making a deal for? I thought they were opposed to it. If they are opposed to it, then there is no deal. But what was all that about? The Minister owes it to the House to tell us whether there is or was a deal, or whether there will be a deal with the NDP. What is going on?
Last night we heard from the agricultural spokesman for the NDP. We had to root him out a little bit, but he got up. He was up, but he never commented on the kind of wheeling and dealing that was going on.


An Hon. Member:: With the man with the green hat.


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes, someone has mentioned the man with the green hat. Instead of wearing a green hat, that Minister should be wearing an engineer's cap from now on. He went to Winnipeg to meet with the rail people there. They all gleefully rubbed their hands together and took a few wonderful pictures, and the people from the railway said, "Well, it is not quite good enough, but it is a step in the right direction." They said this as they smiled all the way to the bank. Of course they should smile because of the guaranteed income, and because Members of the NDP are making deals.
The Minister should change his hats occasionally, I think, if only in the interest of sanitation. Outside of that, I think that maybe an engineer's cap would suit him well.
I think that if the Minister goes to the West he might find out what effect the actions of the Government will have on the West. We in the West have no cost guarantees. We have no guarantees on what the railways will do with their books. Who will inspect those books? What will be the costs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more. Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair will put the question. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to add my remarks to the debate on the motion to call the previous question which, by any other term, is clearly closure, because when we vote on this we must move immediately to the main motion on second reading, and that is the end of it.
There has been much debate over this issue, Sir, but I think it is clear that everyone has been trying to convince Government Members to change their views with respect to Bill C-155. I shall try to do this by showing them that it is simply improper within the Canadian context. Bill C-155 is not the Canadian way to solve the problem.
I am sure that Government Members realize that this Party is trying to represent the broad range of views and interests which a Bill like this must reflect. For example, there are the grain producers. The amendments that we fought for, such as the safety net and the removal of the cap, were designed to protect the legitimate interests of the grain producers in the West. But there are other legitimate interests in the West because the West is not a homogeneous, one product region.
There is also the livestock industry, the cow-calf producers, Canadian men and women who own their own farms. There are feedlot operators and other good Canadians who pay their
June 22, 1983

fair share of taxes and more. There are the livestock processors and there are also those who grow specialty crops, Mr. Speaker.
We seem to think that this Bill will automatically cover all grain in the West. Well, it will not. It covers only Canadian Wheat Board crops, of which there are only six. A few more have been added, but there are many specialty crops that are not covered. Canadian farmers, people who have been in Canada for four and five generations and who have put their whole lives and hearts and souls into the country, will be blocked because of this Bill. They will be blocked because the process is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
We stand for the future. We recognize that there will be changes, and therefore we have addressed our attention to seeing that those changes are made with the best interests of the West and, therefore, of the whole country at heart, because as the regions are strong the whole country will be strong. In this country, there is no reason why every region cannot be strong. The Atlantic region with its fisheries and forests and minerals, Quebec with its enormous hydro-electric power, Ontario with its manufacturing base, and the West with its millions and millions of acres of land and the water that flows from the mountains, these regions can all be strong. We can produce food and livestock, Mr. Speaker, for the entire world. We have barely tapped our potential. Yet this Bill will block that potential, and the Liberal and NDP strategy to put this Bill through will just finish it off.
Contrast our position with that of the NDP, Mr. Speaker. Members of the NDP only really represent one group, the National Farmers' Union. That is a small group of farmers. There are over 150,000 farmers in the West; the NFU, as I recall, has about 3,000 to 3,500 members. When I saw the books of the NFU two years ago, it was $750,000 in debt. It cannot even run its own organization properly, just like the Liberals who are running the country. They both have debts that are truly enormous.
What else have Members of the NDP done about this, Mr. Speaker? They have been betraying the West since 1980. The constitutional proposal was a direct attack on the West, and NDP Members backed it. The National Energy Program was a direct attack upon Canadian companies, upon people who are building the nation and paying taxes to try to make Canada a world power in terms of economic strength and feeding the world, and they backed that Bill. We have since seen the decline and the absolute demise of the oil industry in the West.
What about Canagrex? In spite of the fact that we have had the experience of VIA Rail as a Crown corporation, the experience of Canadair, which is costing union labourers $1.5 billion, the experience of de Havilland-


An Hon. Member:: What about the Wheat Board?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I could talk about the Wheat Board if the Hon. Member wants to deal with it. What about Petro-Canada? That corporation has cost Canadians about $7 billion.
Western Grain Transportation Act


An Hon. Member:: What has that to do with the Crow?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Ordinary citizens, Mr. Speaker, have difficulty accepting the fact that they have less money in their pockets and less disposable income because of the over 300 Crown corporations. Yet Members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties got together and created another Crown corporation for agriculture.
Sir, this Bill represents a problem for the West solely because of inflation. At one half cent per ton mile for 70 years, the railways made money, the grain people made money, and there was no distortion affecting the livestock industry or, if there was, it was small enough that the industry was able to cope with it, as were the processors. As a result, people made money for 70 years. Then came inflation which we know was caused by the deficits. The Government over-stimulated the economy this year to the extent of $30 billion. Those deficits lead to inflation and high interest rates, which then lead to collapse. This is exactly what was done dozens of times throughout history. It became a serious problem and the Minister, quite properly, put together a group of 60 or 70 of the finest minds in the West, men who work all the time in agriculture, and they came up with the Gilson proposals. Their suggestion was for 81 per cent to the producers and 19 per cent to the railways.


Mr. Pepin:: That is true.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Then the Minister came back with his February statement, called the Pepin proposals. They payment was reduced from 81-19 to 50-50. The groups in the West who would suffer under this distortion said that they could live with it. But then an entirely different group of people, the Liberal Quebec caucus, became involved, and politics entered into it. They said the payment must go 100 per cent to the railway. The NDP agreed absolutely; they want 100 per cent of the payment to go to the railways. It amounts to a guaranteed annual income to one of the largest corporations and perhaps the most wealthy corporation in the world. The NDP wants the payment to go there.
The solution to the western problem was arrived at in the West when some of the top minds got together, but because of politics, and because of the Liberal caucus, it was destroyed, and again the NDP is backing the Government.
We must have this Bill changed, Mr. Speaker. I plead with Liberal Members to change their minds. The Department of Agriculture has filed extensive information which shows that a payment to the producers will not adversely affect Quebec. The Minister of Agriculture in Ontario has said that his studies show that it would not affect Ontario either. For the Quebec caucus to direct that payment be made 100 per cent to the railways rather than to the producers, in the face of the document filed by the Minister of Agriculture, which shows that it will have no effect whatsoever, is simply wrong.
I plead with my colleagues opposite to go to work on the Cabinet and have this changed. If that payment is made to the

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
producers it gives them some freedom of choice. When they deliver their grain or decide what to produce, they may decide not to ship it by railway but by truck. That would mean that hundreds and hundreds of Canadian owned and operated trucking companies will buy trucks manufactured in Ontario. Farmers will haul the grain to the central railway locations, and trains could go back and forth on a rotation of seven days at the most. By removing the cap at the same time, we could export 40 million tonnes of grain.


Mr. Blaikie:: You want to get rid of the branch lines. You have just admitted it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to keep every branch line the way it is. Members of that Party forget that the branch lines were designed for the horse and buggy days, when a horse could only walk 4.5 miles and back in a day. That is why there was a town and village every nine miles. Now we have roads and we have trucks which can drive 30 or 40 miles quite easily.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You want to get rid of those towns? Is that what you are saying?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Under the Crow those towns have been going down for years and years. They were designed for the horse and buggy days, but now, with cars and trucks, people are choosing to drive to the larger centres, and there are centres every 30 or 40 miles. That is as natural as growing from a child to an adult, but the NDP is stuck with its adolescent ideology. Members of the NDP dream that if everyone is equal, somehow things are going to be more Christian, more fair. They want equality of result, but we know from the nature of man that some people are smarter, some are more musical than others. No matter what test is applied, some people are better off and some are worse off.
We say that we need a fully competitive system, and that is what the payment to the producer will bring about, Mr. Speaker. It will bring true competition to the West. If a railway gets out of line people will just switch to trucks, to pipelines or anything else, in the future. In that way we will ensure the most efficient operation because the bottom line is that we have to put a bushel of grain at tidewater competitive to the United States, Argentina, and Australia. Those countries are whipping us, Mr. Speaker. If we follow the logic of the NDP and the Liberals, we will be in the dark ages forever.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak because I have a particular interest in this Bill. There is an aspect of it which has not been given much attention, and that is its effect on Crown lands. This aspect has been completely ignored in the debate. I am surprised to find that the Government of British Columbia has indicated in a variety of ways that it would be very favourably disposed toward Members of the House from British Columbia who would agree that the Bill should go through.
In the mail I received the text of a statement made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways for the Province of
British Columbia when he spoke in Vancouver about Bill C-155 and about the length of thus debate. Thanks to the ten-minute speech rule, a variety of aspects of the Bill can be brought to the attention of Canadians, and I think this is important.
We are trying to let it be known from one coast to the other that there are elements of this Bill which are dangerous. No one contests the fact that some changes must be made to the Crow rate. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) has stated on more than one occasion, and in a variety of places, the principles which guide the approach of this Party to the Bill.
This Bill is meant to ensure that the federal Government and the railways continue to provide a special low rate consistent with the Crowsnest Pass agreement to assist producers to compete with subsidized grain exporting nations. This is essential. Agriculture is the lifeblood of this country. We grew up in an agricultural domain. My parents moved out to central Canada from Nova Scotia in the latter years of the previous century because there was an opportunity there to grow grain. This is what made this country-grain and the railways. They have been inevitably interwoven with our history.
Ndw, not content with destroying Parliament, the Government has decided to destroy the very thing that makes the nation work, the combination of railways and agriculture.
The introduction of closure stinks, Mr. Speaker. Whatever you want to call it, it still stinks. That is what is being imposed, and that is what is destroying this House. When I was first elected it was a place where I felt I could serve with dignity. Because of the disrepute into which the House has fallen as a result of the Government, I am now finding that is almost-1 hesitate to use the word-but it is almost a disgrace to serve in the House. The Government has destroyed Parliament's underpinnings in the procedural sense. Now it is set on destroying the country, and it has done a pretty good job of it up till now in other areas.
We are finding that in the matter of transportation the Government is determined to set East against West. 1 think that is an absolutely shocking performance for any so-called Government of Canada.
Another principle, which is recognized in the Bill but in a different way, is to provide fair compensation to the railways for moving grain in order to provide the necessary capital to maintain new and existing plant and equipment. It must be fair compensation, not total compensation. A full compensatory rate would make our products unsaleable in the world, Mr. Speaker. That is what we must recognize. Because of the size of this country the railways have a public responsibility to ensure that the railroad continues to exist and to serve this country.
I was deeply distressed when the passenger service across this country was eviscerated. That is the best word I can think
June 22, 1983

of. Passenger service was absolutely eviscerated. I saw in something I was reading the other day that VIA Rail is now registering heavy losses. It should still be possible, Mr. Speaker, for people who wish to travel across this country by train to be able to do so. You cannot get any notion of the size of this country unless you are actually on the ground, travelling at normal speed across the land. I am appalled that the transportation system, as far as passengers are concerned, has been so downgraded by the Government. I remember it was a tricky method Government had for introducing VIA Rail. I am wondering if it still has any statutory basis. I rather think it does not. However, that is beside the point.
There is a need for railroads not just to carry our products across the country, but also to carry our people. Those who feel they have no time to spare, that they must fly, do not know what this country is all about. They do not know the extent of the fields on the Prairies because they have not gone through them either in a car or on a train.
The third principle is to guarantee producers an efficient, cost-effective, and reliable grain transportation system. We have all seen those yellow and red cars, the grain tankers, moving across the country. I was absolutely appalled to think that one of the Provinces had to chip in to produce some extra cars, that our rail system had been so downgraded that it could not produce those cars. A single Province, Alberta, had to produce additional cars to carry our grain produce.
There is a need for an efficient, cost-effective, and reliable grain transportation system. There is no question about that. However, Bill C-155 is not the way to do it.
There is a need to remove the distortion of the low freight rates in grain and oilseeds vis-a-vis processed products, and ensure that the natural advantage is retained. This is what has produced a great deal of the opposition in the West to this Bill, because this Bill does not do that.


David P. Smith: Let's hear your solution.


Donald W. Munro: The best solution that I can think of, Mr. Speaker, since we have heard a muttering from the Hon. Member opposite, is an election right now!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: That is the solution.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let's go to the people.


Donald W. Munro: Let us go to the people. That is what we are doing. That is the only device we have left to reach the people to explain the iniquity of this Bill.


David P. Smith: What is your policy?


Mr. Bosley:: No iniquity.


Donald W. Munro: That is right, we avoid iniquity. We are anti-iniquity.


Mr. Fisher:: That is a good policy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is one you have not followed.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Donald W. Munro: The fifth point which was brought up, Mr. Speaker, was to ensure a statutory freight rate for grain producers which preserves the benefit of the Crow and protects it from open-ended escalation. There are so many variable costs facing the farmer, Mr. Speaker, that he has to have at least one constant. He needs a constant price for moving his grain from the field to the port. That is absolutely essential. We have to get that message across. I am absolutely staggered to think that the Government, by one device or another, including full-page advertisements, has convinced people, simply because it has not told them the full truth, that these matters will be dealt with through this legislation and that the grain will flow in consequence of it.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astounded that this particular legislation should be the subject matter of an obvious Government strategy not only to muzzle Parliament through closure, but to muzzle its own Members through whatever means are available to the executive. It just defies belief that we have not heard the discharge of parliamentary responsibility to the respective constituents of those Liberal Members representing, first, rural ridings, and, second, ridings in which secondary manufacturing plays a vital part. It just boggles the mind that those Hon. Members, led by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), would remain silent on this issue. To say it does not affect Ontario is absolute nonsense. Of course it affects Ontario.
I will deal first of all, Sir, with that part of Ontario which has a food producing area, such as my riding. My riding is not unique. It shares a common interest with other ridings which are represented by my colleagues in the benches opposite. What could be the effect on these ridings? What about grain production? Prairie grain competes with the grain grown in the riding of Perth, in counties such as Kent, Lambton, Huron and Oxford, a multitude of counties throughout southwestern Ontario. We compete. This Bill obviously and directly affects western grain, its price and, therefore, affects the Ontario grain grower. I would like to hear, as I have heard from my colleagues from Ontario in this Party, from those Hon. Members opposite as to what effect they believe this legislation will have on their producers.
My riding of Perth produces more hogs than any other county in Canada. It has the second highest dairy production of any county in Canada. It has a high production of red meat, beef.


David P. Smith: 


William Herbert Jarvis: The Hon. Member opposite says "bull". The difference between the bulls in Perth County and the Minister of Agriculture is that that bull is all show and Perth County is all production. That is the difference between the two bulls.
How would this legislation potentially affect meat production in Ontario? We would likely face a situation in which western producers would feed livestock and compete with Ontario hog producers and beef producers. There is nothing


June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act wrong with that competition. It is good healthy competition. What astonishes me is the silence of those Hon. Members opposite, and by their silence they ignore the fact of that competition. It is just unbelievable that the Minister of Agriculture, and some of his colleagues, knowledgeable colleagues in the Liberal backbenches, would not stand up and say this is where we see this competition flowing. And this is where we think some of the resolution of the problems will be. In my county, the hog producers have developed a large export market to Japan. I presume western producers might want part of that market, and we will compete. We have done so historically and we have both benefited from the very fact of competition.
What is the reaction opposite, Mr. Speaker? It is silence, and not only in the House; I have not heard one peep from one Liberal MP in their ridings, at public meetings or appearances in which they had a chance to speak about this issue. Not one word. It does not matter whether they agree with the position of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Positions".


William Herbert Jarvis: That is not the issue, but they should speak on it. Well, the Minister is interrupting. Can he still speak on this motion?


John William Bosley: Certainly.


William Herbert Jarvis: Well, it is second best after the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is obviously going to ignore his responsibility. The Minister wants to dispute my point. Let me talk about those ridings in Ontario in which secondary manufacturing is an important and vital part of our economy. This is not dissimilar to another situation regarding its potential effect on my riding. With one stroke of the pen that Government, by implementing the National Energy Program, stole thousands of jobs from my riding. There is no other word for it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Nonsense.


William Herbert Jarvis: Someone says "nonsense". I defy him to come into my riding, stand up on a public platform and debate that issue with me. Half the audience will be unemployed skilled labour who were robbed of their jobs. He is invited to the County of Perth at any time, any place, on any platform to debate it.
If there is depression in the western agricultural economy, it will take jobs out of Stratford, indeed out of every manufacturing community in Ontario, and we can ill afford that. We have seen the economic and social tragedy of the NEP and we do not want to see it again, thank you very much.
We are talking about skilled people who want to work and contribute to their community. I invite any Member opposite to come into my riding and demonstrate-I hope he can prove me wrong-that this will not steal more jobs out of those ridings of central Canada in which manufacturing plays such a
vital role. Members opposite are always welcome and if they can prove me wrong I will be the first to stand up and admit it.
There is another cost, Mr. Speaker. As I calculate these figures, Ontario's share of the cost to the Treasury is in the area of $1.5 billion over the fiscal years 1982-83 through 1985-86. Ontario pays roughly 40 per cent of federal revenues, so does it not strike you as odd that not one Member or Minister over there would stand up and try and defend that $1.5 billion cost?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They will never do it.


William Herbert Jarvis: I remember the "what's a million?" line. This is "what's a billion and a half?" If they think this is a good deal, let them stand up and say $1.6 billion, to be exact, is a good investment for Ontario taxpayers. 1 would disagree and participate in the debate and try to counter that proposition, but they remain silent hour after hour, day after day.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Benumbed by Tory speeches.


William Herbert Jarvis: We have agricultural producers in a vulnerable position in Ontario, we have manufacturing in a vulnerable position in Ontario, at a cost to the taxpayers of $1.6 billion, yet not one word is spoken by one Member on that side on any one of those three issues.
This Government, Mr. Speaker, thinks that railways are more important than people. We in this Party do not agree.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion under which this Bill cannot be amended, a motion which was moved by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) with the support and concurrence, I believe, of the Government. In other words, it may have been moved by a Member but in fact it comes indirectly from the Liberal Cabinet. We can argue about whether that constitutes closure or not; the fact is that no one can make an amendment under this motion. That, in my view, represents a type of hobbling or closure which is not acceptable. It is as if we were debating a Bill called "an Act to burn crops in western Canada" and no one in this House were allowed to amend it. That is not acceptable. This kind of thing has not been used since the 1950s, and no wonder.
Consider, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about a $6 billion industry, one that is vital to western Canada and has been so since the last century. Then why are these people so cavalier and casual with the interests of an important part of Canada, especially a part where we have long felt that we are not full partners in our own country, that our national institutions do not represent us fully, and that to many we are, in effect, a colony of this country?
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Crowsnest Pass Agreement is considered to have been the Magna Carta of western Canada for a long, long time. These people opposite are now throwing it out and I will tell you why. It is because they have been persuaded that they will lose 30 to 40 seats in Quebec if the payments under this Bill do not go to the railways in full. If they allow freedom of choice, which is what
June 22, 1983

we want, they are persuaded that they will lose 30 to 40 seats in Quebec. But, Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that this will not happen, that it will not hurt Quebec agriculture; so they are simply caving in to someone's perception.
To have a motion made such as we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, is insulting to us in western Canada. How would the Hon. Member for, say, Levis (Mr. Gourde) feel if a Member from western Canada in this Party moved a motion to amend the Official Languages Act in a way detrimental to Frenchspeaking Canadians? How would he feel if his interests were treated as badly as our interests are being treated here today?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is a sad sight to see you making arguments like that.


David Kilgour: "Why should 1 sell your wheat?" Do you remember that phrase? That is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of all of Canada who makes that kind of statement and that is why we are in the position we are in today.
What about the NDP, the handmaidens or the western annex of the Liberal Party?


David P. Smith: We do not want them.


Mr. Kempling:: Get them on waivers, David.


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


David Kilgour: Some of the NDP protest that they want to kill the Bill. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) says he wants to see it in committee. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) is talking about the composition of the committee. Today we learn there is a deal between the NDP and the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Never!


David Kilgour: Never, say the Liberals. But we have seen NDP-Liberals deals before. We know when they have a deal on the NEP or the Constitution that the West is going to lose. That is why the NDP is going to lose most of their seats in western Canada in the next election.


David P. Smith: What about your deals with the PQ?


David Kilgour: The NDP wants all of the $650 million to go to the railways. In other words, we have a CP-CN-Liberal-NDP consortium. As has been said, we have guaranteed income for the railways courtesy of the Liberals and the NDP, taken from the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers.


David P. Smith: We do not want them; we want to stay pure.


David Kilgour: You have got them, but you will not have them back after the next election. I find it amusing, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at the Liberal Members here today, not one of them, including the Hon. Member for Levis, holds a safe seat. 1 suggest to all of the seven who are present today that there will be very few who will be back after the next election.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Is there a safe Tory Leader?


David Kilgour: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) holds one of the least safe seats of that group opposite. My allotted time will be up very shortly, Mr. Speaker.
Where do we, as the Government in waiting, stand on this issue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! I beg the Hon. Member's pardon but I can hear interjections from the other side of the House. 1 even see some Members standing. Only one Member may stand, the one who has been recognized by the Chair. I must ask the Members to respect the decorum of the House.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I can assure those opposite that each one of them can rise after me and give a speech. We will be happy to hear what they have to say. I bet that none of them do, including the Minister of Transport, who is hiding behind his beard.


David P. Smith: He's smoking.


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Moustache".


David Kilgour: Moustache. What are our principles? We believe that the federal Government and the railways must continue to offer a special low rate consistent with the Crows-nest Pass Agreement to assist our grain producers to compete with nations that do subsidize the transport of grain. We believe, second, that our producers must be guaranteed an efficient, cost-effective and reliable grain transportation system. Third, we believe that we must remove the present distortion of low freight rates in grains and oil seeds. We hear heckling from the Hon. Member for the grain-rich district of Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). Above all, we believe in ensuring a statutory freight rate for grain producers which preserves the benefit of the Crow and protects it from open-ended escalation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What does that mean?


David Kilgour: Since time is running out, I would like to place on the record what the new national leader of this Party, Brian Mulroney, has said about the issue. 1 am commending Hon. Members opposite to consider his views.
First, when Bill C-155 was first introduced, that is with payment to our railways, our new Leader said that the Bill is unacceptable in its present form. Second, when the amendments were introduced, the 10 per cent linkage to the international price of grain and the inclusion of specialty crops, on which I hope I will have time to speak, he said that this was a step in the right direction. However, he said that Pepin, and I suppose I should say "the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carle-ton", would have to put "a lot of water in the wine" because

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the 10 per cent limit was unsatisfactory, and many have spoken of that in this Chamber. Third, "Changing the Crow rates", said Mr. Mulroney, "is akin to changing language legislation in Quebec. The Bill should not be rushed through Parliament; careful deliberation and thought is necessary." Think about that, Members from Quebec and French-speaking Canada.


Mr. Rossi:: What did you ever do for Quebec?


David Kilgour: Fourth, productivity must be improved in Canada. Since agriculture is the only ray of light in the Canadian economy at the moment, farmers should not be penalized.


Carlo Rossi: What do you have against Quebec?


Mr. Mayer:: What has Quebec done for the rest of the country?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Carlo Rossi: What do you have against Quebec? You're supposed to defend it.


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


An Hon. Member:: What about the record?


William James Kempling: Why don't you speak? All you ever do is holler from your seat.


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member asked me what I have done for the Province of Quebec. I can tell him that I have made speeches at Mont-Laurier, for example.


Carlo Rossi: Ask the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) what he has done for Quebec.


David Kilgour: I travelled over most of Quebec with the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and a number of other Members, to discuss the cuts made in VIA Rail service by this same Minister, which is going to cost you seats in the next election. That I can promise the Hon. Members from Quebec. What have you done for Quebec?


Carlo Rossi: Ask the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) what he has done for Quebec. That's what the people of Quebec are going to remember at the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate must rise for recognition by the Chair. The Chair has given the floor to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members opposite do not understand why the statutory Crow rate is important to western Canada. It is the one constitutional pillar that we have
in western Canada. It is the one advantage our producers have in our part of the country. Name me another if you can, and I can name you many that you have in central Canada and elsewhere in this country. It is the one thing we have going for us. It is stability.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Pathetic.


David Kilgour: Well, it may be pathetic-


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are.


David Kilgour: -if that is what you are saying, Mr. Pepin, but I can assure you-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Again, Hon. Members should respect the rules of debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona surely knows that he must refer to Hon. Members by their portfolios or their ridings.


David Kilgour: The Crow rate has provided a historical, social and economic base for western Canada. It was a trade-off. It acted as a counterbalance to the tariffs, the protective tariff, and all kinds of other advantages that Hon. Members opposite have in Ontario and Quebec.
I hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) mentioning GATT. I would be happy to speak of GATT, but I only have about one minute left.
The statutory rate recognized that Canada is a trading nation and that it was one way of helping one of the largest areas of our exports.
Finally, the statutory rate recognized the fact that grain and oil seeds are natural advantages to Canada, and we want to encourage them. The 31 million tonne ceiling is a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's exports.
My allotted time is up. I would urge Hon. Members opposite to come to their senses before it is too late and they are all beaten in western Canada.


Mr. Wright:: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the House that the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) has been interjecting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. In the normal course of debate, the Chair should alternate. I did see the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) standing. I was not sure if he was standing to be recognized or not. However, he does indicate that he was seeking the floor. Therefore, the Chair should now recognize the Hon. Member for Levis.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the floor for a moment, because the Hon. Member who has just spoken made a statement to the effect that his leader, Mr. Mulroney, has made a statement on Bill C-155, which is currently under discussion. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 1983, in this House, and here it is in Hansard, page 26329, I asked publicly the day after Mr. Mulroney turned up here in the gallery to do some grandstanding, and I have sent a copy of
June 22, 1983

what 1 asked him to the office of the Elouse Leader, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), 1 made a statement under Standing Order 21, addressed directly to Mr. Mulroney, in which I asked him to tell us, and 1 quote:
First of all ... whether he agrees with Bill C-155 which is now before the House, and second, whether he agrees that grain transportation subsidies should be paid in full to the railway companies.
-as we have it in the Bill that was tabled in the House.
Today is the 22nd of June, eight days after my request was made, and Mr. Mulroney has not responded to it either directly to me at my office or in any other manner. If he did so, he did so with his cronies. He has never dared to do so directly to the farmers of Quebec who have pressed the government in recent months to take a position that in their view would be favourable to Eastern farmers.
Mr. Mulroney, who now represents the Progressive Conservative Party, has never dared, has never had the guts, has never had the nerve, to make clear his position on the changes to the Crow rate, and there are people on the opposite side who have tried to come and tell us that we ought to take lessons from the Progressive Conservatives on how to proceed in Quebec. I think if they had as leader a guy who had guts instead of glamour, then we might take lessons.
So Mr. Speaker, I repeat that to Mr. Mulroney, but since he is not in the House and besides I said it under Standing Order 21,1 said at that time: Mr. Mulroney, I realize you are not a Member of this House. When a question is directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and after all as leader of your party you want to become Prime Minister, when he gets a question he has ten seconds in which to answer. I realize you are new, you have no experience, and so we will give you two days. 1 said that on Tuesday; two days later the debate began again, and there was no response. It is now eight days later, and there is still no response.
That is the type of leader the Progressive Conservatives elected on June 11. I believe the Canadian people deserve better than that and I would ask Mr. Mulroney to express clearly, plainly and precisely, via one of his people-they are on the opposite side of the House-in front of the whole population, what his position is, not a watered down position but a plain and straightforward position, for or against. It is quite simple, yes or no, that is what we want to know here.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't they tell the people in Quebec?


Gaston Gourde: But I do not want any lessons from the Progressive Conservatives when their leader is incapable of expressing himself.


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I saw the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) interrupting the speech being made by the Hon. Member for
Western Grain Transportation Act
Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I would encourage the Hon. Member for Bourassa to stand up in the House and speak on this motion.
Furthermore, while he was sitting down he made a statement across the floor to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, saying "What have you ever done for Quebec?". I assume the Hon. Member was not talking to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona personally but as a Member for that riding. I would remind him that thousands of men and women in this country gave their lives in two world wars. They did not distinguish between Provinces. There are many people in this country, including people from Edmonton-Strathcona, who gave their lives for Quebec as well as every other Province. I contribute income tax for the Province of Quebec as well as every other Province. 1 do not want the Hon. Member to sit in the House and point his finger and say "What have you ever done for Quebec?", because that is a false statement and he cannot back it up.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) stood in the House on May 12 to introduce second reading of Bill C-155, the western grain transportation Bill on amendments to the Crow. On June 16, the Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) rose in the House and moved that the previous motion be now put. In effect, when we vote on that motion that the previous question be now put on Bill C-155, it means that we cannot discuss the Bill any longer or move further amendments. We must vote immediately.
The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary states that closure in Parliament means "decision by a vote in the House of Commons to put the question without further debate". If that is not closure, what is it? It is closure, nothing more and nothing less.
We have seen the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) file a notice to move closure. He had the gall to stand up in the House on a point of order a few weeks ago to say that the investment climate in Canada has never been better and that foreigners eagerly invest money here. Yet every Government department that has an office overseas knows that reports have been filed both verbally and written which state that this is one of the worst countries in which to invest. There is no truth to the Minister's statement about investment.
The office of the Canadian Government in London, England, has filed numerous reports stating that something must be done about Canada's national energy policy because investors will not invest in Canada. Surely the Government is not immune to the movement of SI8 billion out of this country in 1981. One only has to visit the City of Dallas which has the largest contingent of former Canadians of any city in the United States.
Bill C-155 is pitting region against region. We can go back to the constitutional debate in 1980 at a time when the economy was falling apart. We were telling the government that the unemployment rate was rising, bankruptcies were increasing

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
and farmers were losing their farms. What was the Government doing? It was sitting across the aisle talking about the Constitution and how it would pull the country together.
This country could have been united much more quickly if the Government had put aside the Constitution and dealt with the matter at hand, namely the economy. Instead, we saw the Minister of Transport sitting across the aisle with his head in his hands too busy to worry about this. He was too busy to worry about the economy in 1980 when we knew that it was declining. We were warned by all of the experts that unemployment would rise and that the country was in deep trouble. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal Government pitted Province against Province, region against region.
It then introduced the National Energy Program, one of the worst measures ever introduced. The reason this policy was implemented was that the Liberals could not stand to see the western Provinces succeed while the rest of Canada perhaps went into a recession. Therefore this national energy policy was introduced in order to squeeze the western Provinces. That is exactly what happened. Presently in Alberta only one-third of all drilling rigs are operating, but the Government was prepared to run the risk of pitting region against region.
Last week I stood in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) of which I had given him notice some four months previously and again with another letter on May 31 of this year. The Minister could only say that he would take the question under consideration. I had given him advance notice of this question which pertained to Petro-Canada, the company that the Government claims is doing so well in western Canada. It is expected to lose $15 million this year. It has an office building which it is renting in Calgary for $6.2 billion. It is empty and has never been used, yet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources refuses to talk about it.
Now, lo and behold, it is negotiating with another company for rent-free use for the next five years because it wants to get it off the books. This is the type of company that the Government claims will be the leading oil company in the industry within five years. These facts all tie in with the National Energy Program, that scourge of the Canadian economy over the last year.
The Government is now introducing the western grain transportation Bill which will change the Crow rate. Once again, it pits region against region. When the Liberal Government is in trouble it pits region against region as it is the only way it can see of retaining some votes for the next election. That is the purpose of this legislation.
What is behind all of this? All we have to do is to look to our left to see the "Liberal Party West". The NDP were off base on the Constitution and the National Energy Program. They have suddenly realized that they had better get onside in the Crow rate debate. The Toronto Star tells us of the problems the NDP are experiencing. The NDP will have a convention next week and it will discuss a new policy. Already its Members have lined up their Leader. Some of them are sitting
there saying: "We will introduce some motions at that meeting which will embarrass the Leader", yet they stand at only 16 per cent in the Gallup poll.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It sounds like the Tories.


Frederick William Wright: I hear the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher). We happen to be at 50 per cent in the polls. The Hon. Member sits there grinning through this as if he has no problems. The Liberal Party and the NDP have joined together in the past many times. We well understand that they will join together again, if not in actual name in actual fact, because the Liberal Party will never gain a seat in the West and it needs the NDP, and because the NDP now realizes that it will lose three-quarters of its seats in western Canada in the next election. The NDP attacks its Leader and puts his job in jeopardy. Once again the NDP is in real trouble and is trying to get onside with the Crow rate; but that Party will never make it.
Let me return to the Minister of Transport. Do we remember the Western Development Fund of $4 billion which the Government was to pump into western Canada? It has gone the way of the dodo bird. We do not have it any more. Of course it did not mean anything; it was one more promise the Government has not kept. What guarantees can the Minister of Transport give us that the railways will improve their lines? Not one. He would rather give them free funds. What are the railroads giving him in return?
I see the Minister of Transport has suddenly awakened. Perhaps he would like to rise and speak to the subject.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already done so.


Frederick William Wright: If the Minister of Transport is prepared to rise and speak, then I will sit down. Will he sit there with his arms folded, or is he prepared to rise? He cannot answer the question: What guarantees do we have that the railways will improve the beds? We have none whatsoever. Why did he shift his position from the Gilson Report? The position of the Gilson Report was far superior to his position. He knows it but is not prepared to admit it. The influence of the Quebec delegation changed his mind. Now he has to go along with them rather than with the farmers of western Canada. Once again he is pitting region against region, farmer against farmer.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-155. Also I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House doing his penance, as he certainly should, and listening to the points made by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I really have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister. I have a great deal of personal respect for him, but I know he had his moment of truth about a month or so before this debate was launched when the Gilson Report, to which the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) referred, made certain recommendations. There were certain draft bills and then almost under the cover of night interests in the West in the
June 22, 1983

pools and certainly the Liberal caucus in the East got together in a sort of alliance that made strange bedfellows and there was a fundamental flip-flop from Gilson to this Bill.
I know the Minister, being a principled man and a principled Minister, wrestled with his conscience. I think he still has one but it took quite a warp when he finally decided still to be the team player and did not do perhaps the decent thing. I would have missed him if he had walked out and resigned, but I certainly think that with the flip-flop on Bill C-155 with which we are confronted today the Minister at least wrestled with his conscience. At least he had the conscience with which to wrestle. I will not talk about whether other Government Ministers would make any tag-team effort to wrestle with any conscience, but I am disappointed the Minister of Transport reached that decision.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 found it difficult because there is such a diversity of views in the Official Opposition. When 1 cannot get 100 per cent, 1 go with 80 per cent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is no doubt that the Minister speaks with some relevance when he says that there is quite a diversity of views, obviously, on the Crow. The reason so many Members want to speak on the Bill is two-fold. First, the Crow is the constitutional pillar of the West and has been since 1897, the 80 years or 90 years it has been in effect. The Government is changing that through the club of closure. Second, that Party does not basically have any representation in the West. Indeed, that is a most dangerous thing. For those reasons Hon. Members over here are speaking as much as they can. They are saying: "Hey, hold up and see whether through the consensus about which the Minister spoke at one time there can be some medling of the different points of view".
I give credit to the Minister. He has made some changes, but he would not have made them if we had not debated the matter despite the motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to close off debate; this thing would not have been changed at all. The Minister knows that if he had not had the debate in his own Quebec Liberal caucus as a result of pressure from the farm groups of Quebec, there would not have been the change to which he finally acquiesced.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mulroney said I should put some water in my wine, and I did.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will not go down those tracks. I am talking about Bill C-155. The Minister will hear a lot from Mr. Mulroney in due course. There will be other wrestlings of conscience when he takes his place in the Chamber. He is prepared to take on Members from Quebec and/or Government Members head to head. At least there will be a voice from Quebec in the House on a more regular basis.
This debate was launched by the Minister. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) replied on May 12, at which time I think the Minister was being his jovial self. My colleague mentioned that if a person understood Bill C-155, the gaps in the legislation and the rate structure which was supposed to apply, he or she would earn the Order of
Western Grain Transportation Act
Canada. The Minister flippantly replied that that is how he earned it, if I remember correctly the reference in Hansard. He was in sort of a jovial mood, but he said: "That is how I earned it".
Is it not an ironic paradox with that beginning on May 12 and the Minister now sort of changing Bill C-155 for the purpose of clarification? If he obtained the Order of Canada for trying to understand the rate structure at that point, then with his changes and the real implications of the Bill we have the ironic paradox of the Minister obtaining the Order of Canada for the disorder which he will bring about in the grain trade, in the western economy and certainly in western wheat production.
The focus is on the West because that is where the Crow applies directly, but as other Hon. Members have indicated it is a national issue. It affects us right across the country. This is why there must be treading with care when the fundamental pillar which was the basis of growth for the agricultural industry in the West is changed. The Government is imbalanced in terms of its membership. Basically it is out of touch. It is very dangerous to bring in closure to try to choke off debate on something so fundamental, especially with the recent flip-flop of the Minister before the Bill was introduced. The Bill brings in uncertainty.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hope the Minister will speak after I have finished. The Minister knows that this Bill brings instability and uncertainty into the entire agricultural industry of western Canada. He is asking western Canadian producers to do something which is very difficult for anyone to do. In effect, he is asking them to pay more and the moneys will go to the railways. We say balderdash to that. We like some of the recommendations of Gilson. They were a little more relevant than the Bill which pays everything to the railways.
The thought expressed on the first day of this debate-and it has not been responded to by the Government-was that in effect we wanted an amendment whereby the producer had the right to choose. It is a pretty catchy slogan, freedom to choose. The producers can decide to get paid directly if it is in their interest and to pay the railway, depending on whether they use the railway. If they get it, they have the option to truck the wheat to the terminal and/or sell it locally.
For the Minister to introduce closure on something so fundamental insults every opposition Member, certainly western Members who are very involved in the agricultural industry. To have the club of closure on one side and no response to date on the freedom to choose which would expedite this debate tremendously is wrong. There is no firm commitment to give the producer the right to choose as to how the money is to be paid, to the railway or the producer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will have that as an amendment.
26656

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In some of the rhetoric the Minister has moved. I give him credit for that, but he has not gone far enough. We are entitled to only ten minutes. I have never been more constrained in my life trying to observe a ten-minute speaking rule under these provisional rules. You hiccup and burp once and the ten minutes are over, as far as I am concerned.
I have a reason for wanting to speak on this Bill and I throw this out to the Minister. I am glad that he may be more receptive to freedom of choice. I commend him for some of the changes he has talked about which I have not seen fully implemented in this Bill.
In the few remaining minutes I have left I want to talk about something which the Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, are aware of. If the Government is going to move unilaterally and/or use closure to change something so fundamental as the Crow that has been in place since 1897, then we in Atlantic Canada have to be wary indeed as to the Minister's intentions with regard to our little Crow. That, of course, is the Maritime Freight Rates Act. That came into existence to help alleviate the justified concern in Atlantic Canada in trying to get an economy going there by its bootstraps. After several royal commissions, it was put into law in 1926.
I was in the House when the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Don Jamieson, seduced Members to agree to the Atlantic transportation amendment. That was some time in the 1970s. He said that would be the first plank in a revised transportation policy for Atlantic Canada which would make Atlantic Canada grow. It was the beginning of the whittling away of the effects, help and assistance and the subsidy for Atlantic industry in the select territory.
A month or so ago this Minister, his Department and some advisers, who very poorly advised, unilaterally set up a commission of consultants from Ottawa to assess the viability of even continuing the Maritime Freight Rates Act. All I can say in the closing 30 seconds available to me is that people in western Canada have justified concern about what is being done to the Crow, their pillar, as the pillar that we have had since 1926 is being slowly whittled away. If the terms of reference of the consultants' report are met, I predict-but hopefully there will be an election first-that it will be the serious intent of this Minister or his replacement, as long as this Government is in office, to ensure that the Maritime Freight Rates Act, let alone the At and East rates for the export of flour on which there has already been one attack, will go out the window.
There is no reason why we should support Bill C-155. The rhetoric and good intentions of the Minister have to be put into the legislation to give protection to the western producer so that the five points of Conservative policy, to answer the NDP, which have been mentioned time and time again, can be adhered to.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the House of Commons that this is one of the saddest days that I have witnessed since coming to this House of Commons 11 years ago. The Minister is bringing in legislation that is
entirely unacceptable to western Canada. I have to give him full marks for totally alienating every farmer in western Canada; he has done a good job of that. When he started out he at least had 50 per cent on his side. Now he does not have any; he has lost them all.
The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) stood up and presented this House with so much garbage. He talked about something he knows very little about. He told lies to his constituents, telling them they would be badly treated by this legislation. That is completely false because it has such an insignificant effect on eastern agriculture that it is inconsequential. For him to stand up and mislead the Members of this House and at the same time mislead his own constituents is unforgivable.
Where are the speakers on the Government side? We have had eight up to the present time. Do they not recognize the importance of this legislation not only to the House of Commons but to western Canada?
Where is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)? Why is he not talking? On May 12 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) said that the Minister of Agriculture would speak on this legislation. Where is he? Where is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy)? He is from Winnipeg, which is the central exchange for the grain industry in western Canada. Where is he? Surely he has some constituents who are interested.
What about the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael)? Is he not from western Canada? Where is he? What has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada? Do they not agree with the Minister? I guess they do not agree with what the Minister of Transport is doing.
What about my twin? He just happens to be in the Chamber today. I wonder why he was put on as a twin. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) was supposed to be the twin. He was to be the Liberal voice in western Canada. I have to ask him whether he is just a twin for the benefit of the Liberal Party or is he a twin for western Canadians, those who live in Red Deer and the communities around it? Why does he not come out and talk to them? There was a meeting in Red Deer. The people would have loved to have had him there. They sent me a petition with the names of 364 constituents on it.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think I should point out that I was one of those who was earlier consulted on the Crow rate at the Unifarm Convention in Edmonton, Alberta in January, 1982. I did not see the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) there. There certainly was no consensus at that time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member is seeking to contribute to the debate. I suggest that there is a way to do that.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I would like my twin to stand up in the House and tell us what he has done with regard to this
June 22, 1983

legislation. We would love to have him come to my constituency. I can assure him that he would get a very warm reception, probably the warmest he has ever received in any place in Canada that he has ever visited. We would love to have him there.
These people who got together, a thousand of them, rented a hall. They have signed petitions. I have them here for the Minister to read. One of the problems when we present a petition in the House of Commons, as we do day after day, is that nothing happens as a result of that.
1 say to my twin for Red Deer that we have petitions from people in all of the communities in my area. I will read them: Delburne, Bowden, Innisfail, Sylvan Lake, Linden, Rocky Mountain House, Olds, Eckville, Caroline, Carstairs, Crossfield, Acme, Red Deer, Didsbury, Cremona, Huxley, Black-falds, Penhold, Lousana, Elnora, Markerville, Torrington, Trochu and Sundre. 1 have only listed representatives of people in my constituency. My colleagues for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger), Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) and Bow River (Mr. Taylor) all had representatives at that meeting. Some of them travelled many hundreds of miles to get there. Yet the Government and the Minister will not pay the least bit of attention to what these people are saying.
It is no wonder the Liberal Party is dead in western Canada.
I can assure Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be another Liberal elected in western Canada for 40 years because of what they have done to us. They can laugh about it. Perhaps they do not care because they come from central Canada and they will not care as long as the power base is here. But I say that that power base will erode as well. That will change. They will lose the power base in central Canada. Canadians cannot be treated like this. Canadians cannot be misled in the way that they are being misled. Therefore, I have nothing but disgust for Members opposite and to my left when they stand up and say that we must get the legislation into committee so that we can make some changes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They want to make a deal.


Thomas Gordon Towers: They want to make a deal. Well, I would like to see the deal that Members of the NDP make with the Members opposite. 1 do not anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that there will be any changes made to this legislation when it goes to committee.


An Hon. Member:: They are dealing with the Liberals again.


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is right. There will be no changes made. We have seen this happen before. We have seen people come here from western Canada at their own expense. Their time and money is spent without effecting any changes. If the Minister of Transport really wanted to be honest with Canadians, he would make some changes which would be acceptable to the people of western Canada.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I have a copy of a letter, Mr. Speaker, sent by the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta and cosigned by the Hon. Hugh Planche, the Minister of Economic Development for Alberta, to the Minister of Transport. 1 know I do not have time to read that letter, but I would ask the Minister to find that letter. It is dated May 2, 1983. It establishes the position that officials of the Province of Alberta would like the Minister to adopt in order to alleviate some of the problems that we have with this legislation.
I realize that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. 1 appreciate being afforded the opportunity of at least expressing my opinion. I would hope that the Minister of Transport would have the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his colleague from Winnipeg stand up and state the western Canadian position. What chance do they have to be elected in western Canada if they will not stand up and speak for the Canadians they represent? It is a farce, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say that but that is what it is.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words in connection with Bill C-155. Bill C-155 is a great betrayal, the betrayal of half a nation. On February 8, 1982 the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) said in his western rail transportation statement under item 5:
The economic distortions within the agricultural sector stemming from the statutory rate should be reduced-
Under item 6 of the same statement, he said further:
The most effective ways of promoting the diversification of the western agricultural economy and processing of agricultural products-
So he spent $287,000 and more to set up a committee with those statements as the terms of reference. Mr. Gilson and, as one of my colleagues noted, some of the best brains in Canada came up with a solution. The Minister should have accepted that solution. He did accept it at first. Then he cut it in half and then he threw it out altogether. This is the greatest betrayal of half the nation in Canadian history.
Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. He paid for it. I want to tell the Hon. Minister that he will pay for this betrayal and the Liberal Party will pay for it. It is proper that they should pay, but the Canadian people will pay for this as well, particularly the people of western Canada.
I want to deal with some of the items in this great betrayal by the Minister. If the Minister were a man of principle, he would resign from his position. If he believed what he set out in the terms of reference and then he backed out and turned his back on those promises, he should resign. If he is half a man, he should resign. But no, he sits there. His position is more important than our country. That is what this Bill is all about. This Bill will either make the country or destroy it. The way the Bill is set up now, it could well destroy the country. It is a great betrayal.
As for my hon. friends from the NDP, there has been a great sell-out. They speak up against the Bill and then they turn around and say: "Now we will pay it to the railways, not to the farmers".

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Elovdebo:: What is your Party's position on the Crow rate?


Gordon Edward Taylor: After denouncing the railways, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) said that it is far better to give two cheques to the CNR and the CPR than 150,000 cheques. In this computer age, where is the difficulty in issuing 150,000 cheques?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: What is your Party's position on the Crow rate?


Gordon Edward Taylor: They can shout all they like, but their move is a great sell-out of the people of western Canada and they know it.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Guaranteed annual income for the railways.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, guaranteed annual income for the railways. But what about the people who are paying? This Bill will destroy the hopes of cattle producers, the hopes of hog producers, the hopes of pulse crop producers and it will destroy the processing industry. Is this a deliberate attempt on the part of the Minister to ensure that western Canadians remain drawers of water and hewers of wood? Western Canadians are tired of being drawers of water and hewers of wood. They want to process their own raw materials. The Minister is now trying to prevent this from happening.
The only bright spot in the whole debate has been the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who said: "Let us go back to the people; let us go back to some of the basic democratic principles and find out what the people want". So he suggested the freedom of choice proposition. He did not say that he wanted to name the formula after himself. He did not say that he wanted to make it the Progressive Conservative formula. He wants the formula for the people of Canada so that the people can decide.
When Members of the NDP oppose that proposition, they oppose people. Have they no confidence in the people? The people of the country are not illiterate, they are well educated. The farmers are well educated, but the NDP cannot trust the people to decide what is best for themselves. Their philosophy is to tell the people what is good for them, and that is the philosophy of the Liberal Government as well. It has been telling the people what is good for them for years. That is coming to an end because the people are getting tired of it. The people want some say.
The freedom of choice proposition will give the people a chance to say whether they want the money to go to the railway, as some will. It is their right to say so. If they do want the money to go to the railway, those people will get a card that will indicate the rate that is appropriate for that particular situation. There are other people who will say they want the money to go into their own pockets because they know how to spend the money better than does the Government. They
will not waste it. They may want to use the money to haul feed to a feedlot where they are doing wonderful work. They may want to use it to feed hogs or use it for a pulse crop. They may want to use it for processing. Whatever way the people decide to use the money, the railway will still get its fair share.
An official of the CPR, when he came to visit me, said: "We favour seeing the money go into the pockets of the producers". I said: "You do?" He said: "Yes, I do, because that will make our railway more efficient. We will have to compete, and in order to compete we will have to be efficient." That is how some of the top men in the CPR are thinking. But no, Members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties say that they want to give all of the money to the CPR. They want to give the CPR a guaranteed income without any thought at all for the effect it will have on the people of western Canada.
They do not mind blocking hog producers who have a tremendous potential. They do not mind killing the cattle industry when it has been making money and has a tremendous potential. They do not mind killing the processing industry which has a tremendous potential. That is a great betrayal of the people of western Canada and the Minister should resign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Gaston Gourde: Madam Speaker, in this House, on June 14, 1983, I asked the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to take a clear stand on the new grain transport policy, better known as the change in the Crow rate. That same day, I sent him a copy of my statement through the Office of the Opposition leader, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who immediately acknowledged receipt of the document and told me it had been forwarded to Mr. Mulroney. Although we have been debating this Bill for another four days, the new Leader has not had the courage to state publicly his position to the agri-food industry in Quebec and Eastern Canada. I would therefore like to refresh his
June 22, 1983

memory and inform him that Quebec farmers do not want a leader without policies.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian International Development Agency has been without a president for almost a year. Recently Ms. Margaret Catley-Carlson was appointed to the position. The new President comes with a good deal of experience in the field of international aid.
As Ms. Catley-Carlson prepares to take over her new job, I would suggest to her that she consider carefully some recent reports on Canadian aid published by the North-South Institute in Ottawa. The Institute criticizes the Canadian foreign aid program because it has not been allowed to develop clear, practical goals.
Foreign aid is a very difficult activity. This I know from my own experience. All Canadian experience acquired over the years must now be used to define a clear direction. The last guidelines for CIDA were laid out for the period 1975-80. This past year, even without new guidelines and without a president, aid programs have continued.
CIDA is beginning to take on the look and attitude of a middle-aged person. The wonderment of childhood is gone, the excitement of youth is over, the hard knocks of young adulthood have taken their toll, and the institution is showing signs of middle-age fatigue. I call upon the new President of CIDA to take to heart the advice of the North-South Institute, first, to decentralize decision-making; second, to speed up procedures of decision making by placing more staff in the field with more authority; and third, to remember that aid is for the poor so that aid given quickly is aid given twice.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the large majority of the Canadian people want the death sentence restored for anyone deliberately planning and then murdering another human being, when he or she has been found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Under this formula there is no chance of the wrong person being executed. Still, Liberal Members continually refer to persons where there is or was a doubt; if there is a doubt, the law would remain as it is today.
One Liberal Member calls capital punishment revenge. It is not revenge; it is just and proper punishment to fit the crime. Some way the death sentence is not a deterrent. Well, it would certainly stop a murderer from committing a second or a third or a fourth murder. Maybe nothing would stop a murder carried out in a fit of passion, but it would certainly prevent some murders that are coolly planned. Why? Because everyone loves life and has no desire to die.
Parents of murdered young people, like Walter and Marion Cook, whose beautiful teenaged daughter, Kelly, was brutally murdered, and the loved ones of the two girls killed by Peters and Brown, know what it is to go through torment and hell, and want the murderers executed to make sure such a horrible ordeal does not happen to some other family.
But the Government thinks it knows more than the people; it refuses to reflect the thinking of the people; it insists on telling the people what it considers is good for them, and so murderers will go on murdering a second and third and fourth time, until a democratic Government that will reflect the thinking of the people, is elected.



CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, national security is a top priority in every nation's hierarchy of values. We Canadians treasure our sovereignty above all, and will not let any alien forces infiltrate our lives. In the era of spy networks operating ruthlessly all over the world, we must be particularly vigilant. Therefore a strong and efficient security agency is of prime importance for our defence, and every effort should be made to allow our spy chasers to do their job. Yet, in doing so, we must not forget about one of the greatest achievements of our system-the rule of law.
It is imperative that no one, not even the Security Service, should be permitted to break the law. Bill C-157, as proposed, poses a threat to our civil liberties, the integrity of democracy, and natural justice.
An increasing number of letters from my constituents, voicing their opposition to this legislation, indicates clearly where Canadians stand when it comes to attacks on our freedoms and the rule of law. They demand assurance on the part of the security forces that no abuses of law, as known in the past, will ever take place, and that their personal freedoms will not be endangered. A careful and detailed review of the legislation is needed so that both the requirements of our national interests are met and our personal freedoms preserved.

June 22, 1983



TRANSPORT


Mr. Rolland Dion (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, this morning in the newspaper La Presse, I read about the statements made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) regarding the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on the Crow rate. The former Minister of Transport declared that the Party's position was that payments should be made to farmers and not to the railways. Madam Speaker, I would therefore invite the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Mulroney, to visit the riding of Portneuf, which I represent, and explain his party's position to the farmers, since the former Minister of Transport, speaking on behalf of his party, stated that he wanted to make the payments in question to the farmers and not to the railways. I would appreciate it if you would do so within the next few weeks, as soon as possible, instead of just showing up in my riding now and then.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, the Winnipeg Construction Association has contacted me expressing concern at the manner in which federal public works contracts are handled. It would seem that the Association is not given adequate advance notice when a project is to begin, and often the specifics of projects are not readily available. Therefore, they cannot be fully prepared-a necessary prerequisite in order to organize and establish the detailed planning essential to beginning and completing every new project, and tendering. I am referring in particular to the expansion and modernization of the Winnipeg airport, a new project recently announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), which will cost $32 million.
This news is most exciting for, as a rule, the weekly public works communique lists Manitoba as not being awarded any contracts, regardless of my continuous pursuit of the Minister of Employment to utilize the fine workmanship of Manitobans.
1 am pleased that, after all these years, he is beginning to realize that my commendation of Manitobans and their multitude of skills and talents is not unfounded.
I would ask that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration endeavour to supply the Winnipeg Construction Association with all the detailed information on the airport renovation project, as well as attempt on a regular basis to inform the Association as auickly as possible of any upcoming public works contracts, as is done by provincial Governments.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the CNR is threatening the life of the Towhship of Nakina, Ontario, by proposing to eliminate Nakina as a crew-change point and to run trains right through. This will have a devastating impact on the community as the proposed run-through will deprive it of its oldest industry, namely, the CNR, and make it into a one industry forestry town with all the economic instability that results from such dependence.
In addition, the run-through will cause many families to move out of Nakina, and leave the remaining residents, many of them senior citizens, to pay for all the new services and infrastructure the CNR encouraged the town to build. The people of Nakina were assured by the CNR that they had a secure future and, as a result, many families built or purchased homes in Nakina which would be radically devalued if the CNR goes ahead with the Nakina run-through.
The people of Nakina would like to remain there and to preserve their community. They quite rightly feel the CNR has an obligation to allow them to do this. It is time the CNR, as a Crown corporation, acted in the public interest and cancelled the proposed Nakina run-through so that the people of that community can continue to live and work there without fear of losing their homes, their friends, their community, and their lifestyles.
To those who like to say, as do many of my Liberal and Conservative colleagues, that you cannot stop progress, I say that the destruction of communities is not progress at all. It is an illusion of progress behind which we find the erosion of values and relationships which really count.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, in December, 1980, a Marine Emergency Duties Centre was opened in Port Colborne, Ontario, at a cost to the taxpayer of almost $1 million. Not only was this the answer to the problem of training shipboard personnel in proper procedures to avoid and to deal with accidents and emergencies on board, but it brought much needed employment to the city. Already this much needed facility is on the verge of closing down, at least for nine months of the year. The enrolment at present is only 13 trainees. Why so few? The answer most probably lies in the fact that the cost of tuition is beyond those people who need the training the most.
The cost of courses in "Avoidance of Collision", "Fire Prevention" and "Navigation" offered by this institution is $825 per course, so one can only guess how much it would cost
June 22, 1983

were one to take a good variety of courses. It stands to reason that those who are trained in the above skills are those most likely to have jobs at the present. How many unemployed seamen would very much like to take such courses which would enable them to find more suitable employment, if only they had the money? Those who do not have the money are the ones who need the training.
If Manpower sponsorship were available, there would be no shortage of pupils for such courses. After all, there are almost five hundred officers who are jobless. Perhaps provision could be made for repayment of their fees when they found employment. I urge upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration that he study the facts and consider my proposal of Manpower sponsorship for training-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, men and women who are privileged to live in a free and democratic society have an obligation and a responsibility to speak out against violations of human rights, wherever they occur in the world. We must do so because those who are the victims of oppression and terror are seldom in a position to make a public plea on their own behalf. Such is the case with thousands of victims of senseless killings in Central America, as it is with brave dissidents who dare to speak out in Iron Curtain countries. We saw another brutal example of oppression in these past few days against defenceless human beings. Once again members of the Baha'i faith in Iran have been executed for their beliefs by the Government of that country.
The Baha'is have been subjected to incredible harassment and torture by the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. Since he seized power, 130 Baha'i leaders have been executed by the Government. This past week ten women of the Baha'i faith were executed in Iran simply for teaching children the basic tenets of their religion. Peoples and Governments around the world must protest these savage and outrageous acts of violence until the rights of Baha'is to live in peace and security, free to practise their religion, are respected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIRPORTS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, recently Transport Canada supplied me with a table of projects planned for airports in northern Manitoba over the next five years. The capital outlay is small for a region which covers the northern
Oral Questions
two-thirds of Manitoba, an area which is very highly dependent on air transportation. For example, the runway in Thompson, Manitoba, which was repaired on a temporary basis in 1982, is not slated for repairs again until after 1989. This is ridiculous in view of the fact that the runway is deteriorating so badly that it has in the past been closed to jet service because of its condition and the danger to aircraft and passengers.
Flin Flon, Manitoba, is still unable to provide service to aircraft wishing to make an instrument landing approach. These are just two examples of airport planning which are necessities of life but are not being done by the Government.
The North has a strong and growing tourist industry which needs to be encouraged. We also wish to increase our number of residents, and we need to do that by developing our rich resources in the area. Our airports must be improved. I encourage the federal Government to take action beyond its present plans.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that, following the financial disasters of Canadair and de Havilland, we now have the financial disaster of the CN investment in CAST Shipping, and we have the disaster of a $450 million loss in Via Rail despite the fact of a 20 per cent reduction in passenger train service. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government proposes to do to monitor and somehow control the activities of the people running these Crown corporations, who clearly lack the expertise, the managerial ability, and are not prepared to have any regard for the taxpayers' money in their management?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has heard the Government regret very deeply and sincerely the loss of money which has been incurred in Canadair and de Havilland. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is probably a mistake in logic to assume that that is because they are Crown corporations. He will remember that Canadair itself, when it was a private sector corporation, was going belly up. It is also true of de Havilland Canada, which was going belly up, and the private sector was not able to make it live. There was no one in the private sector prepared to keep that section of the aviation industry alive.
Hon. Members will also remember that many other important private sector operations which have been in great difficulty in past years have had nothing to do with Crown

June 22, 1983
Oral Questions
corporations. Canadian banks were in difficulty because they made loans to the Domes and to the Massey-Fergusons, and because they had made loans to Caribbean countries in difficult times. Massey-Ferguson had to be rescued, Madam Speaker, and Chrysler had to be rescued. Even Maislin, which is so loved by the other side of the House, had to be rescued.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the doctrinaires of the private sector are not prepared to admit that the private sector had difficulties in these times. The choice of the Government is to know whether it should let that aviation industry die, as the private sector was doing, or whether it should keep it alive. The same thing can be said of transportation and the other areas of our action, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the whole country is going to go belly up unless this Government changes.


CANADAIR-REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who in the Canadair matter had monthly reports sent to the Ministry with respect to every activity of Canadair.
I would like to know what review the Minister made, or his predecessor Ministers in that Department made, with respect to those monthly reports. And why did the Minister, despite reports which were overly optimistic and which always turned out to be false, continue to recommend further advances by banks, and letters of comfort, and the rest, with all of this bad and false information which was coming to him?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that when the Government became aware that Canadair was having problems and that those problems were very severe, it analyzed the situation and tried to find the best way to correct it. This particular mechanism is now before the House in the form of a Bill. The Government has formed a corporation that will provide for a Government presence within this corporation and others that are having problems, and 1 am sure that with this particular mechanism, we shall be able to correct a situation that has been diagnosed as being both problematic and unsatisfactory.


HIRING OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the House will know that before this Minister became the apologist for the mess, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was responsible. The House will also know that A. M. Guerin, Assistant Deputy Minister, was the representative of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the
board of directors of Canadair from June 5, 1976, until September, 1981. Would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell us why Mr. Guerin was allowed to take a high paying job with Canadian in conflict with the interest of supervising that corporation? Why was he allowed to resign from the Ministry and take this job at a high fee that he somehow earned because of his work presumably on behalf of the Ministry?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, regarding Mr. Guerin's job, he was hired by Canadair, and perhaps the Hon. Member, when he has an opportunity to meet with Canadair representatives in committee, would care to ask them why they hired Mr. Guerin.


CAPITALIZATION OF CORPORATIONS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As he knows, there has been a total lack of accountability concerning the affairs of Crown corporations. Now the Prime Minister tells us that he can put Crown corporations belly up faster than anyone else. Can the Minister tell us if it is common practice in Crown corporations to capitalize through debt as opposed to equity, and is it normal procedure to capitalize by means of letters of comfort?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to comment with respect to each and every Crown corporation. Certainly this was a practice followed with respect to at least one Crown corporation we have been discussing, and the Government went on to ask the House to enable it to replace those letters of comfort with guarantees established by Parliament, which the House did last year.


USE OF LETTERS OF COM FORT
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, the Government knew early in 1979 of the disaster it was in. The Government started issuing letters of comfort long before that, without bringing them in front of this House of Commons to be discussed, and without allowing the Auditor General to get involved.


Mr. Lalonde:: You were the Government in 1979.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Will the Minister table in this House the number of Crown corporations financed by letters of comfort?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to see what information I can provide in that regard. However, I might observe, because my hon. friend has talked about 1979, that I am not aware of
June 22, 1983

anything done by the previous Government to end the practice which, as he pointed out, had been going on prior to 1979.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE BE CONVENED
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. It is known that he is currently meeting secretly with representatives of Alberta trying to beat out a new energy pricing and taxation agreement. The Minister has offered a great deal of criticism of the role of the consumer Provinces in energy pricing. Therefore, in order to strike a national consensus, would the Minister be prepared to convene a sort of national conference on energy pricing so that producers and consumers can reach a consensus on energy pricing and taxation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this is a bilateral negotiation between the federal Government and Alberta. I can see the Hon. Member is changing his tune now that Saskatchewan does not have an NDP Government. I think we will try to arrange the best agreement, keeping in mind the interests of both the producers and consumers. I hope everyone would prefer to have an agreement rather than a disagreement between Alberta and Canada.


GASOLINE PRICES-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I believe the Government's limited understanding of this matter is bound to set off a second round of animosity. There is another aspect to energy pricing, that is the gas pump price and not just the wellhead price. Certainly the major oil companies across the country seem to be engaged in local gas wars to destroy the independents. Those gas wars seem to be funded through gouging of the Canadian public at the pump. No one understands what the real and fair price really is of fuels, including gasoline.
Would the Minister be prepared to encourage his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to strike a national inquiry into the retail price of fuel so that Canadian consumers will get a fair shake at both the wellhead and the gas pump?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member has asked me a very surprising question. The war between the companies, generally speaking, works in favour of the consumer. The intervention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs occurs when there is an agreement to increase the price. But in this case a price war, generally speaking, means a reduction in the price to the consumer.
Oral Questions
At the provincial level there are rules and regulations which sometimes oblige the companies to tell the consumers how much provincial tax they pay. Sometimes the rules and regulations are not in place. The federal Government, with the producing Provinces, controls only the wellhead price. We are not involved in setting the price in the retail market; that is done through market forces.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it goes right to the heart of the parliamentary process. Last December Senator Austin, who is responsible for Canadair, stated that the picture he was presenting to the committee in support of the request for additional moneys for Canadair was "a worst case scenario". He said that he might need more money but "the eventual requirement might not exceed the amount currently requested".
Yesterday in committee a senior Departmental official acknowledged that a secret report was available to Cabinet, in addition to the task force report, which showed that "Canadair was at that time a high risk situation". I ask the Prime Minister did the Cabinet direct Senator Austin to mislead that committee-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -when he requested those additional funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If he was not directed to do it, why did he mislead the committee? Perhaps the Prime Minister could answer that question.


INQUIRY RESPECTING RECOMMENDATION TO CANCEL CHALLENGER PROGRAM
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is very clear from the testimony given last fall by Canadair officials, plus the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well as Senator Austin, that they were attempting to downplay the seriousness of this mess. That is completely contrary to the secret report, of which there are only five copies.
Did either the departmental task force report or this secret report recommend to the Government that the Challenger program be cancelled forthwith?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it will be remembered that at that time the difficulties were known but that Canadair was still attempting to sell

June 22, 1983
Oral Questions
the Challenger, which was and is a very good aircraft. I would assume that the directors of Canadair, as they then were, were not anxious to indicate the company was in financial difficulty lest they lose prospective buyers. To me, that is the context in which this, shall we say, over optimistic look at the future was put forward.


INDUSTRY
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I want to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A very serious problem has developed in the primary sector of the agricultural industry as a result of the financial problems of White Farm Equipment of Canada. The receiver has frozen the delivery of replacement parts, and I am certain the Minister will appreciate the severe difficulty such a move is causing to White dealers across the country, and subsequently to the farmers.
I ask the Minister to take a personal interest in this matter and give us a commitment to contact the receiver later today, as soon as possible, to work out some arrangement whereby these parts can be released and forwarded to dealers, so that farmers can get back into motion?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we have already been in touch with the receiver. I understand he is giving some consideration to this if he has an infusion of capital, the sum of which I am not aware of right now. Apparently he has asked the owners of the company if they are going to put up this capital to take care of this parts situation during the interim period, until such time as they decide to either restructure the company or sell it to one of the prospective buyers.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INCREASE IN LOCKAGE FEES
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the debate over the important Crow rate the Minister has apparently forgotton an equally important issue, that is, the issue of shipping on the Great Lakes. In light of the many representations which have been made to me and other Hon. Members in the House with regard to the subject of lockage fees in the canals, I wonder if the Minister has considered repealing this unjust and crippling ruling.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have brought that thought to the attention of the Seaway authority repeatedly. The answer that I have been given is that it has been studying that subject, that is, tonnage versus lockage fees. It has made a study of it. The study is still under consideration, but generally the mood has been to say that the present difficulties have been much more attributable to the general economic circumstances than to the decision to go to a form of lockage fees as opposed to tonnage fees.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: The Minister will understand that this especially hurts the owners of small ships and it affects jobs in my riding, those of the seamen who work on their ships and people who service and repair the ships as well.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK READJUSTMENT
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: In light of the fact that shipping is now down one-third, will the Minister continue to press for a readjustment or a complete elimination of lockage fees? Will he do that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have given the answer which is considered to be the wise on at this time. However, if my hon. friend wants me to take up the subject again with the Seaway, I will, this afternoon or tomorrow.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Recently the Minister established a major inquiry or study into Atlantic freight rate subsidies. Would the Minister indicate whether the establishment of that study is meant to signal that the Minister personally favours changes to the freight subsidies in question? If so, why, and specifically what does he have in mind?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport has only one thing in mind, and he has been stating it for the last three years-


An Hon. Member:: Kill the Crow.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -that is, that the Government and the Department of Transport, in particular, have a responsibility, which is to spend money, the people's money, in the best possible way. Consequently the poor Minister of Transport occasionally sees fit, and others have done the same in the past, to make studies to see if the money is well spent.
My only contribution to the subject has been the establishment of a Maritime envelope. Moneys saved on subsidies are put back into the envelope and used for other transportation purposes, as in the case of highways, for example, recently and in the past year.
i
June 22, 1983


IMPACT OF SUBSIDIES ON REGION'S ECONOMY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He has a responsibility to consult with the Provinces affected by any changes in the freight rate subsidies. Given the fact that the Atlantic freight rate subsidies enable the four Atlantic Provinces to transport their goods from their region to central Canada, in particular, and at affordable cost, and given the fact that any major change in the freight rate subsidies would level a crippling blow to the economy of the entire region, would the Minister assure the House that he will consider the issue not only from the point of view of transport but also in terms of the economic welfare of the whole Atlantic region?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend mentions "a crippling blow". Other authorities on the subject, some of them from the Maritimes, have said the opposite, that these subsidies do not have a direct influence on economic development in the Maritimes. That is why we have a study, to find out which of those two positions makes sense. The study is going on now and we have collected the facts. We are analysing them, and later on we will discuss the conclusions. The consultant is discussing it with the most important groups in the Maritimes. Other officials of the Department will consult with other groups. In-depth cogitation by provincial and federal authorities will take place before a decision is made.
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I would like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Why have there been reductions in authorized person-years at agricultural research stations in western Canada, particularly the Agassiz Research Station in my constituency of Fraser Valley East, whose work has gained world-wide acclaim, while staff allocations have been increased in other areas of Canada?


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, this question was answered previously by the Minister, who said that there had been no cutbacks in staff in any of the research stations and that existing staff had been distributed more efficiently within those stations. My hon. colleague can therefore rest assured that there will be no drop in service in the research stations in his province.

Oral Questions


IMPACT ON RESEARCH PROJECTS
Alexander Bell Patterson: I understand that there has been reduction in person-years.
I would like to ask the following question. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that the vital research and experimental work in progress at centres such as the Agassiz Research Station will not be adversely affected by any of these cutbacks?


Marcel Dionne: Madam Speaker, I have taken note of the question and I shall certainly pass this information on to the Minister, who will be able to give my colleague the assurances he needs.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. On April 5, 1983, the National Film Board announced its intention to proceed with selective shutdowns of regional offices. The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region will be the first to suffer from this discriminatory policy, at the end of August, 1983. My constituents are most upset by this unfair and unacceptable decision, and I have received many representations which I have submitted to the Minister, to the effect that not only were users of this service going to be penalized but the entire region as well, because it would thus be deprived of a major and essential federal presence. My question is as follows: Could the Minister inform the House whether he has made representations to the National Film Board to reconsider his decision and whether we can assume that the regional office of the National Film Board in Chicoutimi will be maintained without any cutbacks-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind Hon. Members that questions may not be read. Questions are, by their very nature, spontaneous, and I shall have to be stricter on this point, because it is the only way to keep questions fairly short.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Hon. Member's question. I am aware that the question concerns many Members on both sides of the House, but perhaps I may say that I have received particularly strong representations from the Members for Chicoutimi, Lac-Saint-Jean, Jonquiere, Thunder Bay and other regions in this country. I have transmitted these concerns to the Commissioner of the National Film Board of Canada who raised the question again with his

June 22, 1983
Oral Questions
board of directors last Friday. After the board meeting, a decision was made to delay implementation of the board's decision to close the offices, until such time as other services would be available to provide the same level of service to the community.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and it concerns Nabu Manufacturing Corporation. As the Minister knows, this corporation acquired Consolidated Computer Incorporated for some $100,000 after the Government had sunk, and lost, some $125 million in that company. As well, the Government gave Nabu some $8.9 million last December as a research grant, yet the company is to lay off half of its workers, over 100 workers. Can the Minister tell us if the company has violated its agreement with the Government in terms of maintaining and creating jobs, and what sort of agreement did the Government have with Nabu Manufacturing?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the Hon. Member for advance notice of the question.
With respect to the first part of the question-


An Hon. Member:: Were any deals made?


Edward C. Lumley: There were no deals made. This is a very legitimate question, and I am sure that Members of the Official Opposition would like to know the answer, too.
In answer to the first part of the question, Nabu has lived up to the employment commitment made under the contract with the Government with respect to the purchase of CCI. The discussion on the $8.9 million grant for research and development, which could create anywhere from 250 to 500 jobs, and many other jobs depending on how successful the research is, was held in a totally different context than the discussions with CCI.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON JOB CREATION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I find it incredible that after the $125 million loss the Government cannot guarantee that this company will maintain its jobs. The question is on when the Government agreement took effect, because in less than a year this company will have laid off half of its workers.
A former chief executive of the company is quoted as saying that "it was a pretty loosey goosey arrangement with the Government all along". Is the Minister prepared to tell us exactly what the Government's policy is, in terms of job creation and job guarantees, when it gives a $125 million company away for less than $100,000. What is the policy, and is the Minister prepared to make public the arrangements and agreements that the Government entered into with Nabu?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Opposition cannot have it two ways. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has been under attack for the last three or four weeks with respect to what we are doing with Canadair and de Havilland into which the Government has invested a substantial amount of money in order to protect Canadian workers and Canadian jobs in a high-tech industry. Now the Hon. Member is complaining from the other side of the fence that we should not have sold this company but should have continued to put more money into it. I wish the Opposition would make up their minds.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With respect to the Canadair matter, the Minister has no doubt had an opportunity to review all the departmental and ministerial documents on that Crown corporation. Is he contemplating any action against those officials and members of the Crown corporation and those officials of his Department who have apparently deliberately misled the Ministers of that Department in the last two Governments?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the charges made by the Hon. Member are very serious and that he ought to have the courage to make them outside the House. If a Minister is not satisfied with the work being done by people who work for him, it does not take him three or four months to make a decision.


INFORMATION GIVEN TO MINISTERS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has the same background and historical documents on Canadair as his predecessors. I am asking if he is satisfied that the people preparing those documents for the Ministers not only of his Government but of the previous Government should be free of blame for the information that Ministers were given on that Crown corporation?
June 22, 1983


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Government judges situations on the basis of documents and reports submitted by its officials, and the House is not the place to judge or criticize the work done by these officials.


INCOME TAX
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that retired persons are now required to pay income tax quarterly in March, June, and September, and that the prepayment imposes a hardship on some people whose income is derived primarily from Canada Savings Bonds which pay interest only in November, is the Minister considering an amendment to the legislation which would allow a more convenient method of payment for retired persons with limited incomes?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her interest in the situation of retired persons and senior citizens. I must say that many Members of the House, particularly on this side of the House, have made representations to me in this regard.
I am examining this issue which I feel to be important. There are some difficulties that I would like to address at a later stage as I examine whether an amendment to the legislation would be appropriate. I am not however, in a position today to give an answer to the Hon. Member. I can only say that 1 am reviewing the situation with keen interest.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General whom I see returning to the House. The Solicitor General will recall that during the last several years Members on both sides of the House have indicated concerns about the pricing policy of Corcan, the industry section of Correctional Services Canada. Could he confirm to the House that the policy of Corcan is indeed as he said to me in a letter, dated April 19, 1982, that Corcan's pricing is "to equal private sector fair market price for equivalent products sold in equivalent volumes"? Is this the present policy of Corcan, and would the Minister confirm that Corcan manufactures all of its products on a custom order basis?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: No,
Madam Speaker, not all of its products are made on a custom order basis. Some products are made in order to build up an inventory for sale. In fact the statement that the Hon. Member read from my letter about pricing policy is still the policy of Corcan.


Bruce Halliday: With respect to the ordering on a custom order basis, we understand from one of the officials that that is indeed their policy.


BIDDING ON PRINCE ALBERT CONTRACT
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, a particular order from the City of Prince Albert was bid on by ten different bidders, including Corcan. Their bid was one-third lower than the second lowest bid, and two-thirds lower than the highest. Will the Minister explain how that can happen if indeed they are trying to price at the same level as the private sector?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of that particular price competition.
I would like the opportunity to look into it, and I would be prepared to answer the Hon. Member's question as soon as possible.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure that he knows that there are close to two million Canadians out of work. In some areas of Canada foreign nationals are being allowed in to take jobs that could be filled by Canadians. On the "Journal" on March 10 the Minister had the following to say:
-if an industry comes and says there's simply no Canadian available, then we say: 'Well, you may be allowed a foreign worker but you have to accompany that by a training program for a Canadian.'
Would the Minister comment on that because I am sure, as he knows, that that statement is patently false.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is using some fairly strong language. I wish he could provide a case to back it up.


EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS AT PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, on June 6 the Minister sent me a letter. On the second page he said:
-there are no training programs accompanying the 16 positions occupied by U.S. citizens on the Ridley Island Port Development.
He went on to say that Swedish engineers, technicians, workers, and even an accountant, are allowed to work on the grain port at Prince Rupert. I am sure there are unemployed

June 22, 1983
Ora1 Questions
workers, or an unemployed engineer or accountant somewhere in Canada who may be able to do that. Would he tell the House and Canadians why he made that false statement on the "Journal", and what the real policy is in terms of letting foreign nationals work in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member did not have the courtesy to read the other part of the letter which pointed out that, in the case of the Ridley Island construction, those workers brought in from other countries were hired on a temporary basis because the equipment being installed was designed in another country and only those technicians had the particular competence to put it in.
It would seem to me that if the Hon. Member is going to read from the record he should read from the entire record, and not try to mislead the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank. I receive complaints every day from borrowers from this bank, which is supposedly to be the bank of last resort, that they are being charged 21.75 per cent interest rates. What will the Minister do at this time to relieve the pressure that is placed upon the small business people who have had to use the Federal Business Development Bank but are now being charged unrealistic interest on loans?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for small business and tourism, who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Federal Business Development Bank, is with the Prince and Princess today. I will be happy to bring the Hon. Member's representation to his attention.

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Transport.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he could inform the House of his reaction to yesterday's announcement by the Government of the Province of Quebec regarding the nationalization of Quebecair. I should also like to know whether the Minister is still prepared to assist in restructuring Quebecair.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I had several reactions, but I think that first of all, I was sorry to hear that the Quebec Minister of Transport has decided not to pursue our negotiations. I think he finally gave in to certain political ideas and psychological frustrations he has had for quite some time. I would say that his true self has surfaced. I am also sorry that this is the second time we have missed a chance to put Quebecair on a maximum efficiency and viability basis. I am sorry about this, and I think everyone will agree with me. What can we do now for Quebecair? We are not dog-in-the-mangerish. We are willing to co-operate. Air Canada is prepared to co-operate with Quebecers at the technical and administrative level. As far as I and my department are concerned, we are also interested in developing the third level in Quebec, namely, intraprovincial transport. However, as soon as I say that, Mr. Clair will take this as an insult to Quebec because according to the Minister, Quebec should be up there at the international, world and space levels!


COPYRIGHT
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the Copyright Act. I appreciate that the Minister responsible is not in the House, but perhaps someone could answer my question. There were printed reports yesterday to the effect that copyright revisions are currently being discussed with representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and others. If the Government believes it is reasonable to discuss with business representatives proposed new amendments to the copyright legislation, could the Government please inform us why it decided not, on the same conditions and terms, to discuss those amendments with representatives of the Consumer Association of Canada, since presumably it is consumers that the copyright legislation is most intended to help?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as far as I
am aware, any of the discussions have been of a purely general nature. None of the specific revisions or proposals of the Government have been disclosed. Certainly all groups will be consulted when the legislation is tabled in the fall.


AUTHENTICITY OF PRESS REPORTS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is he saying that the press reports yesterday quoting various public officers of the Department, that private conversations were going on with representatives of business communities and not with consumers, are in fact not true? If so,
June 22, 1983

could he explain why those reports came out over the authority of press officers of his Department?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the actual press reports. I know that 1 have personally engaged in such consultations but, as 1 said in my previous answer, none of these consultations have divulged any of the proposals of the Government. They are ongoing consultations which the Department has had with respect to the copyright revisions.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, clearly, such a decision requires the co-operation of the Minister of Finance and Cabinet. We are looking into the financial consequences of such a possibility, and as soon as satisfactory conclusions have been reached, these will be announced.



TIMING OF CABINET APPROVAL


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who yesterday received a wire from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asking him to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to make its own decisions regarding an appropriate level of borrowings on the open market for relending to farmers. Since FCC has now run out of money until next spring and desperately needs more money to handle the needs from the pent-up demand coming out of the high interest period, and from farmers seeking refinancing, could the Minister assure the House that he will not further restrict the attempts by FCC to acquire more funds to service this need and, if not, how does he propose to permit FCC to operate under its new mandate to raise funds on the so-called open market?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is probably aware that the Minister of Finance has a certain responsibility for the Government's borrowing policies. I firmly intend to assume the responsibility vested in me by law and to do so completely and to the best of my knowledge.
As far as the specific point raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, I can inform him that I have been discussing this with the Minister of Agriculture for some time, and as soon as we finish our discussions, I can assure the Hon. Member that we shall be informing him of our conclusions.



DELAY IN APPROVING MINISTER'S APPLICATION TO CABINET

Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said that the Farm Credit Corporation was broke and that he had made application to Cabinet for approval for the FCC to go out on the money markets of the world, either through agri-bonds or otherwise, would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what is the delay in allowing this application by the Minister of Agriculture to go forward?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that farmers are really suffering because of lack of financing at the present time, could the Minister of Finance tell us when he expects this approval to be given to the Farm Credit Corporation?


Marc Lalonde: Soon, Madam Speaker.
* *
*



INDUSTRY


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to the $8.9 million which was given last December to Nabu Manufacturing Corporation. Was there a condition in that research grant that it was to maintain employment levels or increase employment levels?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, because it was a grant under STEP, which is for research and development assistance for high risk projects, there was no specific condition attached regarding the hiring or laying off of people. It was expected that the grant could create anywhere from 250 to 500 jobs if the project was successful. I am sure the Hon. Member knows there is a substantial amount of risk associated with high technology. That is why, in my response to the Member for Regina East, 1 indicated that there were two different aspects, the one with CCI and the one with the research development project that could create many jobs for Canadians in years to come.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I appreciate the Minister's comments. I realize that there are two different aspects to it.



CREATION OF JOBS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Government has made an awful lot of claims that, through supporting high technology, it expected to create a number of jobs in the future. Nabu has

June 22, 1983
Oral Questions
now indicated that it will put its computer employment jobs offshore and that that is the reason it is cutting half of its present jobs. Does the Minister believe that the high technology industry will in fact create as many jobs as once thought?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, certainly there is a very strong strategy by the Government to encourage the growth and development of high technology which would source its equipment in Canada. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has pointed out in several of his statements, we have to insist upon encouraging the development and growth of the high technology industry in Canada. The ways we can do that are to ensure that it does its purchasing here and at the same time is able to train people here.
The Hon. Member should know, because he is from the Ottawa area, that we recently signed an agreement with eight of the high level high technology firms in the Ottawa area to establish a new on-the-job training program for high technology, which will give them the ability to attract Canadian workers and train them for qualified work which can be made available here, and therefore encourage more work to be done in Canada.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns Canadair. In September, 1982 Cabinet was advised by Gordon Ritchie, Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry, to use his words, "of the high risk position of Canadair". The distorted position of the directors, perhaps for the reasons expressed by the Prime Minister, was expressed to the parliamentary committee in November. Why did Cabinet not act to rectify the distorted testimony given to the committee in November?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot vouch for the exact dates, but my recollection is that it was around that time Cabinet began to seek ways to transfer control of Canadair to CDIC.



GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY

Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, if Cabinet was aware in September, 1982, of the financial jeopardy Canadair was in, does the Prime Minister not believe that Cabinet had a duty to an all-Party committee to correct the distortions which were left by the board of directors because of their zeal to sell the Challenger?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker.



U500) MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to Canadair. My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to whom numerous questions have been directed, both today and on previous days, with respect to this issue. The Minister has refused to answer, permitting his colleague to respond. Does the Minister acknowledge a responsibility to reply with respect to Canadair for that period of time during which that company was reporting directly to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or does the Minister adopt the principle that he can escape his responsibility retroactively because the reporting process was changed to another Ministry?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to know that another Minister is responsible for Canadair, and that the Minister in question is accountable for any developments in this case.



PETITIONS


Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 21, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier), Saint-Jean (Mr. Masse), Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), Beauce (Mr. Lapointe), Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and Jonquiere (Mr. Marceau), has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.
June 22, 1983

Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FILING OF OBJECTION TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that the objection signed by the Hon. Members for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), Portneuf (Mr. Dion), Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), Jonquiere (Mr. Marceau), Levis (Mr. Gourde), Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote), Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) and Chambly (Mr. Dupont), has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, I suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.
Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FILING OF OBJECTION TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND

Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand), Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet), Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), London West (Mr. Burg-hardt), Welland (Mr. Parent), Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Newfoundland.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.
Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the
Petitions
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Ninth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure.

I would like to add that this is a unanimous report in both of Canada's official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 139 citizens of the Cariboo-Chilcotin riding of British Columbia. The purpose of this petition is to protest the provisions of Bill C-10 which would allow the Government to interfere in the affairs of churches and voluntary organizations. The petitioners hope that your examination of the petition you will find it in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of the Speaker of the House to allow discussion at the earliest possible time in order that the flaws in this proposed legislation may be pointed out.


Madam Speaker:: I congratulate the Hon. Member on the brevity of his presentation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the petition that the 1,267 undersigned residents of the Provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly

June 22, 1983
Petitions
sheweth that the practice of adding lead to gasoline is the leading source of high levels of lead in the Canadian environment.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide legislation which calls for the total elimination of lead additives to gasoline in Canada and to ensure that safe economical alternatives which are known to exist are provided.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour and the duty to present petitions of my constituents, all of whom belong to the Springfield Heights Mennonite Church, who are concerned about pornography and the fact that the CRTC broadcasting regulations do not extend to women the same protection against abusive comments or abusive pictorial representation as now exists for racial and religious groups.
Wherefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, as introduced by Lynn McDonald, M.P. for Broadview-Greenwood, on March 8, 1983.
mr. Mcknight-metric measurement


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of petitioners from the Town of Alsask in the Province of Saskatchewan I wish to present a petition. The petitioners believe that Canadians should be free to use their customary Canadian measurements without threat of fine or imprisonment.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to rescind the Order in Council making the use of metric measurements compulsory and to reinstitute voluntary freedom of choice in the use of measurements. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by 22 residents of the Province of Ontario. The petition of the undersigned residents in the Province of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that toxic chemicals are posing an increasing threat to the potable waters of this Province; that there is presently no legislation which will guarantee the safety and healthfulness of those waters; and that Canada's neighbour, the United States of America, has legislation entitled "The Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974".
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact a safe drinking water act which will protect and enhance drinking water quality in all areas of Canada.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a petition 1 would like to present today signed by the residents of Ponteix.
Wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that we request and strongly advise the Canadian Government to express the following desire of the Canadian public to the American Government. We desire the immediate cessation of the American Government's operations against the Government and people of Nicaragua in the interests of international peace and freedom in Central America. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition today on behalf of residents in all of the communities in Kootenay East-Revelstoke. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas we now face an end to this planet as a result of the present nuclear arms race, therefore we, the undersigned petitioners, call on the Government of Canada actively to support a global freeze on testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, to deny the United States permission to test the new Cruise missile system in Canada, to press all nations to pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons and to immediately set aside one-tenth of 1 per cent of Canada's defence budget, $7 million, for disarmament efforts. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster. In their petition these western Canadian farmers indicate that grain has contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade in the 1982-83 crop year and the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rates.
June 22, 1983


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present two petitions signed by 77 Canadian citizens of Rycroft, Peace River and Edmonton, Alberta, Ernfold, Chaplin and Morse in Saskatchewan, and Ottawa, Ontario. I must do this with all modesty. They have carefully considered the alternative plan presented on behalf of the New Democratic Party by Les Benjamin, M.P. for Regina West, and urge the Parliament of Canada to adopt the provisions in order that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate may be maintained for grain producers.
Wherefore your undersigned petitioners humbly pray that Parliament will act in such a manner.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 71(1).


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a final petition that comes from a number of individuals from the Province of Manitoba and the Province of British Columbia in which those people request that the Government of Canada implement immediately a marine industrial strategy that would create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits for Canadians. The petitioners implicitly support the concept of regional distribution of the benefits of the frigate program on a two-two-two basis, and finally, they would also implicitly support the concept that legislation should be passed immediately by the House of Commons to support the marine industrial policy that was developed by the Government in recent months.



INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT


Edward C. Lumley: for leave to introduce Bill C-165, an Act to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions
Order Paper Questions
will be answered today: Nos. 4,709, 4,742, 4,854, 4,887, 4,891 and 4,950.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, did a study by the Upstate Medical Centre in Syracuse, New York indicate that pregnant women should not take the pain-killer acetylsalicylic acid tablets within five days of their delivery or immediately afterward because there was found evidence of unusual bleeding or haemorrhage?
2.	Have there been any Canadian studies or other studies done to substantiate this claim and, if so, has there been any action by the Department of National Health and Welfare to alert the doctors and the general public?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, the Department of National Health and Welfare is aware that a study by the Upstate Medical Centre in Syracuse, New York indicated that pregnant women should not take the pain killer acetylsalicylic acid tablets within five days of their delivery or immediately afterward because evidence was found of unusual bleeding or haemorrhage.
2. Yes, the Department of National Health and Welfare has sponsored reviews of Canadian and foreign data relating to safety and effectiveness of analgesics by Expert Advisory Committees composed of nongovernment pharmacologists and clinicians on a number of occasions during the 1970s and 1980s.
These reviews led to the publication of Information Letter No. 565 in October, 1979 which cautioned that ASA might be harmful to the mother and/or her foetus when taken during the last three months of pregnancy. This was followed by Information Letter No. 622 (May 5, 1982) proposing that all products containing ASA would be required to carry the following warning on the label: "Do not take during the last three months of pregnancy or during lactation without prior consultation with a physician". This message went to Health Professional Associations, drug manufacturers and public advocacy groups for comment.
The final disposition of proposals in Information Letter No. 622 will be published in August, 1983.


Mr. Schellenberger: Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development keep a registry of all Indian arts and crafts it has in its possession including that used to decorate the offices of the Cabinet Ministers and the Department, as well as the Department's buildings in Canada, and are values attached to each?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has an inventory of all its holdings of art on an automated inventory control system. A more detailed record of each work of art is also maintained by the Indian Art Centre. Most of the Department's holdings of art are housed at headquarters, DIAND, 10 Wellington Street,

June 22, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Hull, Quebec. The regional offices also have art holdings. These too are inventoried at headquarters. Since new curatorial procedures are now in the process of being developed, exact figures as to the value of individual works of art is not available. Our best estimate places the value of the collection at well over $1 million.


Mr. Howie: During the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, what financial support did the Government give to the research or development of the drug interferon?


James Duncan Schroder: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a), (b) and (c) None.
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: the following financial support (including salary support), was given for research in the development of the drug interferon.
(a)	1980-81	$120,275(b)	1981-82	$222,927(c)	1982-83	$273,688.


Mr. Manly: Was there a public tender for the new postal facility in Sooke, British Columbia and, if so, what were all the details, including information on the length of the leases and moneys involved?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Canada Post Corporation identified a requirement for 257 square metres of usable processing space for a period of ten years commencing February 1 1983.
On April 26 through 29, 1982, public advertisements were placed by Public Works Canada in major Vancouver, Victoria and local Vancouver Island newspapers requesting offers be submitted in accordance with standard Public Works Canada and Canada Post Corporation specifications. Tender call closed May 19 1982 with two valid offers being received. Both offers met all the terms and conditions of the tender specification and offered space at a gross rate of 280.73/square metre and 399/square metre respectively, firm for ten years.
Public Works Canada recommended the lowest offer, Canada Post Corporation concurred and a ten-year lease was entered into at a total annual cost of $83,298.11.


Mr. Blackburn: During certain times of the year, have staff members of the Canadian Unity-Information Office performed a press clipping service for other Departments and, if so, how often is this service performed by the Office and does the
requesting Department pay for the costs involved, including staff salaries, in the provision of this service?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Yes, the Canadian Unity Information Office does provide an in-house clipping service. These services are available upon request at no charge to the Departments. In 1983, the service was provided to departments an average of three times per month.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River): 1.	Is there a listing under Telephone Referral Services for the Province of Ontario, the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories in the 1983 edition of the "Index to Federal Programs and Services 1983" and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the Government maintain telephone referral services for the Provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for what reason is it not listed in the Index?
3.	Was a decision reached to exclude the Provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories from the Telephone Referral Services and, if so, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Index to Federal Programs and Services 1983 list the federal and joint federal-provincial telephone referral services which were operational in January, 1983 and therefore available to the public. Listings for Ontario, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories were not in the 1983 Index as service was not available at that time.
An agreement has been signed with Prince Edward Island to establish a joint federal-provincial telephone referral service. The referral service, which is listed in the most recent telephone directory, has just started up. The numbers (in Charlottetown-local 566-7575, long distance, call toll free 1-5667575) will be listed in the next edition of the Index.
In the Northwest Territories, a joint service with the territorial government was not possible and a federal referral system was considered not economical as some federal Departments and Agencies already provide toll free service to this region. These telephone numbers are included in the 1983 edition of the Index.
In Ontario a federal toll free service will be in operation by September 1, 1983.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No, 4,675 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
June 22, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,675 be deemed to be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the current members of the Advisory Council of the Canadian Wheat Board and what are the terms of their appointments?
2.	Is an honorarium provided to the members of the Council and, if so, what is the amount?
3.	What were the names and addresses of the immediate past members of the Council and what were the terms of their appointments?
4.	During the term of the past members, how many meetings of the Council were held and in which cities were they held?
5.	In the case of each immediate past member of the Council, what was the total honorarium received during his/her term and what were his/her expenses for each year during their term for (a) travel (b) food (c) accommodation relating to the Council's meetings?
6.	During the term of the immediate past Council and excluding the meetings covered in part 5, did any member travel outside or inside Canada on Council or Canadian Wheat Board business and, if so, what was his/her name and what was the (a) purpose (b) cost of each trip?
7.	For each immediate past member, what other related expenses, if any, were claimed during his/her term?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I would ask. Madam Speaker, that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, i would ask that all notices of motions for the prodution of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act 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 motion of Mr. Lachance (p. 26521).
Western Grain Transportation Act
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, another feature of the freedom of choice concept is that it hurts nobody. It does not hurt the railways. It puts the railways in a position that if they give good service, the people will use the railways. The more efficient the railways become, the more money they would make. That is the proper way for a free enterprise project to work.
It will not hurt the farmers of Quebec. The farmers of Quebec will still have their markets and will still have their own subsidies. Freedom of choice for western Canadians will not hurt the Quebec people. It will not hurt anybody.
It will not hurt the Government. As a matter of fact, it will be of benefit to the Government because it will allow the Government to show that it is democratic by getting back to the people and letting the people decide some of these things. The freedom of choice proposition has tremendous possibilities.
Freedom of choice would be beneficial to every farm family home in western Canada because the husband and wife and children could decide what is best for them and how they want to use the money. The people will have the say. That is a wonderful concept, and I would like to see it adopted by the Government. It would be to its credit to adopt it.
There are three or four things I would like to mention in regard to this whole issue. First, we expect the railways to be adequately compensated. They must be compensated. While they should not be making exorbitant profit, they should be making a reasonable profit so that they can do the things they want to do as can any other business. The Government should make it clear, though, that it has a funding commitment and will undertake that. There should be adequate rail service with guaranteed capacity and the best way to guarantee service in the rail transportation industries in western Canada is to allow freedom of choice.
As the official of CPR that I spoke with said: "If we do not operate well, they will take their business somewhere else. If we operate well, they will bring their money to us, they will bring their goods to us, they will bring their wheat and their crops to us." Good service will bring the railways more and more business in a proper and legitimate fashion.
The Hon. Minister said that he wanted to remove the distortions that existed and Gilson said that the only possible way to remove those distortions is to put the shortfall money in the pockets of the producers. That is what Gilson and some of the best agricultural minds of western Canada have said. The Hon. Minister should accept that. The railways will have an ongoing obligation and so will the Government. These freight anomalies should be removed.
I see that you are waving at me, Mr. Speaker. I feel like waving back because there are another dozen things that I would like to say. But I do want to say that the freedom of choice proposition should be incorporated in this Bill. If it is not and if the Government is going to stick with Bill C-155 as

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
it is presently written, it would be better to throw the whole thing out and revert back to the Crow rate.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this very important legislation, Bill C-155. At the same time, I am pleased to pay tribute to the outstanding contributions which have been made by my colleagues, in particular the Hon. Members for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), who have done such an outstanding job in communicating to the people of Canada the position taken by the New Democratic Party on this very important legislation.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this issue does not affect only one region of the country. This issue is of national importance. Even though the Crow rate has effectively been described as the Magna Carta of the West, in many ways the ramifications of this Bill go far beyond the West. I as a representative of a constituency in British Columbia have a number of very serious concerns about the effect this Bill would have on my constituents. I know that in the course of this debate my colleagues have tried to bring forth the concerns they have as to how the Bill might affect not only their constituents but people all across the country.
I would note as well that we are faced with a very important question of process when dealing with this legislation. It has been suggested, in effect, that there has been enough debate. Parliament is being gagged and muzzled by the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) which would effectively deny us any opportunity to improve this legislation in principle at second reading. Any possible amendments are being presented. There were a number of amendments we suggested which we believed would have improved this legislation, but through a parliamentary device which was last used in the House, I believe, in 1955 we are being stifled and debate is in effect being closed. This kind of back door closure and trickery is completely unacceptable.
We have heard the Official Opposition talk about freedom of choice. In many respects, for the farmer freedom of choice means freedom to choose how he or she is to be shafted by the PC proposals. Effectively, there are no safeguards whatsoever to ensure that the farming community will not be very badly hurt by the legislation. We have seen estimates which show that some $6,000 per year will be lost by the average farmer. The Government has the nerve to suggest that he should accept that and that this debate should be ended. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.
I have noted that this is an issue of national importance. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) primarily in western Canada with respect to this legislation. He said that he was hearing different views on the Crow rate from different groups in the West and that he had made it clear that the Government would like to settle the matter in a way which would achieve the greatest possible consensus in the West.
There is far from being a consensus in the West, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the most divisive pieces of legislation ever seen in western Canada. On February 13, 1981 the Prime Minister said that at the present time it was the Government's policy not to touch the Crow rate, but if there was a general feeling in the West that the question must be reopened, then it would be happy to do so.
Not only is there not a general feeling in the West that the Crow rate should be reopened, but in fact the general feeling in the West is quite to the contrary. The Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Alberta were not quite sure where they stood. Certainly they have been rather silent on this important issue although they have been vociferous on other questions, such as that of dismantling medicare in Alberta.
I should like to deal with some of the particular concerns that Members from British Columbia have about the legislation. I would preface my remarks by saying that it is rather curious that in this bonanza for the CPR-and that is what it is, a bonanza for the CPR-there is no suggestion there be a quid pro quo. It might be one thing if we were to be told that the poor, suffering CPR was finally going to be adequately compensated for transporting grain if in exchange, as a quid pro quo, it were to turn Marathon Realty over to the people of Canada. But we do not hear anything about the profit-making subsidiaries of CP Rail, Mr. Speaker.
Last year this corporate giant had a profit of $485 million on assets over $16 billion, so the silence is rather curious in view of the suggestion that a bargain was made with the people of Canada, particularly with the farmers in western Canada. That bargain is being broken with this legislation. That sacred trust with the farmers of western Canada and indeed with this country is being broken. In exchange for an agreement to transport grain at the statutory rate, CP Rail was given vast tracts of land, mineral rights and money.
It has been suggested that if CP were suddenly to renege on the bargain, the taxpayers of Canada have the right to insist that the resources involved be put into the hands of the people of Canada. I have heard very little about this from Members of the Official Opposition and Members of the Government. As we know very well, both Parties receive very significant corporate contributions from CP Rail, so perhaps that is why the old saying "He who pays the piper expects to call the tune" is appropriate in his case.
It has been suggested that shippers of other products in British Columbia might pay more as a result of the Crow rate, but that is not so, Mr. Speaker. To change the Crow rate will not in any way relax the freight rate screw on other shippers. The railways are in a monopoly position in western Canada and will set their rate at whatever the market will bear. In any event, the transportation of grain accounts for only 13 per cent of total transportation. The Government of Alberta, that great free enterprise Government, admits that the railways would continue to set rates on the historic basis and would not be affected by the increased grain revenues.
June 22, 1983

We are not just criticizing the Bill, saying that it must be withdrawn for all the reasons so eloquently stated across the country by the Hon. Member for Regina West, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and others, but we offer a real, constructive alternative.
It may be asked what a New Democratic Party government would do in this area. We readily accept that it is essential that the rail system in this country be upgraded, but the history of the Government shows a systematic dismantling of the best components of our railway system. 1 recall vividly the proposals made to get rid of some of the most essential branch lines in western Canada when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) decided to axe VIA Rail. I believe that for a long time CP Rail has been ripping off the people of Canada. If the Bill were enacted in its present form, it would have the effect of Parliament sanctioning a continued rip-off.
What this Party has called for is better investment to upgrade the railways; an equity position for the people of Canada for any money that goes into CP Rail; and, one day in the not too distant future, we should seriously consider bringing that great corporate giant under public ownership. The time has come to recognize that it has failed to serve the people of Canada and appropriate steps should be taken to bring it under the control and direction of the people of Canada.
I urge the Government to withdraw this nefarious piece of legislation which is so destructive of the whole country, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope the Government will come to its senses, that its Conservative allies will come to their senses, and that the legislation will be reconsidered.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would be willing to answer a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am not sure that I heard the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) properly. Would he please repeat his point of order?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wondered whether the Hon. Member for Burnaby would be willing to entertain a question at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to enter the debate on this motion today. I thought it would be a rather lengthy motion so I looked it up on the Order Paper and saw that it is very simple. It reads:
That this question be now put.
Western Grain Transportation Act
It sounds almost insignificant. However, there are a whole lot of implications in this one short sentence. Knowing my good friend, the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, as usual what he says has hidden implications.
This sentence gives me some concern because essentially what we are doing with that short phrase is moving into closure. We are cutting off debate. It is not the usual closure motion, but in fact that is simply what it accomplishes. There will be no room for further amendments. Therefore, any hope we had for discussion on various aspects of the Crow Bill is cut off. There is no chance for further debate on issues like the freedom of choice option which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). There is no assurance at this point that we, as an Opposition and as Hon. Members, in my case from the West, who are particularly concerned about this Bill and the effect of the legislation, have really been heard yet by the Minister. As a result of the motion, we do have some concerns because what in fact we are facing is closure.
The question I suppose then is: Why do we have closure at this particular time? The Government is always going to say that a Government has a right to legislate. It has the right to pass its laws, to introduce them into the House, and to make sure that those laws are debated and passed through the legislative process. We know that the Standing Orders of the House do make considerable reference to that opportunity. A great deal of the Standing Orders are put in place precisely for that purpose.
Of course, that is the viewpoint of the Government on that particular issue. However, on the other side of the coin, one principle which I believe is equally important is the viewpoint of the Opposition and its right-you might even say its duty- to oppose legislation in the hopes of obtaining improvement, to oppose legislation in the hopes of bringing to light some of the flaws that we as an Opposition see in a particular piece of legislation. Just as there are Standing Orders on the one side to allow the Government to proceed with its legislation, there are also Standing Orders on the other side to allow the Opposition the full and complete opportunity to oppose, to enter into debate and to discuss and report legislation. Therefore, those provisions are of equal importance to the Government's purpose. They also serve a very significant purpose in what happens in this House and what happens to legislation, and ultimately what we hope is good legislation coming through the House of Commons.
The question really boils down to why do we, as an Opposition, want to see an extended, careful, thorough debate on Bill C-155, the Crow legislation? The reason is that we feel it is important. I feel we can essentially look at approximately four particular reasons why we want to see this legislation given a thorough airing. First, it is because of the fact that the Crow is

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
of fundamental importance, particularly to the West, but having a dramatic effect on all of Canada. That is because it is a long-term program. The Crow rate is a program which has been going on for a long period of time and any changes will have a continued effect for the foreseeable future.
Second, this particular program has been of great benefit to farmers over the years. It has allowed them time for planning, and that has been significant if one looks at many of our farmers in terms of rapidly increasing costs such as fuel, fertilizer, machinery, land, interest, development of land and so on. All those costs become very significant. Something as stable as the Crow benefit over a long period of time has allowed our farmers to plan and has allowed them to do some serious and straightforward thinking.
The farmers in my region are concerned about still having to develop some land. That was one of the original purposes of the Crow benefit. It was to allow our early farmers to be able to bring their agricultural land onstream and to develop it. In Peace River country that is quite an involved process. That means taking trees off the land, taking out the roots and breaking the land, all of which is expensive. There is still a very viable purpose for this in my area because we are still trying to bring on new land. We have a lot of agricultural land left which is tree covered, which is not yet into production. Therefore, the Crow benefit still has that particular benefit to farmers in the Peace River country.
Another reason why I believe it is necessary to have good, clear, concise debate is that the Crow rate is now nearly 100 years old. Surely, when we come into a situation such as we are facing here in the House of Commons now, there should be very little, if any, difficulty in setting aside a few months or a few hours of debate in order to assure that we do what is right to this particular piece of legislation which will have such a dramatic impact on the West and in fact on all of Canada. However, as usual, this Government once again is in a big hurry. It has to rush it through. It has to use closure in whatever form to accomplish its particular interests and goals. It is not concerned about what happens to those who are directly and dramatically affected by this legislation.
Another reason for having a good debate on this particular issue is that the Government does not have any representation in the West. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that this House take a little time to hear some of the viewpoints which reflect that region of the country which is not represented on the Government's side in this particular legislation. There must be time to entertain amendments because those amendments provide new debate and new discussion and the chance of improving the legislation. There must be time to look at general improvements in the Bill, one of which I referred to earlier in my remarks, the proposal of freedom of choice which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
The whole concept of freedom of choice becomes very significant and very important to people in a region such as I represent simply because we have in so many of our areas large parts of the riding which are not serviced by rail and, therefore, our farmers must load their grain into trucks and travel as much as 100 to 120 miles to the nearest railhead. Therefore,
the possibility of having a choice in terms of how farmers ship their grain and where that Crow benefit would be paid becomes very significant to them. That is one of the issues on which I would like to see a full discussion here in the House of Commons. That could have been very simply done through amendments, through discussions with the Minister and through various debates in the House. Today, however, we see this opportunity coming to an end very simply because of the motion which has been put forward that the question be now put, which is essentially closure, so that the whole debate comes grinding to a halt.
Another reason I believe it is important that we have a good debate is the basic lack of trust in this Government from coast to coast in this country. If one looks at the Gallup polls, one sees that on a national average it has around 30 per cent or 32 per cent support. That is on a national average; in the particular part of the country from which I come it is significantly lower than that. Therefore there is a real basic lack of trust.
Why has that come about? I believe part of the reason has to be because of debate and debating opportunities here in the House of Commons. I can refer to one particular piece of legislation which was railroaded through here not too long ago, the National Energy Program. We saw that piece of legislation, which was so interventionist and had such a dramatic effect on western Canada, forced through the House with very little input from western Members because, obviously, if any Hon. Member from western Canada had had any genuine opportunity to improve that legislation, we would not have the same problems we have now. In my area alone unemployment has gone up some four times since the NEP. Investment is down, bankruptcies are up, and dreams have simply been destroyed. So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that once again we have some legislation very important to western Canada before this House of Commons, and once again the Government is bringing in closure. Once again we as western Canadians are asking why. What is the purpose? What is the Government doing? It is no wonder the Liberals have no elected representatives in our area; if they keep going at the present rate, they are not going to have any in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett),
I think it is in order that the Chair make one or two general observations. I did not interrupt the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), nor have I interrupted other Hon. Members, but there is a rule of relevance in this House. While it is the most difficult rule to enforce, some effort should be made to address the Bill in front of the House. That is the first point I want to make.
Secondly, if some Hon. Members seek to interpret the rules or Standing Orders of this House in their own manner and perception, I think probably it is the responsibility of the Chair not to intervene and correct those interpretations. On the other hand, it concerns the Chair that words are used which are not
June 22, 1983

in fact relevant to the Standing Orders of this House of Commons. I do not think I see any opportunity for me or for any occupant of the chair to intervene because these words also have political connotations and I understand them and accept them. But some care should be taken. If certain expressions are used and they are said to be interpretations of the Standing Orders, it becomes difficult for the Chair in those circumstances.
That is as far as I will go in that regard and I do not think I will intervene again on that subject.


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who preceded me commented on the fact that the debate was grinding down, coming to an end. If that is so, it is because the Conservatives are not participating fully in the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have just, in what I thought was the most delicate way, suggested that Members might like to address themselves to the Bill before the House. Relevance is a very difficult topic but I do think the Chair has some responsibility to encourage Members to address themselves to the Bill.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Members participating in this debate have taken all sorts of shots at political parties, when the list of speakers is likely coming to an end in a very short period of time because most of the Members who are interested have spoken in this debate, I do not see how all of a sudden you can force the rule of relevance where the Member who is speaking now and the previous speaker did not go beyond what has already been accepted in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to advise the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) that whatever may be tolerated at one moment does not necessarily become the new Standing Orders or regulations pertinent to the House, nor is it an obligation upon the Chair. Furthermore, I want to make sure that the Hon. Member understands that I have not made a ruling, I have simply encouraged Hon. Members to remind themselves of the rule of relevance and to address the Bill if they can.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I was about to point out how relevant the remarks I am making are to the Bill because the Conservatives have been arguing that the matter of the question now being put is in their eyes, I guess in everyone's eyes, a form of closure. They have been arguing strenuously that they need more and more time for debate, yet they would have to put up-and I figured this out-37 more speakers to equal the degree to which we have participated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have indicated that I think the Hon. Member should address herself to the Bill. I understand the difficulty and I have been one of those in the Chair during times when Hon. Members have addressed themselves to a dispute between political parties. I understand
Western Grain Transportation Act
that, but I do think the Hon. Member should begin by referring to the Bill we are talking about. That would at least show some concern over relevance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I do not think the Hon. Member should be imputing motives. She is suggesting that we are not putting up our share of speakers. I simply want to point out that we are putting up the speakers who want to speak. They make their own speeches and they speak with sincerity and compassion; they do not read speeches prepared by the speech writers of the research department of their Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. If there were any point of order relating to the imputation of motives, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has just done exactly that.


Pauline Jewett: The Hon. Member for Vegreville will see in a minute that I have no written speech whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, again I am really trying to be fair. We are discussing the matter of this question now being put according to Standing Order 56, and I felt that it should be on the record. I will then cease and go on to the Bill, but I felt, since we are talking about this Standing Order, that I should point out that the Conservatives would need 37 more speakers to equal our contribution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. This is the third time I have warned the Hon. Member. If she proceeds in this fashion I will see another Hon. Member.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Government is pushing down our throats which bothers me more than anything else is the fact that it has denied a bargain, one could almost say a constitutional bargain. It is revoking that bargain unilaterally. I am surprised that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who is a distinguished political historian, does not recognize more fully that this country was based on a series of understandings between the French and English, between central Canada and the eastern part of the country, and between central Canada and the West, the Prairies and British Columbia. Now, from time to time in our history these understandings have been broken. Certainly they are modified from time to time because that is the nature of social progress. One cannot always stick exactly to the original understanding because society changes and understandings have to change with it.
Nevertheless, in the case before us there is a fundamental understanding which is, I think as far as any Canadian is concerned, still relevant and important. The understanding was that while the CPR would be provided with a great number of enormous incentives, and they have all been discussed many times in this debate, they in turn would have certain obligations. In return for all the incentives of land, mineral rights and other things, they have the obligation to see that the Crowsnest Pass rate is maintained.

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
A related set of understandings, equally relevant today- and in a sense it goes back to Macdonald's national policy- were that encouragement was given the manufacturing sector in central Canada in order to survive. At that time the encouragement thought necessary was a protective tariff, thereby requiring western Canadians to buy their goods at a much higher cost than they would have if they simply went across the border. Western Canadians on the other hand, in return for giving up the cheaper manufactured goods, would themselves be supported in such matters as freight rates. Then we in western Canada, particularly prairie Canada-and we are mostly speaking of wheat-could get our produce on to world markets at a competitive and fair price.
Those understandings are really built very deeply into our society, even if they are not constitutionally embraced. That is what the Bill is destroying. It is destroying these understandings. It would have been one matter if the Bill had done something really creative in connection with the coal lands. It would seem to me that the federal Government and all Canadian Governments have, for far too long, assumed a right to the coal lands. I am now speaking in particular of those in British Columbia. It would have been an act of real understanding had the Government proposed restoring the coal lands to the Province of British Columbia in a separate Bill, as we have suggested.
The whole matter should have been divided into separate Bills. Not only has the Government, in the Bill, gone back on early agreements, bargains and understandings among Canadians in the West and the central part of the country as between the CPR and the farmers, but it has not even tried to restore to the Province of British Columbia what would seem to many of us to be a logical and very valuable ownership right.
The second important point, one which has perhaps not been emphasized sufficiently, is that contrary to what the Government seems to think, namely that the legislation will somehow enhance the activities of Canadian ports, if the Bill does pass the actual result will be that Canadian grain will be diverted, down the line, through U.S. ports. I would be grateful if people who are more knowledgeable with respect to transportation than I would correct me if I am wrong. However, if we do not have the Crow rate, it will be substantially cheaper to export our grain through U.S. ports rather than Canadian ports.
CN and CP already have lines to Duluth, Minnesota where grain could be loaded on to boats for shipment on the Great Lakes. CP owns tracks through its subsidiary Sault Lines to Minneapolis, Minnesota where grain could be loaded on to barges for shipment to export elevators at New Orleans. Minneapolis, as we know, is closer to southern Saskatchewan than Thunder Bay. Because the U.S. inland waterway system is heavily subsidized, barge rates from Minneapolis to New Orleans are less expensive than Lake transportation from Thunder Bay to Montreal.
Under the Government's plan, by 1986 it will cost $8 a tonne less to ship grain rail-barge via New Orleans than rail-Lake via Thunder bay and Montreal. The people who have been studying this matter say that this advantage to New Orleans will grow in succeeding years and it will eventually also become less expensive to ship all rail from Saskatchewan to new Orleans than rail-Lake via Thunder Bay and Montreal. Far from enhancing the role and the activities of Canadian ports, far from helping to make them more prosperous, the long-term consequences of the Government's cancelling of the Crow rate will be to make Canadian ports less prosperous.
A final point about which I am particularly concerned is that in revoking the Crow rate the Government is showing, in the most outspoken fashion possible, that it is really only interested in the big guys, the powerful, the agri-business kind of operation, not the family farm. It is interested in the big corporations, such as the CPR, which has grown into the largest corporate entity in Canada with $16 billion in assets and enormous monopolistic powers. The Government favours more, just as the Tories favour more, the big power, the big corporate entity, the huge cattle rancher, not the average one. The average one has a heard of less than 50. However, the Government is deliberately making life harder for the small and medium-sized farmer or cattleman and making life much easier, in fact making life extremely attractive, I understand, from all evidence that has been put before me, for the big guys, the ones in agri-business and the ones who have huge herds.
It bothers me to find that when other Parties in the country should be concerned with conserving values which we all hold dear, one of them being, of course, the value of independent farmers, they are taking steps which will destroy the independent farmer in this country, ending up by giving support only to huge corporate entities both in the industrial and agricultural sectors.
I would not simply or not only urge that there be amendments, but I would also particularly urge the Official Opposition to join us in opposing the Bill in its entirety.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention the very difficult constraints under which you have placed us in the debate with your comments of a few minutes ago. I would like to refer Your Honour to last night's proceedings as reported in Hansard. At that time, three Members of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) spent about 75 per cent of their time scolding the Conservative Party for things that had happened back to Sir John A. Macdonald's time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Victoria is quite correct. One of the rules which the Chair is supposed to enforce is relevance. As debate ranges on, after a certain amount of time what appears to become the
June 22, 1983

case is that the tenuous links to relevance disappear altogether and another type of argument or debate takes place on the floor. There is no difficulty in my mind, as one of the occupants of the chair, that at a certain point comments may be made related to the behaviour of other political Parties or other political debate. However, the Chair does need some relevance to the Bill in front of the House. I know that it is difficult. I assure the Hon. Member that every occupant of every chair in the Commonwealth has always found that relevance is the most difficult possible rule to apply.
1 think that if we use a little bit of common sense with a little bit of concern, we will find that if an Hon. Member simply addresses himself or herself to the Bill and wishes to tie in other matters as well, that will be acceptable. However, without the slightest tie-in, without the slightest relation to the Bill, then the Chair begins to worry about its responsibility involving relevance. Therefore, I accept the Hon. Member's point. There is no question but that there have been speeches which, to my mind, and 1 would presume to the minds of other occupants of the chair, have stretched the rule of relevance a great deal. 1 thought it was time to intervene and suggest that some effort be made to address the Bill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my own defence, the Hon. Member referred to a speech that I made yesterday as not being within the bounds of relevancy. At that time, the Speaker did not make that ruling. I was responding to what had been said by a previous speaker who was not ruled outside the bounds of relevancy. I regard what I had to say yesterday as being quite relevant even if the Hon. Member did not like it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It was I who was in the chair when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) spoke yesterday. I noted his comments with respect to how the 1979 and 1980 elections came about. As it happened,
1 had been in the chair previously when he raised the matter. It is clear that this is not relevant to the Bill in front of the House. I let it go because the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill only took two or three minutes to deal with that matter and because it had been within previous debate.
I do not think that 1 am being unfair to Hon. Members. Nothing prohibits good, sharp political debate. I am simply suggesting that it would be of help if it could be tied to the Bill that is before the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have heard the Hon. Member but I will hear him again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I just wish the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) had been as accurate as you in his evaluation of my speech.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know whether I am speaking on the point of order at this time or on the debate. I
Western Grain Transportation Act
can hardly resist saying that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill filled a full column of Hansard before he said anything close to the Bill last night.


Ian Deans: Order. Be relevant.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to talk about the problems of transportation in this country. These problems go back some considerable length of time. I believe it is usually part of the Liberal Party's disposition to choose a Minister who does not like transportation and make him Minister of Transport.
When I first came here the Hon. Jean Marchand, now the distinguished Speaker in the other place, was the Minister of Transport. One of my first experiences with disillusioned Ministers came when he told the House with a Gallic shrug of the shoulders that transport was in a mess. It was in a mess then and it is now. In fact, the mess that transport is in seems to be endemic to Canadian politics. There is one glittering exception and that is in the period of 1979 when a person who knows about transport and loves transport was Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski).
The Government has devised some of the most incompetent methods of dealing with these difficult times in which it finds itself. They have so mismanaged a series of bills for which there was hope of passage that the Opposition becomes enraged at the introduction of each Bill. There are incidents of preliminary discussions of the Bill in press releases and interviews with Ministers who say what the Bill will likely accomplish. 1 can think of several of these occurrences recently. 1 believe it is indicative of the disintegration of the Government that is occurring.
We can think of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) bringing in a Bill on the security force. This country is ready to have a civilian security force because the McDonald Commission pointed out what was wrong. The Government introduced this security force legislation while adding on a few regulations to make it anathema to everyone in the House, including Members on the Government side, I presume. That is why we see difficult legislation such as this, which need not be nearly so difficult, being jammed in at the end of June in an attempt to get it through. We have our extended hours and these rancorous debates and attempts by the Opposition to stop the Government the only way they know how-by prolonging the passage of Bills through the House. The same situation is true of Canagrex. There is nothing the Government could have done to enrage the Opposition more than bring in legislation such as Canagrex and try to pass it in the closing days of the session.
The VIA Rail cutback is another example of Government mismanagement. Of course, VIA Rail was brought in to take over the passenger service of the railway.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: How is that relevant?

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I think this has quite a bit to do with the Bill. The CPR and the CNR wanted to get out of the passenger business because they were losing money on moving grain in western Canada. I think they are connected. When the Government implemented VIA Rail-which was a great pleasure to the Party on my left, I am sure-there was a great and sudden cut in services which occurred in the most outrageous and arbitrary fashion imaginable. Of course, as happens whenever the Government takes anything over, it immediately began losing money and becoming more out of control. Yesterday's report on VIA Rail shows that federal subsidies totalled $449 million in 1982, which is up from $422 million in 1981.
It was interesting to hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) say in his remarks that the CPR should be brought under public ownership. They want to nationalize it right away because it is making money. They want to turn it into a loser the same as all other Crown corporations. This would be the same philosophy as those who said we should get into the aircraft industry. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pretends that nobody would take over Canadair in 1976 or 1977, the truth of the matter is that the Government paid $47 million for a company for which no one else would pay anything.
At that time the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) accused me of calling the Government stupid for getting into the Canadair deal. I clearly remember a point of order which was raised on that matter. I claimed that 1 had not said that the Government was stupid but that it was simply soft-headed to get into that deal. Some $2 billion later, I think the Minister would probably agree with me. Of course, he no longer has the responsibility for it since he has changed portfolios.
The worst example of all is the Crowsnest Pass rate. This subsidy must be to western Canada what several types of subsidies are to other parts of Canada. That is, they are regional subsidies. For example, we have the salmon enhancement program on the West Coast which probably exists on the East Coast as well. Fisheries do not always operate as profitmaking organizations so the Government puts in money to subsidize them. In other parts of the country there are subsidies for the construction of dams for power. We have the well known protective freight rates that protect central Canada so it will remain the industrial heart of the country.
Up until now the prairie farmer had the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. That was his subsidy. We know that the Government has no Members in that area who have any idea of the enormity of the problem that they are creating. It decided that since those people had not voted Liberal it would retaliate, and that is the purpose of this Bill, to remove the subsidy from the farmer and give it to the CPR.
I can hardly believe my ears when 1 hear the NDP say that they are in favour of the CPR receiving the subsidy rather than the grain producers. But then, what can one expect from that Party? They voted the wrong way on the Constitution. Their leader voted one way and the western membership voted the other way. That is probably their difficulty, having a western membership and a leadership and boardrooms in
Oshawa from where the Party is essentially run. That creates some problems. They had their palace revolt and I presume there will be another one later today.
In any event, the NDP went from the constitutional disaster to the National Energy Program which, in itself, is one of the most disastrous things that ever happened to industry until the Government got into Canadair. Canadair and the National Energy Program are now running neck in neck as to which will be the most damaging blow to the Canadian economy. From there they moved on to the point where approximately one year ago the NDP were the only Party in the House that voted against a Bill which would have cut MPs' pay by 5 per cent and did so over their objections.
From there they moved on to the freedom of information Bill for which everyone in the country has waited many years. They voted against that legislation. The NDP has problems. The 16 per cent of the popular wish which they have in the country has not grown in the ten years that I have been here. They are due for a rather precipitous shrinking in the next election.
I would like to talk about one matter in which British Columbians are interested. I am referring to the provision in the Bill to allow the Government to take back the coal lands from CPR. The coal lands were donated on a two-way switch by the Province of British Columbia. They were given to the CPR but the federal Government was to be the intermediary. Apparently, according to the records which I saw, the Province gave the coal lands to the federal Government and the federal Government, in turn, gave them to the CPR so that it would build the railroad through the mountains. Now the Government will take them back as part of this deal, but it will not return them to the people of British Columbia.
These are among the richest coal lands remaining in Canada. They have an almost unlimited amount of very superior quality coal. Once again the federal Government will get its hands on them. Whenever it sees anything that can be sold at a profit or into which it can become involved to prevent a profit-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once again on the Crow rate issue and to avail the House of Commons of my deep and great knowledge and understanding of this subject, a knowledge and understanding surpassed only by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) who hails from downtown Toronto.
We must remember that this afternoon we are really talking about the motion put before the House by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), the intention of which is again to limit debate on this subject. It is certainly my intention and
June 22, 1983

it is the intention of Members on this side of the House to vote in opposition to the motion, which is tantamount to closure.
The point at issue is that second reading debate deals with the principle of the Bill before us. If second reading is passed and the matter goes to committee, it is assumed that there is general agreement on the principles in the Bill. It is then put forward to committee so taht the details can be examined. We all know after having listened to the rather limited debate so far that there is no general agreement on the principles of this Bill. There are several principles on which there is no real agreement, and debate should continue until some form of consensus has been worked out.
The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) spoke eloquently this morning. He gave rise to suspicions which I am sure secretly exist with all Hon. Members, suspicions of a conspiracy between the Liberals opposite and the New Democratic Party to my left. Just listening to these two sets of gentlemen, it might not come immediately to mind that that is exactly what is taking place, but let us examine the strategies employed by these two like-minded political Parties.
First I will take the Liberals as an example. They have presented us with a wall of silence. They know that their position is indefensible and for that reason they have not cared to try to defend it. The minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who should have the interests of farmers at heart, has spoken only once during the debate. His sole contribution was to give notice of time allocation; that is all the Minister of Agriculture has done.
We have listened for the last two days and I do not think there have been more than tow Members of the Liberal Party who cared to stand up and present us with any views at all. We heard the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) speak very briefly for about two or three minutes this morning. His sole contribution was a diatribe against Mr. Brian Mulroney who will shortly be the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: It was evident that he was scared of what this gentleman might do. He might well be scared because his job as the Hon. Member for Levis is at stake and he knows it full well, as do other Liberal Members from Quebec.
Now I go to the Members of the New Democratic Party. I thought for a while that they too were engaging in this conspiracy of silence. This morning while this matter was under debate they did not put up a single speaker, and I think they have only put up two speakers so far this afternoon. If we examine their approach to the matter, we will see that it has been one of mindless opposition-there is to be absolutely no change to the Crow rates and the system of agriculture in western Canada which has existed since the last century, a century where they still belong. Their contribution has been described by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) as reactionary. I would describe it as blockheadedness. They want no change at all. They want little elevators every four miles along the railway track. They want farmers going along on horses and carts delivering a few bushels of grain. They want the old
Western Grain Transportation Act
boxcars. They are not prepared to look at new modifications to the western transportation system. They belong back in the days of the horse and buggy.
When we examine the approach taken by the Liberal Government and the New Democratic Party, we see that it is a conspiracy because Members of the NDP know they are not rational and responsible and will not take a look at what the western grain transportation system really needs. They know full well that they will fail, that there is no way we will return to the days of the horse and buggy. They will go back to their constituencies and say "We fought against the Crow", while in actual fact they played into the hands of their colleagues in the Liberal Government and did more than anyone else to ensure that the Crow proposal in its present form goes through.
We, on the other hand, have taken what I would describe to be a reasonable, rational and responsible approach to the problem. We recognize the need for change. We want to see a modern and efficient grain transportation system. To that end, our transportation critic, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), has very eloquently presented a series of principles which we would like to see incorporated in any Bill that deals with Crow rates.
First we have to realize that this is a very imperfect world and that every major grain exporting country engages in some form of subsidization to its grain producers, one way or another. Therefore, we need a freight rate for western grain which will enable our producers to be competitive with producers in the United States, Argentina, Australia and other countries. We agree that there should be a special rate for the shipment of grains.
Second, we believe in the principle of providing fair compensation to the railways. We know that the accountants who work for the railways have some pretty sharp pencils; they can do wonders with figures. But there is no doubt at the present time that the recompense of the railways is not sufficient for them to engage in major capital improvements.
Third, we want to guarantee producers an efficient, cost-effective and reliable grain transportation system.
We agree, as a fourth principle, that the present distortions which exist in the marketplace for transportation should be removed. There are natural advantages to doing certain things in certain parts of Canada. Grain can be grown better in the West than it can in the Maritimes; livestock can be produced in some areas better than in others. We need a system which maintains the natural advantages of doing certain things in certain areas of the country. To do that will render the whole system most efficient and will result in a natural and efficient allocation of resources.
The farmers want a freight rate that is known and predictable, not like the one in the Bill where no one knows what the rate will be years hence. Farmers must know where they will stand a year or two from now.

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act 1 could go on at great length on this most important matter but I see that my time has come to an end. In conclusion, I and the other Members of this Party will vote in opposition to the proposition put forward by the Hon. Member for Rosemont.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Human	Rights-Internment of Japanese
Canadians-Payment of compensation, (b) Form of compensation; the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Supply and Services-Percentage of procurement from Manitoba suppliers. (b) Request that Manitoba orders be increased; the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)- Sports-Denial of National Hockey League franchise to Saskatoon-Request that Prime Minister intervene, (b) Request for fair hearing.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act 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 motion of Mr. Lachance (p. 26521).
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-155, and rightly so. Having been raised on a farm, 1 want to say that the Crow is really outdated and needs overhaul. It should have been done years ago. However, the Government has not addressed the problem.
The Gilson Commission came out with a reasonable report. It would have been acceptable. However, the Government has decided instead to railroad this Bill through. It will divide the East from the West even more than it is today. It will destroy the hopes of Canadians and the unity of this country.
Having been raised on a farm, I quite appreciate this situation with regard to grain handling, cattle raising or hog raising. Grain handling certainly does not meet the needs of
today. 1 remember the time when we used a team of horses to haul 60 bushels of grain. At times we used four horses and hauled 80 bushels. The elevators are still the same today; they do not meet our present needs.
This Government has destroyed hope and incentive in this country. With regard to grain transportation, we are still in the horse and buggy days; there is no question about that. It really bothers me. Because our transportation system is so outdated, we are losing between $1.5 billion and $2 billion in sales. This proposed Bill will make the situation even worse. This Government, which is further dividing Canadians, is now beginning to crumble. Thank God it is coming to an end.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There are only four supporters left.


John Kushner: The Liberals are so interested in this Bill that we now have only four Members of that Party in the Chamber.


Ian Deans: Not one from western Canada.


John Kushner: That is true. The Government is not doing what is best for the country but what is best for the Party. It is unfortunate that it has reached this stage.


Jesse Philip Flis: It is best for Canada.


John Kushner: It certainly is not. The grain handling system does not meet the needs of today. This not only affects the grain and hog producer but it is affecting the coal, sulphur, lumber and packing industries. They are being destroyed. Thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost in the last several years from Vancouver to Toronto. It is needless to say how many packing plants have been closed in western Canada because of inadequate transportation and the Crow rate. There is no question in my mind about that.
At one time I was an employee of Canada Packers in Winnipeg. That was during the hungry thirties or, as some refer to it, the good old days. I and a couple of other fellows were going to Toronto to look for a job. In Winnipeg we met a bunch of guys who were returning from Toronto. They told us that they had been there and there was no sense in our going. Therefore, a couple of us decided to go to Canada Packers for a job. When we arrived, there were about 300 people waiting to be called for a job. Lo and behold, on the third day the guy called me, accepted me and gave me a job.
It is tough working in the packing industry, but very interesting. It is a shame what the Government has done to the packing industry of western Canada at the expense of the taxpayers. It has not only done this to the packing industry, but to the transportation industry and the economy in general. How does the Government expect to implement this Bill in its present form when most Canadians object to it? In spite of that, the Minister is determined to railroad the Bill through against the will of Canadian taxpayers and the industry.
When the Gilson Report was commissioned by the Government, there were consultations between the industry and the farmers in order to arrive at an acceptable rate or an acceptable proposal to be made by the Government. The Government
June 22, 1983

ignored the proposal and has come up with a Bill that is definitely unacceptable to western Canadians and Canadians in general.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I want to direct your Honour's attention to the fact that over and over in the course of the debate today there has been reference to an undertaking made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that, in the event this matter passes second reading, there will be an opportunity for the Standing Committee seized with the responsibility of this legislation to travel across this country in order to hear representations from a variety of people who are interested in the legislation.
The point of order I raise, Mr. Speaker, is that 1 do not believe this to be a statement that was actually made by the Minister. As 1 understand it, there was no commitment made. I raise this point of ordr as the Minister is now in the House, so that we may have this information clearly and unequivocally before us before taking a vote on second reading.
My point is that I do not believe that representations should be made which are not based on fact and which in fact would mislead Members of the House of Commons. This should be clearly stated by the Minister, and I would appreciate it if he could address himself to the question of whether or not he is agreeable to having the committee travel the country to hear representations made by interested parties, particularly those in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In the interests of moving the business of the House forward, I will accept the Hon. Member's point although as he knows, it is not a point of order. However, if the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) wishes to reply, I will consider it part of the business of the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in only one minute I can put that to rest. I made no such commitment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was on the news yesterday.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, but that was not a quote from the Minister of Transport; it was an interpretation made by the reporter. I made no such commitment because I am not allowed to make such a commitment. I am told by my House Leader that this decision is to be made first by the committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are you receptive to that suggestion?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the committee wants to travel, it must ask the permission of the House and the House may or may not give that permission. I am not willing to anticipate what view the committee would have on that subject.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will not add anything to this debate that has not been said already, but I feel that it is appropriate for me, as a grandson on one side and a great grandson and the other of pioneers who
Western Grain Transportation Act came to western Canada during the Sifton era and settled on 160 acres of land and attempted to produce grain, to say a few words on this debate.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that most of these pioneers who came to western Canada and bought 160 acres of land for $20 subsequently sold that land at very highly escalated prices. Not for one minute would anyone suggest that capital gains made on that land should revert back to the Government or anybody else. All of those families held the assets that they were given as pioneers. Therefore, I always have some difficulty when reference is made to the notion that the shareholders of CPR who also got some land should indeed turn that land back over to the Government. 1 say that in fairness to the events of that particular era.
I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer is the servant of all and the master of none. Yet he produces the most vital commodity to man, food. This Bill massively interferes with the process of growing, producing and shipping food in western Canada. That process of growing, producing and shipping food is an evolutionary process in the West. It occurs over a considerable length of time, not over short periods of time. When any Government tries to change the process of this evolution, it had better be mighty careful that it does not move too fast and create revolutionary change rather than evolutionary change. The system can be partially destroyed by revolutionary change in this most vital of areas, the growth of food.
What do 1 have to say, Mr. Speaker, about the rate of change and the manner of change that is being made to the food growing industry in western Canada by Bill C-155? First, I want to say that Bill C-155, in my view, is massively flawed. It is an administrative and regulatory nightmare. I say that as a former Minister in the Province of Alberta who had the opportunity for seven years to structure and administer regulations.
This is a depressing Bill. Indeed, as I said earlier in the House, there are 40,278 lawyers in Canada, more per capita, I think, than in any other free country in the world. It is my belief that this Bill, as I read it, would create the need for several thousand more lawyers. It is not specific. The wording itself is, in most instances, unbelievably vague.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the rate of change to the freight rate structure is, in my view, much too rapid, even though the Minister has brought forth the ceiling which I appreciate very much and which would tend to help slow the process down. I wish that that ceiling had been incorporated earlier so that many of the adverse aspects of it could have been ruled out earlier.
Increasing input costs on any commodity by ten times in the next decade would create a change that is just too rapid. I am not particularly against changing the Crow, and 1 have put a motion on the paper that proposes indexing the Crow to inflation because I realize that it must change.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It would be higher.

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


William J. Yurko: No, no. With a ceiling, the rate of change would be slower than the change proposed by the Minister. It is the rate of change that bothers me. It is much too rapid a change over too short a period of time. It is revolutionary change. It would destroy a large part of the western economic industry that I grew up with, those little farmers who are dependent upon an income which is quite limited.
The third point that I draw to the attention of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is that the redistribution of the Crow subsidy is, in my view, not equitable. It simply must be more related to what Gilson said and must be examined in much more depth in terms of the manner in which that money is redistributed. I know a suggestion has been made about freedom of choice, but I have some difficulty with that suggestion also. I am bothered by the fact that indeed, because of this suggestion, land speculators would tend to buy land for the simple purpose of harvesting the Crow. The Crow as I calculate it may indeed be in the order of $20 to $25 an acre, depending on whether it was calculated on an acreage basis over the entire period of the increase in freight rates. That is quite a bit of money per acre.
I can see land speculators going for this in a substantive way which would increase the price of land substantially. They would rent the land using some form of contract and pocket the entire Crow subsidy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It balances out.


William J. Yurko: There may be a balance, but I do not know that there is. I simply suggest that the freedom of choice proposition, through it is appealing and contains some aspects which I find acceptable, would have to be studied further.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Sooner or later you have to make up your mind. To govern is to choose. You have to choose.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Minister the fourth reason that I have difficulty with the Bill, and I agree with the Minister when he says that sooner or later a choice must be made. I quite agree that at some point a choice must be made. I thought I had just barely started, Mr. Speaker. These nine minutes have gone by quickly.
The fourth problem with the Bill, of course, is that it increases considerably the disparity between raw and finished food products in the West. I do not think that that is appropriate for the West at all.
The fifth problem I have, of course, is that the politics surrounding the issue are just terrible. The entire political scene of Canada is not the appropriate forum in which to change the very fundamental basis upon which the West opened up and upon which indeed it grew. I suggest to the Minister that if he were to serve another term, and I am not wishing that on him, he might delay this measure for another four or five years and in fact bring it back in four or five years.
When the Bill goes to committee I hope the Minister will do everything possible to ensure that the Committee travels. I know he cannot say that it should but he could certainly
suggest that. The Committee should hold hearings in Regina and some of the small towns in the West and I know the Minister could arrange that if he wanted to.


Jean-Luc Pepin: For how many years?


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, in the West there are three land transportation systems. The first is the railway system, the second is the pipeline system and the third is the highway system. We built a massive highway system under total subsidization by two forms of Government. Governments own the land base and do the maintenance. There is not a toll station on any highway in the West. That massive subsidy given to the highway system has literally destroyed the railway system in the West. I have no difficulty with the federal Government and some provincial Governments massively subsidizing the rebuilding of the railway system because they have done so for the competitive highway system. No truck pays one cent for the use of the highway system in the West, except for the very modest licence fee.
There is no subsidy for the pipeline system either. I investigated the question of shipping grain by pipeline and when I was a Minister in Alberta I also investigated the question of shipping coal by pipeline. Pipeline shipping for some food commodities will eventually find its place in western Canada.
The railway system has been neglected, however. It has suffered inflationary pressures. The solution to its problems has been delayed for years and, as a result, inflation has caused distortion. The Minister is trying to correct the problems too quickly. He is trying to impose revolutionary change on a system which cannot and should not take it.
I do not disagree with the work the Minister has done on this issue in the past but I believe it is incomplete. Hearings should be held in the West so that people can appear before the Committee and have their say.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would permit me to intervene before I hear his point of order.


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 C-164, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending 31 March, 1984.
June 22, 1983


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the motion of Mr. Lachance (p. 26521).
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this may be a somewhat irregular point of order. I wonder if the Minister could indicate to the House whether he will enter the debate before it concludes. Also, does he intend to recommend that the Standing Committee on Transport should travel? Will he make that recommendation and can he indicate when Committee hearings will start?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has noted, that is not a point of order, but I have already accepted a similar point from another Hon. Member. 1 want to warn the House, however, that if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) were to speak, under the rules that would end debate. I think we can accept the proposition if the Minister wishes to answer what we will call a point of order, but that will not constitute a speech on his part.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With respect, Mr. Speaker, we are not debating the motion at this time but the previous question. 1 suggest that your interpretation may be somewhat incorrect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is twice in two days. The Hon. Member for Vegreville is quite correct. As far as I recall, the Minister of Transport has not spoken on the previous question. In any event, 1 do not think we ought to entertain an invitation to make speeches in the way it has been done. If the Minister of Transport wishes to speak he can be recognized.
I indicated to another Hon. Member earlier that I would accept a point of order for the purpose of allowing the business of the House to go forward.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a speech but just a couple of remarks.
I was asked if 1 was going to recommend to the Committee that it should travel. I indicated to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) a few minutes ago what my House Leader had told me a couple of times, that the decision to travel or not to travel is for the Committee to make. I do not know why CBC quoted me the way it did yesterday-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is there a deal or is there not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, there is no deal at all. If there is a deal, it is public and that is what I am talking about now. There is no agreement secretly arrived at. I said that the Committee must express its views first on whether it will travel or not. It has then to make a request to the House and the House has to approve or disapprove. I have no intention of questioning that pattern.
Western Grain Transportation Act
On the question whether I will make a speech before the end of the debate, this is the first time I have been asked to do that.
I made a fairly long speech at the beginning of the debate and I thought that I had exhausted most of the subject.
At the first meeting of the Committee I intend to review everything and to try and answer all questions on the 10 per cent, the 31.1 million tonnes and all that.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville follows me very carefully and I follow him very carefully so he knows that I have expressed my views on most of these issues. When I have wanted to I have done so. In answer to a question from his colleague on the 31.1, I remember sending a little note to my friend to the effect that he must have observed that I had answered that question.
On the 10 per cent question, which is the difference between the cost of rail transportation and the transportation of grain at the international price of grain, I have said this is the figure we have arrived at. We started higher than that. I can defend the 10 per cent very well both in statistical terms and intellectual terms, but I have said that I would be willing to listen to argument.
I do not think I have much to add at this point. I will be available in Committee and I will do my very best to answer all questions and inquiries. Some of my friends seem to accuse me-I am making a speech now, Mr. Speaker and I do not want to do that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When will the Committee hearings start?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will start as soon as we can. If the Bill is passed today I expect the steering committee will meet tomorrow. Perhaps that question should be addressed to the chairman. We will get organized as rapidly as we can and start with energy next week. We will do our best to lay the foundation for the rest of the work and make a study and analysis of the different parts of the debate. I will be delighted to prove to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that every part is interrelated essentially, and not only in passing. We will do all the work and then we will continue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we may be facilitating the debate and I appreciate your indulgence.
Perhaps I could direct a question to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and ask whether he has any views on when the Committee hearing might commence. Also, will arrangements be made for travel or will he await the decision of the steering committee?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have some pretty definite views but, as the Hon. Member knows, in my role as chairman I have tried to be the servant and not the master of the Committee. As soon as the Bill is referred to the Committee I intend to call a meeting of the subcommittee on procedure and agenda. I will have a proposal
26688

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
to put before the subcommittee at the time. We will discuss it there and bring it before the full Committee, hopefully before the end of June. Included in that proposal I will have a suggestion for the Committee to consider with regard to our schedule of hearings.
Whether we travel or not is a matter, as the Minister has rightly said, in my opinion, for the committee to make. However, I remind the Hon. Member that unless we have authority from the House, we cannot travel. Also, unless we have authority from the House we cannot engage professional or expert staff. Therefore, our decision will be somewhat limited by the reference we receive from the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: No, Mr. Speaker, I intend to engage in debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if, as and when the Transport Committee, or its steering committee, requests the House for an order of reference to travel from place to place in Canada, to hear witnesses and to be provided with staff, may I ask the Minister if he will use his good offices to support such a request? Will he in turn request his Cabinet colleagues and the Government House Leader to allow that order of reference to be presented in the House of Commons in order to prevent what has happened too many other times, that a committee has unanimously asked for an order of reference and the Government has not allowed it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has attempted in every way to co-operate with the mood of the House in attempting to move the business forward. However, I believe we ought not to enter into a question and answer period. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has made his point.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I bluntly said I have no intention to state the whole of my mind on this subject today. I am not playing games. I believe what the Committee will do, when the Committee will sit, how often it will sit, where it will sit, if that question comes up, is a package, a total thing. That is what I would expect the chairman of the Committee to do, to develop a full package with a timetable and everything. It is only when one sees the totality of that proposition that one can pass judgment on it.


Ian Deans: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise on this matter, but yesterday you will recall that I asked this question in the House of Commons with regard to the right of the Committee to travel, whether the Minister thought it would be appropriate, in his mind, without in any way attempting to direct the Committee, for the Committee to travel and to hear other than simply institutional representations. I do not believe I divulge any private conversation when I say that the Minister indicated to me, after the question, that although he did not feel that it would be appropriate for every
farmer in the country to be heard-and I do not feel anyone expected that would be the case in any event-he did feel, however, that it would be appropriate for farmers to be given a chance to be heard. I want to be sure that I understood him properly, lest maybe I have misunderstood. I would not like to think I had.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I feel the Hon. Member simply went beyond what I had in mind at that time. You can listen to farmers in Ottawa. You can bring them to Ottawa to express their views before the Committee. In other words, you do not have to travel to Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg necessarily to listen to farmers. I am being very frank. I did not connect the hearing of the individual farmers with travelling when I answered the question, to be very frank about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Again, the Chair is anxious to assist the House. However, I must warn Hon. Members that there is nothing approaching debate in what is occurring at the moment. I point out that a meeting of House Leaders or Ministers and Hon. Members behind the curtains could probably resolve these matters in a few minutes. I want to be of assistance. However, I point out we are operating outside of our Standing Orders. If I say that this is the last point of order, doubtless someone will rise and insist on another point of order. However, I hope this is the last point in that regard.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that, as far as I am concerned, it will be the last time I will rise on a point of order. May I ask the Minister if he would just address a simple question? Yesterday I asked in the House if the Minister was prepared to have the Committee travel to those places to which there would be the easiest access for the farmers who are most affected, and others who are affected, to make representations. 1 subsequently spoke to him about that and I drew from his comment that he would not oppose the Committee travelling, to give reasonably easy access to those who are at this point in the year tied up most of the day and into the night conducting their business on the farms. A lot of what will happen in the next hour will hinge on the answer. Is the Minister now telling me that he does not feel that it would be appropriate for the Committee to go out and allow farm representation? Or is he saying that he feels that if the Committee were to want to do that, he would feel that that would be advisable and a useful exercise?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. I want to see the total presentation of how the Committee will operate during the summer. The answer I gave yesterday, from which my hon. friend drew his quote, I do not believe gave him an authorization to do that. We spoke afterwards about the date of implementation.
What I said, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend insists on having my own views-and I was unnecessarily daring at that point-was that I should have thought first there would be a happy medium between listening to 140,000 people and
June 22, 1983

listening to some. Therefore, in my mind at that time was the possibility that some individual farmers would want to come before the Committee, not necessarily abroad but in Ottawa. That is what I had in mind at that time, if you want to psychoanalyse me, Dr. Freud.
Second, I would have thought that the leaders of the western farm organizations and others are representative of the western farmers. Many of them are elected. Many of them are elected more often than Members of Parliament. I thought that was a good remark. I would have thought their views would have been representative of the views of farmers in the West. Therefore, my hon. friend drew a conclusion, and I am not complaining, except that the CBC yesterday presented it as if I had made a deal with my friend, the Elon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). That is the way it was presented and that was not the way to present it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question or for debate? The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 must at the outset say that I am puzzled and a little distressed by the answer which the Minister has given. I want to make it clear that never was there any deal struck between the Minister and myself or myself and anyone else in regard to how the Bill would be handled. However, I will mull that over in the next nine minutes.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that when this Bill was introduced in those days immediately prior to May 9, we already had an inkling of what was to be contained in the Bill. We were aware that the Government was intent on changing the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. We believed then that the change being proposed was a change which would work to the detriment of those who would have to pay the bills, and not only to the detriment of the farming community but to the detriment of the country as a whole. On May 10 we made that opposition known by voting against the Bill at first reading.
We still hold true to that position, that what the Government is proposing to do by way of change to the Crow rate will do nothing but harm to the farming community of western Canada, particularly on the Prairies. It will do nothing but harm to the economy of Canada with regard to our potential for exporting the grain which we grow here. We used this as the economic base for a very large part of our country. It has in fact made this country famous all around the world. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the competitive position of the grain farmers of western Canada will be detrimentally affected by the proposals the Minister has brought forward. There is no one in the world who can possibly believe that if you add to the price of a commodity in the world market it will somehow enhance your competitive position.
Our major competitors are heavily subsidized. In some instances they are granted absolutely free movement of grain from the farm to the point of distribution. Our American competitors are given a substantial subsidy through the use of
Western Grain Transportation Act
the waterways to get their grain to market. Our Australian competitors are much closer to the shipping ports and do not have to carry the extremely high cost of transportation. Given all that, no right minded individual could believe that to alter the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and place an additional burden on Canadian farmers would in any way improve their capacity to sell their product to those who must buy it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are compensatory factors.


Ian Deans: Having said that, if the Government is now telling us, as it is, that it will begin a process of compensation which will ultimately become larger than the subsidy we now carry, then I suggest that is foolish. To add an administrative cost on top of all the other changes in order to bring the farmer back to where he was before, competitively speaking, surely must not make any sense to any objective observer.
Again, Mr. Speaker, what the Government is doing is wrong. The Crowsnest Pass freight rate is a subsidy, paid for in great part by the public of Canada. When properly used, it gives our grain farmers a competitive edge in world markets. For us to turn around and start tinkering with it over any number of years can only work a hardship. Therefore, the Government has taken a very regressive and regrettable step.
The Conservative Members are aware right from the very beginning that we said the Bill was complex. There were three parts to it and it should be proceeded with separately. The upgrading of the railroads should be viewed separately since it deals not only with the transportation of grain but with the transportation of all commodities from coast to coast. We also made it clear that we thought that the disposition of the Dominion coal lands was a separate matter without any relationship to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and should be dealt with in a separate way. Finally, we suggested that if the Government was to go ahead with its proposed changes, then they should be dealt with for what they really are, an attempt by the Government to alter dramatically the arrangement entered into so many years ago from which the CPR and others have derived significant benefits.
Over the years Canada has been extremely competitive in its ability to move and sell its grain. We should view that matter separately. I appreciate very much the fact that the Conservatives supported our position on that, but unfortunately we failed in that to this point. The battle is not yet over, it is just over for now. We still believe those principles should be divided, we still believe the matter should be dealt with in that way.
The Minister seems to feel that somehow or other the farmers of Canada are not going to be as detrimentally affected as we believe they are and as I think some on the Conservative benches believe they are. I have had letters from farmers from all across the Prairies who are bringing to my attention and the attention of others the dilemma which will confront them. I will read one sent from Birch Hills to one of my colleagues. It said:
We have gone back into our income tax files and have some figures for you-

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
In 1973, from a gross income of $63,500, their net income was $25,400. By 1978 they had a gross income of $107,400 and a net income of $22,500. Note the decrease. By 1982 they had a gross income of $130,000, and a net income of $16,000. It is the additional costs heaped on the farming community, whether it be for fuel, fertilizer or replacement of machinery, whether it be through taxes, which has eaten away all of the surplus which should have been there to provide for that family's welfare. The letter then goes on to say:
We took our production of 1982 and if Pepin gets his way and we pay 75 cents per bushel freight by 1990, we would have to pay $30,000 in freight as we produced approximately 40,000 bushels of grain in 1982.
We have never had a $30,000 net profit in any year since we started farming some 27 years ago.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Wrong, wrong, wrong, again!


Ian Deans: No one can say it more eloquently than that. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, that the farmers affected by this increase in costs cannot afford it. I do not know how better to say it. If someone cannot afford what you are attempting to foist upon them, they will go out of business, Sir. When they go out of business they will not be replaced by anyone else and we will have lost for all time that agricultural capacity, that revenue, which we have derived over the years from the sale of their products. We will never be able to recover it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are taking one-


Ian Deans: I am taking that farmer as representative of many farmers. If you give me the time, I will read the rest. I am putting on the record one letter taken from a number of letters, which is representative of what we understand to be the situation of the farmers in western Canada.
I will close by saying that it is obvious that ten minutes does not allow me an opportunity to put on the record how strongly we feel about what is being proposed. I am disturbed by the Minister's suggestion that the hearing process may be forestalled or foreshortened. I am concerned that the Government may attempt to push this through over the objections of farmers like this one. He and his family deserve to be heard but they cannot be heard if the hearings are in Ottawa. Obviously they cannot afford to make the trip.
Therefore, I urge that the Government pay particular heed to the people who will be most affected. It is not their representatives we want to hear at this point; we have heard from them. We know the decisions of the institutional representatives. Who we have to hear from now are the people who pay the bills.
We oppose what this Government is doing and, by God, we will oppose it to the bitter end. We will oppose it in December of this year, we will oppose it into next year if this Government does not pay attention to these people.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the issue of whether or not the question should be put. The answer is very simple, of course. It is that I am not "prepared up with that to put", because I like to go back to the first principle. Oftentimes, if one goes back to
the first principles, one finds different answers from what one would otherwise. We all recognize that what is required, needed and must happen is a total upgrading of the railway system of western Canada, including that of British Columbia. I have been lobbied heavily by many interests in British Columbia saying, "Vote for the Bill because we must have the railways upgraded". I would agree that the railways must be upgraded. However, they do not seem to understand that to do it this way is raping western Canadian farmers. It is not in the best interests of British Columbia that the Prairies be raped in this particular manner.
I am a Prairie boy and they say that one can take the boy out of the Prairie but not the Prairie out of the boy.
I think of western Canada, Gladstone and Morris, Virden, Eyebrow, Elbow, Belle Plaine, Carstairs and Olds, right across the Prairies, those little beacons of light bringing civilization at night, right across the vast plains, and of the many people in them. I understand how they feel about this kind of thing taking place because I can tell Hon. Members how many of the people in that part of the world are thinking about this right now. They have known the CPR for a long time. They found that CPR, rather than being a good neighbour, has been a exploiter over the years. What may not be known in the House is that starting back in the 1950s, the CPR reached a corporate decision which it has been carrying out ever since.
Anyone on the Prairies looking about with the native suspicion we all have, has realized what happened. First, the CPR owned houses in practically every division for its executives. It sold them off and the money was drained out of the railway. There was a formation of Canadian Pacific oil and gas. Guess what? There was the draining off into a separate company of all the mineral wealth that it had been given. There is nothing wrong with either one of those two things, if its basic contract with the prairie settler were to be kept. Unfortunately, it has not.
One could consider Marathon Realty and the vast real estate holdings in many cities of the West which, again, were bled off by the railway. One can consider what the railways have done in terms of deterioration of passenger service. Who would want to ride their ruddy trains by the time they were done actually allowing them to go totally downhill? As a result, they got rid of that, and the Government took it over and formed VIA Rail. The only thing worse than VIA Rail, I have found in North America, happens to be Amtrak, and the American railways did the same.
Over a 20 years period, why has the Government not taken a look at the original contracts and perhaps even social contracts with the people of western Canada? Why has it not been able to realize that the CPR was almost deliberately allowing those rail lines to become obsolete, allowing the whole matter to settle down? It had taken the profits, moved them over to Canadian Pacific Investments. It had taken the profits and
June 22, 1983

26691 moved them here. It had taken most of the profitable aspects of the railway and moved so that, quite frankly, I doubt if the CPR would care at all if the Government wished to nationalize the rail line. It received its money and it moved it, rather than living up to its responsibilities to western Canada.
What have a succession of federal Governments done about this situation? I have not heard much talk over the years, saying, "Hey, wait a minute now. Is the CPR really entitled not to build more grain cars, because we are short of grain cars, in view of its initial contracts and its initial gifts from the people of Canada?" We do not see Government of Canada grain cars. We see Province of Alberta grain cars, grain hoppers. These should all be made by the CPR, paid for by the CPR and operated by the CPR. If it is at a loss, let us consider where the profits went. They went into other areas of the company having nothing to do with the railway.
The prairie farmer is entitled to have a committee take a very solid look at the actions of this giant of a company, this colossus of profits which has really moved away from the rail lines, and I hope such a committee does study it.
One of the other reasons your prairie lad is suspicious of the railway and of a succession of Liberal Governments, practically since Confederation, is that at one time one could send a widget from Toronto to the West for a dollar. However, if one wanted to send a widget from the West eastward, it cost $2. I will give only one example. Show me a flour mill existing in western Canada today. The reason one does not exist there is because of the freight rate structure of this country which gives real favouritism to the East.
What is taking place now is another rip-off of western Canada. The whole matter disturbs me mightily. Darn it, how long does the Government think the people of the West will put up with central Canada ripping them off in every way? That is exactly what changing the Crow rate will do to us again.
All I can say to the Government is, for heaven's sake, let us take another look at the whole matter. Let us go back to the basic problem of upgrading western rail lines. If we are to pay for it, let us ensure that all the people of Canada pay for it in a proper way, where the Quebecer contributes as much as anyone else, where the Maritimer takes part in it, where Ontario pays its share, rather than doing it in such a way as to lay most of the cost on the back of the prairie farmer.
I warn the Government, the Liberal majority, that if it goes through with this dastardly scheme, it will lay the seeds of discontent in the West all over again. Generations of prairie people will never forget the dastardly deed the Government will carry out with the Bill on top of their backs and at their expense. For heaven's sake, the Government must reconsider. This is no way to run a railway.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Gordon Gilchrist: I do not think it was the western Members who were applauding me.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I rise to enter the debate on Bill C-155, but before making the comments I had intended to make, I would draw the attention of the Chair to the emotions of the last Hon. Member to speak who was trying to represent the concerns and frustrations of western Canadians, which is his job to do in a Party which, of course, represents all of Canada, every territory and every Province. One can see why there are differences of opinion in this Party from time to time, occasioned by the differences which occur in the country as a whole. It was with great sympathy that I listened to my colleague from British Columbia trying to represent these frustrations. I come from Ontario and I wish other eastern or central Canadians could try truly to understand the message being brought to us by our western colleagues.
I consider this matter from the point of view of any business person. When business, which is a large business, runs into the kind of problems being faced by the country today, which can only be described as a massive material handling problem, it considers the various kinds of solutions it might give. It could, of course, raise prices to solve the economic problems of grain handling, or it could squeeze suppliers to farmers. It could say, "Lower the price of your grain and you will be more competitive on the world markets and all the other costs will have to be borne", or it could reduce costs, which any sensible business would try to do. What it would not do would be to attempt to reduce its markets deliberately by letting its product price go up too high to be competitive.
What have we done to attempt to reduce the costs of grain handling in this country rather than just throw the load on to the farmers? Have we really done some serious technological studies on the size of rolling stock, the shape of hopper cars or the kind of handling practices at either end, the filling or emptying of those cars? Have we seriously done a cost study on the electrification of rail lines? Have we performed a serious cost study on the conversion of engines to compressed natural gas, which is in abundance in this country and which would certainly lower the costs of grain handling? Have we considered the efficiencies of the trunk lines and branch lines of the railroads in an effort to make them more cost effective?
In the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that he would doubletrack the railroads. Although he was whistling in the wind, he had the right idea in terms of cost efficiency. To do so, would undoubtedly lower the cost of transportation of grain.
I believe the railways have an obligation to look at these alternatives, such as to improve their signals and do all those things that would make them more cost effective. Another alternative is super mechanization of port facilities to improve the turnaround factor to get the cars to handle grain more quickly.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) talked a few moments ago about pipeline transportation for grain. That may sound fanciful but it is not. It is quite feasible and should be seriously considered before raising the prices to farmers.

June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
There are many things that need to be done to reduce the costs long before we raise the prices. Of course, we should not forget the job creation prospects in all of these technological developments. That would be a real boon to the country today. However, it has become a national psychosis in Canada, a mind-set of business, Government and labour that whenever you have a problem, you should raise the prices and the consumer will pick up the bill.
What incentive will the railroads have to improve their efficiency or service if we simply give them more money and just open the door to price increases forever? How will increased costs of grain caused by both the transportation cost increases and the operating inefficiencies that will result, help Canada's export grain sales and balance of payments? Obviously, the answer is that it will not.
This House is considering the possibility of establishing a standing committee on science and technology. Such a committee could very well look into these problems of grain handling and perform a detailed examination of the possible technological improvements and cost cutting potentials of advanced rail technology. That is something the Government should have done long before bringing in a Bill such as this.
In specifically addressing the question of whether we should immediately put the question to the House which would cut off all further debate and examination, I wish to say that 1 do not think an offhanded treatment of a century-old institution which will perpetuate the inefficiencies while increasing the cost is a proper step. 1 think it is well worth debating. Government Members should be clamouring for greater debate and more solutions and consensus rather than remaining quiet so that the debate will not interfere with the forthcoming summer holidays. Discussion, consensus and agreement is what is required of Parliament, not division and acrimony. Putting the question and muzzling debate is not the way to get to the satisfactory conclusion of this issue.
In the absence of any commitment by the Minister or the Government to let the farmers be heard by a travelling task force which would let them make their concerns known and give their suggestions for solutions would occasion any concerned Member of this House to vote no to the question.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a widespread debate on this Bill with many comments and recommendations for improvement.
1 would like to pay tribute to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for spending almost the entire time of the debate in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: It is not often that a Minister does so, and he should be commended.
Having said that, I must say that I am very disappointed that the Minister was not prepared to stand in the House to speak at some length about what has been said by Members on this side of the House so he could give us an idea of what he will be doing when the Bill goes to committee. I was also very
disappointed by the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) came into the debate solely for the purpose of giving notice of closure on this Bill. The Minister of Agriculture should be dedicated to the welfare and well-being of the agricultural community. This is a Bill which affects every aspect of agriculture and, in fact, affects every region of the country from coast to coast. Having spent some $850,000 on advertising the policy of the Government, 1 suppose that Government Members do not feel they have to get into this debate and make their contribution.
The Minister of Transport has the opportunity at this time to rebuild our transportation system and make it one of the most modern and best transportation systems in the world. He has not chosen to do that. Instead, he has chosen to bring in a Bill which is unsatisfactory to the majority of people in this country. This Bill should be withdrawn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: It should be withdrawn and a special committee should be set up to study Canada's transportation system at length and to consider the effects of any change in the Crow rate on the western Prairies and on agricultural producers.
There is much concern over this Bill. I have received letters from hundreds of my constituents, not only from farmers but also from those who live in the cities and towns the economy of which is dependent upon agriculture. The farmers are concerned because their product price is down and their input costs are up. At this time they cannot afford any increase in costs. The Hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago indicated that five times the Crow would result in a cost per acre of $25. That assumes that every acre is seeded. If you work on a two-year rotation, the cost of freighting grain would average at about $50 an acre. When this cost is added to the costs of fuel, taxes and other charges, it becomes almost prohibitive.
I receive letters from chambers of commerce and city and town councils expressing concern about what will happen as a result of the increase in freight rates taking money away from their communities. It amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to the communities. When we talk with farmers, city people or members of corporations, they express concern about the railways. There is a mistrust of the railways, both CN and CP. They know that over the yars the railways have received branch-line subsidies, hopper cars and grants. They ask whether the railways have spent that money wisely. When we talk to farmers in areas where branch-line subsidies were paid to the railways and discover that there has not been a train over the lines for eight or ten years, we understand the concern and the mistrust. Also they ask about the $651 million, the guaranteed annual income which the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is interested in giving the railways. They ask how accurate that figure of $651 million is. We do not know.
June 22, 1983

That is one of the things which should be discussed in committee. The railways should be called before the committee and required to give an accounting. We should have expert people to look over their records and books and to tell us whether or not the $651 million figure is accurate; it could be $200 million or even $700 million. This is what we must know and why distrust exists in the minds of people across the country. As well the committee should investigate the freedom of choice proposition put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the offline elevator concept.


Yvon Pinard: What do you mean by freedom of choice?


Douglas Charles Neil: We should investigate unit trains.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.


Douglas Charles Neil: My friends on the other side are becoming excited. 1 do not know why. 1 am only trying to suggest what should be done in committee. Hon. Members opposite sat in their seats during the entire debate. Their only contribution has been to shout from their places when a Member was speaking. It is unbelievable that only nine speakers on the Liberal side of the House participated in the debate, including the Minister who introduced the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture who moved notice of a motion of closure and the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who brought in the previous question motion.


An Hon. Member:: Call it closure, call it what it is.


Douglas Charles Neil: Closure, that is all they are concerned about. All the things 1 have mentioned must be considered if we are to build a better railway system, a system which will carry our grain efficiently at the least cost.
The railway system does not only carry grain. It carries potash, coal and numerous other products. Every segment of the community should be interested in those hearings. There should be input from farmers, farm organizations, railways and elevator companies. There should be co-operation. The committee should be comprised of Members of all political Parties who are not concerned about politics but about how to make a better railroad system. This is what has to be done, and I am disappointed that the Hon. Minister is not prepared to do it.
I see my time has come to an end. As I said, I am disappointed that the Minister of Transport was not prepared to rise in the House and comment on some of our recommendations. I think it is a shame.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Allmand	YEAS Messrs. Dubois	LeBlancAppolloni (Mrs.)	Duclos	LeducAxworthy	Dupont	LefebvreBachand	Dupras	LoiselleBaker	Duquet	Lumley(Gander-Twillingate)	Ethier	MacBainBeauchamp-Niquet	Evans	MacEachen(Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuiganBegin (Miss)	Fisher	MackaseyBerger	Fleming	MacLarenBlais	Flis	MalepartBlaker	Foster	MaltaisBloomfield	Francis	MasseBockstael	Frith	McCauleyBreau	Garant	Nicholson (Miss)Bujold	Gauthier	OlivierBurghardt	Gimaiel	OstiguyBussieres	Gingras	ParentCaccia	Gourde	PelletierCampbell (Miss)	(Levis)	Penner(South West Nova)	Guilbault	PepinCampbell	Harquail	Peterson(LaSalle)	Herbert	PinardCampbell	Hervieux-Payette	Portelance(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	Prud'hommeChenier	Hopkins	ReidChretien	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Collenette	Irwin	RobertsCorbin	Isabelle	RobinsonCorriveau	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Cosgrove	Johnston	RossiCote (Mrs.)	Joyal	RoyCousineau	Kaplan	SavardCullen	Kelly	SchroderCyr	Killens (Mrs.)	SimmonsDawson	Lajoie	SmithDe Bane	Lalonde	Tardifde Corneille	Landers	TessierDeniger	Lang	TobinDesmarais	Laniel	TousignantDingwall	Lapierre	TrudeauDion	Lapointe	TurnerDionne	(Charlevoix)	Veillette(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	WatsonDionne	(Bcauce)	Yanakis-123.(Northumberland- Miramichi) Althouse	NAYS Messrs. Beatty	BlaikieAndre	Benjamin	BlenkarnAnguish	Blackburn	Bradley
June 22, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Broadbent Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Deans
de Jong
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Messrs.
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Korchinski
Kushner
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Robinson (Burnaby)
Roche
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise
Young-106.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Lachance) agreed to.


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I was present when the vote was taken. However, 1 did not vote because I paired off with a Member of the Progressive Conservative Party, and if 1 had voted, I would have voted with the Government.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I had consultations with the Opposition House Leaders and it seems that there is unanimous consent that the same vote be applied to the second reading motion.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for applying the previous vote to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it was agreed that the same vote be recorded, too.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Pepin) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 364)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blakcr
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussicres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cdt6 (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson De Bane de Corneille Deniger Dcsmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bradley
Broadbent
Cardiff
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourde
(Levis)
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.) ' Hopkins Hudecki Irwin Isabelle Ittinuar Johnston Joyal Kaplan Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lajoic Lalonde Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Deans
de Jong
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
Malepart
Maltais
Masse
McCauley
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Yanakis-123.
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Korchinski
Kushner
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the islands) MacDougall Malone Manly Mayer
June 22, 1983

Messrs.
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-106.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Yvon Pinard: I also had consultation and it seems, Madam Speaker, that if you seek unanimous consent you might get it, that the motion having been carried, you adjourn the House until eight o'clock, and that the House sit tonight from eight until ten o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal made by the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 6.25 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 27, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-152, an Act Respecting the Organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, as we have just heard, we are dealing this evening with Bill C-152, a Bill introduced by the Government dealing basically with two items, one being the reorganization of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as that of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The second item the Bill deals with the is the addition of a number of parliamentary secretaries to the new Department which will be created by the passage of the Bill if, indeed, it is passed, expanding jurisdiction to include Senators as well as Members of the House of Commons.
The new Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion will be developed from the former Department of Industry,
Government Organization Act, 1983 Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. This particular piece of legislation will have a profound impact on various sections of the country, particularly the one for which the original Department of Regional and Economic Expansion was devised back in 1969.
Although I think there is much justification for dealing with the expansion of the bureaucracy to include an additional number of parliamentary secretaries, which no doubt will appease a number of those disgruntled backbenchers on the Opposition benches, nonetheless, I do not believe that time permits me to deal with that particular aspect of the Bill, even though I would much like to do so.
The provisions of the Bill which, as I have mentioned, deals with and would particularly affect the section of the country from which I come, namely, Atlantic Canada, have proceeded as far as departmental changes are concerned, despite the fact that this Parliament has not had the opportunity to deal with or pass any particular phase or aspect of the Bill. The Government has proceeded with changes within the Department; setting up and reorganizing its departmental to accomodate the proposed changes in the Department despite the fact that the elected representatives from the region have not had any opportunity for parliamentary input. Considering the fact that the Bill was only moved for second reading on May 27, it seems the Government is determined to move on with the Bill and the implementation of its provisions despite the fact that Parliament has not had an opportunity for input. This leaves us to be somewhat suspicious, as always, of the motives and the underlying reasons for the Government to move forward with such haste.
I do appreciate this opportunity to take Members of the House and people throughout Canada who might be interested, particularly those in Atlantic Canada, on a brief walk through the history of what DREE was all about and the reason for its implementation back in 1979. DREE was created in 1969 by the present Government. In the words of the Throne Speech at the time, it was established and was to be "charged with objectives of ensuring that all people in all areas and regions of our country have as equal an access as possible to the opportunities of Canada's development''.
What did that mean to the people of Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada, since this was originally designed to include all of those regions of Canada east of Trois Rivieres? The original intention of the program was to reduce disparities between the regions of Canada that had been subjected to particular economic hardships over the years. It had particular reference to eastern and Atlantic Canada.
1 am sure all Members are aware that Atlantic Canada initially played a very important role in the development of our nation. The Maritime Provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, some of the original partners in Confederation, were the hub of economic activity at that time and, indeed, this was the area where the very concept of Canada was devised. Canada as it exists today can be

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
attributed to Atlantic Canadians and the Fathers of Confederation.
At that time when Atlantic Canada was the economic hub Canadians in that area envisaged a broader sense of participation in those areas which became part of the Dominion of Canada. Atlantic Canadians encouraged the expansion and development of the rest of the country which now makes up Canada. Atlantic Canadians encourage people to become pioneers in a westward expansion throughout Ontario, Quebec, the Prairie Provinces and further.
There is no question that the roots of those Canadians who now inhabit the rest of Canada originated from eastern and Atlantic Canadians, and they contributed greatly to the development of the other parts of Canada. I suggest that those people deserve a particular tribute from Canadians.
Inevitably, there was a price to be paid for the encouragement of this expansion. Indeed, that price has been paid. Unfortunately it has been to the detriment of Atlantic Canada. As a result of the markets which developed in central Canada and the United States, because of their geographic affinity, we have seen a disparity develop in Atlantic Canada that perhaps was not envisaged by the forefathers of our nation.
There evolved an improvement in the transportation system from coast to coast and a promotion of central Canada as a manufacturing base that has been healthy for the nation as a whole. I do not want the House or Canadians to think that Atlantic Canadians begrudge the development of central or western Canada over the lack of development which we have experienced in Atlantic Canada. It is a historical fact that central Canada in particular has developed an economic base as a result of encouragement from Atlantic Canada. Central Canada has claimed a portion of that wealth which might otherwise have developed in Atlantic Canada, the origination of the economic base of this great nation of which we are all proud.
A system of protective barriers has been established over a number of years to protect trade and the establishment of the central manufacturing base in central Canada. I believe this was addressed in the original establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in 1969. Interestingly enough, that department was established by the very Government which now holds power.
Development in Atlantic Canada has been stymied because of the development in central Canada. There are a number of factors which have caused the slow development of Atlantic Canada, not the least of which is the distance from the Canadian market which that area must have access to in order to grow along with the rest of Canada. We have high transportation costs in moving goods from our manufacturing base in Atlantic Canada to central Canadian markets and beyond. This has resulted in a lack of capital investment in Atlantic Canada. Consequently, we have seen high unemployment and a lack of industrial growth.
Finally, and perhaps most sadly, this has resulted in a dependence on the federal Government which, while necessary,
was not envisaged in the concept Atlantic Canadians held of what Canada would be. Nonetheless, this situation has developed over the years. DREE was established a number of years ago after the Government was made aware of this disparity. The establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion by the Government was indeed a healthy response and one of the few positive actions we have seen the Government take over the years. Unfortunately, it did not last.
As I have stated, DREE was originally established to provide a stimulus to Atlantic and eastern Canada since its mandate included a portion of Quebec, which the present Government has been very quick to recognize over the years. One has only to review the history of the Government to see that Quebec has been the recipient of a great many benefits from the Government. I suggest that can only be expected when one considers that the Province of Quebec has to a great extent encouraged and developed this Government over the years. Nevertheless, it is a national Government which has a responsibility to the entire nation to include those portions of the country that are economically stimulated and those regions which have been economically depreciated. I think it is only fair that as Canadians we expect our government, regardless of which Party it might have as its power base, to include all persons of Canada equally and to look on them with an equally compassionate eye. This Government has fallen down; it has not kept trust with Canadians throughout the country, particularly in terms of being fair and equitable in its proportion of funding.
DREE was a positive step, a positive mesure, a positive department which the Government established, but it did not pursue its purpose; it let it die. In 1970 approximately 2 per cent of federal funding was spent on DREE, which was set up particularly to assist eastern Canada and Atlantic Canada. What have we seen last year and this year? To what degree have we seen DREE deteriorate? This year, its last year of existence, DREE provides only 0.8 per cent of its total spending to help that portion of Canada which it was originally intended to assist. It has long forgotten those portions of Canada which were instrumental in establishing it and in making great this nation of which we are so proud as Canadians.
It is a shame that the Government does not recognize the situation which continues to exist in Atlantic Canada. It fails to recognize that in 1970, only one year after the department was set up, unemployment in Atlantic Canada amounted to 41,000 people. In 1982 the statistics show that unemployment in that area had risen to 135,000, an increase of 229 per cent, in a land where the national average was 168 per cent. The Government tends to prefer to forget about Atlantic Canada. Its unemployment rate in 1970 was 6.2 per cent. In 1982 the unemployment rate had risen to 14.4 per cent. The growth in the unemployment rate in Canada rose by only 5.3 per cent from 1970 to 1982, whereas the average growth in Atlantic Canada was 8.2 per cent.
June 22, 1983

In 1970 after DREE was set up the per capita income of Atlantic Canada was $2,240. In 1982 when the Government decided unilaterally, without consultation with any of its Atlantic Canada partners in Confederation, to destroy the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the per capita personal income was $9,241. The average throughout the rest of Canada, which the new department will most likely assist, for the Government's own political satisfaction, is now $12,764. Where is the equity? Where is the fairness? Where is the democracy?


An Hon. Member:: Not here.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Obviously, it does not exist in the mind's eye of this Government. I could refer to various experiences of the Atlantic Provinces under the umbrella, under the jurisdiction or under the dictatorship of this Government. First I refer to the reduction in transfer payments.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired. We will now proceed to the ten-minute question period. Are there any questions Hon. Members would like to ask?
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your acknowledging the significance of the discussion we are having this evening and showing a very distinguished interest for the reorganization of the Department of External Affairs.
The External Affairs Act incorporated in this legislation is simply the legal recognition of changes made last year after the Right Hon. Prime Minister decided to reorganize Government departments and agencies having an economic status. That reorganization has led to major changes in the terms of reference, responsibilities and structure of External Affairs, and these will merely be confirmed by the measure now before us. It is interesting to note that this legislation is the first complete legislative document identifying the role of that Department within the Government organization since 1909. The reorganization which was launched last year is the answer to a variety of questions and considerations raised within the Government. The most obvious, and clearly the driving force behind this reform is the need to adequately promote Canada's economic development. Therefore, the potential for greater economic development being closely linked to the status of our international trade which, as you know, now accounts for 30 per cent of our gross national product, has compelled us to explore a better way not only to maintain but to raise our level of penetration of international markets. That major challenge could simply not be met in any conventional way. The complexity of the markets, the interdependence of the parties concerned, the interconnection between political, economic and trade tensions were calling for concertation and imagination.
Government Organization Act. 1983

Another key objective of the changes brought about in External Affairs was the requirement to bring greater coherence to the range of the Government's policies and programs in the international domain and, in particular, to make trade and economic issues an integral part of our over-all foreign policy. This move responds to the trend which has become increasingly evident of late in international relations whereby political, economic and trade issues have become increasingly intertwined. There is thus a consequent requirement to bring together the various levels of expertise in these areas to deal most effectively with them.
In a similar vein there is a pressing need to ensure that linkages between the domestic and international sectors in terms of the Government's policy development and programs are as effective as possible. Just as the international activities of Government must be reflective of domestic constraints and considerations, so must our domestically focused initiatives be formulated and implemented with a view to their potential international implications.
This requirement is particularly applicable in the case of our own country which is so inextricably tied into the international system, especially in economic terms.
Finally, the changes envisioned reflect the desire to more effectively use and manage resources deployed in support of the Government's international activities. Canada, as is the case with most industrialized countries, has a significant investment in both financial and human terms deployed overseas in our embassies and other offices designed to further the Government's interests and manage the Government's programs. It is incumbent upon us to see to it that this investment is managed in a co-ordinated manner in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The External Affairs Act now being considered by this House responds in a number of ways to the Government's concerns, as I have already outlined, in respect of its international activities. A brief review of the major aspects of the Act will, I am sure, provide a useful indication as to how these concerns are met.

First, under the proposed legislation, the Department of External Affairs will henceforth have three ministers, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for External Relations. 1 stress that this is the first time that a particular piece of legislation formally establishes the office of Minister for International Trade, which proves that economic development and particularly the active promotion of our exports are high priorities of this Government. The very existence of the office of Minister for International Trade will ensure that trade and exports will receive the attention they deserve within the administration, and especially around the Cabinet table. It is generally recognized that given the extraordinary opening of

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
Canada onto the world, these three ministers will be able to share the task of looking after our domestic and international interests and ensuring representation of the highest order in the multitude of forums where our country is active.

Second, External Affairs is being given a new mandate in this Act which covers the spectrum of our major international activities. Thus External Affairs will have responsibility for all international trade, economic and political matters as well as our major overseas programs including consular assistance, immigration, development assistance, public and cultural affairs. Of particular importance in this regard is the responsibility External Affairs will have for international trade and economic policy and programs. The assignment of responsibility for international trade to External Affairs is indicative of the Government's concern that trade and economic concerns be better integrated into our over-all foreign policy and, no less, that trade promotion receive a higher profile and priority in our international relations. As well, the general increase in the importance of economic and trade issues in the international environment-including the growing politicization of trade, East-West trade, sanctions, protectionism and the very serious international financial liquidity issues-are such as to require that these issues be dealt with in a broader context which can bring to bear general economic and political considerations in the management of our trade development efforts.
The new mandate for External Affairs will also serve to provide the coherence needed across the range of our international programs and activities in that all of the various strands of our activity-whether political, economic or trade-will be the responsibility of one institution. This centralization of these responsibilities will also provide us with the basis to better manage and co-ordinate the resources the Government deploys in support of its international policies and programs. It will also help to assure that we attain the required balance in our treatment of domestic and international policy issues so that decisions in one area can be taken with a full awareness of the potential implications such decisions may have in other areas.
One further point of interest concerning this Act is that for the first time the authority of our heads of overseas missions is set out in legislation. This, together with the consolidation in External Affairs of the Foreign Service, will provide for a better integration of our overseas operations-whether political, trade, economic, immigration, development assistance or other programs-with consequent advantages for our administration and management of all of our efforts and resources in the international domain.
Before concluding my remarks, I should comment upon the effects which this Act will have for the business community, especially exporters, in Canada. In particular, I would like to deal with those changes which are of special concern to the private sector and, secondly and perhaps somewhat surprisingly, I would like to review a number of aspects of our trade and economic operations with which Members were familiar prior
to the reorganization and which remain largely unchanged in the post-reorganization environment.
Hon. Members will recall that, in large part, the reorganization of the Government was driven by economic development considerations. Foremost amongst these in the case of External Affairs was the desire to see economic and trade considerations being given greater prominence in our foreign policy. More generally, it was also thought that the tranfer of the international trade responsibilities to External Affairs would serve to respond to the growing convergence of political, economic and trade issues in international relations.
The importance of international trade to Canada is well known: our economic well-being is heavily reliant upon our success in developing export markets. Our export capability is dependent not only on factors such as quality of product and financing considerations, but as well on the maintenance of an effective international trading environment. Today we face serious difficulties internationally in terms of potential constraints to facilitating our export growth. Rising protectionist sentiment and policies, the intermingling of political as well as economic considerations in determining commercial transactions, the growing participation of state trading institutions and a variety of other developments have all worked to complicate the international trade and economic environment. Purely export promotion activities are no longer sufficient in and of themselves to ensure that our export potential will be achieved.
The transfer of the trade responsibility to External Affairs has certainly entailed the introduction of some significant changes to our Department and have had a beneficial effect, I believe, on the Government's capacity to deal with international trade and economic policy and issues.
At the ministerial level, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) will focus his attention on our trade development policies and programs. At the same time, however, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) will also be actively involved in the development of our over-all international economic and trade efforts. During last year's GATT Ministerial, for example, you may recall that while the Secretary of State for External Affairs chaired the meeting, the Minister of State for International Trade led the Canadian delegation to the meeting. Below the ministerial level the Department's trade and economic specialist are similarly active in the interdepartmental network of policy advisory committees and groups.

All in all, I think one can rightly say that these questions and these policies will receive as much if not more attention within the Department of External Affairs than before the reorganization. Indeed, I would say there are additional benefits to this reform, and I will mention a few.
The consolidation of the foreign service through the transfer of trade officers, in fact through the integration of former employees of Industry, Trade and Commerce into the personnel of External Affairs, had the net result of sensitizing everybody within the Department to trade matters and their
June 22, 1983

peculiarities. I believe there has been a significant improvement in the consistency with which political, economic and trade matters are all taken into account within a global examination of issues, which is beneficial.
Moreover, our trade promotion efforts are aimed at all sectors of the economy, from primary industry to agriculture, from CANDU to Telidon.

I think this might be a useful point at which to set out the aspects of our trade operations which have not changed.
While the Trade Commissioner Service has been consolidated within the Foreign Service, its expertise and experience will be retained. Officers will continue to specialize in trade development work in the Foreign Service whether through assignments abroad or in Canada. Cross-Canada tours by trade officers, before and during overseas assignments will continue as before. As well the practices of maintaining an active secondments program with other parts of the government and, of course, with the private sector remain unchanged.
The programs supporting our export promotion activities with which you may have been familiar in Industry, Trade and Commerce, Madam Speaker, are continuing to function in the same fashion in External Affairs. The program for export market development, our support for fairs and missions, and our support for other promotion projects remain as before reorganization.
Regional trade offices throughout Canada will also be a continuing feature of our trade development activities. These units, staffed by experienced trade personnel, are operating in all of the major regional offices of the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. They will continue to provide the same services to the business community as did the regional offices of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Within the Government, arrangements have been concluded with the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to ensure the required collaboration between these two departments in a variety of areas so as to retain access to the domestic industrial expertise of that Department. This will include arrangements for an extensive program of secondments between the two Departments in order to ensure that we continue to maintain the required interchange of expertise between our two organizations.
In sum, despite reorganization, a number of key elements of our trade development activities remain as they were. That being said, of course, it should also be stated that reorganization was intended to improve our capabilities in trade policy and development. My own view is that it has and that this will become evident by the Department's performance.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I should note that much has been made of the new mandate and structure for External Affairs in terms of the contribution it is expected to make to our objectives of national economic development. This is
Government Organization Act, 1983
rightly so, for indeed it is our intention to give economic and trade considerations a central role in our foreign policy and operations. The benefits which we expect to gain, however, are by no means limited to the economic sector. A renewed commitment to comprehensiveness in the formulation of our policy options and operations, coherence in their introduction and consistency in their pursuit can bring us very important advantages across the full range of our international relations.
Mfiss Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it is that this new organization of the Department of External Affairs is so important that none of the three Ministers appointed under the Act are here tonight. Do none of them care?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I suggest this question is somewhat trivial. May I point out to the House that the three ministers are very much involved in this, namely, the minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) who is making a speech tonight before the Canada Great Britain Board of Trade; the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) who is involved in other activities; and the Minister of State (External Relations) (Mr. Lapointe) who will probably come to the House to hear our remarks, whatever they are worth.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the House Leader probably put this debate on tonight because none of those Ministers could be here. Am I correct in coming to that conclusion?


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the one hand, Madam Speaker, this is an hypothetical question; on the other hand, 1 do not see what point the Hon. Member is trying to make.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-152 which deals with Government re-organization.
As I understand the current re-organization of Government departments, several changes will be occurring that have the possibility of impacting in a positive way on the constituency of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington in southeastern Ontario. I say this based on my observation of the current Department of Regional Economic Development that will be abolished in this re-organization. It is the desire of myself and the constituents in my riding that the problems that were never fully dealt with by the old DREE Department will now be addressed.
There are two major thrusts to this Bill: first, the re-organization of Industry, Trade and Commerce, External Affairs and Regional Economic Expansion; and second, expansion of the number of Parliamentary Secretaries and extension of eligibility to include Senators.

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
The Government is re-organized as follows: responsibility for trade is transferred to External Affairs from Industry, Trade and Commerce; a new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is created out of the existing Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion; the mandate of the Ministry of State for Economic Development is expanded to include regional development; and the MSED thus becomes the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development. A new Special Areas Act is established to deal with those DREE responsibilities that are not transferred to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The potential maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries will be increased by four and eligibility will be expanded to include Senators. At present, the total number of Parliamentary Secretaries may not exceed the total number of Ministers who receive their salaries under Section 4 of the Salaries Act which, in effect, means Ministers with a department. The formula is expanded to include those who fall under Section 5; that is, Ministers who preside over a Ministry of State.
At present, there are three formal Ministries of State, Economic Development, Social Development and Science and Technology. Not all Ministers of State preside over a Ministry of State. There is, for example, a Minister of State for Trade, but no Ministry of State for Trade.
At the same time this Bill increases by one the number of Ministers who fall under Section 4 of the Salaries Act. Thus, the potential maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries increases by four. However, should the Government decide to create more Ministries of State, the potential number would increase accordingly as no new legislation is needed to create new Ministries of State.
One of the problems that 1 hope will be addressed is the problem of relevant statistics for determining whether a particular area or region is eligible for assistance. In the northern area of my riding, employment prospects are not particularly encouraging during the best of economic conditions. Many individual communities are dependent on single employment sources, creating a very untenable situation should that employment source dry up. The region, however, has never been able to benefit from direct funding assistance from the federal Government because statistically these certain areas do not appear when calculated with the urban centres of eastern Ontario such as Belleville, Kingston and Ottawa. Therefore, what I would like to see in the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion that is being created from the existing Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion is a more realistic assessment of those areas and regions within Canada which qualify for assistance but have been unable to obtain it.
I also believe it is very necessary to consult the various levels of Government involved to develop the most effective and comprehensive program for each region. There have been indications that provincial Governments have not been fully consulted about the changes contemplated, and I hope that consultation occurs before this legislation is finalized.
I am concerned about the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the development of new DR IE programs and funding levels. It is my understanding that funding levels for a region will be based on a development index. I have difficulty with this, particularly as this development index proposes to set levels of funding based on a formula that includes percentages of unemployment and income in each census division. This funding scheme then becomes more complicated with its four levels of support and determination of how regions figure in levels of support by how the area scores on the development index.
This formula reminds me of the formula that was developed for the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the use of which somehow afforded one region which had a decrease in population with a net gain of electoral seats at redistribution. That made a mockery of the credo "representation by population". As I mentioned earlier there are several problems with the development index now being proposed in the departmental reorganization.
In the northern area of my federal riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, the labour force regions which will help determine the development index have many overlaps in the region. In my constituency the census districts follow the county boundaries. The southern sections of the Counties of Hastings, Lennox and Addington and Frontenac, are very different from the more northerly townships of each of those counties. The southern townships are more populated, more developed and generally enjoy more employment. The northern townships would find that their higher unemployment rate would be distorted by the south.
In Hastings County, the unemployment figure for the City of Belleville will distort the unemployment figure for the northern townships such as Bangor, Wicklow and McClure, Carlow, Monteagle, Herschel and Bancroft 100 miles away. The same will be true for Frontenac County where the unemployment figure for the City of Kingston will distort the unemployment figure for the northern townships in Frontenac County such as Palmerston North and South Canonto, Clarendon and Miller and Barrie Townships. The situation will repeat itself in Lennox and Addington County also.
The proposed alternative of trying to estimate unemployment rates for census districts individually will lead to a further accuracy problem. This has been pointed out to me in the size of the survey of the labour force, in that the smaller the survey, the higher the degree of inaccuracy. Even when the amount of unemployment is determined, it only tells part of the story. There are many people in areas who have given up looking for work because they know there is none available. The Government's proposal does not consider these individuals.
Finally, I would like to mention the second measure of the development index, that of income. The proposal is to use as our income measure that of personal income in a census district based on taxation data. In this accounting, there is the
June 22, 1983

problem of time. Tax data that will become available will be several years old by the time it is published. In July of 1982 a major employer in the northern area of Hastings County shut down. By using the federal Government's proposed method of accounting, this major shift in the income pattern in the local economy will not be available until 1985 at the earliest, clearly years out of date.
The development index formula has many problems, however the one that is most serious is the fact that the formula will not be put into law. The possibility of year to year political tampering by the Minister in charge renders all the departmental re-organization of regional industrial expansion virtually ineffective. That does not suggest the re-organization will have any effectiveness.
Unfortunately, the major thrust in past instances of Canadian regional policy has been to support Government intervention, and the interference of the operation of natural market forces in a particular region, when and where it was politically advantageous to do so and not in consideration of those regions where need had been demonstrated. This fact becomes more painfully evident when one examines where DREE moneys have been allocated since the inception of the Department in 1969. The Province of Quebec has received $1.5 billion, $900 million more than the next most highly funded DREE Province. In the 1980-81 fiscal year Quebec received $168 million compared to $34 million in Ontario, which has a higher population, $17 million in Alberta and $38 million in British Columbia to name a few other Provinces.
We were never opposed to the goals and objectives of regional development, only to the partisan political tampering which has distorted the role of the old DREE and which, if the proper parliamentary control is not maintained, will hamper the effectiveness of the new DRIE re-organization.
Early in committee I was able to ask a number of questions to officials about DRIE. While much was said of the major commitment to the Ontario region by DRIE, no information was forthcoming about the number of projects or the specific areas in which projects were being developed. I am concerned about the lack of information available to MPs about the operation of DRIE.
In many of the areas of the less developed regions of Canada, historical as well as economic factors are responsible for poor economic growth. In the same vein, in the relatively prosperous Province of Ontario there are areas of economic distress. The federal Government should be focusing its efforts less on regional disparities and more on the areas within each Province throughout Canada that could benefit from some form of economic assistance.
It is also evident that the solutions that must be developed must be individually matched to the distinctive need within each area of all regions.
I hope we will see in this new Department a definite approach that will define the economic potential of a less developed region as opposed to the creation of a make-work project that provides no long-term lasting benefit to that
Government Organization Act, 1983
region. While I do not believe this request is impossible I am not so sure this Government has the will to implement it.
Over the past few years, federal policies and programs with regard to regional development have undergone major changes. It would appear that the concern with sharing the economic benefits of Confederation more equally among all the regions of the country is being replaced by an overwhelming preoccupation with the ways and means of stimulating national economic growth. While this may be appropriate, given the current problems of the national economy, it should be clearly understood that the changes in federal policy, particularly as they affect the flow of funds into poorer regions, could have very serious short-run consequences for individuals and provincial Governments and ultimately on the national economy.
Some of the many areas which now seem to be affected by this change in policy are as follows. First, the federal Government is seeking to restrict the transfer of funds to provincial Governments for some programs, such as established program funding and equalization, through changes in the terms of the programs or limiting increases.
The new Industrial and Regional Development Program, IRDP, will form the basis of DRIE assistance. Firms anywhere in Canada can qualify for assistance which varies in degree according to a development index calculated for each of Canada's 260 census divisions. The index will be based on unemployment rate, income, and the fiscal capacity of each Province, although the relative weighting of each of these components has not yet been announced. Based on the value of the index, each census division will qualify for increasing levels of assistance according to its relative disparity on a four-tiered scale.
Was DREE a failure? I do not think so. However, to the best of my knowledge there have been no studies to assess the effectiveness of DREE programs in meeting established objectives. Certainly DREE had its faults as well as its strengths and we would welcome the prospect of a more sophisticated program appropriate to today's economic environment.
The new IRDP represents a shift in direction from previous development initiative and has been a cause of concern for APEC. It may be that some of these misgivings may evaporate as more aspects of the program become known. However, some of my preliminary concerns are that some of the previous industrial development programs, such as EDP, were unsuited to the needs of the smaller manufacturing companies. The creation of a tiered development index alone is unlikely to increase their application.
The new proposals do not appear to recognize the need for a concentrated approach to economic development beyond the boundary of a single census division. As a consequence, some of the new programs could have limited application in the smaller census divisions in Canada with their limited industrial base and weak infrastructure.

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
Depending on the final form of area indices, the proposed incremental incentives appear inadequate to influence decisions on plant location if that is the policy objective. Policy initiatives of the past have not succeeded in achieving this goal and we now see changes in direction.
Although details for implementation of new policies have not yet been made clear, it is essential to voice these concerns. Further disclosures on the nature of the new economic development instruments will allow a much more specific focus on the issues.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate this evening on the second reading stage of Bill C-152, where it concerns the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. I would like to start by emphasizing that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has existed in its present form for 15 years, and I believe that Canadians from all parts of the country will acknowledge that this Department has done a great deal for the development of certain parts of Canada and especially, I think, in Eastern Canada and in other parts of Ontario which have been able to take advantage of the various programs and mechanisms made available to the various regions.
Madam Speaker, when we look at Bill C-152 which provides for the creation of a Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, we must listen to both the heart and the mind. I think that initially, we do feel sad at the thought that a department like DREE which has been doing excellent work for over 15 years, will now have to change directions and be restructured, and consequently, it is quite legitimate to expect that there will be some resistance to change, which will be normal and acceptable, but still hard to justify if we were to focus only on emotional considerations. I think we must go beyond that to seek formulas that will do a lot more for the future and will help us meet a host of technological and economic challenges. What should be said first of all, Madam Speaker, is that the new Department that has just been created . . . and here we must support and add to efforts that were made in the past, and not denigrate or simply abolish what was set up in 1969. On the contrary! I think it is normal for a Government to want to review such programs from time to time. I am convinced that after 15 years it was time this program was updated and revamped.
Madam Speaker, what exactly does this revamping of the former DREE and the former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, propose to do? The aim is basically to be much closer to the regions than these departments were before, without necessarily being restricted to providing service or support through participation in studies of various industries and various factories, since it intends to be more concrete and more effective as far as marketing, modernization and research
are concerned. I think that is very important, because these are areas that have perhaps not been neglected but not given as much attention as they should have received under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. By restructuring the Department with Industry, Trade and Commerce and the former DREE department, what we are actually aiming at is to put two tools in the same box to ensure that all our human resources that want to help this country's economic development can do so as a team. That, Madam Speaker, is the purpose of the amalgamation of the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion with that of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is a fact that at an early stage, we were wondering whether the proposed tool was potentially the best. It is also a fact that with changes such as this, people wonder just how the new set up will be an improvement over the previous one. Of course, as was indicated by the previous speaker, we do wonder whether or not we are taking a big chance. I think that we probably are just taking a chance as with any other change, but one which will bring about new initiatives, while keeping the expertise accumulated over the past 15 years.
I think this is very important. And when he appeared before various committees, the Minister indicated most emphatically that there was not intention of taking away resources at the ministerial level or to lower the profile of the people directly involved in regional economic expansion. I think that on this we should take the Minister's word for it and rely on it, for the Minister's major concern is to ensure that the decision-making process is not merely at the central level, but also at the regional level.
I can say this with considerable pride, Madam Speaker, for the North Shore has benefited to a large extent from the various programs implemented by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. So has Eastern Canada, and people are quite satisfied with what has already been done. Most of the time, people complained that the decisions concerning industries, corporations, small and medium-size businesses, which were supposed to be responsible and wise, taken following an in-depth study, were made either in the National Capital or in major cities where the regional offices were situated which made it very difficult for small and medium-size businesses to obtain assistance at the local level.
Accordingly the new department effectively anticipates that we will be ever more present in the regions and in larger numbers to comply with the wishes of those directly involved in industry and development. Even if the parties opposite have some reservations, amendments will probably be introduced in Committee of the Whole and already as far as improvements are concerned we could perhaps make sure that we have just one wicket precisely because of the various economic needs identified by the decisions-makers because with DREE there was one major problem. When a product had to be marketed or developed or still when a new economic activity, had to be organized DREE would say: "Listen, we are only limited to
June 22, 1983

that part of the job, the other part comes under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On the other hand this Department would answer that from now on people would have to deal with the Department of External Affairs when they needed to investigate markets abroad and there were all sorts of very specialized fields, the co-ordination of which proved to be quite a challenge.
Now that the Department has been reorganized, many of the problems usually encountered in the consideration of issues have been eliminated, and still more, we will be taking advantage of an expanded amount of expertise at the regional level. We will gain considerable time in the evaluation of issues and we will possess a mass of combined knowledge and as a result those who want to use our services will no longer be discouraged. Members from all sides of the House will note that when we have to deal with various departments, we are often shifted from one department to another and regularly told that this branch of a department works on this aspect of an issue while that branch of another department deals with that economic aspect. It proved very hard to obtain any information so that in that respect we will have made substantial progress.
And what does Bill C-152 provide in Part II?
Powers and duties are granted to the Minister. I think that this again is very clear. It is provided that the powers, duties and functions of the Minister generally extend to very specific sectors-manufacturing industries and service industries. Previously I think they were somewhat limited as far as services were concerned. We will be involved with regional industrial expansion. This means that for Members from this side of the House and even from the other side who had reservations with regard to the involvement of the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the concern will remain the same, Madam Speaker. We are going to be very close to the regions, but also we will have more personnel to work directly. So for people who do have doubts in that respect, the Act actually provides for a regional presence. We are going to look after tourism. It is a well-known fact that today tourism in some Provinces is a key activity, and Canada is increasingly anxious to see all our tourist trade potential represented on the world scene. I would simply like to point out that recently one of the tourist treasures of the North Shore, the Mingan Archipelego, was added to Canada's heritage.
Often reference is made to small and medium businesses, and often they directly benefit from the assistance given to large corporations. Mention should be made of the various aircraft and shipbuilding contracts. Small and medium businesses supply larger contractors or shipyards. So these small and medium businesses will benefit, as well as interprovincial trade. Reference has often been made to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as if that Department's operations were only restricted to the Maritimes or Quebec. But the
Government Organization Act, 1983
aim must be an increasingly strengthened internal trade within Canada, and the powers and duties of the Minister are set out as very specific and well-defined functions.
And there is more to be found in that legislation when you look at it more closely. The following is provided in Section 5.1:
(a)	promote the establishment, growth and efficiency of manufacturing, processing, service and tourist industries in all regions of Canada, contribute to the sound development and productivity of Canadian industries generally and foster the expansion of trade in Canada-
Needless to say, at the last Progressive Conservative Convention this was one of the major points that were emphasized. It raises the whole question of productivity in larger industries as well as in small and medium businesses in Canada.
It is therefore my view that the Opposition parties will have to admit that this has been in preparation for quite some time in order to have a Department that will better meet future challenges, and this in no way conflicts with the principles which they are putting forward. On the contrary, this emphasizes and illustrates the extent to which the productivity of Canadian industries must be increased while certain leading and traditional sectors of our economy are upgraded. The Bill provides, among other things, in paragraph (b), that the Minister shall:
(b)	assist investors in the location of industries in a manner that is consistent with the needs of the investors and federal regional and industrial development policies-
In the past, major industries were often developed in large urban centres and marginal areas were left with the small businesses. However, at the present time and according to the various scenarios which the Department will introduce in the near future by regulation, all regions will have equal opportunities to attract major processing industries so that they will not always lag behind the large centres and large areas will not be more developed than others. Equal opportunities will be provided to those regions that are now known as underdeveloped. That is the important thing! Central Canada may have developed much more quickly than other regions, but the time has come to try to strike a balance.
These normal and legitimate concerns are shared by both sides of the House, and I believe that they had to be met by such a piece of legislation.
In Subclause (d) of this Bill, we also find that the Minister shall, and I quote:
(d) develop and carry out programs related to his powers, duties and functions, of a national and regional character, including programs and projects to
(i) promote and assist product and process development-
I heard that during the leadership campaign of the Progressive Conservative Party, Madam Speaker, and I have often heard NDP members say the same thing, and quite rightly.
As an exporting country, Canada must have well-organized high technology industries.


An Hon. Member:: Exactly.

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983


André Maltais: The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce set up the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, or CIRB, to try to find means of increasing production and reducing costs to promote exports in so-called soft traditional sectors, such as the textile industry.
In addition, I think it is about time we developed new products in Canada, because all our young people are looking to microprocessors and high technology. The technological revolution may be just another phrase for us, but it is a reality in other countries. It is therefore important for a Department to be able to coordinate such activities. In the past, development meant research centres under the jurisdiction of other Departments than that of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and it was the responsibility of External Affairs to find new markets, but there had never been an economically-oriented Department working in very close co-operation with businessmen and businesswomen and able to point the way to new markets and new opportunities. All these activities will now be regrouped under three Departments: External Affairs, Regional Industrial Expansion and the Department which will be responsible for marketing. That is what we had to do, and under this legislation, I think that we shall have to see to it that there will be a single government agency in the various regions. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation, to the extent that it will bring us closer to the people and that we will not forever have to give other departments the information required to enable the people to act knowledgeably and responsibly. In addition, Madam Speaker, other duties of the Department include, and I quote:
(e) provide support services for industrial and trade development, including information, import analysis and traffic services-
Everyone will admit that the last consideration is of major importance to the country, the question of traffic services. Most of the time we do experience difficulties due to the vastness of our country and the lack of modern railway facilities. Besides, let us admit it, the high cost of transportation is often the only thing which prevents our merchants, businessmen and businesswomen from moving throughout the country to sell their goods-prohibitive transportation costs. The question of traffic services is basic in this Bill and we will have to make sure that it is more than pious wishes, that it becomes a reality so that we will be able to transport our own products from the Atlantic to the Pacific and, increasingly, from the Arctic to our southern borders. Afterwards we will have to make sure that with outstanding transporters such as Air Canada and CP Air we will take our goods to Europe. There are markets but we must look beyond North America. Granted, the United States remain our main trading partner, but we must seek new outlets in China and Japan because our country is blessed with natural resources. Japan, with her huge population, must protect every single tree which grows on her islands. Europeans are now looking for lumber producing countries. Canada is a country which can meet those needs, but we must process our lumber right here. Transportation should not however be an obstacle to our trade, but it is now one of of our
major difficulties. By combining the Department of External Affairs with the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I think we have found a major lever to ensure Canada's economic recovery and diversification.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I should like to say that we will need more that economic recovery programs. We will be successful if all Canadians, men and women alike, are truly motivated not only politically, but individually and personally. I am convinced that we will have a few false starts at the beginning, because the whole apparatus will have to be put to the test, and that is to be expected. A number of public servants will be frustrated because many of them do have soft jobs. We are here to serve the public, find new formulas and make sure that we do not fall prey to a kind of lethargic sleep. This Bill will shake up some people, but that is our job and it is important that we do it well. Knowing as I do the new Leader of the Opposition, I am almost certain that he will be tempted to repeat word for word what I have just said. The major hazard facing the Leader of the Opposition-I do know him well

is that he is a good Liberal. I have always thought that he was a Liberal who had lost his way, so those who are more conservative that progressive should be on their toes! To conclude my remarks, Madam Speaker, I will say that this legislation is welcome. Like any Hon. Member on both sides of the House, I have a few legitimate reservations. But let us give a chance to the department before destroying it and let us wait and see what the results are. In addition, I am convinced that these provisions will benefit all Canadians. Nothing prevents us from reviewing the new legislation every year, for it is wrong to make changes in our laws only every 15 years. It is about time as well that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce stop patronizing, leaving unimportant matters to small regions, and that we strike together, to achieve a really balanced development of our economy.


Madam Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question to ask?


Pauline Jewett: Yes. I will be rising later to participate in the debate.
The Hon. Member for Mamcouagan (Mr. Maltais) has now really made me confused because he is speaking as though the Bill we are discussing tonight combined the old DREE, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Department of External Affairs. Several times he said that there was somehow to be a grand combination of all three. On two occasions he said that the old DREE, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, was being merged with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Then when he was speaking of export promotion, he suggested that it would
June 22, 1983

now presumably come within DRIE, the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. My question is, who is right? My understanding was that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion plus the industry part of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was going into one Department and in fact this has already occurred, and that the trade and commerce part of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was, of course, going into the Department of External Affairs. Is that not correct?


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, in fact, the former department of Regional Economic Expansion will be merged with the present Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, within the present Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, there is a whole section which precisely allowed for the marketing of products. So that after the merger, the former department of Regional Economic Expansion, which could not benefit from the expertise in the field of marketing, will then be able to do so since there will have been a merger. That is what I intended to explain during my remarks.


Pauline Jewett: Is the Hon. Member saying, because this really changes my understanding of it at least, that marketing, export promotion and so on-and he was speaking of selling our goods abroad and all that-will now be embraced within the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion?
[ Translation]


André Maltais: No, Madam Speaker, what I wish to explain in very simple terms, and I believe 1 was very clear a moment ago, is that if you have a good knowledge of the present structure of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, you will know that this department fulfilled a particular role, namely the marketing of products at the commercial level, while the Department of Regional Economic Expansion did not exercise this function. It only had the mandate to modernize and support small businesses in designated areas. By bringing together both fields of expertise, that is, DREE and Industry, Trade and Commerce, it will be far easier for Atlantic fishermen to find new markets for their products since officers of Industry and Commerce who will be comprised in the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be able to help small businessmen to find new markets. Obviously, the Department of External Affairs will be responsible for negotiating new contracts among other things. I think this is quite clear.
1 do not understand why there are still some doubts in the Hon. Member's mind. I suggest if you read the bill very carefully, you will find that this is clearly indicated. The Department of External Affairs will obviously develop policies pertaining to foreign affairs and will retain the authority in that field, but in trade matters, all of this will be decided within the former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, together with the former department of Regional
Government Organization Act, 1983
Economic Expansion. In my mind, this is very clear. Presently, there is a Secretary of State for External Affairs, a minister responsible for External Affairs, a minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well as a minister responsible for DREE.


Mr. Keeper:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) a question. In view of the fact that based on every economic forecast, unemployment is expected to rise in every region of the country and that this bill deals with international trade and regional and industrial development, how can the Hon. Member hope to convince the Canadian people that this is a major bill or that the policies of this Government are working?


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out one thing to the Hon. Member. In view of the fact that the rate of inflation has now dropped to 5 per cent and that in the last month there has been a decrease in the rate of unemployment, you have to admit that the situation has somewhat improved. To mention that in other industrialized countries, the number of unemployed is larger than in Canada, is to put the debate in a totally different perspective. Bill C-152 is simply aimed at enhancing previous efforts. If we look at what has already been achieved in this country in the last ten years or so in business and industry, we can see that there are small and medium size businesses in disadvantaged regions of the country. A lot has been done. To prove my point, Madam Speaker, 1 will only remind the Member of what has been accomplished in the fishing industry in the Maritimes which goes through various cycles as is the case for other industries. In addition, our record compares quite favorably with that of the United States. On the other hand, if the Hon. Member compares our situation with that of some European countries such as France and Great Britain, I'll say to him that his question is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the bill under discussion tonight.


Madam Speaker:: I will now recognize the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam for debate.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, now we are all really confused. It was not my intention to spend too much of my 20 minutes on the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, except to say that there is nothing that it will do which could not have been done by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Indeed, it rather narrows it. The Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) suggested that now the new Department would be able to really seek out industry. That was what DREE was supposedly to do, primarily. There were other kinds of economic expansion for DREE, but fundamentally it was an attempt to have industries locating in slow growth or less developed areas. Therefore, it is pretty much of a manicured type of thing.
The main reason the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has been created is the wish of the Government to break up the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
and to put Industry in with the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, and to put Trade and Commerce in with the Department of External Affairs. I am pretty sure that is what the Government is doing, despite the Hon. Member assuring me that that is what it was not doing. I am sure he thought that that is what it was not doing.
None of the relevant Ministers in the new Department of External Affairs are here tonight. One of them peeked in for a moment and left. I guess he really does not care what is happening to this hydra which is being created in the Department of External Affairs. However, I think one of the real worries of the new Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley), who is here tonight, would be that while there may have been an absence of co-ordination in the past between DREE and Industry, the absence of co-ordination in the future between Industry, Trade and Commerce will be enormous and probably far more serious.
Some of the officials to whom we spoke in the Committee on External Affairs did point out the great difficulty they would have in Trade and Commerce, in that section of the new Department of External Affairs, because they would not have as intimate and close a relationship with their domestic industrial base and their clients, their constituents, so to speak, whereas when it was all together in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, people engaged in export promotion, trade and so on, did have a pretty close tie-in with the industrial sectors of the country which they were anxious to see becoming more competitive on the world market.
Therefore, one of the toughest problems the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion will face is the very tie-in with one's industrial contituency that the old Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had. I am sure that he will agree that that will be a problem. However, I want to talk primarily about the Department of External Affairs Act because it is an abomination. There are many parts to it which ought to be repealed. Let me name a few of those parts.
This Act, originally Bill C-123, was given first reading almost a year ago on June 30, 1982. The Government has had all that time in which it could have seen the inadequacies and horrendous mistakes made in the section headed Department of External Affairs Act and made changes.
It has made other changes. It withdrew the regional incentives part from the original Bill C-123 which the Minister has now introduced separately. The Government has withdrawn the financial administration part which will be dealt with separately. While the Government has been dealing with this hydra-headed monster, I see that it did not remove the section entitled the Parliamentary Secretary's Act. I will return to that question. Yet it did not make any changes whatsoever to Part I which is the Department of External Affairs Act. As an example of the inadequacies of this Bill, we first have the Secretary of State for External Affairs as we do today. We then have two additional Ministers, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for External Relations, both of
whom carry out their duties under the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The powers, duties and functions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are outlined in detail in Clause 11. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister for International Trade are outlined in Clause 12. However, there is absolutely nothing about the duties and powers of the third Minister, the Minister for External Relations. To bring forward a statute creating a new Minister for External Relations and having nothing in the statute about his powers and duties is, to me, absolutely incredible.
I have been trying to understand this Bill since it has been presented as a fait accompli and the Minister for External Relations has already been operating. 1 have been trying to understand what he is doing. I have read the press releases and have listened to him in the House. If the abysmal speech he made the other day when debating the Cruise missile testing during Opposition day was an example of what he is doing, then I am even more confused about what his role is supposed to be.
I would say that there is no way a statute creating a new Minister which does not indicate what his duties are should go through the House. Therefore, I would suggest that the first action should be to abolish that position. I will return to the issue of international trade, but I believe that we should abolish the position of Minister for External Relations. I hope that will be done in Committee of the Whole. Indeed, this Bill should go to the relevant standing committees because it needs much more attention than can possibly be given in Committee of the Whole.
Let me deal with the undersecretaries. We have always had an undersecretary of state for External Affairs in Canada who is the deputy head of the Department. We will now have three associate undersecretaries, positions which in fact already exist. As I said, this legislation is a fait accompli. We have talked to those undersecretaries in committee. One position is for an associate undersecretary to the Minister of State for International Trade, who is a deputy. The second is to be a deputy to the Minister in charge of foreign policy. Incidentally, he is referred to here as the Minister for Foreign Policy and elsewhere he is called the Minister for External Relations. The Government has not even figured out what the title will be. Since we do not know what the Minister will do, how are we to know what the deputy is supposed to do? Therefore, that section must be abolished when we deal with this Bill in committee.
The reason that I am looking at the Hon. Minister for the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is that I know he shares my concerns. He just has not been heard in Cabinet, which I find amazing, because he should be heard.
The Minister and the House will also know that there is a third associate undersecretary of state who is to be "the coordinator of international economic relations." He will have the rank and status of a deputy head of the Department. I have not been able to find an explanation here or anywhere else as to what he will do.
June 22, 1983

Another fascinating problem from the point of view of a student of public administration is that each of these Ministers, the Secretary of State and the other two Ministers have an undersecretary or deputy and an associate. It is not clear whether they respond to their own Minister in the case of the deputies or whether they respond to the undersecretary of state, who then responds to the Secretary of State who, in turn, informs the other Ministers what it is they have been responding about. There is simply no clarification in this area at all. Other Members here who were at the committee will agree that we tried to clarify that in committee. The Government is going to establish committees to help it decide who will respond to whom and why. As I say, any student of public administration looking at this monster would have a field day. If I only had an hour I could go on.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Take it.


Pauline Jewett: Thank you. I will take that as unanimous consent.
At that stage the Act finishes dealing with Ministers, deputies and so on. It does not go into any detail in this Department. Miss McDougall has pointed out that although consolidation is not a bad idea in some ways-


Mr. Lapointe (Charlevoix):: She recommended it.


Pauline Jewett: Not quite. You are quite wrong. What she recommended is not what was being done. In fact, I had a long talk with her recently.


Charles Lapointe: Read the report.


Pauline Jewett: Listen, you are the one who nobody knows what you are doing.
In any event, let me deal with the assistant undersecretaries. There have always been six assistant undersecretaries, which seemed quite sufficient for the Department of External Affairs. They have now been increased to 42 assistant undersecretaries. I will not go on about that subject or the McDougall report at this time because the External Affairs Act does not deal with assistant undersecretaries. I am simply illustrating the fact that this entire measure is in a very sorry state. People's responsibilities are overlapping and they are having great difficulty in determining who is supposed to be doing what.
As I have suggested, we must abolish the position of Minister of External Relations, his deputy and the co-ordinator for international economic relations. No one knows what he is supposed to do.
I would like to proceed to the question of the division of Industry, Trade and Commerce and including Trade and Commerce in External Affairs. I realize that time should be given to determine how it would work out but one of my reservations, and indeed that of the Deputy Minister as expressed in committee, is over breaking the linkage between industry in this country and trade and commerce that this development will involve. I am also concerned because I think it is better to have trade and commerce quite separately represented at Cabinet. People may say that the Minister is
Government Organization Act, 1983
separate from the Secretary of State, but that is not entirely so. The Minister should not only have close links with industry in the country but remain quite separate and equal in status. I would sooner have that than have him occupy a position in the Department of External Affairs which would not be as strong if he were an equal, but nevertheless will be strong enough for him to inject into the foreign policies of the country an extremely strong bias on the trade side.
Canada, as we have said a million times, is a trading nation. Therefore we must have a very strong trade side, strong export promotion, and so on, in the Government of Canada. But it would be a grave mistake when we consider the kinds of foreign policy initiatives which Canada has taken in the past and will take in the future-Canada may not be taking many today but it is taking a few; it has suddenly realized that Central America is there, for example-to put great emphasis upon our external appearance and thrust into the promotion of trade and commerce. We may very seriously undermine other policy directions, whether they be in human rights, peacekeeping or whatever the Department of External Affairs ordinarily conducts.
This may percolate through the whole Department. There are absolutely first class trade commissioners in the trade commissioner service; as we all know, a great many of them are first class. They are not primarily, nor should they be, people who have to embrace the totality of Canadian foreign policy. Yet, under the planned administration of the new Department of External Affairs, including Trade and Commerce, as I understand it from talking with many of the officials, they will in fact be one of the interchangeable streams within the Department which will have to take on many other functions than the trade promotion function. Because of their strength as trade people, I am not sure that they are really able to be, with a few exceptions, capable of a broad representation of Canadian foreign policy rather than simply Canadian trade abroad. I am worried that they will not do that.
Ideally, I would like us to drop this part of the Bill for both the reasons I have given. It seems to me that this reorganization will not do anything which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion could not have done. It would remove the link which I think is important between industry, trade and commerce and will give the whole Department of External Affairs, or a large part of it, a very trade and commercially oriented salience. This would be very seriously to the detriment of the salience of the Department which most of us have seen in the past and would like to continue to see. Therefore, this means a very major change. In fact, it pretty well revokes Part I and Part II. I guess we will just revoke them. That leaves us with Part IV, which was Part VI in the original Bill.
It is obvious that Part IV cannot remain. It would be very condescending of me even to address this since I am sure it is

June 22, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
obvious to all Hon. Members of the House. In fact, this is the part which allows four new parliamentary secretaries, for some unearthly reason, to be drawn from the other place as well as from the House of Commons.
Just tonight I was glad to see one little parliamentary secretary here, but not one of the three relevant Ministers. If this Bill had been passed, we would not even have had him. I am sure one of the gentlemen in the Upper House would be dying to be parliamentary secretary, so we would not even have one body here to answer our questions and address the Bill. However, it is not only for that reason that we need to have a parliamentary secretary in the House. Frequently Ministers are not here even on matters as important as this one; it is mind-boggling. There is another very good reason. As much as we admire the Senators in the other place, particularly in their work on committees and so on, they are not elected and do not represent any constituencies in Canada. Therefore, they should not be occupying a position, which should be of some importance, as a parliamentary secretary. There goes Part VI. Now, what do we have left? We abolish Part I and Part II.


Blaine Allen Thacker: They would fall asleep on us.


Pauline Jewett: Yes. I guess we could keep Part III, and out goes Part IV. As has been suggested by other Hon. Members, if the Government-and I am being very serious now-really wants to bring Members of the House of Commons and indeed of the Senate into greater prominence in the field of external affairs generally, trade and commerce, foreign policy, defence, and so on, the way to do it would be by strengthening committees. A small beginning has been made, but it seems to me to be very small. It will be extremely difficult for the committees to create their own terms of reference. To strengthen the Chairs of committees, their membership and their powers, would be a good idea, rather than adding more parliamentary secretaries.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but her allotted time has expired.


Mr. Roche:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken. Has she taken note of the clause in the Bill which provides that the Minister shall lay before Parliament on the fifth sitting day after January 31 each year the annual report of the Department of External Affairs?
As a result of the rules under which we are now operating, that report would automatically be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I should like to have the Hon. Member's views as to how that report should be treated with respect to an examination of foreign policy by the Standing Committee with special reference to the calling of witnesses, and how the Hon. Member sees Members of Parliament on that Committee examining the conduct of foreign policy via the annual report?


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, it looks in Clause 14 as if the Committee might at least receive the annual report more
quickly than the average Member of Parliament now sees it, because it indicates for the previous fiscal year on or before January 31.1 have a feeling that much of it will be out of date, in a sense, in terms of some of the events and activities the Committee will want to examine, and that the report will not be helpful in the area of current problems the Standing Committee will want to examine.
Nevertheless, it is certainly an advance. The Cl DA report should be there as well, but Cl DA was not created by an Act of Parliament. It is an advance over what we have now, I would agree, and the Committee should be able to determine the needs by interviewing witnesses, holding hearings on the report and perhaps even engaging in travel. Particularly as we get more and more concerned about the actual administration of the Department of External Affairs as well as its policy, travel may be necessary as well.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I have a question which concerns CIDA. Bearing in mind that the Government Organization Act specifically empowers the chief Minister of this triumvirate to have control and supervision of the Canadian International Development Agency, is there not an anomaly that the report of CIDA will not be required to be tabled so that Hon. Members can examine the implementation of CIDA policy in the way which we will presumably be able to examine the conduct of foreign policy via the External Affairs report?


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I agree entirely with the Hon. Member. There should be some way, since CIDA lacks statutory authority and does not come under the new rules, to ensure that CIDA's annual reports, indeed all its major reports, are made available to the committee at its request.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member, who has obviously spent some time on this and has heard witnesses. My question relates to her comment that much of this was unearthly. I agree. Star Wars was nothing compared to the departmental wars that this statute talks about. That is really what is happening. We all know how everybody is opposed to Finance, because it is so powerful. We know External had a battle with ITC and ITC lost. We recently had a Bill called Canagrex, which really was a battle between Agriculture and ITC. ITC lost again, and Agriculture won. Would the Hon. Member share her comments and view as to how much of this Bill reflects a battle between Departments and the fact that the Ministers are totally irrelevant?


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, that would be speculative. I did suggest that the splitting of ITC seemed in a sense to be, or was seen at that time to be, a victory for Trade and Commerce. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was renamed the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion simply to accommodate that split. As I said before, DREE could have done anything that DRIE can do.
As far as the winners and losers are concerned, I am not sure. On the one hand, the Department of Regional Industrial
June 22, 1983

Expansion will be at a serious disadvantage not having links with Trade and Commerce. On the other hand, the Department of External Affairs will be seriously disadvantaged by having too dominant a Trade and Commerce within it. Beyond that it is extremely difficult to speculate.
I am very concerned about the whole problem of co-ordinating. One speaker on the Government side mentioned there could be seconding. He mentioned that the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion could give the same service to the business community that that would be done by seconding between External Affairs, which now includes Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. My knowledge and experience in public administration is that that will not work. Therefore, there is a lot to be unravelled.
Mir. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):
Madam Speaker, I would like to spend a few minutes dealing with the second part of this Bill which creates the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. It will replace the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. When you look at in terms of names, it does not make a lot of difference. However, in terms of how the delivery system will work, it can make a great deal of difference.
The most redeeming feature is that we have a bit of hindsight because the Bill is being enacted retroactively, after the reorganization has occurred. That is not an entirely unusual situation. It has occurred with almost every new Government that has been elected in this nation. Another redeeming feature is the person who occupies the position of Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. To date he has shown that he is sensitive to the regions of Canada and to the industrial expansion of those regions. He is the only good reason I can think of for supporting this Bill because I have seen him in action.
I was very much opposed to the idea when it first appeared. However, I have had opportunity to deal with the results of the reorganization. I believe we can have a better delivery system with fewer encumbrances. The Government of Canada will be able to act in a much more expeditious and reasonable manner, without having to take into consideration the political machinations to which the Government of Canada was almost continuously subjected by the Provinces.
In New Brunswick, under DREE we had a number of development agreements covering various parts of the Province. It made the Province look somewhat like a checkerboard or hopscotch board. You could jump from one part of an area to another which had the ability to take advantage of the incentives. Two miles away, and maybe even half a mile away, there were no incentives available.
Government Organization Act, 1983
I want to express the hope that the intention of this Bill is to make it possible for a much better delivery of the economic incentives that the Government is prepared to offer to those companies, firms or individuals that are prepared to take some risk in establishing industries of one type or another, industries that will employ local people and produce goods locally and which will improve the industrial base and the ability to market in those areas of the country that to date have been left behind.
We know that the vast majority of industrial activity in this country is centred in Ontario. I do not believe there is anything wrong with Ontario being industrialized. However, there is a great deal wrong if there are only one or two areas of the country that can be industrialized. I believe that this and any successive Government must have as its prime responsibility redressing the problem of employment opportunities through industrial development in every part of this nation. No part of this nation needs that more than the Gaspe and the Atlantic Provinces.
It is convenient for a lot of people to forget that when Confederation came about, the Atlantic region was the industrialized area of Canada. It is very convenient for Deputy Ministers who spend all or most of their time in Ottawa to forget that. It will be very difficult for this Minister to forget it because I intend to remind him constantly that we were industrialized. I do not claim that the policy of Macdonald was wrong. I cannot remember any experiences from that era. However, the industrial policy, the centralization policies of his Government, destroyed the industries of Atlantic Canada. We must make every possible effort to rebuild that.
The Government of Canada has a very special responsibility to see that every possible incentive is put in place for any individual, industry or corporation wishing to establish. I would go further than that. I would say that the Government of Canada must use a great deal of persuasion to insist that industry in this country in its expansion plans looks at areas of the country other than southwestern Ontario and the Montreal region. It is absolutely imperative that Canadians who live in the rest of Canada should be able to take part in the new industrial growth, the new technological growth, the new scientific growth and the new educational growth in the country. To do otherwise would be an abrogation of the responsibility of the Government, and I hope that that will be taken seriously, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it is now ten o'clock and, pursuant to an order passed earlier this day, I must adjourn the House until two o'clock tomorrow.
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 23, 1983