1983-10-04

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 3, 1983, consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 32 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was explaining the problem that we saw in the position being taken by both the Government and the Official Opposition with regard to the amendment we have placed before the House. If Your Honour will recall, 1 was expressing my concern over the fact that once again the Conservative Party has joined with the Government to defeat what was no doubt in the best interests of western grain farmers. I was trying to make the plea, if it were possible, to the Conservatives to rethink this allegiance that they have developed with the Liberal Party of Canada, and to stand up foursquare on behalf of the farmers of Canada. I say it not only with a straight face but also with a very heavy heart, because as I look at the Conservative Party I cannot believe the duplicity that I see and hear coming from their spokesman.
Our intent, quite clearly, is to assert the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of grain.


An Hon. Member:: You intend to kill the Bill.


Ian Deans: One of the Tories has mentioned that our intent is to kill the Bill. I want to make it quite clear that that is indeed our intent. I do not want to leave any doubt about that in the minds of anyone. I know the Conservatives want the Bill to pass, but we, recognizing the tremendous hardship that this measure will bring upon the grain farmers of the Prairies, believe that the Bill should not pass. In coming to that conclusion we have put before the House, on numerous occasions, the proposal that the Bill be divided in such a way as to allow the upgrading of the railroads and ports and to allow for proceeding with the disposition of the coal lands, while we could go on to deal with the question of how those things
should be financed other than through an increased cost to the farmers of prairie Canada.
I am sorry the Conservatives do not see fit to support us. I am sorry that they say one thing in Alberta, a different thing in Saskatchewan, something quite different again in Manitoba and a fourth different thing in the House of Commons. I want to suggest to them that if they could get their act together, it might be beneficial to the farmers of western Canada, rather than going around pretending to be all things to all people.
What we are saying is that the Bill as it now stands with the clause that we are attempting to amend would erode the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. That ability of the Wheat Board to control the movement of grain through the grain car fleet is an essential requirement of the Wheat Board's operations.
We recognize that in 1979 the Conservatives attempted to erode that ability and they did in fact do so. But the Conservatives have been trying to shift that responsibility from the Wheat Board for a long time. That is to the detriment of the Wheat Board, the Canadian prairie farmer and our ability to export that very vital commodity as well as being to the detriment of the Conservative Party.
Let me suggest that without the control we are concerned about being in the hands of the Wheat Board, the block system would certainly be in jeopardy. The block shipping system is essential if we are to continue to be effective in terms of international wheat sales for years to come.
Frankly, we are worried that if the Bill in its present form is allowed to pass-given that we are now aware that the Tories will not support us in our opposition to the Bill-it will have a lasting detrimental effect. That opinion is not only our own but the analysis of many who are even more learned in the matter than we. Their opinion is that the future of the Canadian prairie farmer and his ability to grow and sell wheat for export markets will be placed in serious jeopardy. Because of those concerns we would frankly urge the Government not to heed the Tory support in this case, to pay attention to what we are suggesting and adopt it as part of the policy.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the Crow Bill today. 1 have followed the debate with a great deal of interest and I have heard a lot of nonsense spoken on the subject.


Mr. Lewis:: The previous speaker?
27702

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Lynn McDonald: Not from the previous speaker but from some of the fellows to my right. I have heard a great deal of nonsense spoken and some of the worst was actually said outside the House by the new Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney), who implied in Saskatchewan that the NDP has come rather late into the Crow fight when we know very well that it is the Conservative Party that made the about-face in the summer and began to support us.
We in this caucus have been fighting this Bill very vigorously. That includes all of us in the Party whether there are large numbers of farmers in our ridings or whether we are concerned about the transportation aspect; it does not matter if we come from city or country ridings. I gave two speeches on transportation issues in June because transportation is a national issue, as agriculture is a national issue.
The effects of the Crow Bill in my riding are indirect. We know that if the Bill is passed and the rate goes up, farmers will have $1 billion less to spend. In turn, that will affect the people in my riding because they work in industries with very high lay-offs already. Consumer spending cuts mean that there will be more lay-offs. People who work in the textile industries will see fewer people buying their goods. People manufacturing farm equipment will find that farmers will not be able to buy as much. That industry in particular has been very badly affected. This is an issue for people all across the country.
The amendment before us today is very practical and is one that I believe we should all support. It is simply to ensure that the person in charge of grain transportation will be an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board. This amendment supports efficiency and good sense. The Canadian Wheat Board must control the shipment of wheat because it is Canada's wheat farmers who will suffer when the system does not work efficiently.
Let me quote from some of the testimony that was given to the committee dealing with this very subject. We heard from witnesses and members of the committee regarding the element of confusion with the variety of agencies involved in the whole issue, and we have a number of agencies overlapping authority and jurisdictions. The amendment is designed to reduce that confusion and to reduce, if not eliminate, overlapping in two Crown agencies. It will modestly increase and strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been the view of three Wheat Pools, the National Farmers' Union and a number of individuals who appeared before the committee that the jurisdiction for this kind of an agency should remain with and be under the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board, like any sales organization, must control shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For these reasons the Board has always held the view that over-all control of the system as it is developed, in co-ordination with the total grain industry, should be administered by the Board.
One wonders why, with this eminent good sense and the advice of the people most concerned and most knowledgeable about the problem, the Tories are not supporting this amendment. We get preaching about efficiency, we get preaching about good co-ordination from them, but when we come to a practical problem and to something that really needs to be done, where are they? Perhaps the Tories want to have a lot more confusion here. Why are they not after the most efficient solution to the problem before us?
Let me continue with testimony that came to the Standing Committee on Transport:
Today we are facing the very real possibility that the agency or a new agency with expanded powers and a powerful administrator will take powers away from the board and inevitably damage its sales efforts.
"It is imperative that grain sales and grain transportation not be separated", said one of the main experts who came before the committee this summer. The Canadian Wheat Board must be able to arrange transportation of its own product or it cannot fulfil its obligations to western grain producers or their customers overseas. The board's marketing success depends upon its ability to make day by day or even hour by hour decisions on grain movement. Its flexibility must not be compromised.
What needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. We have had the advice of the people who work in the system. The testimony I cited just a moment ago is from a person who served as a Wheat Board Commissioner for many years. Why are the Conservatives not prepared to take this advice? Will the Liberals finally accept some sensible advice from the community they claim to be serving?
Let me continue:
We have a group of individuals in the Grain Transportation Authority and in Transport Canada whose abstract economic principles tell them that the grain industry has gone the wrong way over the past 100 years. They want to see the transportation system in a certain configuration and they except farmers, the grain companies, the Wheat Board and the Wheat Board's customers to adjust to accommodate it.
I suggest the reverse approach be taken. Let the transportation system develop to meet the needs of the people who are using it. That is the approach that makes real economic sense, and the Government should allow it to proceed by keeping bureaucracy out of the grain business. The Government has repeatedly stated that it will not remove existing responsibilities of the Canadian Wheat Board-
Yet it proposes to open the door to this by expanding the authority of this transportation agency. That is talking out of both sides of one's mouth, and it is not acceptable.
My Party will continue to work for amendments to this Bill. We want to see the Bill split. We want to see the constructive, productive parts of the Crow Bill go ahead, but we will certainly fight as hard and as long as we can on the parts that we do not want, the ill thought out parts, the parts where we have obfuscation and where there are inefficiencies right now. There is a great deal to be done to amend this Bill, and we intend to continue bringing in amendments to get a better Bill.
Of course we will support the aspects of the Bill that will provide jobs and improve the transportation system. Of course we will support those parts of the Bill that will enable development of the coal fields in British Columbia. There is good and there is bad in the Bill; distinctions have to be made. We will most vigorously continue to oppose those parts of the Bill
October 4, 1983

which will be damaging to the farm community across the country and will have a very harmful long-term effect on the rest of the economy, as a slack in consumer demand means a slack in demand for products made in the cities of our country.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth occasion I have spoken on what the Government is trying to do to the Crowsnest Pass rates. 1 rise again, but not with any great pleasure, because of the damaging effect the Government's proposal will have on the farming community and on the economic structure and fabric of Canada.
When I first became involved in the Crow rate, as most other Members from urban communities, I did so without any great, deep knowledge about the impact of the Government's measures on the economic fabric of the country. It was with the great assistance, deep knowledge and concern of Members of my own caucus, such as the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), that my knowledge and awareness of the impact of this particular Bill have been increased. They have done a tremendous job in the House in terms of representing the concerns of the farming community. Although the Official Opposition and the Government do not seem to realize it, the farming community plays a tremendous role in the economic life of the country. In fact, it is one of the largest generators of wealth of any group in Canada.
As the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) just mentioned, undoubtedly the measures proposed in the Bill will take away some $1 billion in earnings from the farming community. This will have a tremendous effect on spin-off industries which rely heavily on Canadian farmers for their livelihood. I know many people in my riding who work in such industrial enterprises as Massey-Ferguson. Undoubtedly they will feel the effects of this Bill. If farmers do not have the money, if they have less earnings to spend on the items manufactured by Massey-Ferguson, for example, then obviously there will be further cutbacks in the farm implements industry and there will be inevitable reductions in industries such as herbicide manufacturing and that kind of thing. It not only affects farmers in the country; it will affect consumers and people involved in industrial enterprises. The impact of those measures will be felt right across the country.
The intent of this particular amendment is to assert the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of grain. The reason my Party put forward this amendment was because the Bill, as it stands, would erode the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. The ability of the Wheat Board to control the grain car fleet is essential.
We all know that without control the block shipping system will be severely hampered. The block system permits the Board to ship grains of a specified grade or quality or a blend of grades and qualities to meet the needs of its customers. Without this ability, sales of Canadian grains for export by the Wheat Board could suffer. Certainly our competitive position
Western Grain Transportation Act would be weakened. Giving authority over the grain fleet to another agency adds an extra and unnecessary level of bureaucracy to the shipping procedure. This has been the experience with the Grain Transportation Authority since 1980. The movement of grain could be delayed by having an outside agency, without the day to day knowledge of sales and the grades, quantities and location of grains in storage, assume control of the grain car fleet.
The Wheat Board must be able to call the grain it needs, when it needs it, and be able to assign cars to the points where it knows it is stored. To fill this need, an outside agency such as the one proposed in this Bill could do nothing more than pass on the orders of the Wheat Board, unchanged, to the railroad. Certainly that has been the experience of the Grain Transportation Authority. This is obviously a useless procedure and it should be made clear that the board has control of the grain car fleet.
The House is well aware of the high esteem in which Mr. Justice Emmett Hall is held across the country, and of his inquiries into the medicare system and his authoritative knowledge of the Crowsnest Pass rate. Mr. Justice Hall appeared before the Transport Committee when it held public hearings in Regina on August 9, 1983. In his testimony before that Committee, he said and I quote:
The producers of western Canada are concerned about the ultimate fate of the Wheat Board. It is true that not too much is said about the Wheat Board in Bill C-155, but the beginnings are there and the capacity of the Wheat Board to control the grain fleet is being interfered with by the provisions of the bill. The capacity of the Wheat Board to control the wheat fleet is absolutely necessary. I hope the Wheat Board appears before you, and they will corroborate that statement, I am sure, because to meet a given sale the Wheat Board has to have grain, whether it is barley or oats, of a certain quality, of a certain grade.
I do not know, but if you went in, you would see that they have a wall there the length of this one which shows where all the grain in western Canada is and its grade. They have it so that they can call if they have a sale of so many thousand tonnes of whest of a certain quality; they know that it is either in the Regina district or maybe Edmonton or somewhere else. And to meet that, they are able to say to the railways that is where you want to get the grain this week and bring it to Vancouver or Thunder Bay. They have to be able to call the grain they need. If that were to go, it would interfere with the sales capacity and ability of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Earlier I spoke about the dramatic effects that the amendments which the Government is proposing to the Crowsnest Pass rate will have not only on the farming community but on consumers across the country. As my colleagues in the House have pointed out both during Question Period and in speeches on this Bill, there is hardly anything that the Government could even come close to calling a consensus across the country to support what the Government is attempting to do here. An editorial on February 4 of this year in the Toronto Star listed a number of things the Government is trying to do. I quote one part of that editorial:
Despite the opposition of provincial governments and of virtually every responsible farm group on the prairies, the federal government intends to unilaterally and drastically restructure the Crowsnest Pass Agreement. And if the Crow dies, the funerals of many western communities may follow . ..

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
As Western Canada sees it, the Crow is part of a Confederation bargain. Western Canada got low, fixed freight rates in return for agreeing to pay high import tariffs protecting eastern industries. Since then, the Crow's fixed rate-a half cent per ton-mile-has allowed our western farmers to compete for exports, from their land-locked position, with the transportation-subsidized farmers of Argentina, Australia,-
1 see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Keep going.


Neil Young: My colleague suggests that 1 keep on going but 1 think it is sufficient to say that the Toronto Star editorial expresses the concerns of members of this Party, the concerns of farmers of the country and certainly the concerns that consumers right across the country will have once they fully understand the impact of the Government's measures.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be afforded the opportunity to join in the debate. As my colleagues have pointed out, it is interesting to note that the Tories do not have much to say here although they are frequently travelling across the country telling everyone how much they dislike growing bureaucracies. Yet they are, through silence and, I suppose, through their ultimate vote on Motion No. 32, indicating that they really want an increased bureaucracy. In a few moments I will deal with the reasons for that.
As our transportation critic pointed out yesterday, the Tories had 51 opportunities to speak on this motion on Friday and they chose to put up only seven speakers. I think that that really indicates what faint-hearted efforts they are making to support the western farmers who desire to see the Crow Bill scrapped and who desire to see that any changes that are made are in the interests of farmers.
The intent, Mr. Speaker, of Motion No. 32 is to assert the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of grain. As it stands now, the Bill would erode the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board and that is certainly the view that is taken by one of Canada's foremost authorities on this subject, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. Having read the Crow legislation, Mr. Justice Hall has concluded that if it is to proceed as it stands, not only will the farming community be dealt with rather destructively but the Canadian Wheat Board would be very quickly eroded.
I think that most farmers and most Canadians know that the Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 and had three key responsibilities. One was to market principally wheat, barley and oats, the second was to provide price stabilization for farmers for those grains which were held by annual pooling, and the third was to attempt to assure every farmer a portion of the available market every year. I believe that all of us in the House are now aware that the changes that would occur as a result of the Crow legislation would dramatically affect the movement of grain and the viability of many rural farms. 1 will speak about that in terms of the Kai Report in a few moments.
I would like to deal with the concept of the Grain Transportation Administrator for a few moments, Mr. Speaker. I think
most of us in the House remember that it was not too long ago that Mr. Horner, who was a Tory, crossed to the Government side in an attempt to achieve some kind of status that he was looking for. That move indicated at that time the Liberal-Tory alliance that existed on certain transportation matters.
I do not think we have to look too far into the Tory caucus to see who the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) would like to appoint to the new Grain Transportation Administrator position. He would probably like to appoint the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and that is perhaps why the Tories are not speaking about this. The Tories say that they are opposed to expanding bureaucracy, but this proposal by the Government does precisely that. It erodes the decisionmaking authority of the Canadian Wheat Board by adding to it this unusual appendage. It is pretty clear that a Tory has made a deal with the Government side in order to take a shot at that job. If it is not the Hon. Member for Vegreville, perhaps Jack Horner, with the difficulties he is having with CN, is looking for another job to carry him on into the next decade.
It is imperative that grain sales and grain transportation not be separated, as is being proposed by the Government. 1 know that in Prince Rupert, one of the communities I represent, the present system is working very well. As a matter of fact, last year we again set records for shipments. Many Hon. Members know that there is a $3 million grain elevator being built in Prince Rupert right now that would perhaps be devastated by the proposed Crow changes.
The railways and certain individuals in the private grain trade, persons like Jack Horner and Otto Lang, I suppose, would dearly love to see more bureaucracy to allow for more high-paying employment for unemployable Liberal and Tory hacks such as themselves. The railroads should be set up to meet the needs of the people and the producers rather than adjusting its schedules and shipments for the convenience of the bureaucracy of the railroads and certain private individuals.
I mentioned a few moments ago that I would refer to the Kai Report. That is a report which deals specifically with grain production subsidies. I would like to talk about a few of the comments made in that consulting report in regard to this specific amendment. The report states on page 17: "Western Canadian wheat's international competitiveness is diminished by the relative generosity afforded the American product". The report points out that on average, U.S. wheat subsidies are $11.41 per tonne whereas Canadian wheat subsidies are $6.35 per tonne.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. In the Chair's opinion, the Hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the amendment at hand. Perhaps the Hon. Member could indicate to the Chair in what way his remarks are relevant, if in fact they are.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that if 1 am discussing what will happen in terms of the erosion of the Canadian Wheat Board because of the Liberal-Tory proposal
October 4, 1983

for a kind of subsidiary organization, I need to demonstrate why the Canadian Wheat Board is required to remain in its present and untarnished position without an auxiliary transportation administration. If this auxiliary transportation administration were to be set up, rural Canadian farmers would be negatively impacted by the changes in the Crow and would perhaps be less likely to be in a position to move grain. This is not only because another administration would be set up but because the cost of the subsidies presently in place in the Bill will make the situation that much more difficult in the future.
If you give me a moment, Mr. Speaker, I will demonstrate through the subsidies why it is important that the Canadian Wheat Board maintain the function of organizing what grains are to be moved and when, rather than have a subsidiary associated with the grain transportation administration proposal perform that function.
Western Canadian wheat earned 41 cents out of every grain export dollar, wheareas in the United States grain only earned 16 cents out of every grain export dollar. I think most Hon. Members recognize that the Government has made various proposals in recent years. For example, in 1977 a proposal was made in terms of the branch line subsidies. As of last year, those subsidies amounted to $278 million. As Mr. Justice Emmett Hall has pointed out, the federal Government was forced to introduce, even after bringing in a direct subsidy program, a branch line rehabilitation program which now costs us hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
I am saying that the Crow change will increase the cost of moving grain to farmers by over 400 per cent. If the government is to put this Bill forward as it now stands, including the concept that a grain transportation co-ordinator would take over part of the job of the Canadian Wheat Board, a great many rural Canadian producers will be negatively impacted because the Administrator will be making his decisions about what cars will go where and when, on what line and to what port, using different criteria from that used by the Canadian Wheat Board.
As I have said, the Canadian Wheat Board has demonstrated real expertise, at least in terms of the Port of Prince Rupert and hopefully in terms of the future of the Port of Prince Rupert. I feel that the creation of this subsidiary position will simply add another political, bureaucratic, decision-making body that is completely unnecessary.


An Hon. Member:: A pork barrel.


James Ross Fulton: That is right; it is simply a pork barrel.
The 1971 to 1982 average subsidy proportionally in Canada was 4 per cent, as compared to that in the United States which was 8.6 per cent and that of the European Economic Community which was 10.5 per cent. The United States and the EEC are clearly operating with a much greater level of subsidy to farmers.
As concluded in the Kai Report, the consequences of the unilateral changes will be to reduce grain production and grain
Western Grain Transportation Act
exports. I think we in the House must ask ourselves what kind of legislation would be introduced that would do that in a world that is already hungry for an export that is so beneficial to the Canadian balance of trade. In this trade, Canada exported over $6 billion worth last year alone.
The Crow change, Mr. Speaker, would take $1 billion a year away from farmers, an increase of more than 400 per cent by 1990. For example, this would have the devastating effect on farmers in British Columbia of a net drop in income of about 30 per cent. The addition of this supposedly beneficial position of Grain Transportation Co-ordinator would not bring anything like the long standing benefit that we have experienced with the Canadian Wheat Board. The Kai Report concludes that because Canadian farm income is lower and more variable, Canadian farms are less viable than their foreign counterparts.
On that point I should like to hear members of the Tory Party or of the Government explain how the addition of this bureaucratic position, separate from the Canadian Wheat Board, would in any way be of benefit to rural producers in the efficient and equitable movement of grain, whether to Thunder Bay, Churchill, Prince Rupert or Vancouver. From any of the evidence given at committee or any of the speeches made in the House, I have been unable to identify any way in which this would benefit anyone other than the appointment of some Tory or Liberal to this pork barrel position. It is of no benefit to the Canadian economy or the Canadian producer.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the amendment that a number of members of the New Democratic Party have addressed.
Before I begin my comments, may I say that I think the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is not only very loose with his words but his tactics are very questionable when dealing with the truth. He likes to raise certain issues and talks about deals when he obviously has not done any research on them. Because he does not know what to do with the last paragraph of his written speech, he decides to put something in that he knows nothing about. He should get back to dealing with the amendment that is before the House.
The argument is always made by the NDP that they are the only ones to support the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Althouse:: It is true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They have certain hallmarks for those of us who come from the Prairies. Every time they hear the name, they have a Pavlovian dog-type reaction. Every time they hear the name the Canadian Wheat Board, they are for it and everybody else is against it. That is their first reaction, but nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. They are so divided in their policies, so divided in their leadership and so worried about the next election that they have these knee-jerk reactions. We have seen that again today. The NDP has never

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
been in government in Canada and, with the actions they are taking, they never will be.
It must be remembered that this Party brought in the Canadian Wheat Board and this Party supported and defended the Canadian Wheat Board. The NDP has never had the opportunity to strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board. They have a good line of talk, of course. Those of us who come from the Prairies know that the ultimate reactionaries out there are the ladies and gentlemen to my left, the NDP. They seem to think that the only way they are going to get to power is to recall the 1930s. That seems to be their argument. They will rail against everyone.
Time and time again we see members of the NDP defend the status quo even though, through individual decisions, many farmers have gone well beyond that point. If we were to follow their line of thinking as the ultimate reactionaries, we would give ultimate authority for the right to move all grain to the railway companies. But the NDP members are always speaking out against the railway companies. You want the railways to have the ultimate and exclusive right of movement of all grain. When have you defended any movement by trucking? When has any member of the NDP done that?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We didn't tell anybody to carry the bags, either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. First of all, I would invite the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair, and then I would invite him to speak to the amendment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As always, Mr. Speaker, I take your advice and thank you for asking the NDP to be quiet.
The amendment before us is based on very solid experience. All of us know that in 1975, 1976 and 1977 we were losing sales because we were not moving enough grain. There were bottlenecks. When the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) had responsibility as Minister of Transport, after extensive hearings in the country led by the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), he came to the conclusion that there was a need to establish a Grain Transportation Authority, a Co-ordinator, in order that the cars be put to the best use in the movement of grain.
When members of the NDP spoke about this amendment, I never heard them speak of eastern Manitoba where there is a limited number of elevators, or where they are opening up new lines in areas where traditionally grain had not been grown. Some farmers have to travel 50 or 100 miles to elevator points at the moment.
What is the solution? What did we do? What have they done? They turned to producer cars. There is no question that in eastern Manitoba the Grain Transportation Authority, the Grain Co-ordinator, helped get producer cars. But did we hear anything from the NDP about that? They did not want producer cars and we must ask the reason for this. Then we get back to the ultimate reactionaries. In other words, that which
has not been done before has to be wrong because it has not been done before! That is the position they always take.
All across the Prairies we see farmers making decisions based on economics and common sense; that is a rational approach. They decide how they can become viable and remain viable. That is why I call the NDP the ultimate reactionaries: no matter how they twist and turn, they always come back to that which has been established as ultimately good.
In discussions on the Bill and the amendment I have yet to hear the NDP say how much money eastern Manitoba will receive from the $651 million Crow rate benefit for the maintenance of branch lines. I have asked them about that but they do not know.


Mr. Benjamin:: All you need.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All we need! Have you looked at the branch line system? You will find that they are main lines.


Neil Young: You shut them down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The $651 million is not going to be used for the main lines. Farmers in Manitoba happen to be some 400 miles away from the Lakehead. Should they not have the right to move some of their grain by truck? We do not hear about that from the NDP. Again, I say they are the ultimate reactionaries; every time they look at the reality they have what I call the Pavlovian dog reaction: every time they hear certain words they react in the same way. They do not look at the reality of the situation.
The point that has to be made about the NDP amendment is that, once again, that Party is willing to take the chance of having bottlenecks, of losing grain sales, of not moving grain and of reducing the alternatives. That, Mr. Speaker, is what they want. We will again have those long lines in front of elevator doors. We will again have a farmer standing there from the middle of the night to the next day, only to find out that the elevator is full and he has to pay demurrage charges. That is what they want, Mr. Speaker. They might not say that is what they want, but let me tell you that their position, their policies and their amendments will do just that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind if they continue to live in the 1930s. I do not mind if they want to be the ultimate reactionaries. But I will not let them give this House and the country the message that that is the reality on the Prairies. It is not. What farmers on the Prairies want today is an efficient transportation system. One component was the GTA, and I say to the NDP that they had better start living in the 1980s or they are again going to be defeated as they have always been in the past.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I lived through the 1930s as a young boy and I am very glad to know
October 4, 1983

that the NDP, which grew up in the 1930s, or at least they had short pants in the 1930s, have suddenly come to defend the Wheat Board. Who in the world originated the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker? Why did they originate the Wheat Board? It was the Conservative Government that saved the pools, my friend from the NDP, so 1 have no apologies to make for standing up here.
I notice the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) taking off and the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). All of a sudden it begins to register on them. They of all people should know something about the situation in western Canada.
You can make a lot of speeches in this House, Mr. Speaker, and as long as you are talking to a bunch of Liberals who do not have a clue what it is all about, as long as you have the representation in the NDP with only two Members with any remote relationship to the Wheat Board, then I suppose it is safe enough for you to say anything.
Our Party does not have that kind of representation. Fortunately, our Party has representation from rural parts of Canada and we are familiar with what has happened. We know what the Wheat Board stands for. The brother of the man who heads the Wheat Board is in my constituency, for your information, and I will be darned if 1 am going to go out there and talk against a voter of mine.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: I know he has an impact with his brother. I do not care how you look at it, for us even to consider that he needs one more helper is an affront to him. I do not think he needs it. He is a very capable man, in my estimation. I think the NDP, in their valiant efforts to latch on to something, have come to the support of the Wheat Board. They have had to because all they have to latch on to is a few representations, a few farm organizations coming forward and telling them, oh yes, we need this and we need that. They do not have a clue what is behind the whole thing. But they say on the surface that yes, that is it. They have no research or no idea of what is behind the whole thing.
I know what the Wheat Board did for us, and I have no apologies to make nor do 1 stand here to condemn the Wheat Board. But I do condemn the NDP for thinking that all of a sudden, by their phony amendments, they can come forward and think they are going to strengthen the Wheat Board or make it appear as if the Conservative Party is opposed to the Wheat Board.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Phony amendments, that is right.


Stanley James Korchinski: How can we possibly be opposed to the Wheat Board when we were the originators of the Wheat Board? If they want to take us back to the 1930s, let us go back to the 1930s and let the world know who it was that was responsible for the Wheat Board. You know, Mr. Speaker, that most of the social legislation was originated by the
Western Grain Transportation Act Conservative Government, contrary to what the Liberals have been telling us up until now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: They have been in power, yes, and as a result they have had the opportunity. We have heard all that. Of course, over a period of years, what can you do? But the fact is that the original thought came from the Conservative Party.


Mr. Lapierre:: But no action.


Stanley James Korchinski: You had better live with that.
Getting back to the notion of another employee of the Canadian Wheat Board-


Mr. McKnight:: The Board never even asked for that help.


Stanley James Korchinski: My friend from Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) says they did not ask for it. Of course, that is because they are powerful enough as it is. So why are they trying to introduce an amendment which is supposed to do something but really does nothing? What do they expect one extra employee to do, overrule their friends? You really have to go a mile here to imagine what this amendment is going to do.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It does away with two bosses, Stan.


Stanley James Korchinski: I just cannot imagine who dreamed up this amendment for my friend. Unfortunately he comes from Saskatchewan, but why would he even want to introduce that except that he was desperate for an amendment? I do not know where that idea came from, where it is going or for whom it is intended.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You should have been here yesterday and heard the speeches.


Neil Young: We are waiting to hear you speak. We have not heard you.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have one more minute but I wish the mikes were turned on for everyone of those 15 jabbering commentators over there.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There are only six.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sorry, I said 15. Well, they are so far away, and I am getting to that age; there are only six.


Neil Young: Tories never could count.


Stanley James Korchinski: What is the point of this debate? It is just an exercise in futility. I think Madam Speaker should have ruled the whole matter out of order, frankly, because it does not really add anything of substance to the Bill. It is a waste of time even to discuss this kind of thing. Maybe that is what

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
their intention was and, if so, let us tell them what it really is. They are playing around with the Wheat Board.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 6 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
(d) promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrange-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the role of the Administrator to negotiate reciprocal arrangements between railroad companies. The important words are "to promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements". The clause now simply states that the Administrator may "promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers". The amendment would insert the words "promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements". Again, the key words are "to promote a reliable, efficient and effective transportation system", but also in the interest of "maximizing returns to the producers".
I might point out that it was our Party that incorporated the word "reliable" and the phrase "for the purpose of maximizing returns to the producers". As I and other Hon. Members have pointed out previously, the mention of producers and the interests and concerns of producers was an absent entity in terms of the Bill. Therefore, this provision would put some teeth into the clause and give the Administrator the power to
demand, if it were necessary and in the best interests of maximizing returns to the producers, that he engage in reciprocal and other arrangements between the two railroad companies, or more railway companies if others are included in it. Therefore, it would be more than simply the persuasive powers that the Administrator now has under this clause if it were to remain as it is at present.
What are "reciprocal and other arrangements"? For the benefit of Hon. Members who did not sit during the course of the committee's legal counsel as "arrangements between railway companies", the most prominent type being that the railway of one company would operate over the lines of another company either for a temporary period or for the carriage of only one kind of traffic. He went on to point out that there are now occasions when there are voluntary reciprocal arrangements made, when there is a landslide or a rock-slide, but there is really nothing to encourage the use of reciprocal arrangements, particularly when one can move grain more efficiently in a more cost-effective manner. What we tried to do in the course of the committee hearing was to try to determine what sort of powers this gave the Administrator, and we found that it was really nothing more than simple persuasion.
Therefore, concerning the clause, I asked a question of Mr., Thompson, the committee's legal counsel, in this way:
I am trying to relate this to the movement of grain, Mr. Thompson. If this objective were to be fulfilled, would it be fair to assume that possibly you could see CP trains running on CN track up to Churchill and CP trains running on CN track up to Prince Rupert? Is that really what would be envisioned in this?
Mr. Thompson replied as follows:
No, in this proposal here the verb is the word promote.
He pointed out, "That is not binding, of course." I went on to ask:
But assuming that the word promote were removed and something more in the form of a directive were put in . .. that you could see the kind of situation that I just described?
He responded by saying, "That is right". Therefore, I went on to say:
-the word promote really renders that clause meaningless, other than that one could go through the gestures of promoting without having any residual power to enforce it.
Mr. Thompson replied as follows:
I guess it would be understood that the administrator would promote measures to facilitate the efficient movement of grain and among those some might, under certain circumstances, be reciprocal on other arrangements between companies.
I do not think this clause is necessary. I do not think it does any harm but I do not think it is necessary, because surely this is part of the kind of work that the administrator would do anyway.
What our legal counsel said is that it is really a meaningless clause in its present form. It has no teeth and no clout. What we are trying to do again, in our commitment and our desire to ensure that we have an effective, efficient and reliable grain transportation system functioning in the best interests of the producers, is to give the Administrator the power to more than simply promote, even though the NDP believe that the Administrator is really a nonentity. If necessary, the railways should be required to engage in reciprocal arrangements.
October 4,1983	__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Throughout the course of the committee hearings we demonstrated the need to incorporate the necessity of maintaining producers' interests at all times. We moved amendments to Clauses 29(2), 18, 33 and 38. Throughout the course of our committee hearings we found it to be quite obvious that the Bill was written as a very favourable mechanism to the railroads. The major beneficiary in the whole Bill is the railroads. The benefactors will be the people of Canada, the taxpayers and, indeed, the producers.
We think that in every case possible it is important to inject the requirement that any efficiencies or economies of scale that can accrue must be incorporated. There must be someone to ensure that those economies of scale are brought about, because in this regime there is really a cost-plus system. Quite frankly, the railways will be paid for all their costs involving the movement of grain, and the higher the costs, the more they will receive. When there is this kind of cost-plus regime in place, we must ensure that there are some disciplines in the marketplace. Since there is a monopoly here, that cannot take place, so there must be some other monitoring device. Hopefully, the Administrator and the Senior Grain Transportation Committee would fill that role, but they must have the tools with which to do the job.
Of course, the whole business of an effective and reliable grain transportation system is brought about as a result of the production of the producers. As we have pointed out time and time again, they were the forgotton persons in this whole exercise. In amendments such as this we are trying to incorporate ways and means in which the producers' interests will be preserved. If we really mean what we say when we talk about an efficient and cost-effective system, we must use every mechanism to ensure that we get the best bang for the buck. As the Bill now stands, with the railways recovering all of their costs plus a 20 per cent mark-up for profit, it is certainly not in their interest to cut costs. It is in their interest to add costs. I believe these kinds of disciplines must be put into place.
I am disappointed that members on the Government side did not see fit to support this amendment during the course of the committee hearings. I believe it is a good amendment and consistent with what we should be trying to achieve in terms of establishing a very lean and cost-effective system. Unless there is the power to force the railroads to engage in these kinds of reciprocal arrangements which would serve the best interests of the grain industry and the producers, it will simply not occur.
I think the Administrator needs more than simply the power to promote. He must have the power to demand if it is deemed necessary and in the best interests of the grain industry and the producers.
I commend this motion to the House for support and I am sure that when Members understand and witness the kind of regime that we have in place they will see that it is certainly one small step toward incorporating some discipline which would hopefully accrue finally to the benefit of the producers.
Western Grain Transportation Act


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, this amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was designed because of the fear that most of us-including members on the Government side who attended and heard witnesses at approximately 66 committee hearings during the summer months-have that the rationale behind this Bill has been distorted at some point.
This Bill began some 18 months ago as one which would benefit the grain producers in western Canada and adequately compensate the railroads for the movement of that grain. As debate and study in this Bill progressed, it became increasingly evident to us and to members of the Government who were on the committee that the railroads had, if not undue influence in drafting this Bill, at least the ability and financial and human resources to voice their desires and needs. Their influence was used to give them the ability to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Canadian treasury without any provision in the Bill to make the railroads perform in the best interests of the grain producers and provide for a maximum return on the shipment of their product.
The amendment by the Hon. Member for Vegreville simply states that when the Administrator put forward a proposal that would allow the railroads to enter into reciprocal agreements that were in the best interests of the producers to mazimize their returns, he could require the railroads to enter into that agreement.
When one looks at the Bill and sees the railroads' past performance, it is quite evident that the railroads jealously guard their own lines and the ability to move grain along their own roadbeds. They would rather not enter into agreements that would benefit the farmers if those trains were taken off their own lines. Therefore, it made common sense to us that if additional taxpayer dollars are to be put at the disposal of the railroads, they would have to accept the responsibility under legislation to maximize the returns to the producers. All of the discussions, commitments, press releases, grandiose schemes and promises that have been made by the railroads during debate on Bill C-155 are old news to grain producers in western Canada. It is an old story which goes back ten years.
When decisions were made on the railways that would either benefit the farmers or the shareholders of Canadian Pacific or Canadian National, who happen to be the people of Canada, those decisions always were to the benefit of the railroads and not the producers of grain. A review of this Bill leads us to believe that the railroads should be required to enter into agreements that would benefit producers in order to protect their rights and at least ensure some measure of effective cost return for the taxpayers of Canada on their commitments to the railroads.
It is strange that Canadians have historically-particularly during the last 18 months of public discussion and debate on this Bill-assumed that the railways are one great charitable organization which only moves grain because of the nature of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. People seem to believe that they are charitable in providing this service for the

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
benefit of the producers and, while they do not like it, only do so because they are national companies, and should do so.
But that is not the reason. The reason they have been moving grain and will continue to move grain, and the reason they are pleased with Bill C-155 as it exists, is that they will make money. It is not with a sense of national interest but because of the prospect of reward that they will do so. That is fine, let the railroads be rewarded, but in return let there be some guarantees in this Bill for the taxpayers of Canada.
I believe it was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) who talked about iron-clad agreements. But we only talked about iron-clad agreements. We find that this Bill does not provide the statutory powers to require the railroads to function in the best interests of producers, maximize their returns and use the taxpayers' money economically. For that reason we have introduced several amendments that would require the railroads to perform in those interests. That is why we will be supporting the amendment when it comes to a vote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we dealt with this subject at some length in the committee. Many witnesses spoke to this matter and members of the committee discussed this Bill clause by clause. I believe there was certainly an implied agreement among all members from all sides in the committee that further steps had to be taken than in the past on how the railroads deal with one another and how it should be for the benefit of the railway users as well.
We support Motion No. 33. For many years shippers generally thought that the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act provided sufficient safeguards that the CTC, the Minister and the courts could require certain things of the railroads. Too often we found they could not, would not or did not. We have seen for too many years, at the expense of shippers, in this instance, grain shippers, the spectacle of the railways not wanting and even refusing to handle one another's traffic, to the detriment of ports like Churchill and Prince Rupert and even on the odd occasion to the detriment of Thunder Bay or Vancouver. When the Canadian Wheat Board needed a large volume of a certain grade and quality of one kind of grain and it had to be drawn from many places on the Prairies, marshalled and got to the coast or Thunder Bay, the railroad's refusal to have reciprocal arrangements to take traffic on one another's tracks meant it took that much longer for the grain to get to its destination. And all in the name of what? In the name of so-called competition.
Competition in the railway system in Canada has always meant higher costs for taxpayers and for the users of the railways. Since the railways are a public utility, they should be treated as such and they should be accountable as such. It is something that everyone has to use directly or indirectly. Railways are natural monopolies. In that kind of circumstance, competition has no place. If it were logical to have competing railroads, it would be equally logical to have competing highways, competing sewer and water systems, telephone and
power lines. If you were to suggest that, they would run you out of town or laugh you out of town. The economic and social logic of having competing railroads, competing public utilities, has always escaped me and many thousands of other Canadians. Certainly in many other countries they got rid of that mythology of the 1890s railway barons many years ago. All countries in western Europe of all political stripes gave up on the idea of competing railway systems decades and decades ago.
I said it meant higher costs, Mr. Speaker. It means higher costs for users. It means interchange charges, switching charges. It means duplicated facilities, the cost of which plus the railroads' profit is built into their freight rates, which users have to pay.
We have had spectacles and I would like to illustrate. Take grain loaded on a CN line in my friend's constituency of Assiniboia destined for Vancouver. What happens to it? That CN line is southwest of Moose Jaw. The grain is hauled back northeast to Moose Jaw. It is destined for the west but it is hauled northeast back to Moose Jaw. Then it is hauled east from Moose Jaw to Regina. Then it is taken northwest from Regina to Saskatoon. Then it starts going west to Vancouver. In the meantime it has crossed two CPR railway lines. That is called a back haul. Those back hauls have meant millions of dollars in costs to the Canadian Wheat Board, money which has come out of the grain producers' pockets.
That is the worst form of competition. It is competition backwards. Whatever validity there is to competition, it sure is not valid in that kind of circumstance. Other members in this House from western Canada will be able to illustrate countless other situations similar to that.
This legislation, if it passes, means that no matter how the money is paid out, whether Government money is paid to the railroads or paid to the producers, or paid partially to the railroads and partially to the producers, the railroads still get the money. In fact, we submit that if all the money were paid to the producers, it would cost the producers even more. In any case, no matter how it is paid out, the railroads still get the money. This extra money guarantees not only their long run variable costs, their out of pocket costs including maintenance and depreciation, but it also guarantees them a 22 per cent to 25 per cent return on investment. That is pretty nice. Most of us would be happy if we could get a 9 per cent, 10 per cent or 11 per cent return which means, compounded over five years, double your money. But the railroads get a guaranteed 22 per cent.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, I ask any reasonable person in this House how much more willing and ready will the railroads be to enter into a reciprocal agreement using one another's lines or one another's equipment, or taking over traffic from one railroad on to another, and yet not get the benefit of all that money? Just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, the railways will be even more reluctant to enter into reciprocal agreements. It is all very well to promote it, as is called for in this legislation; you can promote it until you are blue in the face but it is not about to happen. Even
October 4, 1983

though it is in the national interest, even though it is in the interest of Canadian exports, even though it is in the interest of the grain producers, the railroads will not be ready, willing and able to enter into reciprocal arrangements and lose out on those guaranteed profits. You can bet on it, Mr. Speaker. Unless the railroads are required to enter into reciprocal arrangements, they will not do it. Even the voluntary arrangements that are in effect now will be in severe jeopardy.
If a railway comes to a rock slide in the mountains and it is figured that it will take only six or seven days to get the track cleared and back in shape, you will hear it said "To heck with it". Say it happened on a CN track. CN will say: "To heck with it; we will hold the grain for six or seven days until the rock slide is cleared up so we can move the grain over our lines and collect all the charges". That will be done instead of diverting the grain on to a CP line and getting the goods to Vancouver six days sooner.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), said: "Well, the railroads are in this to make a buck and we do not object to that as long as you get the service". You can bet on it that they are in it to make a buck. If it means fouling up service for a few days in order for the railroad to clutch on to all the possible revenues itself, that is exactly what will happen. That is the responsibility and the mandate of the railway management.
The former Minister of Transport in 1974 wrote a letter to the board of directors and management of Canadian National instructing them to start making money. Ever since then we have been losing branch lines and service. That is the result of that so-called operating in a business like way-in business for Canada-which has been at the expense of too many Canadians.
We think this is a good amendment, Mr. Speaker. We hope the Government will agree that whoever is in authority, whether the Grain Transportation Administrator is an employee of the Wheat Board or not, he should have the authority, when the railroads will not agree voluntarily, to darn well make them. There should be no horsing around or appealing to the CTC or the Minister. They should be given two choices. If they will not do it voluntarily, give them two other choices-it is either compulsory or they have to do it. Then we will get even better results in the movement of grain in western Canada.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 33 in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) deals with the duties and functions of the Administrator under Clause 17(d) which reads:
-promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers.
The amendment would strike out line 6 at page 8 and substitute the following therefor:
"(d) promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrange-".
Western Grain Transportation Act This motion reinforces and strengthens the position of the Administrator to require from the railroads reciprocal agreements that would be in the best interests of the primary producers.
We have heard much in the last few days from Members of the New Democratic Party regarding their position, that they represent primary producers. They have gone to great lengths to try to discredit Conservatives in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Wheat Pools in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and so on. Quite frankly, they have fallen very flat on that score.
As the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) said earlier, most Conservative Members, if not all, ran their campaigns on the basis of supporting a strong Canadian Wheat Board. I remember the ads in my 1979 campaign- "Len Gustafson works for western Canada and a strong Canadian Wheat Board". We have heard all the rhetoric of the last few days. We have finally got down to an amendment which carries with it some direction to the Bill and provides a strengthened position for primary producers. It would require some accountability on the part of the railroads as far as producers are concerned.
Last weekend the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party spoke very ably in Regina and Saskatoon. He brought out the importance of the ability of producers to pay. That deals with the whole area of protecting producers. If producers find themselves in a position where freight rate increases are unbearable and where railroads are not accountable to the Transportation Committee regarding costing and so on, we will find ourselves, as producers, in a very difficult position. This is what the whole Bill is about.
In dealing with this type of amendment, we must keep in mind that it certainly protects primary producers. There are more commodities moving on the railroads than grain. For example, we have coal, steel, automobiles, potash and a number of other commodities being transported on railroads. It is most important at this point, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville mentioned, that there be accountability and a requirement-"and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements"-for the purpose of maximizing returns to primary producers.
In closing, I want to say that we in the Progressive Conservative Party stand fast on defending primary producers, on accountability of railroads to them, and on a position which will strengthen their ability to produce grain and ship it.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to comprehend why the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is trying to bring in another amendment to subclause (d) when we already accepted two of his amendments in committee. We accepted the word "reliable"-"to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain". We also accepted the words "for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers". I think we have a clause which meets the intent of the Bill. The Hon.

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Member's present amendment really moves against the intent of the Bill.
I find it somewhat strange that this amendment comes from a Party whose Leader is going across the country wanting to restore free enterprise. The same Party brings in amendments to manage the affairs of CP and CN; it almost wants to manage the affairs of private companies. It is difficult to understand why this amendment would come from the Conservative Party. I could understand if it came from the New Democratic Party but not from the Progressive Conservative Party.
The clause, as it now stands, allows the railways to enter into reciprocal arrangements facilitated by the Administrator, but the amendment of the mover would authorize the GTA to demand that the companies enter into reciprocal arrangements. I thought these were the powers vested in the CTC. Is the Hon. Member telling us that he wants the GTA to have greater power than the CTC? I do not think so.
1 thought the Hon. Member would withdraw this amendment if he thought it through carefully. He said that legal counsel advised that the clause was not necessary. If the clause is not necessary, legal counsel should have advised the Hon. Member to delete the clause, not bring in amendments. If the clause is not necessary, the advice should have been to delete it, not amend it.
Our legal counsel told us that this amendment would contravene a basic tenet of the Railway Act under which the railways are free to enter into traffic, commercial and operating arrangements, with the Government agency acting as arbitrator. Under this amendment the Government agency would impose an arrangement and establish conditions. If we force two or more parties into an arrangement and they do not really want to honour it, they will not honour it. If the Administrator can promote the parties coming into an arrangement, then I think they will honour it.
I think the wording as it is is far superior to what the Hon. Member is trying to bring in. The Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) was a little worried because the railways might "make a buck". Again I find that strange coming from a Party which is promoting free enterprise and competition. What is wrong with companies wanting to make a buck if these additional dollars are reinvested in the transportation system to give us a first-class transportation system for the movement of grain and other commodities?
A witness appeared before the committee who said that when countries like Japan buy goods from Canada, one of the things they check into is whether Canada will be able to deliver that product to port and to their country on time and in good condition. If we have a first-class transportation system, which is what the Bill wants to provide over the next decade, then Pacific Rim countries will buy more from Canada and will want to trade more with Canada.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) asked why the railways did not go into reciprocal arrangements now.
I think that up until now it has not been profitable for the
railways to move grain. Therefore, they wanted no part of transporting grain. They preferred that another railway system would take over. Under this Bill it will be profitable to move grain just as it is profitable to move coal, sulphur and other products. These profits will be reinvested in the system.
We know that over the next decade CN and CP will be investing $16.5 billion. Translated into jobs, this means 375,000 person-years of work. Every day in Question Period Opposition Parties demand that the Government do something about creating long-term jobs. What better program or what better investment for creating jobs than Bill C-155?
Many witnesses told us the Bill was not perfect. It is a complicated Bill. Some groups wanted these amendments, some groups wanted others. However, the majority of the witnesses told the committee to get on with it because it is good for the economy of the country, because it will create that many jobs.
I appeal to both Parties to call the question and get on with this Bill. I have stated our reasons why we cannot support this amendment. Let us not waste time in this House as there are too many unemployed people in Canada who are waiting for this Bill.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to speak following the Parliamentary Secretary. In fact, it is interesting to speak following any Government Member because none of them has seen fit to get up and speak very often to defend this Bill and make the case for the position they have taken. Therefore, I am pleased to have this opportunity.
I am disappointed that we have not heard from the Chief Government Whip on this Bill. He is a very straightforward gentleman. I have had the opportunity to sit with him on the Transport Committee many times. His position, knowledge and experience is long standing and will be very useful as far as the railways are concerned. Therefore, I would know his position on this amendment.
I want to deal with some of the concerns addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary. He talked about this Party being inconsistent in the sense that it should not be moving an amendment like this when our Leader talks about free enterprise. I should not have to remind him that it was the same Parliamentary Secretary at committee who turned down our freedom of choice amendment which would have given rise to some options within free enterprise. It would have put some of the decision-making power in the hands of the individual producers in this country. If he had wanted to do something beside speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he would have taken a consistent position at committee.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the Member is continuing his remarks, will he explain to this Chamber whether this freedom of choice means retaining the Crow rate?
October 4, 1983


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we had 66 Transport Committee meetings. I think he attended a good number, if not all. That was explained at length at committee. If the Hon. Member did not understand it in 66 meetings because his head is that thick,
1 do not think I will have much success doing that in ten minutes.
Very simply, all that the rate freeze meant was that we were not going to increase costs to producers for at least the next three years. We said that a billion dollars a year for the railways from the Government coffers for the next three years was enough. The investment part that was going to go ahead and the jobs that would be created, supposedly by investment by the railways, would come about as a result of the Government pumping in $1 billion a year. We thought that the producer should not have to contribute in the meantime.
It is interesting to note that at committee on Tuesday, September 13, if memory serves me, this Parliamentary Secretary berated us and bemoaned the fact that we were all over the place because we were talking about cost of capital for the railways and their constant costs. He was saying that was terrible, that we should not deprive the railways of that money. The next evening he came forward with a Government amendment which said it would look into the cost of capital. We were saying essentially the same thing, except we came down on the side of the producers. We said that when the review process was under way, the producers should not be asked to pay any more. When the Government is conducting the review process, it does not care about the producers; it just looks after the railways and in the meantime asks the producers to pay more.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked in glowing terms about all the jobs that this will create. That may be true. However, what is the point of creating a lot of jobs in the mountains by building passes when you are going to chase 30,000 or 40,000 producers on the Prairies out of business? What kind of sense does that make? Those are the kinds of figures that we heard when we travelled the Prairies this summer. When talking about jobs, let us be consistent.
If you chase farmers off their farms because you have put them out of business, they will move to the cities. The farmers will not be out of work, it will be the people in the cities. When farmers move to towns or cities, they get jobs. It is a well known fact that they displace other people. That can be backed up in any city in the country. If someone hiring has the opportunity to hire someone with a farm background, that is who they hire. The farmer will not be out of work. When the Parliamentary Secretary talks about creating jobs, he should understand what this Bill may do to prairie agriculture and the jobs it will cost.
We talk about all the money that the railways need to go ahead and invest in building the mountains, to create the extra capacity and finance the double-tracking. I refer to what was said on July 12 by Wood Gundy concerning Canadian Pacific Limited. 1 will read one paragraph entitled "CP Earnings":
Given its leverage to enterprises and the significant effect of the Crow revision, we expect CP to enjoy record earnings in 1985. However, like enterprise, the turn will be gradual'in 1983 with anticipated earnings per share of
Western Grain Transportation Act
$2.90 versus $2.60 in 1982. However, for 1984 and 1985 respective earnings of $6.50 and $10 should slay any notions that Canada's largest corporation is less than dynamic.
The point made throughout the four-page review is that the revision of the Crow rate will have a substantial effect on CP shares. It will drive them up. It is suggested that they will have record earnings in 1984 and 1985.


Jesse Philip Flis: What's wrong with that?


Charles James Mayer: There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with making a buck; I would be the last to bemoan that fact. 1 am saying that if you want to be consistent and not talk out of both sides of your mouth, be concerned about the producers whom we heard from when we travelled. When they tell us on one hand that they are going to go out of business, and on the other hand we hear that CP is going to have record earnings, where is the equity? If Members representing western agriculture do not point that out, they are being less than honest and derelict in their duties. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to talk about jobs, he should do that in the complete context.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair does not question the validity of the Hon. Member's remarks, but 1 do raise some question as their relevancy to the amendment now being debated. Perhaps the Hon. Member can indicate in what way this is strictly relevant to the amendment.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, in my view it is extremely relevant because basically this Bill is written for the railways. It is a regulatory Bill. If you are going to pay railways based on regulations and on their costs, there should be something in the Bill to require the railways to keep their costs as low as possible. 1 am pointing out how inconsistent the Parliamentary Secretary is. As a result of this Bill and because it is so favourable to the railways, Wood Gundy points out that CP will have record earnings. Producers have told us they will have difficulty staying in business as a result of this Bill. This amendment speaks to putting some efficiency into the Bill as far as the railways are concerned, therefore holding down costs to the producers, hopefully not letting CP shares go as high as they might according to this report, and in the meantime saving tax dollars. I think 1 am making a very relevant point in terms of this amendment.
If you would like some more convincing, Mr. Speaker, allow me some more time and I would be more than pleased to go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I appreciate the Hon. Member's attempt to convince the Chair that his comments are strictly relevant to the amendment. However, the Chair must remind him that we are now debating an amendment respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator. At the report stage in the House, debate must be much more formal and relevant than it generally is in standing commit-

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
tees. It is in that sense that I invite the Eton. Member to come to the point.


Charles James Mayer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly take your admonition although I somewhat regret that you used the word "attempt". By that, 1 take it that I have not totally convinced you. At any rate, I thank you very much for your guidance.
Let me simply refer specifically to the amendment. It would remove paragraph (d) of Clause 17 on page 8 of the Bill and would simply substitute the following words: "promote, and shall require," which is compulsory, but, "if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements" as far as the railways are concerned. I think that is entirely in order.
There is nothing totally compelling about it. It does not say that the Administrator shall, under all circumstances and under any conceivable condition, require the railroads to reciprocate as far as running rights are concerned. It simply reads to "promote", and that entails a whole range of things.
It goes on to read, "and shall require", and I think the key words are "if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements". I see that as being entirely consistent with what the Bill should do. As I said, the Bill should promote efficiencies within the system, keep costs down to the producer and also hopefully save the taxpayers money, because this is an entirely regulated system.
I am not accusing the railways of being devious or anything else, but if the regulations are set up so that the railways can run circuitous routes, that may in fact be exactly what the railways will do. If there are ways for the railways to take less than direct routes and keep their costs higher than would normally be the case if there were reciprocal arrangements, I think there is nothing wrong with the Administrator being in the position to enforce that kind of reciprocal arrangement. That is exactly what this amendment attempts to do.
I really do not understand why the Government should be so concerned about this amendment. As I said, the motion reads: "promote, and shall require," and the key words are "if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements". Then it goes on. I do not see anything that is inconsistent with the free enterprise system and I do not see anything that would indicate that this Party is being inconsistent. In fact, the whole Bill is totally regulatory.
One of the things that we on this side attempted at committee was to get rid of some of these arrangements that were totally regulatory in order to free up the system and allow truckers and the individual producer to have a part to play. The Government turned that down so we are now saying that we should at least give the Administrator some powers to force the railways to be efficient.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that he does not understand this. I can understand that. He finds it difficult to understand because he lives in High Park. He has made a big deal about being born in either Wakaw or Cudworth in Saskatchewan. I cannot remember which town, but I am familiar with that area.


Jesse Philip Flis: Try Wadena.


Charles James Mayer: Excuse me, Wadena. That is the same general area of Saskatchewan. I can understand that he does not understand it because he did not grow up in that part of the country. He does not understand the railways. He did not have a chance to deliver grain and load cars through elevators. When he says he does not understand, I would suspect it is because he does not have an understanding of the way the railways work.
When talking about this amendment, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about why the railways should not have to be subject to some of the powers of the Administrator. The reasoning is that the railways need to make money because the railways will turn around and invest that money. We know very well that that is not the case because officials of the railways told us in committee that there was no guarantee that this money would go to specific investments. They told us that the money would go into general revenues. In fact, I think officials of one or both of the railways issued press releases last spring indicating that their intention to invest money would not now come about because of the downturn in traffic. They were not planning on investing as much money this current year as had originally been intended.
The railways are going to make a lot of money as a result of this Bill which is so generous to them, but there is no guarantee that their officials will take that money and invest it in the way that we need it to be invested. The railways have good intentions and we know that, but there is no iron-clad guarantee. We are attempting to give the Administrator some teeth so that he may do what he thinks is right in terms of holding down the costs to the producers and in the process hold down some of the costs to the public treasury.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what is really at issue in this amendment, which we certainly intend to support, is why the railroads should give up a long trip for a short trip. Certainly the experience in Prince Rupert over the years has been that where and when possible the railways have been somewhat reticent to provide the required number of cars to the existing grain elevators in Prince Rupert. One of the largest and most efficient grain elevators, not only in Canada but in the world, is now being constructed and it is certainly our expectation that, because of the Crow Bill as it now reads, there is a possibility, if not a probability, that there will be shortages in the supply of grain to the Port of Prince Rupert.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the amendment contravenes the powers of the CTC and the Railway Act. I do not believe the Government has taken care to analyse and evaluate what the probability of grain shipments and deliveries will be under the Crow Bill. It is pretty clear that it is in the interest of CN and CP to take their time and to use the longest route possible rather than the shortest. That is clearly how the railways will be making money.
The substantive addition that the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) has suggested is the addition of the word "require", so that the clause would read:
October 4, 1983

"promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements" between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to the producers.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that officials of the railways will take the initiative to make as much money as they can by holding cars on sidings or by not shifting them on to shorter routes. From our point of view, it is clear that the powers should be under the Canadian Wheat Board rather than under a completely separate jurisdiction; but I dealt with that when 1 spoke earlier.
The significance of adding to the clause the requirement for reciprocal arrangements is that in order to improve the efficiency of the grain handling system, we want very much to allow for more interchange between the CP and CN systems to get the railways working together for shorter hauls and quicker delivery of grain. Each railway has track that is better served by interconnection with the oher system, yet only in the most exceptional circumstances do the systems acknowledge let alone co-operate with each other. That is the point that I think members on this side have been trying to make to the Parliamentary Secretary and to others.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the CTC and the Railway Act already have those powers. We have seen over the last 20, 30 or 40 years that those powers have simply not been used in an effective and efficient manner. We say that there should be some kind of sensible consolidation of authority, if not under the Wheat Board, then perhaps under some other agency. When the Wheat Board effectively tries to administer what grains will go where, when and with which contracts, which cars, which lines, when and to where, it makes a great deal of sense to consolidate all of that authority under one regime.
It also makes sense to ensure that either the Wheat Board or some other agency has the legal capacity to require reciprocal arrangements and not simply to promote them. Officials of the Wheat Board or the GTA could simply phone officials of CN or CP and say that they would like another 500 cars for Prince Rupert or another 1,000 cars for Vancouver. The rail lines could start moving those cars and simply put them off on a sideline for a while. It is not good enough to have the power to promote. That agency must have the ability to require.
The motion to enhance the authority of the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator over the railways specifically gives that Administrator the power to direct the railroads to exchange carloads of grains where such exchanges increase the efficiency of moving grain to export position. While we in this Party have argued that there is no effective need for an additional bureaucracy such as the Grain Transportation Agency and that the Administrator already has too much power in the sense that his powers encroach upon those of the Canadian Wheat Board, this is a good amendment and should be supported particularly by Government members.
No matter what public agency has control over the transportation of grain-we will find out in a few weeks exactly which agency that will be, whether it be the Wheat Board or the Canadian Grain Transportation Agency-it should have the
ability to direct the railways to exchange cars in order to promote efficiency.
I see that it is now one o'clock. 1 will carry on this afternoon. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that there is considerable pressure and a movement afoot by multinational drug companies to pressure the Government to rescind the manufacture and sale of generic drugs in favour of the more expensive brand name drugs.
Generic drugs, Madam Speaker, are just as effective as brand name drugs but cost a great deal less, which means that consumers can save millions of dollars every year.
As well, Madam Speaker, many more people are employed by generic manufacturers-all Canadian companies-rather than by the subsidiaries of foreign drug firms.
There is ample evidence as well that Canadians need the competition provided by the generic firms. Individuals who pay for their own prescriptions, including senior citizens, can save money. So can all taxpayers because the provincial Governments pay for the drugs used in hospitals, and for drugs for the elderly and the needy.
Before the Patent Act was amended in 1969 to allow the availability of generic drugs, Canada had about the highest drug prices in the world. Now they are among the lowest. I urge the Government for the sake of all Canadians not to take any action to change this.
* *
*



AIR SAFETY


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Robert Buck, chairman of the commission which praised Air

October 4, 1983
Canada for its safety standards, while at the same time refusing to release the details of the study because it was to remain confidential and the property of Air Canada, said, as reported in The Globe and Mail on September 30, "You shouldn't have a bastard bunch of airplanes mixed in with the whole fleet, but that is a political issue (for Canada) as I understand it. It's unfortunate that you have one group of planes that is metric and one group that is not."
On September 19 I rose and asked for a public inquiry into the crash landing of an Air Canada Boeing 767 at Gimli, Manitoba. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) responded, saying, "If the opposition were to co-operate we could get that legislation through very quickly-" and, presumably, out of committee. We did co-operate and the legislation is out of committee, but we are still waiting for it to appear in the House in order that we can have public inquiries into these kinds of accidents.
The Canadian people will not be happy now that they have learned that this clean bill of health for Air Canada's safety is a result of a seven-man commission appointed by the president of Air Canada, with five of the seven members of the commission being salaried employees of the Boeing Aircraft Company.
How serious does an accident have to be if Canada is to have a public inquiry? Will the Government listen to the air pilots and the air traffic controllers, and hold off air travel in metric until the world associations determine it is safe to change to metric?



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia has objected to a $20,000 federal grant to the Vancouver Island Human Rights Committee on the ground that it will be used to overthrow the Government.
When the provincial Government first cut back on human rights it did so in the name of financial restraint. It now appears that the Socreds fear human rights as a threat to their stay in power. In a sense they are right. Whenever people learn to value their own humanity and to stand up for their own rights, they pose a threat to all mean spirited and repressive governments.
In the same way, the Socreds object to federal funding for self-help centres for the unemployed. These centres provide basic counselling for workers and their families who suffer from the trauma of unemployment. They operate community food banks. Right now they are beginning to organize Christmas hampers and gifts for families who would otherwise do without.
The Socreds fear that when unemployed workers get together they will talk and discuss the basic reasons for their
unemployment. The neo-neanderthals fear the full humanity of all people who co-operate to better their own lives and who organize and plan for better communities. Considering the federal Government's failure to solve the problem of unemployment, it has a continuing responsibility to fund these self-help centres, and not be spooked by Socred fears.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is a great concern to Members of Parliament in all Parties that the City of Winnipeg has decided by a very narrow vote in city council to hold a referendum on French language rights during the municipal elections next month. The wording of the proposed referendum is so complex and so ambiguous that many people may not understand the purpose of the vote.
The intent of the provincial legislation which prompted Winnipeg City Council to hold this referendum is not to ram French down the throats of Manitobans, nor to make it a necessary criterion of advancement in business or in the civil service of that Province for people to speak French as well as English. Rather, it is to provide some provincial services in French to Franco-Manitobans, and to comply with Section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which was a condition under which Manitoba entered Confederation.
All Canadians are hoping that the citizens of Winnipeg will uphold the Canadian traditions of tolerance, fairness, and multicultural understanding, when they mark their ballots on October 26.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the House that this is Private Property Week, a national observance sponsored by the Canadian Real Estate Association and its 50,000 members across the country.
1 trust all members will endorse the purpose of the observance which is to remind Canadians of their existing rights and responsibilities. It is also to remind them that when encroachments on property, through all manner of laws and regulations, are always increasing, property rights cannot be taken for granted.
At the same time we know that property rights in Canada could and should be strengthened through an amendment that would entrench them in the Charter of Rights. I have seen some fine words from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pledging his support both for the purposes of this week and for the amendment. If the Government is serious about adding
October 4, 1983

this fundamental right to the Charter, it will introduce a property rights resolution to the House, with the usual planning, so that it can be dealt with properly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, having recently returned from Sri Lanka 1 have witnessed and discussed with Sri Lankans the result of inter-communal violence in that nation.
The barbarous nature of man has emerged and demonstrated the worst of its most basic elements, in a state considered to be educated, enlightened and civilized. Human rights atrocities have been committed and a pluralistic democracy may be at risk.
A fragile developing economy has suffered severe dislocation. These events are particularly tragic in light of the recent successes of new conservative economic policies which include reduction of government subsidies, removal of import quotas, and the establishment of free trade zones.
It is hoped that Sri Lanka will find peace, justice, stability and economic progress as the process of negotiation, compromise and reconciliation unfolds. Canada can play a key role in that process by supporting political attempts to forge a unified society, and aiding economic revival and growth by continued development aid.
Canadian aid, however, should be an element of political stabilization and economic growth leading to self-sufficiency, not to repression and colonialization. The Canadian Government should receive concrete guarantees from President Jaye-wardene that the resettlement as a result of the Mahaweli Dam project, partly funded by CIDA, will be predicated on existing ethnic ratios, and that future aid will be evenly distributed throughout the country.
I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will raise these issues when he attends the Commonwealth Conference in India in November.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I cannot let yesterday's statement by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) stand without correction. The Hon. Member, never one to let facts cloud his thinking, told the House that the Manitoba Government is the worst in this country for business and that it leaves Manitobans no hope for recovery. How can that be?
Is the NDP Government in Manitoba worse than Alberta's Tory administration where the rate of economic growth is lower than Manitoba's, in fact one of the lowest in Canada ?
Can it be worse than the Tory Government thrown out of office by Manitoba voters a couple of years ago-the same Tory Government that drove Manitobans from the Province in greater numbers than at any time in recent history-the same Tory Government that simply could not, in its last year, match the business starts of the current NDP Government in this last year?
Let me set the record straight. Under the Tories, Manitoba suffered its first absolute population decline in many years. Mr. Lyon was simply driving people out of the Province. It was only when the voters threw him out of office that Manitobans began to return. In fact the population growth in the last year was the greatest since 1963.
Manitoba's NDP Government was left a dismal economic future by the Tories but it is turning that around. This year alone, by working with small business, it has been able to reduce bankruptcies by 22 per cent. The interest rate relief program has saved some 500 small businesses from the threat of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, once again, the North Shore has been struck by major lay-offs. Last week, 1 was in Schefferville, and I now want to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and the Minister responsible for Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) for additional funding to help more employees of the Iron Ore Company who were laid off last week.
Madam Speaker, for a number of reasons, workers on the North Shore have the impression they have been abandoned by everyone. We no longer have a president at the Iron Ore Company. The position has not been restored, so there is no longer any contact between workers and company management, which has produced a tremendous feeling of insecurity. Soon other towns on the North Shore may be affected, and I would like to bring up the subject here in the House because we will need additional funds if, once more, the Government is to take up the slack left by private companies, which after taking advantage of the skills of their workers are now drop-

ping them in the middle of their careers, people who are only in their early 40s. Work at Pointe-Noire has started, but this will not be enough. We will need substantial assistance this winter, and funds will have to be allocated imediately to put people back to work, because if things go on as they are now, I think the North Shore may soon have a number of social problems. I would therefore appreciate it if the ministers would act as responsibly as they have in the past.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem confronting the trucking industry, not only in my riding of Erie but in Canada as a whole. An American firm, Red Star Express, based in New York State, runs a trans-border service to Toronto. Originally American drivers took the loads as far as Fort Erie where Canadian men took over for the drive to Toronto. Now, in a move aimed at streamlining the operation, the parent company decided it would cease to switch drivers in Fort Erie. It intends to close the Fort Erie terminal and send the American drivers all the way to Toronto. The result is that 14 Canadians are out of work.
I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) should take firm and decisive action to stem the tide of shutdowns of Canadian operations at the expense of Canadian jobs. With 1.5 million people unemployed we cannot ignore the dangerous precedent of Red Star. Five thousand jobs are at stake should other American operators take this cue and follow suit.
The Red Star decision appears all the more reprehensible in light of the fact it was approved by FIR A in 1975 to take over two existing Canadian operators. Although there were no agreements on undertakings with regard to hiring Canadians to drive in this country, surely the company has an ethical and moral obligation to continue employing Canadians.
In light of the above it is necessary to take some kind of action. I therefore appeal to the Minister of Transport to meet with his provincial counterparts and with representatives of the trucking industry to decide what must be done to ensure that Red Star and similar companies continue to provide jobs for Canadians.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to echo the concern many of us have over the situation in Sri Lanka where earlier this summer there was a massacre of a large number of the Tamil population, and where the Leader of the Opposition, whom we met
October 4, 1983
yesterday, is no longer able to return to his country because under the new constitutional reforms his party and his position have been virtually annihilated.
1 ask that the Government of Canada do two things. First, urge the Government of Sri Lanka to accept the offer of the Prime Minister and Government of India to use their good offices in bringing peace and security to the country of Sri Lanka. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister of Canada could take that initiative, I hope he will, when he is talking next with members of the Government of Sri Lanka, and we would like to see, particularly on behalf of the Tamils, that offer taken up by the Government.
Secondly, I would hope Canadian aid in Sri Lanka is distributed in such a way that the Tamil population will be-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. While he was absent all last week travelling both in and out of the country-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: Where were you?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We have not started yet, and I do not know if we will ever get to the end of it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, while the Prime Minister was travelling, no doubt on official business, he introduced a troubling new dimension into a recent foreign policy matter. The Prime Minister repeatedly referred to the shooting down of the Korean airliner as an accident. Is it now the official position of the Government of Canada that the Korean airliner tragedy, in which ten Canadians lost their lives, was in fact an accident?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Leader of the Opposition missed me last week. I can assure him that I missed this old place and I was thinking of him often when I was travelling through the Provinces and to the United Nations. I even missed him when I was talking to my Quebec colleagues on Sunday.


Mr. Crosbie:: The last round-up.


Mr. Hees:: You better do better than that, Pierre; you are slowing down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 4, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings-


George Harris Hees: The wrong riding. It is Northumberland.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -should realize that I was not even aiming at him, Madam Speaker. He is too small fry to occupy my time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the subject raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I want to assure him that the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other Ministers who have commented on this subject still remain the view of the Government. I was not intending to change those statements in any way.
"Accident" means something that happens.


An Hon. Member:: You are an accident, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is something tragic which happened-


Mr. Shields:: Like you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, "accident" comes from the Latin accidere, which means "to happen"; it can be a disaster. It comes from ad-cadere, which means "to fall down' . That is what the Korean plane did, it fell down.


An Hon. Member:: By itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it is an accident that the Korean pilot put that plane over Soviet territory. I think that was an accident. I do not think it was done by design. Therefore, an accident did happen, Madam Speaker.
The Government took the lead in expressing its outrage about that happening. It took the lead and, since then, the Leader of the Conservative Party has been trying to catch up in showing his indignation.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs declared the 60-day boycott, he consulted me. I said, "That is a policy and you should do it now, before waiting for the lead of other countries", which we did. We took-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We took the lead in bringing it before the Security Council at the United Nations. We took the lead in bringing it before ICAO in Montreal. We are still continuing that boycott, whereas most of the European nations have interrupted their boycotts. I do not think the Government has to state that it did not show the proper amount of indignation and outrage at this happening. Still, the House knows that we adopted, in the House, a resolution which the Soviet Union has refused to receive. The Government presented a note which the Soviet Union refused to receive. What do we do now, Madam
Oral Questions
Speaker? Do we go on shouting, or do we start war, or do we tell the western farmers that they should not sell their wheat to the Soviet Union? What does the Leader of the Opposition propose?


Some Hon. Members:: Bravo!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition proposes to get a very straight answer from the Prime Minister, even though that is difficult in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF WORD &quot;ACCIDENT&quot; BY PRIME MINISTER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, on September 12 in this House the Secretary of State for External Affairs called the tragedy "an unjustified act of murder". That was the position of the people of Canada as well. There is a world of difference between the word "accident", as the Prime Minister, with his semantics, knows, and "an act of murder".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 want to know from the Prime Minister whether this was an egregious slip of the tongue that he made-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -or whether he is privy to new information, of which none of his Cabinet is aware, that he would care to share with the House, which has caused him to so characterize such an important international incident.


Mr. Lalonde:: You have changed positions ten times.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Soviets themselves admitted that they shot down the airline. No new information that I can bring will say that they did not shoot it down. It was characterized as murder by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I said I accepted it, and I was party to the decision which the Secretary of State made. That was a month ago. We have still not had any indication from the Soviets that they will pay compensation. We still have a heating up of the war, the cold war, which has now been going on for a while, and it is getting dangerous, Madam Speaker.
I think that, for my part, I will not get anything out of the Soviets in terms of describing that murder anew. I want to speak of the event, which was disastrous, and which 1 believe brought the world closer to the brink of disaster. It is the view of myself, of my Party, and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that at this stage we will not get more from the Soviets by treating them as murderers. We might get some de-escalation in the cold war by treating them as human beings.

October 4, 1983
Oral Questions
Yes, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks of murder. We spoke of murder. However, I do not believe it was the intention of the people in the Kremlin to shoot down innocent passengers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, they do over there, and that is the difference between that Party and this Party.


Mr. Stevens:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we know that the Korean airliner was over Soviet air space for a matter of more than two hours. We know that all the maps indicate that when one is over that territory one can be shot down without warning. We know that the Soviet fighters tried to communicate and challenged the Korean airliner, asking it if it was friend or foe.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know that that communication did not get through. We know that two years ago there was a Korean airliner which went some thousands of miles into Soviet air space before being brought down. We do not want that to happen again. That is why we are taking positive steps in ICAO to try to ensure that communications of that kind not go by each other in the night, and that if one is challenged, "Friend or foe?" that there will be answer. This is important. For that reason I think that we should concentrate our efforts, (a) in trying to get compensation and, (b) in trying to ensure that this kind of tragic accident does not happen again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was fascinated, Madam Speaker, at the Prime Minister's statement of the intentions of the Soviet Union, that it had absolutely no intention of shooting down that airliner.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said "the people in the Kremlin."


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Kremlin. What is the difference? They had no intention of invading Afghanistan, either. They had no intention of invading Poland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR APOLOGY TO HOUSE OF COMMONS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Does the Prime Minister realize the gravity of sending the kind of clear signal that he has sent around the world to the Soviet Union, a signal which undermines the position taken by all civilized countries, which gravely undermines the position of our allies? Why does the Prime Minister not do one of two things? Either he should admit that he made a grave mistake in judgment, or he should apologize to the House for issuing a statement which runs counter to the resolution passed by the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, for about a month we expressed our indignation and outrage. I repeat that the Government has taken the lead in doing that, and it was in the forefront of all the nations of the world. Now, what did it get us and where are we, Madam Speaker? I ask the Leader of the Opposition, does he want to send a gunboat to shell Leningrad, or what?


George Harris Hees: We don't have one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member wants to know the difference between the Kremlin and the pilot who shot down the Korean airline. There is a difference. 1 do not believe that the people in the Kremlin deliberately murdered or killed some 200 or 300 passengers in the Korean airliner. I do not believe that. I believe it was a tragic accident, an accident of war. It was caused, no doubt, by a reckless pilot and, no doubt, by a misguided commander on the ground. That is what I am afraid of, that the next war that awaits us will be started, not by the people in the Kremlin or by any other people, but, rather, by some accident of some pilot making the kind of tragic decision that he made, and the people on the ground making that tragic decision. That is why I am worried.
I can express indignation just as well as the Leader of the Opposition. The difference is that we have done it before him and we have done it before other nations. Now I think there should be some effort to re-establish communications with the Soviets. I, for one, think that it is in that direction that the superpowers must go. They must try to find some way to stop shouting at each other, when the world is teetering on the brink of disaster and atomic war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the House to refrain from manifesting itself in this way or we will not get through the Question Period, and I must also ask that everyone try to be brief in their interventions. I now recognize the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members on this side of the House, and I include my friends in the NDP, have no lessons to take from the Prime Minister or his colleagues about our commitment to peace. Of that, we are absolutely certain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC NOTE
Martin Brian Mulroney: The
implication was that the Kremlin did not wilfully do this. If that is the case, why does the Prime Minister not secure from those people who did not wilfully do this at least the acceptance of our note and compensation paid to the Canadians who were affected by it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 4, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, now the Leader of the Opposition is making a positive suggestion. He wants me to intervene with the Kremlin and get them to accept our note. First, 1 will have to talk to them. Then I will have to make sure that they will listen to me. They will not listen to me, nor can 1 talk to them, if 1 just continue shouting at them and treating them as murderers. That is my point, Madam Speaker.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She is quoted as saying that she thinks that what has been occurring in Alberta in the last week is crazy. She obviously disapproves of it.
Could she tell the House and those of us who are concerned about Medicare, especially in regard to what is happening in Provinces like Alberta, whether she intends to address the problems of premiums through the Canada Health Act, which we hope to see very soon, and the way in which payment for health care through the premium mechanism in Alberta leads to the erosion of universality? In Alberta especially it is not just the erosion of universality, it is the complete destruction of universality. Does she have any plans to address that, or does she still maintain the position that she must keep a hands-off position in this matter?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, as 1 stated yesterday in answer to some media queries, Alberta would not be in such an administrative mess if it had taken the route of having people pay for Medicare through general taxes, which is also the best method in terms of social justice. It would hit everyone equally, and all of those who are not technically on welfare but are unemployed, and who certainly are not rich by any standard, would not be caught between a two-chair situation as we see now.
However, the Member should not polarize, asking to be in favour of premiums or not, and equating it with not being able to do anything. According to Justice experts, under the Constitution we cannot, ourselves, decide that premiums are not proper for Provinces to choose if that is what they wish. But we will have a paragraph on universality, like we already have, that is as strong as possible according to the Constitution. If there is a breach of universality because premiums are not paid, that will be a breach of the Medicare Act.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We do not need any lectures from the Minister on social justice. The NDP pioneered the abolition of premiums in all the Provinces where it governed.
Oral Questions


INTRODUCTION OF NEW HEALTH ACT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Does the Minister intend to find a way, through the new Act, to take action in a situation where the payment of premiums in a certain way is found to be an erosion of universality? It is not enough for her just to declare that she does not like them. Does she have any mechanism in mind for taking action when we find that premiums are eroding universality?
Furthermore, will we see the new Canada Health Act very soon? It has been three weeks since I asked her about that when we first came back, and we still hear nothing but rhetoric from the Minister.


Monique Bégin: If the NDP is so much in favour of Medicare, and since Medicare needs all the friends it can have, maybe it would help if the Minister from Manitoba would say it a few times publicly. I would love to hear that he is supporting Medicare like he should, and like he tells me privately.
Second, my English must be getting worse by the day or week because I just said that people in Canada everywhere must have universal coverage and access to all insurance services. That means all visits to the doctors and hospitals. That is part of the Canada Health Act.
This means that whatever means Provinces use to raise additional money, such as by premiums in three of them, if they do not cover their people according to the Act it will be a breach of the Act and will, unfortunately, be subject to a penalty.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Minister of Health in Manitoba has made it clear many times, as he did this summer when he met with all New Democrats across the country, that he agrees with the position we have been taking in this House and is in favour of steps to do away with the erosion of Medicare. The Minister is completely off base when she makes a charge like that.


FEDERAL FUNDING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, does the Minister in fact intend to bring in the Canada Health Act and finally do something about those things she says she has deplored all of these years? If so, at the same time will she re-open the question of the adequacy of federal funding of Medicare and the fiscal arrangements pertaining thereto, so that when she does so it can be a more viable political option which will no longer give the Progressive Conservative provinces something to hang their ideological agenda on for the destruction of Medicare?


Monique Bégin: After the Member opposite met with the Minister in their kitchen in Manitoba, there was the Halifax meeting on September 7. You met in August, and I would have been pleased if the Minister did not forget to tell the Press that he was in favour of Medicare and not against it. That was September. There still is October and there will be November.

October 4, 1983
Oral Questions
We will need him like we will need every Canadian in favour of keeping the system open as it is for all Canadians.
As I have said often, and as [ answered the Member when he asked me on our first day back last September, the Act is going through the Cabinet process and will be tabled as soon as it is approved in all its various stages.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You have been saying that for two years.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, Canada's version of Neville Chamberlain. It is a question about Government policy in which there is another conflict. In the Government, the feet do not know which mouth they are in.
According to Maclean's magazine of today, there are serious differences in the Government how to deal with the economy. Is it correct that the Government has neglected a range of functions that will become critical in supporting the economy? Is it correct that the Departments are run so badly that Canada now lacks some of the basic government services needed to take advantage of the current recovery? Are those statements correct with respect to the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the statements are incorrect, including the one the Hon. Member made about Neville Chamberlain.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if the statements that the Government has neglected this range of functions, and that Government Departments are run down so badly that they cannot take advantage of the current recovery are not correct, will he dismiss or ask for the resignation of his Minister of State for Economic Development who made those statements in a 35-page document that went to the Cabinet, and who has made similar statements of criticism of Government policy in other documents presented to royal commissions and elsewhere? Is he going to go, or is the Prime Minister going to go, or will they both go-that is the preferable course?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Neither will go, Madam Speaker.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will realize that he, his predecessor, and every Minister of State for Finance since the Bank Act was passed in 1980, promised a new trust company act. Is it the view of the Minister that a new trust company act is not important and is not critical for recovery?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government and my Department are reviewing the various pieces of legislation that should be brought before Parliament. 1 would suggest that we have more urgent pieces of legislation to bring before Parliament, such as the Income Tax amendments that I hope will be expeditiously considered by Parliament when they come before it.
As the Hon. Member knows, we also had other measures brought in on those various subjects during the last year or two. As far as trust company legislation is concerned, I do not intend to proceed with a piece of legislation on this subject in the next few months.


CRITICISM OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, do I understand that the Minister of Finance does not agree with his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development, who stated in his famous paper that the Finance Department is stifling potential investment with its long delays in bringing the country's trust company, insurance, and pension fund legislation up to date?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not make such statements.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister aware of the fact that in the Province of Quebec half of the total number of construction workers are out of work, that in the City of Vancouver half of the number of construction workers are out of work, that in southern Saskatchewan 60 per cent of construction workers are out of work, and that in southern Ontario 60 per cent of construction workers are out of work? If the Minister is aware, will he sit down now and develop an inventory of public works that could be undertaken either by the federal Government, or by the federal and provincial Governments jointly, in order that those people might have not only a job but the hope of a job in the near future?
October 4, 1983

Will he also look again at the problem of the unemployment insurance payments which many of those people are no longer receiving because they have run out of them and they are unable to live on welfare? Will the Minister try to do something to solve the terrible problems of these people and their families?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the figures mentioned by the Hon. Member, and that is why, in the last budget, the federal Government proposed a recovery program involving expenditures of $2.4 billion on federal capital projects throughout the country. The program was announced when the budget was brought down and it is now operating. Work has started on a number of projects and in many cases, construction starting within the coming months will keep the industry busy for several years. We have done exactly what the Hon. Member is suggesting. Within the framework of federal spending, we have identified a large number of projects that would have to be carried out in any case by the end of this decade. We have rescheduled the programs in order to implement them at a time when Canada is starting to come out of the recession, thus stimulating the Canadian economy. Last July, I met with my provincial counterparts and discussed the matter with them. I asked them to give special attention to the construction industry and to see whether they could supplement the efforts of the federal Government in this area.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED IN HAMILTON
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the program is not working. In Hamilton 500 out of 700 carpenters are unemployed; 600 out of 1,200 electricians are unemployed; 1,000 of 1,200-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will not allow another long enumeration of statistics. The Hon. Member could be asking a question, but that is all I will allow.


Ian Deans: Given that those people are unemployed, and I could go on at some great length, that they are not receiving unemployment insurance in many instances-


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Ian Deans: -that there are no jobs for them, that you will do nothing about the COED program, will you move to provide those people with an income so that they can provide for their families?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not think jobs are created by pounding one's fists on the table but by proposing specific and realistic programs like those we mentioned. Another way to create jobs, especially in Hamilton, would be to adopt as quickly as possible the amend-
Oral Questions
ments to the Crow Bill, which, once it is passed, will generate $25 billion in investment in the coming decade and 300,000 person-years' worth of jobs, and this will also bring jobs to the city of Hamilton, in the steel industry as well as in many other sectors. If my Hon. colleague really wants to help the workers of Hamilton, he should hurry up and pass the bill that is now before the House and is going to create jobs across Canada.


Ian Deans: Not one single steel job, not one. You are a hypocrite. You are a liar.


PRODUCTION OF GEOLOGICAL IMFORMATION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is lining up delegate support.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Move over, Pierre.


Pat Carney: Now that the Minister has resumed his seat, Madam Speaker, may I point out that the Minister has committed some $8 billion of taxpayers' money for frontier oil and gas exploration under the Petroleum Incentives Program. Does he agree with the view that his Energy Department has failed to produce the geological information needed to develop Canada's offshore mineral resources?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Madam Speaker.


REPORTED CRITICISM OF DEPARTMENT
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister responsible for economic development, has said that the Energy Department failed to do its homework before committing taxpayers to a runaway expenditure program amounting to billions of dollars?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Minister referred to never said such a thing.


John Carnell Crosbie: He wrote it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture my question is

October 4, 1983
Oral Questions
for the Acting Minister. Does the Acting Minister of Agriculture agree with the view that Canada's food producing capacity is threatened by a lack of research on the part of Agriculture Canada into the deterioration of our soil and water supplies?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member that a number of initiatives have recently been taken to improve substantially the agricultural research initiatives in this country under the Special Recovery Program. A number of new agricultural research stations have been opened, particularly in western Canada with a hydrology lab. Other initiatives have been taken. I think what we can point out, and if the Minister of Agriculture were here I am sure he could elaborate on it, is that he, and his Department and the Government have been very much aware of that issue and have been responding to it by taking appropriate action.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, it sounds to me as though the Minister disagrees. This is at variance with the latest chapter of "Fiscalamity" written by the Minister of State for Economic Development.


CRITICISM OF DEPARTMENT
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, does the Acting Minister agree with a document drafted by the Minister of State for Economic Development that states:
Agriculture Canada has been so preoccupied with Canagrex that it has failed to research vital problems such as the declining amount and quality of our farm land.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the document to which the Hon. Member refers is one on which we would not comment. What we can comment on are the actions that have been taken. I just pointed out this Government has taken several very important initiatives to upgrade and improve research and development, particularly with the establishment of the new hydrology station in Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why doesn't Johnston know about it?


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Does he agree that the communications Department is subjecting high technology industries to a host of regulations which may be impeding their growth?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, may I first of all congratulate the Hon. Member on being able to read Maclean's magazine. He, like the two
previous questioners, has read Maclean's this morning, which I suppose is something to their credit. If the Hon. Member is referring to the communications industries, he knows as well as I do that there is one industrial sector in Canada that has a competitive edge in the international field and it is, indeed, the Canadian telecommunications industry. On the other hand we all know that with evolving technologies there is a need to reform certain regulatory aspects that affect not only the telecommunications industry but also the broadcasting industry. But if the Hon. Member is saying that we should at this stage of the game try to improve that regulatory process, 1 obviously agree.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to know that the Minister of Communications can read Maclean's magazine as well.


DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Communications agree with the document submitted by his colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the document that was submitted to Cabinet? Does he agree with the statements made by his cabinet colleague?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, quite obviously we, on this side of the House, feel there is always room for improvement, that there is always room to ensure that the regulatory environment is adjusted to changing times and conditions. If that is what the Hon. Member is asking me, then my colleague and I are indeed in agreement.


RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. He will be aware of a telex that he received from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on September 21. It pointed out that his officials estimate in the order of $1.6 billion will be required to upgrade all the rail line network now guaranteed to the year 2000, but that the announcement of February 1 by the Government of only $1,072 billion means there is a shortfall of about $528 million. Can the Minister advise the House what his reply was to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and all the other elevator companies that are making investment plans and do not know whether or not their branch lines will be retained?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would answer by saying I do not think one should say "only $1 billion." It seems to me that is an awful lot of money that is being allocated toward a major improvement of the branch line system in western Canada.
October 4, 1983	______________________COMMONS
I would point out that already some 1,700 miles have been totally and completely rehabilitated and that another 3,500 miles of work is under way. That is due to the program announced by the Government in 1977 where we did a global attack on the whole branch line rehabilitation issue under Mr. Lang, the then Minister of Transport, for some $700 million. The Government has added over $300 million to that program, and we will be negotiating each line as we do every year with the railway and grain companies. I would say to the Hon. Member that $1 billion is a very big commitment to branch line rehabilitation in western Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 think I got my answer. It means that we will lose another 1,500 to 2,000 miles of branch lines.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, is it the Minister's intention to keep the Government's commitment to upgrade all branch lines in the basic network, or is it the intention to spend only the amount announced on February 1?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the commitment of the Government in 1977 was to undertake a program of branch line rehabilitation according to the amount of dollars and fiscal resources we could allocate. The Government has now allocated a second round of resources to improve substantially and add to that sum, as the Hon. Member mentioned, to over $1 billion. We will be negotiating those lines on a priority basis as the money is made available. The sooner and the better the NDP gets on board and supports the Crow expansion, railway modernization of western Canada branch lines will be better off.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the disastrous youth unemployment in the country, is it the intention of the Government to introduce a wage subsidy program for young people, based on the British experience, so that young people can obtain experience in the workplace? Is it his intention to bring in such a program? If so, why does he feel it is necessary to wait for prorogation and a new Speech from the Throne, when in fact he already has the mechanism in place to implement such a program now with the Access Program, the Portable Wage Subsidy Program, and the program for the disadvantaged? He has the mechanism now. Why does he not implement the program now?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am simply astounded by the Hon.

Oral Questions
Member's question. There is such a program. It is the Career Access Program to which the Hon. Member has just referred.


BRITISH MODEL
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that the Career Access Program was announced in April and is not even operative yet, notwithstanding the ongoing concerns of the country over youth unemployment. My question concerns the British model of training young people and giving them a start, a kite which the Minister has flown not once but twice, and as recently as today in Maclean's magazine. Obviously he is committed to the program, and I am sure that he has read Maclean's magazine. Does the Minister intend to bring in such a program to help these 600,000 young people who are unemployed? If so, why does he not bring it in now instead of waiting for another session of Parliament?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I regret to say that I have not read Maclean's magazine. I will rush out and read Maclean's magazine. I have been informed by my staff, who are usually reliable, that I am not in Maclean's magazine. The fact is that the program is in place. We expect it to deal with at least 31,000 young people this year and 31,000 people next year. We think it is a more effective program than the kind which has been put in operation by Mrs. Thatcher because it is a program which deals with young people between the ages of 17 years and 25 years, whereas Mrs.. Thatcher's program concentrates only on teenagers. We think there are other young people who deserve our attention as well.


GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board in this House. When farmers were encouraged to enter into the grain stabilization agreement with the Government, the promise was that there would be a payout in a year of low grain prices. We had that year of low grain prices last year and the fund is now built up to approximately $800 million. When will the Government be announcing a payout to farmers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the assessment is made on a five-year average on the stabilization fund. Based upon that average in which there has been a reasonably decent price for grain, we do not expect a payout in this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is declaring war on the western Canadian farmer. He will retaliate, and don't ever think he won't.

October 4, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: Not only is the Minister saying that he is not going to pay, but he is taking $1,200 out of the farmer's pocket this year.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN POLICY
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, the Government had better change its mind on that, and had better do it quickly. When will the Minister change his mind as far as the policy of the Government is concerned?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, before the Hon Member gets all convoluted in his indignation, I think we simply go back to the formula which was established. We base it on a five-year average. The 1982 index was about $400 million above that average. As far as 1983 is concerned, those calculations are not made until the end of October, 1985. When those calculations are in, of course the matter will come under review and the Minister will make that decision. We are saying that as far as the 1982 crop year is concerned, payout was substantially above that five-year average, and the Hon. Member should know that.


AIR CANADA
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I would ike to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It has been drawn to my attention that another incident occurred aboard an Air Canada DC-9 jetliner involving the seizing and overheating of a toilet pump in the washroom with the potential for very serious consequences. Since this comes on the heels of the Cincinnati tragedy, and on the heels of a very favourable internal report conducted for Air Canada on its technical and procedural maintenance standards, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that another Cincinnati tragedy does not occur?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the Hon. Member that indeed late Friday afternoon another incident took place aboard an Air Canada DC-9. It was immediately investigated by both Air Canada officials and Transport investigators. That particular malfunctioning has been corrected. However, as a precautionary measure we have undertaken first to issue an airworthiness directive today requiring a daily check of the pump facilities in all the lavatories on Air Canada. Second, I will be ordering a replacement of the particular model of pump which caused the problem both in this latest incident and in the Cincinnati case. We are taking these as precautionary measures, as well as looking at the over-all safety performance under the Air Canada audit which my Department has under way.


OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in a more general context, since the recent internal audit carried out with respect to Air Canada on its operating and technical procedures produced a very favourable report for Air Canada, does the Minister not think in light of this incident that it would be necessary to take some further steps such as a more broad investigation into the technical, operating and maintenance procedures of Air Canada, to ensure that passenger confidence is restored? Surely an incident like this will do nothing more than undermine passenger confidence and the confidence of those who are potential passengers of Air Canada. Is the Minister considering anything further in a broader context to investigate these procedures?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the first thing I would like to do in answer to the Hon. Member is to give assurances that steps have now been taken in relation to the particular problem that has to be faced. They really are quite extraordinary measures. We are requiring, to underline the point, a daily check of the particular piece of equipment to ensure that there are no problems at all, and the direct replacement of that piece of equipment in a phased period so that it will be totally new.
As to the larger issue, that is indeed what we are now doing. We ordered a complete operational, management and safety audit of Air Canada operations at the beginning of September. That is now under way, and I should have the results in a matter of three or four weeks. The Air Canada report which was prepared by Captain Buck for the purposes of Air Canada's management has been forwarded to the team which is undertaking the audit. It will be incorporated as part of the report, and that report will be made public by me so that Canadians and Members of the House will be fully aware of the assessments which will have been made.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on Monday, October 3, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), I remind him that he did not take the opportunity to bring this question before the House at the earliest possible opportunity. He did send me a notice that he
October 4, 1983

would raise a question of privilege on Tuesday in the House, but the Hon. Member was in the House yesterday. He ought to have raised his question of privilege at the first opportunity.
1 will not hold that against the Hon. Member, but I do remind him that, technically speaking, it should have been raised yesterday.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss a breach of my privileges as a member of the House as it relates to a letter forwarded to my office, written by Commissioner Cleo Mowers, a metric commissioner employed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and appointed by Order in Council.
I will endeavour to show you, Madam Speaker, in as few words as possible, how this metric commissioner has clearly overstepped the mark of propriety. He has hampered my ability as a Member of Parliament to function in a responsible manner. He has attempted to create an atmosphere of fear and thus has created a climate of mistrust. The situation has made it very difficult for me as a Member of Parliament to pursue my responsibilities not only in this House but to my constituents as an extension of my duties in this House.
Beyond this indignity, Mr. Mowers has the audacity to call into question the integrity of Government Cabinet Ministers, and even of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada. For the benefit of the Chair 1 will supply the full content of Mr. Mower's letter to the Prime Minister and to many of my colleagues here in this House, as well as to members of the Senate.


Madam Speaker:: It would be more useful in the particular proceedings that we are going through if the Hon. Member sent a copy of that document to the Chair, because the Chair would not be able to judge this question of privilege unless it had the full documents to which the Hon. Member is referring.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I realize that, Madam Speaker. That is why 1 referred specifically to the letter in my communication to you last week, referring to excerpts from the letter in order that you may be apprised of the seriousness of the letter.
I am personally appalled at the lack of respect exhibited by this individual on the Metric Commission. By the way, he is paid $250 a day as a public servant in the Metric Commission serving as a commissioner. He drastically exceeds his mandate and his oath of office, which I have here and which I will also be tabling, by instructing not only myself as a Member of Parliament but also the Government of this country.
We are not dealing in this case with a private citizen, nor am I questioning a private citizen's freedom of speech. We are, however, dealing with a public servant whose words and actions carry the authority of his office. When Parliament first established the Metric Commission, its purpose was to facilitate the conversion process and not to throw into question the integrity of Members of Parliament, the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.
The prima facie case I wish to make deals with a letter circulated to my colleagues which discredits elected Members
Privilege-Mr. Domm
of Parliament and seriously impedes their ability effectively to discharge their duties. It is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament to interpret matters as he or she sees them. It is definitely not the responsibility of a metric commissioner to practise overt acts of harassment. I strongly object to the manner in which this was done.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I can see from the presentation of the Hon. Member, which has now gone on for five minutes, that he is aggrieved by an action of a public servant who has obviously criticized what the Hon. Member has said outside the House. The Hon. Member may be considerably aggrieved by that, but it certainly does not constitute a question of privilege. The Hon. Member will have to demonstrate to me very soon that he has been impeded in his function as a Member of Parliament and that that is the basis of his question of privilege. Otherwise, I will have to cut him off and decide that he does not have a question of privilege.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I will respect your wishes and deal precisely with the two points you have asked me to deal with; first, exactly what this person said and, second, the precedents in rules and procedures both in Beauchesne and other references which makes this a very definite question of privilege, as determined in my research with the Parliamentary Library and other authorities on the Hill.
I would like to quote from Mr. Mowers' letter to give the obvious indication of where I feel I have a question of privilege. In his letter to the Prime Minister, referring to Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament Mr. Mowers said, and I quote:
As a member of the Metric Commission I was appalled at the vast distortion of metric facts in news stories, editorials, and letters to the editor, most inspired by or emanating from the office of Bill Domm, M.P.
I am trying to make this brief by quoting only three paragraphs of a rather lengthy letter. There will be opportunity for yourself and the Table to review it Madam Speaker. I quote:
I wrote a couple of hundred original letters to editors correcting the record and inferentially questioning Domm's truthfulness, until finally both his voice and his credibility are now much weakened.
In addition, I refer the House to Mr. Mowers' remarks regarding the governing Party. I will quote for their interest and Your Honour's consideration:
The impression is abroad that the Government doesn't listen to the people. To the extent it is true, these are the faults: (a) the ultimate decision-makers are too few, too obscure, too elusive; (b) those in authority are held in protective custody of their staffs; (c)-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is debating. Just because a bureaucrat does not agree with the Hon. Member or is criticizing some Members of the Government, or other people, does not constitute a question of privilege. The Hon. Member will have to tell me right away where his question of privilege lies.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, may I intervene just briefly at this point. I heard the Hon. Member say two things which I think deserves the attention of the Chair in coming to a

October 4, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Domm
decision as to whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege, which is all that is required.


Madam Speaker:: I am giving the Hon. Member all my attention. I have not denied him one second of my attention.


Erik Nielsen: I have not said that you have, Madam Speaker, but I have heard two things. First, a public servant has questioned the truthfulness of a Member. Surely that is deserving of the attention of the Chair, which I am sure the Chair will give it. Second, in that same sentence that public servant concluded that, because he has questioned the truthfulness of the Hon. Member, it has affected his effectiveness in this House of Commons. That must surely be on all fours with a Government that fired a public servant, Neil Fraser, because of a much less offence. This case sounds far more serious to me, questioning as it does the truthfulness, and thereby affecting the effectiveness, of the Hon. Member as a Member of Parliament.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, in the interest of expediting my case, I will refrain from quoting the letter. I will table this rather lengthy letter. 1 will circulate it to all Members of Government, all members of the Senate and all Members of the Opposition in order that we can determine whether this gentleman deserves to remain in a position in which he took an oath not to do exactly what he is doing. I will not read the oath; I will table that as well.
I would like to produce for the benefit of the house one final example of Mr. Mowers' lack of respect for Parliament and his contempt for the decision-making processes that are now supposedly in place in this country. 1 am quoting for the final time from Mr. Mowers' letter to the Prime Minister:
Communications the other way-from the government (and the party) to the people-is in a much worse state. These are the reasons and the culprits-
I will leave that for you to examine, Madam Speaker, and 1 will send all Hon. Members on the Government side copies of documents indicating what he thinks of them. Liberal Members appointed this man through Order in Council. They gave him the authority to have a clipping service from across Canada in order that he can criticize them publicly.
In the correspondence that I will table, Madam Speaker, Mr. Mowers has clearly treated in a libellous manner the Prime Minister, Members of the Cabinet and Members of the Official Opposition, particularly myself, and I am raising this as a question of privilege as it pertains directly to me. I hope that those Hon. Members on the other side will listen.
Mr. Mowers has clearly treated in a libellous manner statements that 1 as a Member of Parliament have made in the House. In so doing, he has breached his rights and privileges by referring to me.
I refer you, Madam Speaker, to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 98, subsection (3):
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in
that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House.
I am not going to rely strictly on the section relating to business of the House because Mr. Mowers is guilty of character assassination in response to press releases, letters to the editor and speeches. I cite the case of Roman Corpn. v. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Ltd. which can be found on page 20 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. That case clearly established the extension of Members' of Parliament rights outside the House of Commons and therefore under the general umbrella of privilege.
I was planning to refer to examples of what Mr. Mowers has said across the country and to the 200 letters in which he has condemned the Government, the Prime Minister and myself, but I will not do so. I will go on. Mr. Mowers has attempted to discredit me by distributing a damaging letter to my colleagues.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Evans:: So sue him.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I hear Hon. Members from the Government side saying "sue him". I might.
I have already quoted from Mr. Mowers' letter and I believe it provides sufficient proof of a serious breach of privilege. 1 will go on and refer the Chair to Erskine May, Eighteenth Edition, page 147, where the following is stated:
Sending insulting letters to Members in reference to their conduct in Parliament or letters reflecting on their conduct as such Members-
-in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. That is clearly exactly what Mr. Mowers is doing to Government Members and to Members of the Official Opposition.
Beauchesne's Rules and Forms is quite explicit on the enforcement of the privileges of the House. I turn to page 13, Citation 22, which states:
The power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business.
I would like to inject here a passage from Erskine May, Eighteenth Edition, page 148, which reads:
"Written imputations, as affecting a Member of Parliament, may amount to breach of privilege, without, perhaps, being libels at common law"-
That answers the Hon. Member's question about whether or not I should take Mr. Mowers to court.


John Leslie Evans: Do it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I shall continue:
-but to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a Member must concern the character or conduct of the Member in that capacity.
That is what I am asking you to consider as a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.
In accordance with Erskine May, I sincerely believe that the letters written by Mr. Mowers represent a defamation of my character as well as seriously call into question my conduct as
October 4, 1983

a Member of the House of Commons and my capacity and responsibility to represent my constituents.
In conclusion, I must say that I am well aware, as are all Members of the House, that criticism in itself does not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. It is in answer to such criticism that I continually respond to Mr. Mowers' numerous editorials on mandatory metrication. A difference of opinion regarding Government policy is not uncommon, and in fact, through the media, allows Canadians, the opportunity to consider opposing views and analyse new alternatives. However, Mr. Mowers' criticism goes well beyond objective criticism and is directly intended to bring my duties in the House generally into disrepute. In fact, that criticism has had the effect of questioning the very integrity of this venerable institution and the entire democratic process. It therefore seriously impedes the privileges and rights of all Members of Parliament which are absolutely necessary for the proper execution of their Parliamentary powers.
If you find, Madam Speaker, for the reasons stated above, that I have a prima facie case, I am fully prepared to move a motion which would have the effect of calling Mr. Cleo Mowers to the bar of the House where he would be asked to submit a formal apology.
Might I conclude by reading the oath Mr. Mowers took when he accepted the job as metric commissioner. I claim that he has violated that oath to the Canadian people. That oath reads:
I,	Cleo Mowers, solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and honestly fulful the duties that devolve upon me by reason of my appointment as a member of the Preparatory Commission for Metric Conversion and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter that comes to my knowledge by reason of such appointment.
In his capacity as a member of the Metric Commission, Mr. Mowers has available to him a full national clipping service paid for by the people of Canada which is not available to me although I, as a Member of Parliament, requested it from Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That clipping service is made available by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) to Cleo Mowers who then in turn uses against his oath, in his capacity as a Metric Commissioner, that material supplied to him by virtue of his appointment as a Metric Commissioner. That material is then used to commit a character assassination which is clearly a question of privilege in the House, Madam Speaker.
I hope, given the material that I will supply to the Chair, that you will rule in support of my motion, which will not call for him to be replaced. 1 have since learned that he has been given his termination. I would hope that you would support a motion calling for his public apology for statements made against the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Ministers of the House and myself as a Member of Parliament speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party in opposition against mandatory metric, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you are undoubtedly going to be taking this question under advisement. I will not be speaking to the facts that have been raised
Privilege-Mr. Domm
in support of the request made by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) that you do find that there is a question of privilege. I do ask the House to take the matter seriously and dispense with interventions like that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Evans) who encouraged the Hon. Member to sue.
Nothing goes more directly to the roots of the functioning of this place and the exercise of its authority than the ability of Members to carry on their functions in the House free from wrongful and libellous charges of untruthfulness, particularly when made by a civil servant. The Government has its remedy, which it exercised very quickly in the Neil Fraser case; but here, quite apart from statements made with respect to the Government, there is a direct accusation made by the civil servant in question calling into question the truthfulness of an Hon. Member of this House. That Hon. Member has stated in his assertion that that has lessened his effectiveness as a Member of Parliament.
Nothing could go to the root of the rights, duties and authority of Parliament any deeper than this, notwithstanding the fact that it occurred in the case of only one Member. What happens to one Member can happen to any Member. It goes to the roots of the privileges of all Members when something like this happens.
Our understanding of privilege, Madam Speaker, must be constrained by what has already been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Peterborough. It is not mere criticism that causes a question of privilege to arise; but if that criticism goes to the extent that has been described here, and there is a prima facie case that it has, I suggest the Chair has an obligation to act. When that criticism impedes the Member in the performance of his duties, then in my submission, Madam Speaker, there is clearly a question of privilege.
I should like to read, for the consideration of the Chair, Citation 108.(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
Anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal, is a breach of privilege if perpetrated against Parliament, such as wilful disobedience to, or open disrespect of, the valid Rules, Orders or Process, or the dignity and authority of the House, whether by disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent language, or behaviour, or other disturbing conduct, or by a mere failure to obey its Orders.
Given the prima facia establishment of the fact of the letter read by the Hon. Member for Peterborough, the very least that those statements and the letter constitute with respect to the Hon. Member is insolence. I am in accord with the Hon. Member that they amount to libel because they have been published, and libel against an Hon. Member, in my submission, is clearly a contempt of Parliament.
I should like to refer the Chair to Citation 108.(3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which extends this point by adding the following:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity-

October 4, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Domm
Namely, in his capacity as a Member. All of us are very aware that he has been the metric critic in this place for a good number of years. It continues:
-and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House.
What could be plainer than that the criticism aimed at the Hon. Member in that letter is a libel in respect to the conduct of his criticism in the House of the application of and the Government's policy with respect to metric? Nothing, in my submission, could be clearer than that. The House has consistently viewed reflections against the House or its Members as a contempt against the Members or authorities of the House. These stretch from the Tasse case in 1873 to the Choquette case in 1976. These reflections have generally been made in the press by members of the press. That is not the case here.
This is a case where Mr. Mowers made use of the vehicle "Letters to the Editor" as the means of carrying on his campaign. Clearly, all letters to the editor are not matters infringing upon the privileges of the House. We are not dealing here with a fair comment made by a private citizen. We are faced with a letter addressed to a Member of the House-indeed, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-by an individual who holds an appointed office and who, in his capacity as an office holder, has seen fit to carry on a public campaign as a civil servant, designed to undermine the Hon. Member for Peterborough in the conduct of his duties in the transaction of the business of the House.
In his letter, as the Hon. Member for Peterborough has pointed out, he directly questions the truthfulness of the Hon. Member for Peterborough. I will quote from that letter briefly. He says "until finally both his" -that is the Hon. Member for Peterborough- "voice and his credibility are now much weakened". That is, the Hon. Member's voice in this House and his credibility in this House as a member are much weakened because Mr. Mowers has been so assiduously determined to question the truthfulness of the Hon. Member for Peterborough.


John Leslie Evans: Outside the House.


Erik Nielsen: The Parliamentary Secretary continues to interject, Madam Speaker. What would he do to protect his rights in this place if it had happened to him? I can tell him what would happen. The Government would fire Mr. Mowers, as it did Neil Fraser. This is the only remedy we have here and he should be supportive of what we are putting to the Chair with respect to the privileges of this place.
I now cite from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 55, as follows:
The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee. It is primarily guaranteed in the British Bill of Rights which declared "that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament".
Clearly, it was Mr. Mowers' intent to restrict the ability of the Hon. Member for Peterborough to conduct his duties in
the House. Mr. Mowers himself admits that. In my submission, that would constitute a prima facie case of privilege. He calls into question the Hon. Member's activities in the House and he, Mr. Mowers, intends to restrict the Hon. Member's freedom of speech in the House both through his, Mowers, public campaign and by exhorting other Members to assist him with his campaign. He does so by writing to other Members of the House of Commons. In those letters to other Members Mr. Mowers accuses the Hon. Member for Peterborough of distorting the facts. Mr. Mowers thereby contributes to the infringement of the privileges of the Hon. Member and, consequently, of the House.
Moreover, Mr. Mowers starts off by saying that he did this in his capacity as a member of the Metric Commission-as a civil servant. In my submission, Mr. Mowers has engaged in a contempt of this House, given the prima facie existence, not the proof, of what the Hon. Member for Peterborough has laid before the Chair. The letter itself, once the Chair has possession of it, in my submission constitutes that prima facie proof. He has engaged in contempt and should be called before the bar to apologize, not to the Hon. Member for Peterborough but to all Members of the House, for his actions in not only the campaign but specifically the letter directed to that Member. In laying out his case, the Hon. Member for Peterborough has provided a substantial body of fact which should assist the Chair in coming to the conclusion that there is at least a prima facie case of privilege for putting the question to the House.
If there is no prima facie case of privilege, the Chair, in my submission, has to come to the conclu :on that the letter written by Mr. Mowers does not exist at all. If ever there were a prima facie case, it lies in the fact of the existence of the letter authored by Mr. Mowers. The intent, as displayed in that letter, is very clearly laid out. First, it questions the truthfulness of the Hon. Member for Peterborough, which questions the truthfulness of any Member of the House; second, he admits in the letter he wrote himself that his intention was to affect the efficiency of the Hon. Member in the conduct of business in this place; and third, it was mounted deliberately to minimize the effect of the criticisms that have come from the Hon. Member for Peterborough with respect to the application of metric in the country for the entire last three years.
In my submission, Madam Speaker, there was never a clearer case of privilege before the Chair.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a brief intervention in this matter and to draw a parallel for the Chair. Earlier this year the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) brought a question of privilege to the Chair. His point was that, through the publication of an article in the Montreal Gazette, his capacity to function as a Member of Parliament had been impeded. TThe Chair found a prima facie case of privilege. We on this side, as did the Government, supported that Member with a unanimous motion sending the case to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that we have a very similar case here. In this case, however, it is not a question of
October 4, 1983

an interpretation of a newspaper article; this is a clear action by a Government employee to impede the voice and credibility of a Member of the House. That is the issue here. That is why 1 rise to support my colleague in asking that the Chair find a prima facie case that his ability has been impeded. In the earlier case, we stood with the Hon. Member for Lincoln and said; "Yes, your privilege has been impeded and it should be examined".
1 ask Your Honour to find a prima facie case of privilege here and to support the Member in calling the civil servant in question to the bar of the House to make an apology.


Madam Speaker:: I obviously will have to examine the documents in support of the case and all the arguments presented to the Chair. I will come back to the House with a decision later.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the twenty-third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, as Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in the absence of the Chairman, and having discovered and agreed on the need to correct the ninth Report to make it conform to the proceedings in committee on Bill C-152 and to the amendments duly voted on and approved in committee, said report having been tabled in the House on September 29, I now, with the agreement of the Opposition critics of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party and also of our independent colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-East (Mr. Yurko), request the unanimous consent of the House to correct this
Petitions
report. Therefore, on page 2 of the report, Schedule I should read as follows:
Add, immediately after item 9, on page 17, the following:
Clause 60 is amended by substituting "Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion" for "Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce".
-and renumber the subsequent items accordingly.
Thus, the amendment to the Canagrex Act included in the Ninth Report is to be replaced by the one I just mentioned, because it was not voted on in committee.
Madam Speaker, I ask that corrections be made accordingly.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent for correcting the report?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you will recall that this matter arose last week. I spoke to the Hon. Member then and told him I would get in touch with our critic in order that I might be free to give unanimous consent to what he is attempting to do today. I have indeed exerted every effort to get in touch with our critic who is in New York on Government business, but I have not been able to do so. I believe I should communicate with him, not that I for a moment doubt the word of the Hon. Member that he has been in touch, but I think I should have that confirmed before I consent.


Madam Speaker:: So, there is no unanimous consent.


PETITIONS
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 108 petitioners from Alberta who have sent a petition to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley), to the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the Hon. Member for Crow Foot (Mr. Malone) and the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). They have asked me to present this to the House on their behalf to ask that the Minister and his Department make every effort to maintain the White Farm Equipment Company as a viable entity.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present on behalf of 1,000 petitioners a petition regarding Bill C-675, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act which urges that Section 3 of the said Act be amended

October 4, 1983
Petitions
by adding immediately after Paragraph 3(c) thereof the following paragraph:
Notwithstanding Paragraph C, no station, network, operator or pay television licensee shall broadcast any abusive comment or abusive pictoral representation on any race, religion, creed or sex.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario who humbly show that toxic chemicals are posing an increasing threat to the potable waters of that Province. There is presently no legislation which will guarantee the safety and healthfulness of those waters, and 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 would protect and enhance drinking water quality in all areas of Canada.


MR. ANGUISH-NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,882 and 4,904.


Mr. Gauthier: What was (a) the total amount of the disability, survivor, and retirement pensions that have been paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA), the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) together with the amount of the payments that have been made pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (SRBA) for the indexing of these payments (b) the total amount of interest earned by the CFSA, the PSSA, the RCMPSA, and the SRB Account for each fiscal year since the SRBA has been in effect?


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have three different petitions to present to the House of Commons this afternoon. Each of these petitions originated with the Winnipeg Co-ordinating Committee for Disarmament, and they were sent to the Parliament Hill peace camp which approached me to present them to the House.
The first petition is signed by 1,156 residents of Manitoba who fear an escalation of the nuclear arms race and call upon Parliament to support the minority report on security and disarmament, and to refuse to allow testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.
The second petition argues that the nuclear arms race could end in a nuclear holocaust, and it urges Parliament to press for an early signing of a strategic arms limitation treaty and actively support the convening of a European conference on military detente and disarmament in Europe.


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: (a)
Pensions Paid
	PSSA	CFSA
1970-71	$ 95	S 821971-72	106	971972-73	122	1151973-74	139	1291974-75	162	1471975-76	188	1641976-77	218	1811977-78	255	1991978-79	297	2201979-80	351	2421980-81	404	2671981-82	460	2911982-83	516	315RCMPSA	SRBA	Total
(000,000's)
Si	$ 17	$ 1952	20	2252	24	2632	31	3013	56	3684	84	4405	121	5257	158	6199	199	72511	257	86113	327	1,01116	420	1,18719	521	1,371
Finally, Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I present a petition signed by citizens of the United States of America who live near the Grand Forks airforce base in North Dakota, and in Minnesota, who are working for a nuclear freeze and the stopping of all testing and deployment of the Cruise missile. The petition is sent to the Parliament of Canada as a form of international support for Canadian opposition to the Cruise.
I think, Madam Speaker, these petitions are particularly relevant at the present time because of the Korean airlines incident and the fragile tinderbox we seem to be living in at the present time.
PSSA	CFSA	RCMPSA (000,000's)	SRBA	Total1970-71	$ 198	$ 182	$ 9	$ .2	$ 389.21971-72	229	206	12	.5	447.51972-73	272	240	14	1	5271973-74	310	307	18	2	6371974-75	364	349	23	4	7401975-76	447	412	29	8	8961976-77	524	468	36	13	1,0411977-78	616	530	45	21	1,2121978-79	715	593	54	37	1,3991979-80	823	652	64	59	1,5981980-81	979	751	77	94	1,9011981-82	1,192	880	97	158	2,3271982-83	1,522	1,061	124	180	2,887
October 4, 1983


Mr. Miller: 1.	What was the total amount of contributions by federal employees, including the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, to the SRBA Fund since it was enacted in 1970?
2.	What was the total amount of contributions by federal employees, including the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, to the superannuation fund since its creation circa 1924?
3.	What was the total amount of interest accrued on these two funds?
4.	What was the total amount paid to pensioners from these funds since 1924?
5.	What was the total amount of contributions by the government as an equal amount to the contributors to these funds (superannuation and SRBA) since 1924?
6.	What was the total amount of funds needed from general taxation to pay for (a) pensions (b) indexation of pensions?


Peter Joseph Lang: 1. The total amount to March 31, 1983 is $627,100,000.
2.	There are separate superannuation funds for members of the Public service, the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP. The fund for public servants was established in 1924. The fund for the Canadian Armed Forces was created in 1946 and the fund for the RCMP was established in 1949. Employee contributions to the three funds to March 31, 1983 have been:
Public Service Superannuation Account	-$4,265,000,000
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account -$1,407,000,000 RCMP Superannuation Account	-$ 231,000,000
3.	The total amount of interest credited on the superannuation funds from their inception to March 31, 1983 was as follows:
Public Service Superannuation Account -$6,204,000,000 Canadian Forces Superannuation Account -$5,101,000,000 RCMP Superannuation Account	-$ 467,000,000
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account-$ 578,000,000 In addition, from September 30, 1969, the three main superannuation accounts have earned additional interest which has not been credited to the accounts, but rather has been used to partially offset the government's cost of amortizing actuarial deficits. The total additional interest earned by the three main accounts to March 31, 1983 has been:
Public Service Superannuation Account -$3,179,000,000 Canadian Forces Superannuation Account -$2,500,000,000 RCMP Superannuation Account	-$ 165,000,000
4.	Public Service Superannuation Account-$4,187,000,000
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account -$2,746,000,000 RCMP Superannuation Account	-$	99,000,000
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account-$2,235,000,000*
* Includes amounts charged directly to the Consolidated Revenue Fund pursuant to subsection 8(2) of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, totalling $2,033,000,000.
5.	The total amount of the contributions made by the government (including public service corporations) in relation to the contributions of contributors has been as follows to March 31, 1983:
Order Paper Questions
Public Service Superannuation Account -$4,042,000,000 Canadian Forces Superannuation Account -$2,437,000,000 RCMP Superannuation Account	-$ 429,000,000
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account-$ 627,300,000
In addition to making contributions in relation to employee contributions, the Government also has paid the net cost of amortizing actuarial deficiencies. These costs, in relation to the three major superannuation accounts, have been as follows to March 31, 1983:
Public Service Superannuation Account -$2,232,000,000 Canadian Forces Superannuation Account -$2,332,000,000 RCMP Superannuation Acount	-$ 164,000,000
6.	(a) Zero, (b) $2,033,000,000 to March 31, 1983.


W. Bennett Campbell: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs have been answered.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, 1 would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) in his new role of answering Order Paper questions if he would check out three questions of mine which have been on the Order Paper for some time.
Question No. 4,945 for this year is whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) was notified of the opposition by Canadian truckers to the imposition of a 12 per cent duty on the importing of heavy duty reefer units. This is causing the trucking industry problems in Canada, and I would appreciate if it we could receive an answer as soon as possible.
There is also question No. 4,387, which goes back to June 29. It has not been on the Order Paper too long but is quite an important question. We are receiving more and more complaints that western Canadians are unable to join the RCMP, and I have a number of constituents who are having problems joining the RCMP. 1 would like to have this question answered regarding the recruiting policy of the RCMP.
I also have a question going back to 1981, No. 3,441. The question is, "Did the (a) Minister of Supply and Services (b) Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take a JetStar flight to Winnipeg for the official opening of the General Aluminium Forgings Incorporated on October 30, 1981 and, if so, in each case, other than the Minister and the aircraft crew, who was on the flight?" I know who was on the flight. They were flying Liberal workers to work in the Manitoba election in 1981. I would like to obtain the names of these Liberal campaign workers and receive an explanation as to why Government aircraft were being used to fly Liberal campaign workers around the country.
27734

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


W. Bennett Campbell: I will inquire, Madam Speaker.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 33 (Mr. Mazankowski).
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to resume debate on Motion No. 33, the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) with regard to Clause 17(d), which would really add an element of time to the movement of grain. Rather than simply having powers of promotion for the movement of cars and grains, it would add the words, "shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements". The key matter before us involves why CN and CP should give up a long trip for a short trip. Why should they move grain as efficiently and effectively as possible if they can stall, either by leaving the cars on the sidings, waiting too long to get the cars to be loaded, or taking their time getting them to the ports? By adding the key word "require", a time element would be added, which is crucial.
1 would like to give a reminder to the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke this morning and said that the amendment contravenes the powers of the CTC and under the Railway Act. I think we all know that if one has a contract, if one has ships waiting at the Port of Prince Rupert, one wants the grain cars to be there so that they can be unloaded and put onto the vessel while the vessel is there and not lose the contract. If we were always to wait under the new proposed Crow legislation for CTC hearings or for the implementation of the Railway Act, there would be an awful lot of farmers with grain sitting on their farms.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall had a few comments to which I think Government Members should pay a little attention. They do not seem to be moving too quickly in preparing themselves to accept the amendment. 1 think we need to ask ourselves why the Government side would be reticent to accept it when it is pretty clear that witnesses who appeared before the committee favoured this kind of legislation. The majority of Hon. Members on this side favour this kind of amendment. What kind of a signal is the Government really trying to send out to the CN, the CP, Wood-Gundy and various shareholders of CP stock? The impression is really being left that the trough is wide open out there, that CP can keep all the bottlenecks it likes, that CN can take as long as it likes, and so on.
Bill C-155, as it now stands, really leaves open field running to CN and to CP to maximize absolutely their costing for moving grain. This model, however, increases the cost to producers and allows for continued bottlenecks, stalling and lost contracts.
As Mr. Justice Hall notes, even at the existing Crow rate, the railroads hang on to loaded cars of grain for movement to export position even though the other line could move them to port over a more direct line, cutting the distance, costs and adding to the efficiency of this system. This tends to undermine the assertions of the railroads that they lose money every time they move a carload of grain. If that were so, presumably, they would lose more money for each additional mile they hauled it, and would do everything possible to get rid of it as soon as possible and stick their competition with the losses.
As we know from the way the legislation is written, that simply is not the case. There is no bonus system so that if the rail cars are moved by the shortest, quickest, most efficient route there would be some kind of a bonus per mile, per load or per car. For that kind of idea, a variable rate simply has not been included.
Therefore, the only way to go about it so as to really protect producers and our markets is to have the capacity, hopefully within the Wheat Board, if not at least through some other function within Bill C-155, to allow for the requirement of efficient and competitive movement.
With the lush revenues for moving grain under Bill C-155, this tendency to hang on to loaded grain cars as long as possible so the money will roll in as the cars roll over the road will be exaggerated. Without the authority which the amendment would give vested in the hands of a public agency, one can be sure that there would be little, if any, exchange of carloads of grain between the railroads simply for efficiency's sake.
Mr. Justice Hall, as co-ordinator of the Crow coalition, had a very interesting comment to make to the Transport Committee hearings in Regina on August 9. 1 think it is worthy of being on the record, particularly for consideration of Government Members. He said:
Wc heard a lot about efficiency, and the whole idea of the railways about efficiency was to get rid of the branchlines. That would have been very efficient from their standpoint. But on this question of efficiency, I am told by senior railway people, there is a railway philosophy that once the line gets hold of a commodity for transport, it will hang onto that commodity to the delivery points, come hell or high water. That works out this way and this is what we found, great quantities of grain grown on, say, the Goose Lake line . . . and now that may not mean too much to members from the east, but it is one of the great grain-producing areas in Saskatchewan between Saskatoon and Calgary served by the Canadian National Railways; it is closer to Vancouver at Rosetown than to Thunder Bay, so the trend is westward. Grain was taken to Calgary, but the CN has no line going from Calgary to Vancouver. So they hauled it then
October 4, 1983

northward 200 miles to Edmonton so they can take it south again to Vancouver. That was the CN.
CP with the Hardisty line, which is another line going through Edmonton ... all that CPR grain went to Edmonton, but there is no line from Edmonton into Vancouver-so it went south to go to Vancouver. Trainloads of grain were passing each other like ships in the night between Calgary and Edmonton.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that I have run out of time. I hope that some of the Members from the Government side will take time during the debate to rise and explain how they see Bill C-155 maintaining an efficient grain system without this very important amendment.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to spend a couple of moments on this particular provision. 1 support the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I represent a constituency in Saskatchewan, a Province that feels very strongly about the proposals being brought forward by the Government. 1 would say it is the considered opinion of the vast majority of grain producers in Saskatchewan that the proposals of the Liberal Government are ones which contain a very rich package for the railways. If anyone is considered to be a prime beneficiary of the initiatives of the Government, such as they are, it would be the railways of Canada. I dare say that if the Government, with its majority, decided to ram these proposals through in their current form, then if I were the president or the chairman of the board of directors of a railway of Canada, I would commission a statute of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to be placed in a permanent location in the headquarters of the building, because the railways will be the main beneficiaries.
1 am naturally very much concerned about the implications of the legislation as it would affect the producers. These are my constituents. These are people who are finding great difficulty in carrying out their responsibilities as farmers in Canada, considering their financial obligations, the pressures of inflation, the ever escalating costs of their operations. This is the message we heard in Regina, in my Province in the representations which all members of the committee heard. I sat through all the hearings in Saskatchewan, in my home Province, because 1 wanted to have a sense of the main stream of thought. I wondered if it was exactly the same perception as mine, after consulting and travelling around the Province prior to the hearings, as when the Bill was first introduced. That is one of the considerations that is lacking in the Bill. This is why this is another attempt on the part of Members of my Party to bring forward constructive suggestions with respect to the operation of the system, a matter which has caused great concern to farmers with regard to the transportation of their grain to the export points. Particularly in Saskatchewan they are faced with the proposition of lines of one railway or another running parallel or in some instances one being the more appropriate route and efficient way of moving grain to either export point.
Western Grain Transportation Act
That is why I want to suggest that there is a general feeling of support which the Government should seriously consider and accept instead of stating general principles on the matter of maximizing the returns to producers as provided for in the clause of the Bill. We should make the provisions of that clause even more certain.
My colleague's suggestion that the provisions in the Bill should contain a requirement for reciprocal and other arrangements to maximize the returns to the producers is one which I think anyone with any interest in the producers of this country should support wholeheartedly. That suggestion is to oblige the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator and the Grain Transportation Agency to require that the most efficient routes be adopted in terms of transportation of grain. It is a proposal that we should all subscribe to regardless of our view of the over-all effect of this legislation.
1 simply say, in supporting this particular provision, that there are serious concerns in Saskatchewan, which were raised in the House again today, about the various programs the Government is operating and implementing. For example, we look back at legislation that was brought forward with respect to western grain stabilization. There were many promises made to the western farmer about the advantages he would experience as a result of that legislation. There were all those promises that were made under the legislation about how the producer would benefit. However, experience in western Canada has been to the contrary. While it is great to pass legislation and promise the world to the western grain producer, they have a bitter experience. When it comes to the pay-off, there is none.
Today, the matter was raised by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) with respect to the western grain stabilization program. We said at the time that that legislation would not be effective or sensitive to the real situation in regions of western Canada within the Wheat Board area.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is relevant to what 1 am saying here. This is another example of words of general intention that read well and state that the Government will maximize the benefit to the producer. However, unless we put a mandatory requirement throughout this legislation and ensure that there will be the maximum benefit to the producer, the experience has been, using the analogy of the Western Grain Stabilization Act, that we will not experience that benefit in western Canada. We know that. We have been sold a bill of goods in the past and, as a result, the western grain producers are very skeptical. They want to know the precise wording of each of these provisions.
I support my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and suggest that this provision with respect to the activities of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and the Grain Transportation Agency Administra-

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
tor was brought in because the original Bill mentioned no positive aspects in terms of benefit to the western producers. There was not one reference to maximizing benefits to the western producers.
I simply ask my colleagues in the House who do not come from western Canada what they would do if there was legislation affecting their area and they had to speak on behalf of their constituents. What would their opinion be if the preoccupation of such legislation was to enrich the railways and take many other steps except ones which would positively affect the people residing in their area? That is precisely what we are faced with in this legislation. It is pie in the sky and anticipation of all sorts of economic activity, but the person who is most seriously and adversely affected is not mentioned in the legislation. That was the situation when this Bill was introduced.
In conclusion I want to assure Members of the House that as far as I am concerned the provisions of this Bill are unsatisfactory. There is no consensus in support of this legislation. We intend to vote against the legislation but we support this particular amendment.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two or three observations with respect to this Bill. First, the power which the amendment would vest in the grain commissioner is already vested in the Canadian Transport Commission, which has a western division and which is quite adequate to the task that this amendment will put upon the grain commissioner. It would seem to me that we would have an untenable situation if there were two different Government agencies with the same power over the railroads. The regulatory agency is the CTC and should remain so.
1 wonder why the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is arguing so vociferously in favour of this amendment and why he is so anxious to have it in the legislation if he is going to vote against the legislation. It seems to me to be somewhat of a contradiction in terms.
I believe the Hon. Member is correct when he says there is no consensus in the West on this proposed legislation. However, throughout his remarks he kept referring to the Bill as originally introduced in the House. We are not debating the Bill that was originally introduced in the House. We are debating the Bill as it has been returned to the House from the Standing Committee on Transport. It is quite different from the original Bill.
The changes in the Bill are due to many factors. The committee listened to people from across Canada, and the former Minister and present Minister approached amendments to the Bill with an open mind. The Bill has been extensively amended, with 89 amendments in committee itself.
The contention that this Bill is designed to enrich the railways is, of course, a canard. While there is no doubt that the railways will receive greater revenues, they also have imposed upon them a very heavy responsibility to build and maintain a modern rail transportation system for Canada. The
fact that all those who oppose this Bill have failed to mention is that a transportation system that is modern and efficient is absolutely essential to the development of a nation or part of a nation like Canada which covers such a vast territory, much of which is landlocked. If we are to be a trading nation-surely no one will argue that we will never go anywhere economically if we are not a trading nation-we must be able to deliver the goods to the world markets.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair has been listening quite attentively to the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). It seems that his remarks are of a general nature about the total Bill. It is quite possible that the Chair has missed the point that the Hon, Member wishes to make, relative to the amendment now before the House. In any case I would invite him to restrict himself to the amendment as much as possible because at the report stage that is exactly what Members ought to address themselves to.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I thank you for that admonition, Mr. Speaker. 1 was simply responding to some of the remarks made by the previous speaker who was speaking on the same amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I appreciate the Hon. Member's position. Unfortunately, it so happens that, in the course of debate, Members may go beyond the scope of the amendment before the House, but the Chair cannot unsay what has been said. As a general admonition, I would invite Hon. Members to avoid those digressions and come to the heart of the subject matter now before the House.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is a point well taken, Mr. Speaker. I will simply complete my remarks on this amendment by stating that the amendment is superfluous and redundant because it attempts to give to the Administrator the powers that already exist in the CTC where they rightfully reside, where the expertise is in matters of rail transportation and has no place in this particular Bill.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) entertain a question?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Sure, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi defend the CTC vis-a-vis the chairman of the new Grain Committee. Could he tell us what would motivate the chairman of the CTC to protect the interests of the grain producer in determining the most efficient and cost effective way of moving that grain? What is being asked for in this amendment is some form of protection for the producers so that the grain will not be delivered in a circuitous route when a more effective, as the
October 4, 1983

"crow flies" route, might be available. Who in the CTC is going to consider the plight of the poor grain farmer?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the role of the Rail Transport Committee of the CTC has as one of its mandates the question posed by the Hon. Member. In fact, this Bill will put more onus upon the Rail Transport Committee to see that the railways operate in an efficient manner because the railways have to submit all their costing, all of their efforts to fulfil the responsibilities imposed upon them by this Bill to the CTC for verification. If they do not live up to the performance demanded of them, they will not get the credits they expect to get. The biggest stick of all to any company is the financial one. That will reside in the CTC and will be applied by the CTC. It is the responsibility of this House and the Standing Committee on Transport as a committee of this House to examine the CTC to see that it is doing its job well.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there would be unanimous consent for our distinguished Chairman of the Transport Committee to continue his remarks. We would be most happy to hear him further if he wishes.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it is unanimous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is the Chair's understanding that the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi has terminated his speech. 1 do not see the point of inviting him to continue. He had time left and the Hon. Member chose to sit down. However, I will recognize the Hon. Member on a point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to thank Hon. Members. I did not realize I was so well loved, but I have completed my remarks.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to be able to get up at this stage in the debate to address myself to Clause 17 which deals with the powers of the Administrator and, more specifically, to Motion No. 33, which adds the phrase "the Administrator shall require". This deals with the exchange of cars in the movement of grain where such an exchange would increase the efficiency of moving grain to its export position.
I want to address some of my initial comments, perhaps even by way of rebuttal, to what the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) said as to why this particular amendment is not necessary. He said that the CTC western division is a regulatory agency with powers adequate enough to render unnecessary this added feature of the Administrator being able to take action.
I suppose my question has to be somewhat rhetorical because the Hon. Member is not here to respond. But I have to ask, when has this authority ever worked? It has not worked to this date. I could go further and ask, when has the western
Western Grain Transportation Act
division of the CTC ever worked? We have had some 18 rail line abandonment hearings in Manitoba. All of the decisions have gone in favour of the railways. Some of the lines under consideration are lines that would be shorter. If the Administrator had this type of power, he would be able to exercise it to compel the railways to make use of these shorter lines.
Another question asked by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi was, if, as the Conservatives claim, they will vote against this Bill, or even if we in the New Democratic Party, as we have said, are going to vote against the Bill, why are we arguing for improving a particular clause? If the Government accepted our suggestion to split the Bill into three distinct sections and portions, l think the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi would understand we could still argue for enhancing this clause.
We are in favour of the railways being upgraded so that the producers' grain can be transported to an export position. Even with that kind of attitude and support, this type of provision for the Grain Transportation Agency, the Grain Transportation Administrator, would enhance his ability to make sure there could be this type of exchange.
Let me deal a little more specifically with this provision. I think Motion No. 33 is very important. I want to illustrate why it is important that the Administrator have the opportunity when faced with a problem, and these problems arise frequently, to be able to use his authority. I am sure those of us who represent rural ridings can recount enough horror stories of bottlenecks in the transportation of grain. This particular addition, in essence, says "The buck stops here." The Administrator is able to require the movement of grain and the exchange of cars so the grain can be transported.
I was a bit embarrassed, when this amendment was voted on in committee that all the Liberal Members voted against it. 1 want to emphasize to my friends opposite why the amendment is important. I want to point out the types of problems that farmers in my constituency and other constituencies face when they want to make sure the grain is moving.
As Members of Parliament we often have to deal with such situations. I have had to deal with situations at the elevator at Makinak. The only reason I am being very concrete is that I feel that sometimes an illustration is worth a thousand words; people understand the types of problems faced by farmers when they cannot get their grain moved. I was glad to hear some of my friends to my right talk about their concern for producers. I hope they will demonstrate this further by supporting us in our attempt to have the Bill split. When harvest has occurred, when the grain is off the field and producers have to have it moved, some of them cannot afford to have it sit idle in storage. It may be that they do not have enough storage space, especially smaller farmers such as the ones in my constituency, and it is essential that the grain be moved quickly. There have been occasions when 1 telephoned the railways inquiring as to why cars were not on certain sidings at Makinak, at Fork River or in other areas of my riding.

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Sometimes we have had to resort to writing long letters to the railways demanding an explanation. We would receive back detailed responses indicating that during recent weeks their unloads at Thunder Bay have gone down from an average of 3,183 cars per week to 2,283 per week and, in a later period, down to 1,723 cars per week. Why is there this bottleneck? How can we put our finger on the problem? Obviously the railways were not able to do anything about it. They really had no particular motivation to deal with the problem. They said that the Grain Transportation Agency is responsible, but if the Administrator could compel the railways to ensure that there is an exchange, the situation would be improved. Sometimes that is necessary, especially when we think of ports such as the Port of Churchill.
When we consider the block system in place on the Prairies, we realize there are some 48 different blocks from which grain is taken. The grain taken to port has to match a particular request or a particular sale which has been committed. We have to get grain out of the block system which will match the particular request or sales commitment. If people do not understand much about the shipment of grain out West, they could just picture the checkerboard which has been developed to ensure an efficient movement of grain. Also they could picture that CN and CP lines sometimes run closely parallel and sometimes at great distances from each other. The most efficient way to move grain is to see what type of grain is required, for example at Churchill, and to move it from the closest block, even if it is on a CPR line and it is a CNR line which goes all the way up to Churchill. It should make obvious sense to Hon. Members opposite that we need someone with the authority to require that the shortest route be taken.
There are many illustrations in my constituency. I could refer to the Erwood subdivision or to the line which goes from Swan River through the Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan. There are lines which have not been used but should be used for the transportation of grain. There are lines which are even shorter than the more circuitous routes which could be used. There are such lines through Canora or through Preeceville if we want to move grain from the Swan River Valley. If the Administrator had teeth, he could ensure that those types of movements took place and that exchanges, where necessary, would also take place. What we have at stake is the welfare of producers. No one here really needs to be told about the plight of the producers in western Canada.
1 see Mr. Speaker indicating that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity to illustrate in the form of case histories the particular problems faced by farmers if they cannot get their grain to market or cannot store it on their own farms because they do not have the granary or storage space.
It is incumbent upon Hon. Members opposite to acquaint themselves with the problems faced by farmers in western Canada if this type of authority is not vested in the Administrator. I hope Hon. Members opposite will give unanimous consent to this amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 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), Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission-Responsibility to deal with televised pornography, (b) Inquiry respecting penalties; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Cultural Affairs-Recommendation that libraries should compensate authors, (b) Request for ministerial action; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), Provincial Affairs-Federal Examination of provincial legislation, (b) Grant to British Columbia organization.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and on Motion No. 33 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to suggest that we give some extra time to the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) to finish his remarks, but he has to attend a committee meeting so I will not bother.
Motion No. 33 concerns the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator. I think some excellent points have been raised in regard to this matter, but for a moment or so I would like to deal with the major point of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), who said that he did not favour this amendment because the authority already rests with the Canadian Transport Commission or the railway section of the CTC. I agree the authority is there, but I do not know of one case in the history of the CTC where it was used in the interests of the farmer, in the interests of the producer. Our major concern today is the producer, the man on the land who has to receive more consideration than he has ever had in the past. I agree that the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator has a tremendous job in front of him, if he does the job he is supposed to do. If we do not give him the tools to do the job, we might just as well not appoint him. If all he can do is to suggest, that is not good enough.
October 4, 1983

In part, Clause 17 reads:
(d) promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers.
He can suggest until he is blue in the face, he can make arrangements until he is black in the face, but it will not do any good unless the suggestions are carried out.
That is the point we are trying to make in connection with this amendment. The Grain Transportation Agency Administrator not only has the right to suggest and to make arrangements, but to require that they be carried out, "if necessary shall require reciprocal and other arrangements". There is a world of difference between what is said in the Bill and in the amendment.
In case the Chairman of the Transport Committee is not adamant about having this change rejected, I would suggest some reasons why he might listen to these reasons and change his mind. After all, he comes from the other end of the country. I do not hold that against him, but he does not have the direct experience in the grain business which people in the West have had. That comes only from being a farmer in the West.
We hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talk about double-tracking. Some people laugh about double-tracking from Winnipeg to Vancouver. I do not laugh at anything because I have seen over the last few years that anything can change. I can understand why there is laughter when we talk about double-tracking the whole area because the entire area from Winnipeg to Vancouver is not the problem. There are problem points where it should be done. When a minister of highways is dealing with the building of a highway or exchanges, he does not go from one end to the other. There may be something at one end which has a hundred times more traffic. You pick out the trouble points, correct those and then correct the other areas as the traffic requires it.
This is what we should be doing with our railway system. For example, double-tracking is required in some parts of the Rocky Mountains. I do not agree with some of the CP routes. I did not agree with them destroying part of the beautiful Village of Lake Louise. I said that in the House and at the Transport Committee hearings. However, I agree with the objective of moving the grain faster through the mountains and other difficult areas.
1 have had letters from people pointing out that from Alberta to Vancouver there is already double-tracking. One is the CN line and the other is CP. Some constituents have asked why we do not make these lines one way. We would then be able to move three times the amount of traffic. That is the case with highways. A two-lane highway can move X number of vehicles per hour. A divided highway, which would not cost that much more, would move three or four times that amount of traffic.
The same is true of the railways. Engineers know these facts. There should be authority, at least during certain times
Western Grain Transportation Act of the year when all traffic goes one way, to have both lines, or at least sections of them, going one way. Why not have a two-way system at certain times of the year, having the CN line going one way and the CP line the other way? Traffic could increase tremendously.
I know there would be some objections. 1 know the hair on CP's head would stick straight up, if it has any hair left. Perhaps it is like me and does not have much left. In any event, CP would not like that at all. If the Administrator said he had the authority and it was the sensible thing to do, rather than having the grain standing in boxcars, the glut of grain could be moved. That would make a real difference.
When there are West Coast strikes, the grain farmers bear the brunt because the grain cannot be loaded into ships. It is not the Government, the owners on the coast or the elevators that take the brunt. It is the grain farmer who loses. He pays the extra that has to be paid, in some years up to $18 million.
We hope that a strike will not occur again. However, if that should happen, the Administrator, once the strike is settled, should be able to get the hopper cars to the port as quickly as possible so that we do not lose our markets. During one strike we could not move our barley. The ships sat in Vancouver harbour for many days. Finally they moved to United States ports to load the barley. We never got that pearl barley market back. We lost it because we accommodated those who had gone on strike on the coast. We forgot all about the grain producer. He is the one who has had to bear the brunt.
The Administrator should have authority to look after the interest of the grain producer. That should be his prime consideration, not to accommodate the railway or put up with the arrogance of the CPR. The grain must be moved, and there is a way to move it.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating I have only one minute left. I have at least nine other topics. I will hold them for another part of the debate. Each and every one has to do with the duties of the Administrator. In closing, I say, let us get the Administrator. Let us not give him just a pretty job, but let us give him the tools to do the job so that he can insist on what is right being done, and order it to be done if there is no co-operation from the railways.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of amendment No. 33 which concerns the Administrator of the Grain Transportation Agency. We are pleased that our colleagues in the Conservative Party are at last seeing the light as far as co-operative integrated planning is concerned. It is surprising that they have moved from their free enterprise, free competitive kinds of principles and are actually interested in integrated planning, in this case in order to make the best use of rail cars. We are surprised that the Liberals have not seen the light and recognized this as a sensible plan to make the best use of our resources at a time when we are trying to improve the rail system across Canada.
The motion recommends the exchange of cars between the railways in order to increase the efficiency in the movement of

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
grain. 1 would like to point out in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that there is a concept that 1 think should be expanded in an over-all planning process that would apply beyond only the transportation of grain. I might mention that in my riding and the ridings that surround the Port of Vancouver, there exists probably one of the worst examples of a bottleneck and inefficiency in the use of rail cars. This is of course because there are four different quite unrelated railways going through the area. For example, it often takes considerable time and expense to move railway cars from the north shore of the Port of Vancouver where there is B.C. rail connections some 45 miles around the total port area to connect to the inner port and transfer grain and other items to another rail system such as Burlington Northern.
I would like to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to making better use of rail cars, it is my understanding-and my colleague who is an expert on this will perhaps elaborate on this-that we also need more rail cars and we need Canadian-made rail cars. That is why I must put on the record again the fact that this Party feels that it was a great tragedy when the Social Credit Party in British Columbia closed down a B.C. rail car manufacturing plant in the Squamish area which was brought into being when our Party was in power in British Columbia. This is the kind of thing we do not need to see more of. If that plant had not been closed down, it would have provided more Canadian-made rail cars for Canadian domestic use as well as for export at a time when we really needed them.
Returning to Bill C-155 and this amendment, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we need to make better use of rail cars right across Canada. We need an integrated and interchangeable plan that would make the best use of tracks, regardless of whether those tracks belong to CN or CP Rail or, in the case of the Vancouver region, Great Northern Railway or British Columbia Railway. That would allow for the flexibility needed to combine partial loads of specialized grains into one load on whichever rail system seemed to be the most logical.
In British Columbia and in the area of the Port of Vancouver particularly, there exists a very complex and, 1 might say, extremely inefficient and unco-ordinated system, which sometimes makes me very fearful for my community when 1 think of some of the very dangerous goods that are transported on the rail systems.
As 1 pointed out, there are four different rail systems which are quite unrelated serving that port area. The Burlington Northern is an American rail system and is completely unaccountable to the local communities, the City of Vancouver or even to Canada, as far as I can see. I am thinking of a situation that occurred when there was a problem with noise pollution created by this railway. This problem was very disturbing to the surrounding community, especially to people who were trying to sleep at night. There was much shunting of cars and so on going on. We investigated every possible avenue
in our attempts to do something about this. Because it was an American rail system, the noise bylaws were apparently unenforceable. Similarly, the mothers in a public housing community in that particular area had a great fight on their hands when they were trying to get an overpass built over this railway so that their children could go to school without having to cross a dangerous track.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, Order, please. It seems to me that the Hon. Member, while raising valid points, is relating to matters incidental to the matters at hand. I do not know what term I should use, but she is sidetracking her remarks and not addressing them to the amendment. I would invite her to relate to the amendment, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make, by illustrating with some examples from my own experience in Vancouver, was that we need an integrated system. We certainly need an integrated system that will allow for the sharing of rail cars, but we also need to expand on that. I think that is very important because we are dealing with a Bill which is concerned with planning for the whole future transportation system particularly in western Canada.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill does practically nothing at all for the Port of Vancouver area. Not one cent of the moneys that the Liberals are proposing to put into rail improvements will go to improvements to relieve the congestion in the Port of Vancouver. I was trying to explain that the congestion is even worse there than in many other regions because of the complexity caused by four different rail systems.
My colleague from Regina spoke this morning about the high cost in inefficiency of having competitive railway systems. Again, the existence of four railway systems in Vancouver is certainly a very good example of what he was complaining about earlier. We need a very integrated planning and operation system, not just for rail cars but for the whole of the rail system.
1 would like to devote a good part of my time, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate something that really is related to this Bill and certainly to this amendment. I would like to illustrate this point by referring to some of the documented evidence in a report entitled "Vancouver Rail Access Study, Phase I Report", which was prepared by a group called Travacon Research Limited. This report was prepared for the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and for Transport Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission. It deals with the very serious bottleneck situation that occurs in the Port of Vancouver.
This Bill and this amendment will actually do very little to solve that bottleneck situation. I think it is very important that I document this because its principles are very important and relate to this Bill. The report attempts to document and identify the timing of potential future rail capacity shortfalls within Vancouver, not only for those that are occurring now. The bottleneck situation is bad right now, but this report deals
October 4, 1983

with it through to 1990. This is quite important because it ties in with a master port plan for the Port of Vancouver.
Under Bill C-155 and the proposed funding that would go along with that, no moneys were allocated to deal with rail improvements to relieve the congestion that now exists and will increase in the future. The report attempts to evaluate potential alternative solutions to such shortfalls. 1 will deal with those in a moment. It also develops recommendations and some very interesting alternative ways which would, through an integrated planning process and integrated use of all the rail systems under an authority, ensure the availability of needed rail capacity for the foreseeable future. It would make much better use of the available resources of all the railway systems in an integrated way so that we could deal with the bottlenecks that are there now and the greatly increased bottlenecks that are anticipated for the future as our economy hopefully recovers and there is more shipping through the port.
The scope of the study covers demand for railway movement through Vancouver until 1990. This amendment which deals with rail car traffic improvements should be considered in terms of future as well as present projected traffic volumes. The report forecasts that the demand for rail car movement through Vancouver, which is based on a recently released Port of Vancouver master plan, will increase considerably. It also assumes that forecasts from the CN and CP Rail systems indicate that they will expand their main line rail capacity through the mountains and increse capacity which, in turn, will create problems as they flow into the Vancouver region-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. 1 regret having to stop the Hon. Member but her time has expired. She could continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be made known that 1 did not deny consent to the Hon. Member who is from that part of Canada in which I reside.
I would like to offer a few comments in reply to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) about the fact that the Government will be voting against this amendment because the CTC-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 never said that.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: He says that he never said that. He spoke against the amendment. I think I have it right now. He spoke against it because he said it was redundant, that the CTC was already in place and you could not have another authority with the powers that would require the Administrator to find the shortest and best route for the benefit of producers.
Western Grain Transportation Act
0 (1640)
I want to deal with that point. The CTC has had these powers and, historically, has not represented the best interests of the producers. I do not want to be unfair, but the problem has existed from time immemorial. 1 have been told by labour union leaders in the Port of Vancouver that if we were to address the switching limit problems in that port and re-arrange the dispatching of grain cars into the Port of Vancouver, those two areas alone could improve the delivery of grain to the port by some 200 cars per day.
We are pretty good at taking the side of management and established interests, but it is pretty frustrating for the rank and file grain worker and port worker to realize that certain efficiencies are available to management but are not taken up, as is the case with the switching limit and the method of dispatching grain cars to Vancouver to match the grade of grain required by the orders that fill the ships. The over-all integration of the management of the system, from the hinterland down to the port, has some faults which are the direct responsibility of management and are nothing to do with the grain farmer who struggles for a living wage.
If the Government were to accept the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) it would require the Administrator to do what is right for the producer. You would then have a force in place that would allow some correction of the inefficiencies within the system.
What we are doing in Bill C-155 and what we are doing by ignoring this type of amendment, is delivering the whole bundle over to one element of a transportation system. We are not placing normal marketplace forces against that element to compel it to be competitive and efficient. In that way we work against the direct interests of the producer, and that means that we work against the Port of Vancouver and all the other elements in western Canada.
I notice that in the United States the subsidy is $1.12 per bushel, while in Canada it is 37 cents per bushel. However, none of the subsidy in the United States is delivered specifically to transportation. In that country, they are far too smart to do that. They deliver it to the producer and give him the freedom of choice to use those elements of the transportation system that help him operate in the most cost-effective mode. That is what this clause is trying to impose in this bad piece of legislation.
Just the other day I had a conversation with a very senior person in the transportation system about the Port of Vancouver. He said that what we fail to realize is that Bill C-155 is not a grain Bill; that it is a transportation Bill for coal, sulphur, potash and other commodities.
The container movement in the Port of Vancouver relies on grain for 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the outbound trade of containers. That information was given to us by the Vancouver delegation that came to Ottawa some two weeks ago. We rely on that outbound trade of full containers of grain products from the hinterland, the Canadian prairie basin, to attract container ships into the port and provide the some 400 jobs involved at

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the port. It is very, very important traffic. When someone gets the mindset that what we are dealing with is a transportation Bill and not a grain Bill, it gives us some serious problems.
We receive a great deal of propaganda from the railroad and the federal Government to the effect that we should not try to improve the Bill-just let the darn thing go through and then, when we get in power, fix it up. To them I say that the Bill is too fundamental and too important. If it goes through in its present form and if the type of amendment set out in Motion No. 33 is put aside, then all Canada from Thunder Bay west loses an opportunity to have value add activities on top of its primary agricultural production. The other thing we lose by continuing to ignore the wisdom of this type of motion is the competitive pressures of an open marketplace on transportation systems. Why should the grower be locked into a rail system if he can move his grain more efficiently by truck? Why should we get into the high cost of branch line maintenance when, who knows-if we put competitive pressures on the system we might find the farmers have a more cost effective way of moving it?
For the Bill to provide for the delivery of all the payment, the subsidy that the Government is putting into the system, strictly into the railroad system is to deny the future of western Canada the further value add in the form of cattle feeding, meat packing plants, crushing plants and further manufacturing of the agricultural wealth that comes out of that prairie basin.
Locking it into the railway system alone locks the farmer into that one mode of transportation. That is literally a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. We have to get this point across to the Government and start to open up the methods of payment that allows all, or a good part, of that subsidy to go out to the producer so that he has the freedom of choice to elect what shall be done with the grain.
We must take into consideration the fact that the farmer on the Prairies is receiving no more for his grain today than he received in 1973 and all his costs of production have inflated, just as those of the railroads have. Yet, in this element of transportation we propose to remove a statutory limit. There is talk of a basket clause or a safety net of 10 per cent. But unless world grain prices go up, I do not know how the farmer on the Canadian prairies will be able to increase productivity. He must do this if he is to offset the imposition of the massive increase in the cost of getting his grain to port in the next decade.
Why would anyone say that this motion is not acceptable? What we are trying to do is to give the grower some form of protection and put some pressure on the CTC which has not been doing its job in terms of the producers' costs. Why does the Government not accept it and give the producers a little more hope in a very bad Bill?
1 see that you are on the edge of your seat, Mr. Speaker, with anxiety as the result of my remarks. You are about to ask me to sit down because my time has expired.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to express my views on this important amendment. Essentially what we have, as the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has just stated, is an amendment concerning statutory limitation. It would also, quite naturally, extend the opportunities for competition so that the farmers would have a minimal level of service.
I submit, Sir, that one of the great mistakes made by the Government with this legislation is consistently to point the finger toward western Canada and say that the people there could not get their act together and the Government had to take the question in hand. From a political perspective the Government effectively pointed out the differences in western Canada and then said that because those differences exist, they do not have their act together. Sir, the differences exist because the West is not homogeneous, rather, it is a mixed agricultural economy, and while there is a significant difference between Alberta and Saskatchewan, I tell you, Sir, there should be a difference.
More than 85 per cent of the grain grown in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, is exported. In the Province of Alberta, by contrast, 47 per cent of the grain is used in feed lots, in poultry and in swine production. The result is, Sir, that in Alberta there is a very extensive feed lot and meat packing industry. If this amendment, and others associated with it, are not accepted we could lose some 6,000 jobs and, according to at least two economic reports I have seen, somewhere between $400 million and $600 million annually. Feed lot operators in Alberta would be in the position of having to match the Government subsidy of at least 45 cents a bushel. Other parts of the country would be receiving an advantage of 45 cents a bushel because they are moving that grain to export markets. In effect, Sir, what you would have is a 90 cent a bushel disparity between one region of Canada and another. Alberta would be in a position where its feed grains are being exported to create industry in either some other Province or some other country. That, Sir, would mean not only the export of grain, it would mean the export of sons and daughters. When you lose the secondary industry, you also lose your sources of employment.
I submit that we are talking about an agency with the power of persuasion plus some authority to ensure that the railways effectively move the grain or, alternatively, open up the market for other modes of transportation.
Over the past 12 months, Mr. Speaker, there has been enormous transportation congestion in the community of Oyen and, more recently this past spring, inthe community of Lougheed. At the present time there is very serious congestion on the line between Camrose and Forestburg, and more specifically the community of Heisler.
As a Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, 1 really have no place to turn in order to help my constituents except to make appeals to agencies which do not have the necessary authority. What the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has done in his amendment is, by using the words "shall require if necessary", to give the agency the power to make things happen for the farmers of this country. We have to ask

October 4, 1983
ourselves not only what we should be doing regarding the Crow rate legislation, but also ask ourselves about the historic meaning of this legislation and its conventions as they affect the expectations for a minimum level of service.
This legislation was established to move grain from the Prairies to other parts of Canada and for export, and as a tool for economic development. 1 submit that those two principles should remain in the legislation today. If we deny the Hon. Member his amendment, we will have limited the ability of our producers to move grain effectively. It would also affect negatively the secondary industries in Alberta because the farmer can acquire his portion of the Crow rate benefit only if he exports. That kind of limitation, Sir, is unacceptable. However, it is an extremely dangerous one, not only in terms of the economy of the Province of Alberta, but also with regard to the spin-off ramifications for all of Canada.
1 note that Your Honour is sending me the signal that my allotted time is up. I really wish I had more time to develop that particular point. However, I know there are other amendments related to that point and I can handle it at a later time. But that concept-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the amendment that has been put forth by my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who represents a constituency neighbouring mine. I would like to bring attention once more to what I think is the crux of the whole problem, the crux of the amendment. At present, Clause 17(d) states:
-promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers.
With the amendment, it would then read:
-promote and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purposes of maximizing returns to producers.
I will not debate the matter, but the Government is proposing to transfer $1 billion a year over the next three years, directly to the railroads with no strings attached, except for these kinds of statements, with no onus on the railroads to become accountable to the producer or to the Government which, in its largesse, is handing over this amount of $1 billion.
All that the Hon. Member for Vegreville is doing is putting in three key words, "and shall require". The amendment shall
Western Grain Transportation Act require the railroads to follow through to reciprocal arrangements with other transport carriers within the country. Surely that is not too much to ask when one considers that the taxpayers are transferring to the railroads $1 billion a year for the next three years. In a sense, the $1 billion a year is making the railroads accountable to the people who are supplying the money, making them accountable to Members of the House of Commons who, in turn, are accountable to their constituents and, in my case and that of all western Members responsible to producers within their ridings.
In effect, if the amendment goes through, we know that as soon as reciprocal arrangements are not made and transportation of the producers' crops is stifled, the pressure will be put on Members of Parliament from the West, from the producing areas, from the commodity areas, to do something about it. They, in turn, will come to the House because they will have a definite statement that states, "and shall require". It is not a promotion saying, "Go out, railroads, and start a publicity campaign, a hot air campaign", but words in effect saying, "Yes, we are doing this". However, it states, "and shall require", which would make it mandatory. It will place it under the scrutiny of Members of Parliament who are responsible to their constituents, and would indeed put it under the scrutiny of those in the Government benches who will also feel the pressure, which will indeed force the railroads to do what they say they will do.
I do not know if Members on the Government side understand. I can say without fear of contradiction that the Conservative Members of Parliament are the ones who represent producers in western Canada. I do not know if the Liberals understand that the very lifeblood of the producer is on the line. It is being put on the line with the transfer of tax dollars, which the producer would also contribute, directly to the railroads, $1 billion a year with no strings attached.
We have had experience with railroads which have stated that they would maintain branchlines in all of the communities, and we have seen what has happened. We have heard the railroads promise that they would maintain passenger traffic from Edmonton, Alberta, right through to Vancouver but, indeed, they have cut off service to the severe detriment of an area represented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).
Jasper dropped 60 per cent of its tourist traffic because the railroads were not compelled by legislation to keep the lines open for passenger service. We have continually seen the railroads lobbying all Members of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Government, pleading their case, stating that they cannot continually operate the railroads and provide services to those very prairie towns for which we are giving them $1 billion to move commodities from. If we do not allow the amendment to go through, we will be giving them carte blanche permission to withdraw or to do exactly as they please, and requiring nothing. 1 am saying that three simple words, "and shall require", change the clout of the legislation, if it does indeed pass. It would then be mandatory that those railroads do what they say they will do, and live up to their

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act commitments that we know they have not lived up to in the past. They have abandoned branch lines and prairie towns. They have abandoned passenger services from city to city and into some of the vital areas which depend on tourism. 1 would suggest that unless we include "and shall require", if we do not require the railroads to do it, they are damn well not going to do it and will only pay lip service to it.
I would urge all Hon. Members of the House to consider those three words very seriously and allow the amendment to pass because it is crucial to the legislation. It is crucial, involving as it does control by the Canadian people, who are giving this money to the railroads, to increase the service and to move commodities for the farmer. It is our responsibility to ensure that the $1 billion a year is spent in exactly the way the railroads say it will be spent. We must require them to do it because their record sure as hell does not show that they will do it on good faith.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put a few words on the record this afternoon concerning Motion No. 33 amending Clause 17 in Bill C-155. As mentioned by the previous speaker, it requires the railways, CN and CP, to have interchange agreements that can actually be guaranteed or put into force.
When the Government first introduced Bill C-155, it was actually giving the railways a guaranteed annual income without any guarantee to the producers that they would have any better movement of their grain from their farms to the elevators, over the rail lines to the ports and on to the market. That is a very dismal situation and it reflects the attitude of the Government toward our producers in Canada. They are already in a very precarious position because of the economic conditions they have experienced and are experiencing. Farmers face enough difficulty when they do not get adequate prices for their products in order to cover their costs and have some margin of profit for themselves. They do not need the added burden of not having their products adequately transported to the ports.
One area where I think the interchange agreement would work very well concerns the area I represent where producers move some of their grain through the Port of Churchill. The only access to the Port of Churchill is a CN line which goes to the terminals there. Canadian Pacific does not have a line going into the Port of Churchill. Quite often, the situation arises when CN Rail may not have the cars or facilities to move grain into the Port of Churchill whereas Canadian Pacific may very well have some cars within the area that are available to haul grain to Churchill. However, they are not available because the Grain Transportation Agency or the Canadian Wheat Board does not have the power to require CN actually to use Canadian Pacific equipment to go over CN lines and haul grain from plugged elevators to a terminal at the Port of Churchill that is waiting for grain. That is one particular instance.
After all the years when land, rolling stock and money has been put into the rail lines, they are not required to have an interchange agreement for these facilities. The only one who really suffers from this are the Canadian farmers who are unable to get their grain to the ports and must put up with the frustration of having a final crop quota for which there is no room in the elevator to which the farmers traditionally haul their grain. In some cases they must haul their grain greater distances to where there might be elevator space that is on a main line or that is better served.
One point which has been stressed in the interventions that have been made this afternoon is that there is need for support from the Conservatives and, hopefully, some Liberals in the House to back up the NDP proposal to have Bill C-155 split into three very distinct parts. Those parts are: one dealing with the statutory Crow rate itself; a second dealing with the upgrading, improvement and rehabilitation of rail lines in Canada; and the third dealing with Dominion Coal Blocks.
As the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) pointed out this afternoon, this is not really a Bill dealing with grain transportation but one dealing with much more than that. We heard some Members state that they support Motion No. 33 because of the lack of guarantees from the railroads for the improvement of transportation of grain to Canadian ports.
Of course, I believe the Dominion Coal Blocks have very little to do with transportation at all, especially grain transportation. Without guarantees being provided in the Bill to have better performance from the rail companies in hauling grain, we will only further enhance the guaranteed annual incomes which the rail companies have had for so many years. At this time they are asking for a guaranteed return of 20 per cent on their investment. I would point out that this investment does not even come from the railways but from the people of Canada in terms of land grants, rolling stock and actual money given to the rail companies.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the Hon. Member. I thought we were on Motion No. 33 which states:
-promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements-
And "the duties and responsibilities of the Administrator." I fail to see what splitting the Bill into three and the coal fields have to do with Motion No. 33 which we should be debating right now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order by the Parliamentary Secretary is very well taken. Will the Hon. Member please take note of the remarks.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note and 1 think it just shows the unwillingness or lack of understanding that the Liberal Government has about how Bill C-155 affects the farmers of western Canada. I am trying to make the point, which I thought I was making very well, that we need some guarantees in this Bill. I support Motion No. 33 and I am pleased it was brought forward.
October 4, 1983

It is difficult to support some clauses of the Bill with which one agrees when there are other clauses that are not interrelated. I maintain that the statutory rate is something that we want maintained because it was an agreement made with the farmers to bring us into Confederation. We want that Crow rate maintained and the prairie farmers cannot afford to pay what the Liberal Government is asking of them.
The second part of this Bill to which Motion No. 33 refers is that part dealing with rail line improvements, upgrading and rehabilitation of the transportation system. We want that part split from Bill C-155. 1 can see that the Speaker is shaking his head, nodding in agreement or disagreement with what I am saying, but I think it simply points out the lack of empathy shown by the Liberals for the farmers of western Canada. I am very happy to be able to stand up and speak in support of this motion this afternoon.
I invite some of the Liberals to tell us how the Dominion Coal Blocks and the statutory Crow rate interrelates so closely unless it is due to their friends in Canadian Pacific who donate approximately $50,000 a year to the Liberal bagman who comes around. Does that not really have more to do with the passage of this Bill and lumping those three areas together than actually setting down good legislation for the Canadian people and western Canadian farmers in particular? Is that not the real truth behind this Bill?
Therefore, 1 suggest that my remarks are relevant. 1 gave the example of an interchange agreement over a line that is owned by the Canadian National which goes into the Port of Churchill. That is only one example of interchange agreements which may exist between the rail companies if the Grain Transportation Agency or some other agency to replace it were given that authority if the Bill is passed.
I suggest the Liberal Government should think again when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) stands up to say that the remarks I have been making this afternoon are not relevant to Motion No. 33 before us. That motion states that there must be some obligation placed upon the rail companies to make them give guaranteed service on rail lines through interchange agreements because dual ownership over the lines and rolling stock does not exist. Instead, we see a single rail company becoming involved in petty arguments with the other rail company. It does not want to give good service, or even if it wants to do so, it does not provide the kind of service that the Canadian producers think should be given in return for all the benefits which have been given to rail companies over the years by the Canadian people and by this Parliament. The Government should be ashamed of the guaranteed annual income which has been delivered by it to the railways and also by the people who produce our grains in western Canada who, in good faith, have in some cases bought rolling stock for the rail companies without guarantees. I think that is very important and very relevant.
I call on Members in the New Democratic Party to support this motion to make sure we not only improve the rail trans-
Western Grain Transportation Act portation system in Canada but we also get from the rail companies some guarantee of performance for the producers of western Canada.


Mr. Nystrom:: Since the Hon. Member has some time left, would he be willing to answer a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. A question and answer period is not provided in the rules at this point. There would have to be unanimous agreement of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the amendment, Motion No. 33, which reads:
The Grain Transportation Agency Administrator may promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for proposing this amendment. I would urge the Government to support it. When we as Members of Parliament representing the taxpayers of Canada are looking at the possibility of forwarding $1 billion a year for the next three years to the railway system, most definitely we must have someone in an administrative position who will protect the very producers we are talking about.
For a moment I want to comment on the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the remarks made by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. He suggested that the Transport Commission should be the one to deal with this. We have seen the record of the Transport Commission. We know of the backlog of work. We know, with regard to VIA Rail, what has happened there and what has happened to the recommendations. We know about the abandonment of lines. For them to suggest that they should be the governing body which would make recommendations is certainly not something with which I would feel comfortable, nor would I want to stand by when the taxpayers' money is being invested.
1 would like to comment on some of the remarks made by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall when he spoke at the Transport Committee hearing in Regina on August 9, 1983. I think it is imperative that we look seriously at what he said. He said, in part:
-one of the great grain producing areas in Saskatchewan between Saskatoon and Calgary served by the Canadian National Railways; it is closer to Vancouver at Rosetown than to Thunder Bay, so the trend is westward. Grain was taken to Calgary, but the CN has no line going from Calgary to Vancouver. So they hauled it then northward 200 miles to Edmonton so they can take it south again to Vancouver. That was the CN.
He also states that CP at the same time has brought grain into Edmonton but, because there is no line west from Edmonton, CP goes 200 miles south. It is like ships in the dark, he suggested. Here we have two trains, one CN and one CP going

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
in different directions carrying grain north and south so they can eventually go west. It is a ridiculous situation. It is one that we as Members of Parliament cannot ignore. Not only does grain go north and south but it hits a bottleneck in Calgary. I know because I have worked for the railways for 35 years. When the grain hits Calgary there are switching cars at the Keith yard. This switching goes on for as long as five hours. I would surmise that the same thing happens at Edmonton.
We in the House have allowed taxpayers' money to go forward to build extra grain cars. I say it is a waste of money because grain cars are being held up for hours at a time. Not only are cars being held up in Calgary but then we have problems at places like Rogers. Cars sit in the siding waiting. The train goes on westward again until it reaches Chase and then Monte Creek. The cars sit on sidings for weeks on end while the railway decides when it is time to start moving farther west. A train is 300 miles away from port and it will leave from Revelstoke and be told to set off 50 cars of grain at Chase. Then it will be told to continue on and set another 35 cars off at Monte Creek and continue to Kamloops.
Then we get into a situation where we have another train of grain. This train will be asked to pick up 25 cars at Chase. In order to do that, the train will pull out 100 cars of grain, put on 25 and shove the rest back, and continue on. What a ridiculous situation.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville is right on with his amendment. It is time these railways had someone to administer what is going on. There are computer systems. I know for a fact that in Revelstoke you can ask where a CP car number such and such is. That information can be had with a touch of a button. When there is that kind of system in place, we can certainly have one of the most up to date transportation systems of handling grain anywhere. I want to say that we can feel proud of the Wheat Board because of the way it serves the needs of the producers.
Not only could we have an efficient way of handling grain but we could also apply the system to the handling of other commodities. We do not see unit cars of coal sitting in a siding unless there is some emergency or breakdown, and that is understandable. But unit cars of coal coming out of the Kootenays make their turn and come back in an efficient manner. This could be done with grain and other commodities.
1 think it is wrong when we bring in legislation which makes those kinds of guarantees of money to the railways without having the railways guarantee that they will live up to the kind of performance that we expect.
I think we can utilize those grain cars which the Government has provided and which the Wheat Board has put forward in a much more efficient manner. They can go across the country faster. Instead of having grain cars sitting in sidings, they can be unloaded and returned or they could at least be brought a little closer to the destination in cases such as that.
If we can shoot rockets to the sky and pinpoint where they land, surely we can co-ordinate some grain from our shipping areas in the Prairies to our ports in Vancouver that will make connections with boats and ships. I think it is a disgrace that we should be discussing this situation today. This sort of thing should have been put in place a long time ago. One billion dollars a year is a lot of money to guarantee to these railways without any major guarantees made to this House of Commons. I think every Member on the Liberal side of the House should reconsider what has been put in this Bill and get assurances that the railway will do the upgrading.
If Liberal Members would like to ask questions afterwards, I will be prepared to answer them. I can hear some of them shouting from across the way.
There is no question about it. We should have an Administrator who is capable of looking at situations as they arise and seeing where it will be beneficial to trade off with CP and CN on certain grain commodities at certain times. Certain types of grain which are being handled at the present time by CN could meet the requirements when the grain being carried by CP does not meet the requirements. We could co-ordinate different types of grain and ensure that they travel on different railways. I disagree with what the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said when he expressed the idea of railways running loaded one way and empty the other. It is not feasible to run loaded trains on one track in one direction and empty in the other, because it will throw out track alignments. Loads must go back and forth to keep trackbeds aligned. It is not like a highway, and it is not feasible in the operations of railways.
I urge Government Members to consider what they are doing, to adopt the amendment and to ensure that we have some mechanism whereby we are guaranteed that the railways will carry out what we expect of them.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Government would like the debate to end, particularly on this particular clause, because it is not interested in putting some muscle into the legislation to make the railway corporations do what they ought to do, that is, give some assurance to producers that the money flowing to them by means of this legislation will in fact be spent to the advantage of grain producers.
The amendment is very simple. It asks that the Government give a statutory declaration that railways shall be required to maximize the returns to producers. It is "shall be"; not may be, not happenstance, not hope so, not even ought to. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) makes his request for a very good reason. Producers have had much experience at being disappointed by railways. Is it good enough to extend $651 million to the corporation and hope that it will be spent for the benefit of producers? Is it good enough to expect that, especially when we look at the long lists of interventions by railways relative to branch line abandonment? Are the railways thinking first of producers when they make application to
October 4, 1983

the CTC to abandon branch lines? It seems to me that it is almost a genuflecting impulse on the part of the railways to think first for themselves and of themselves.
I ask the Government whether there is any guarantee that the $651 million, which will be given carte blanche to the railways, will improve the rail system in British Columbia for all its primary producers. What guarantee is there, regardless of the propaganda floating around British Columbia, that the railways will in fact improve the system for the benefit of producers? It so happens that the Port of Vancouver is interested in an improved system because about half the tonnage flowing through that port is directly related to grain production in the Prairies. If production in the Prairies breaks down, jobs are lost in Vancouver. If production in the Prairies breaks down, it does not matter how good are the port facilities in Vancouver, they will be underutilized. It is very important for people in Vancouver, for people in British Columbia and for those interested in port facilities and jobs in that area to know that railways will not be able to dodge their responsibility in the expenditure of the money for the benefit of producers.
Hon. Members have repeatedly risen to speak on this point and to make a very simple request on behalf of producers, that the Government first think of the benefits to producers, not to railways. They have asked the Government to make sure that the $651 million will not be spent on some other part of the railway rather than for the benefit of grain producers in the prairie basin. I want to see the other parts of transportation in British Columbia improved also. I want to ensure that coal trains have good transportation facilities, that lumber can be delivered to port and that all other aspects of the production system in British Columbia are served well by the railways, but I do not want prairie farmers to pay for it. If the railway system is functioning as it ought to function, if it serves primary producers in British Columbia as it ought to serve them, it will pay for itself. The catch-up work which has to be done to improve the lines in the Prairies should not be neglected further in order to build up the railways somewhere else. I am not saying that the railways will do that. 1 am saying that the legislation does not guarantee that they will not. If the railways are thinking first of themselves and not of producers, there is no guarantee that they will not do it.
I rise in support of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. We ask the Government to provide a simple guarantee that it requires the railways to spend that $651 million on the rail line system so that producers on the Prairies will be served.
A simple piece of information came out of the Wood Gundy report, that as a result of the subsidies flowing to the railway system the value of stock in the railways will double. I do not begrudge shareholders that profit as long as it is earned profit. Therefore, 1 urge the Government to support the amendment that the railways be required to use that money to upgrade the system for producers in the prairie basin.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Motion No. 33, the "shall require" amendment which was placed before the House by the Hon. Member
Western Grain Transportation Act for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It is very important to have government support for this motion. We know that the efficiency of the railways is not something which is automatic. We cannot expect them to co-operate automatically.
Turning to Clause 48 and Clause 49 of the Bill, they allow the Administrator to make rate arrangements with the railways for interchange and reciprocal agreements for joint use, and they give the Administrator the right to buy co-operation between the railways. If we come up with a rate which is advantageous to the railways, they will co-operate, but if we do not come up with advantageous rates, they are not likely to co-operate as they have not in the past. In the sixties and seventies there were a lot of opportunities for interchange. As the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) indicated, they jealously guarded the right to move their own cars. In the days when they claimed they were losing a lot of money, the CPR would not let CNR carry any of its cars. It belies their statement that they were losing money when they would not let the other railroad carry their cars. It tends to undermine the assertion that the railways lose money every time they move a cargo of grain. If that were the case, you would expect them to push their cars off to another railroad. There was no way they were going to allow the other railways to carry their cars.
If they would not co-operate when they were losing money and carrying their own cars increased their losses, how can we expect them to co-operate when it becomes very profitable to move those cars? This amendment would give the Administrator the right to require that there be co-operation between the railways. In order to improve the efficiency of the grain transportation handling system, we must have in place an interchange system between CNR and CPR which works when we need it to work, not when the railway thinks it would be advantageous to them.
The problems are bad enough when moving grain under ordinary circumstances. If we have to fight another major group of participants, the railways, it will be a very difficult situation. It is very logical to put in place a "shall require" amendment which would give the Administrator, much as we would like him to be directly under the Wheat Board, the right to require the railways to co-operate with each other.
Almost every area on the branch line has a very direct route from the shipping point to the port. It is logical that, as a utility that route be the best, shortest and cheapest possible route. We should be able to depend upon the railways to give the kind of efficiency that we need and that it happen automatically. We know what the efficiency of the railways can be. I want to quote Justice Emmett Hall who spoke on the efficiency of railways. He said, and I quote:
We heard a lot about efficiency, and the whole idea of the railways about efficiency was to get rid of the branch lines. That would have been very efficient from their standpoint. But on this question of efficiency, I am told by senior railway people, there is a railway philosophy that once the line gets hold of a commodity for transport, it will hang on to that commodity to the delivery points, come hell or high water. That works out this way and this is what we

October 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
found, great quantities of grain grown on, say, the Goose Lake line ... and now that may not mean to much to Members from the East, but it is one of the great grain-producing areas in Saskatchewan between Saskatoon and Calgary served by the Canadian National Railways-
It is much better to move that grain through Edmonton, as the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) mentioned earlier. Instead, the grain is shipped through Calgary. We have put before the House a number of examples where co-operation was logical, efficient and valuable to the producers and to the railways, but they would not do it. If they would not do it where they were losing money, there is no hope that they will do it when moving grain becomes profitable.
This Bill allows a kind of profitability which our farmers would love to have. Ask any farmer if he would find acceptable a 20 per cent guaranteed profit on what it costs to farm. We would like to see that kind of situation for our farmers. Since we are giving it to the railways we should demand from them the kind of efficiency which would allow that to be possible.
We have argued that there is no need for the Grain Transportation Agency. Also, we have argued that the Administrator has too much power. However, we go along with this amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Although under certain circumstances we think that his power encroaches on the power of the Wheat Board, if he is to be there we should have this kind of amendment which gives him power to increase the efficiency of the agency. No matter what public agency is finally given control over the movement of cars, the Administrator needs the power to force this kind of co-operation.
Over the years, the railways have been operating under the Railway Act. That Act gives power to the Canadian Transport Commission to require certain efficiencies and qualities regarding the movement of cars. The CTC has never used the Railway Act. It has never used the powers that it has. If we gave those powers to an agent directly involved in the movement of grain, possibly he would use those powers to help the producers and the grain transportation system.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in rising to enter the debate on the amendment of my colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), I trust that Members opposite are paying adequate attention to the arguments being presented on this side of the House. The Chairman of the Transport Committee, who spent a considerable part of the summer chairing this committee as it toured western Canada, is in the Chamber. As Chairman, he has been very fair, honest and straightforward in the approach that he has taken to this. We respect him for it. There is a great misunderstanding, though-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: He spoke against the amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has the floor.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I always welcome the interjections of my colleagues because they are always very worthwhile and, hopefully, the Members opposite will pay attention to them. Nevertheless, he does have his shortcomings and one of them is that if he debated and argued against this amendment, then certainly his education is not complete. He still has something more to learn, and perhaps another trip to western Canada would stand him in good stead and help him understand exactly what happens there.
I recognize what this amendment is attempting to achieve because my constituency lies between two of the railways, the CPR and the CNR. I recognize that those cities or towns with grain moving facilities in an area served by two railroads do get better service than those that are isolated from either one or the other. There is no doubt that if this amendment is accepted by the Government and there is a reciprocal arrangement made between the CPR and the CNR, the farmers will enjoy the benefit of it.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, possibly because of the politics of the Government in one form or another, quite often the farmer or the grain producer is the forgotten individual. Somebody, and it really does not matter who or whether or not his agency is called the Grain Transportation Agency, must have the authority to emphasize to the participants involved in moving grain that the grain must move in an efficient manner.
An interesting thing came out of the committee hearings. One of the witnesses before the committee stated that if we could have a 2.5 per cent improvement in efficiency in the movement of grain each year, however the railroads, the grain companies and the shipping facilities at port operated, it would mean that there would not necessarily be any increase in the cost to the producer. This is of fundamental importance because, at this time, the producer cannot afford to pay any more for moving his grain until such time as the price of grain goes up.
Those of us on this side of the House know very well what the Snavely Report meant, and one of the arguments I had with that report is that it accepted the railways' figures. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we must accept those figures, because I have never seen an operation yet that could not become more efficient with proper leadership.
This amendment, if accepted by the Government, will provide a more efficient system of moving grain. In the competitive world that we live in, we must compete against our counterpart south of the 49th parallel. 1 was in that country just recently and those farmers were receiving anywhere from 50 cents to 80 cents a bushel more for a comparative bushel of barley than those farmers north of the 49th parallel. This is something of basic importance and something of which we must be cognizant.
An area of the movement and transportation of grain in which we can give full credit to the producer is the area of efficiency because the producer has certainly done his part in improving efficiency. However, there is a limit to the extent that the producer can go. I think at the present time, with the increased costs of energy, there are dire times ahead for the
October 4, ! 983

producers unless we start implementing programs and facilities that will be of benefit to the producer.
We have had dealings with reciprocal arrangements between the CPR and the CNR in my constituency. In Red Deer, the train must cross a river. The CNR eventually got permission from the CPR to use the bridge belonging to the CPR. It can be done if it has to be done. This is why the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, is of basic importance. It will mean that this will have to be done, and the railways can do it.
1 do not know whether you recognize it, Mr. Speaker, but it is ridiculous for the CNR to pull a trainload of grain into the port facility at Vancouver and then have to unhook its locomotives and put CPR locomotives on to pull the grain train in and unload it because it is on CPR tracks. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are amazed by that and I trust that, with any influence you may have on Members opposite, you will help to ensure that they become cognizant of what is happening.


An Hon. Member:: Somebody has to have control.


Thomas Gordon Towers: No problem. Somebody has to get control, and we are asking the Government to move one step at a time. The Chairman of the Transport Committee can blame the railway brotherhood or whoever he likes, but I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the farmers who have to pay the price if the provisions of this Bill are implemented. There is provision in the Bill for the cost of moving grain to increase five times by 1989-1990. This is totally unacceptable to western Canadians and to those of us who represent those grain producers in western Canada.
Further to that, there are extra costs involved in uni-transportation. That occurs when a railway has a monopoly over a certain area and can do whatever it likes. It can move the grain whenever it likes. As I said earlier, wherever competition exists, there will be better service.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What about the cost-plus system?


Thomas Gordon Towers: As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kind-ersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) has said, with the cost-plus system the railways absolutely cannot lose. This is one of the deficiencies in this Bill.
1 must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the general mistrust felt by grain producers in western Canada is certainly surfacing at this time. They are angry at the CPR because of what it did through Marathon Realty. They are angry about what happened with Pan-Canadian, and they are really angry about what will happen to them in the years ahead.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They are not happy with the Government.


Thomas Gordon Towers: 1 suppose that is right. They are not happy with the Government. They are angry about that as well. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the next election will prove that.
1 do hope that Members opposite will think about this overnight and accept it. I realize that it is close to adjournment time but 1 do trust that the Members opposite will think about
Adjournment Debate
this amendment and what it will do. Thinking about it will take no skin off the noses of any of the Liberal Members in western Canada even though their skin is pretty thin and they do not have too much of it. If they would just take cognizance of this amendment, accept it in their policies and draft it into the legislation, then we will certainly move in the right direction.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been raising the issue of pornography in broadcasting since last January and the first response of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to questions asked of him was relatively favourable. He did express some concern, and also expressed confidence that the CRTC would act. We know that the CRTC has failed to act; it has not amended its own broadcasting regulations to deal with the pornography question. It has not been tough in private with broadcasters and it has basically admitted that it made a mistake in licensing Pay-television. Then, it said to the women of Canada, "Tough luck! You can wait until the licence renewal time is up." That is roughly five years hence, Mr. Speaker. The CRTC failed to act in spite of the fact that the Broadcasting Act was very clear and that the powers given to it are enormous.
The only light at the end of the tunnel as far as the CRTC is concerned, is the recent decision it gave to a complaint from Media Watch. At last the CRTC has shown that it understands the problem of pornography and is able to distinguish between a discussion of violence against men and women as a question of freedom of expression and the advocacy of violence against women directly, which we have in pornography. The CRTC still did not offer any remedy, however.
The Minister of Communications next offered an excuse for not acting by suggesting that men or women who complained about pornography could lay complaints with the police under the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code, and go to court. Of course, everyone should go to the police, insofar as they can, with obscenity complaints. There are some loopholes in the existing legislation, however. Some instances of pornography-even extremely violent pornography-are not covered by

October 4, 1983
Adjournment Debate
the current provisions of the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has promised an amendment. That was supposed to be introduced last spring before we left for the summer, but it has been delayed until the next session of Parliament.
There is another difficulty with enforcement, Mr. Speaker. Individuals and organizations have made complaints but police response has not been vigorous. The courts still do not understand the problem of pornography, especially the violent aspects of it. Recent decisions have included paltry fines, even in such flagrant case as Red Hot Video in British Columbia.
For broadcasting, there are particular difficulties in enforcement. What do you do if you do not have expensive recording machinery? With print pornography there is a magazine that you can take to the police with your complaint; otherwise, you do not have anything. A tape may be available or it may not. In the case of satellite broadcasting of pornography we cannot even have tapes and that means that redress is extremely limited.

Pornography is a serious problem. The rate of violence against Canadian women is too high and the situation is growing worse. We now have proof that a link exists between violence on the screens and violence in real life. Social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists have been telling us about child abuse cases, and they are becoming increasingly serious. Battered women tell us that their aggressors forced them to imitate pornographic acts. And what does the Federal Government do? The Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has faith in the CRTC, but the CRTC does not do anything. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has proposed an amendment to the Criminal Code, an amendment which I support indeed, but the Minister is quite prepared to wait until the new session of Parliament to introduce it in the House. No hurry, even though the problem is serious.
What can we do now? Tomorrow, we can take one step. Tomorrow, my Private Member's Bill will come up for debate on second reading, which means we will be debating the principle. My Private Member's Bill, C-675, features a simple amendment to the Broadcasting Act. I propose adding a single sentence to prohibit abusive comment or pictorial representation on any race, religion, creed or sex. The first three criteria are already covered in CRTC regulations, but the fourth- sex 's not- Abuse against ethnic minorities and religious groups is illegal, but abuse against women is legal. Antisemiti-cism and racism are prohibited, but sexism is acceptable. If the CRTC has refused to bring forth an appropriate amendment to the regulations, then it is up to Parliament to amend the legislation, the Broadcasting Act, and to abolish all forms of abuse on public airwaves.
The Minister of Communications can show his concern about the pornography issue concretely tomorrow by supporting my Private Members' Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, and I call upon him to do so. Indeed, I am hoping to get all party support for this Private Members' Bill. It is only a small step but an important one. It would say to the broadcasting world that abuse is not acceptable. With other measures, it could help to stop pornography and help turn the tide. It would give Canadian women some confidence that this Parliament takes the problem of violence against women and children seriously.
[ Translation]


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this timely question on pornography which has been a subject of growing controversy since early this year as a result of the campaign launched primarily by residents of the Ottawa region and the advent of Pay TV.

Since then the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, on June 23, to reflect growing concern about cruel, violent or degrading portrayal of individuals in the media. This proposal removes the current need for linking crime or cruelty, violence or degradation with sex in order for the undue exploitation of these matters to be obscene. Video tapes and broadcast material are clearly included in this clause, so this is step number one.
The second step is that we have to state clearly that the CRTC also has to go by the general standard and that child pornography and violent pornography has never been permitted. This Government has set up a task force made up of experts in the field of pornography, that is to say composed of deans of law faculties and various experts in the social sciences. This committee has already started its work this summer, and it is working very closely with all those concerned with this important problem.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that even though we feel this particular subject is of the utmost importance, if we were to take the wrong measures in order to protect women we might create more harm to those we want to protect.
1 have been standing very stongly with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on this particular issue, but I would like to reassure our citizens that this Government is firmly committed to taking the necessary action, but also in line with the new Constitution of this country under which freedom of expression also has to meet the standards generally accepted by this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware of the problem. This task force will certainly give us more indication as to what steps we should take and we are necessarily going to work very closely with the Hon. Member to study her Bill tomorrow. But I would like to point out that pornography is certainly a
October 4, 1983

delicate matter and we should treat this very delicately in this House.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS-RECOMMENDATION THAT LIBRARIES SHOULD COMPENSATE AUTHORS. (B) REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I asked the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) whether he was prepared to implement a proposal that authors be paid for the public use of the books they have written which are available in public libraries. My questions arose following a series of cross-country demonstrations organized by the Writers Union of Canada in order to publicize the issue of payment for public use. It was, they felt, one of the only avenues left to them after many years of quietly suffering poverty and neglect.
There are several thousand people in this country, Mr. Speaker, who make their living by writing. Very few of them make a very good living. There are authors like Peter Newman, Pierre Berton and I suppose Margaret Lawrence and Margaret Attwood, to mention a few. However, most authors can only earn a part-time living, with an income of something in the neighbourhood of $2,000 to $3,000 a year, from their writing. Most of them live in poverty. Despite that poverty, they endure and continue to write, contributing to the cultural life of this country.
I put this matter before the House in the form of a question several weeks ago. I referred to payment for public use program which would give authors compensation for the public use of their books through public libraries. This program would be one way of providing a minimum level of support for writers who now earn, as I have already indicated, somewhere between $1,000 and $3,000 a year from their books. It would encourage writers to continue writing and producing Canadian literature, and would, in a small way, support and enhance the development of Canadian culture.
This idea is not new; it is not unique to Canada. There are now various schemes based on this principle in existence in ten other countries. The question has been examined in some considerable detail by a number of very important organizations. It was studied by the Canada Council, which not only approved the idea but also worked out a proposal as to how it could be administered. It was studied by the Applebaum-Heb-ert Committee which also worked out a proposal somewhat different than that of the Canada Council, but one in which they adopted the principle, the idea.
Indeed, the Minister of Communications endorsed the idea, the principle, in a speech he made to the Writers' Union. Unfortunately, endorsements do not authorize funds. The total amount to implement the plan in the first year was estimated to be just $1 million, a very modest amount by government standards. Yet the Minister has continued to stonewall its implementation.
Adjournment Debate
All that the writers are after is some compensation for the royalties they lose when a library purchases books they have written and then loans them repeatedly to members of the public in order that all can enjoy them. Under this idea, book borrowers would not be penalized, nor would the libraries be required to fund the authors' payments. The revenue would come out of general revenue and at least some of it would go back into the public coffers in the form of income tax.
When I raised this question with the Minister, as 1 say, a principle which he apparently endorsed in his speech to the Writers' Union, he had two answers. First, he suggested that since libraries come under the jurisdiction of the Provinces he would have to receive the Provinces' approval. I say that that is nonsense. No province would object to a plan for helping authors earn a living if it did not have to pay for it. The proposal is that the Government would pay $1 million a year to help authors earn a somewhat decent living.
The second point the Minister made was that the Canada Council could do it. Of course, it could and it has looked at the problem and worked out a system for doing it. Unfortunately, the Canada Council simply does not have the money. The Minister knows that the Canada Council already has many more demands on its funding than it can meet. Therefore, to suggest that the Canada Council can do it without giving it the authority or money required is simply to put off the implementation of this proposal. In fact, it is saying to the authors that the Government is not prepared to implement this idea which is so essential if Canadian authors are to be able to earn any kind of living.
I would urge the Government to seriously consider the proposal from the writer's union and implement this plan which would require a relatively modest amount of funding.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I believe he knows full well that in fact not only the Provinces but municipalities have a great deal to play in this matter of public payment for authors. We are really talking about the use of books in public libraries. The Hon. Member also knows that Provinces have great jurisdiction over public libraries, as do individual municipalities.
Of course, this matter is not only of concern to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) but to the Government as a whole. The basic answer is yes, the Minister of Communications is in favour of some sort of program that would assist authors to receive financial benefits and payments for the use of their works in a public setting. However, we know that the Provinces have great jurisdiction in this matter.
The Hon. Member raised this question on September 15, at which time the Minister responded that all libraries that would be affected come under provincial jurisdiction. I cannot stress that particular point too strongly because it is a fact.

October 4, 1983
Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member also referred to the Applebaum-Hebert Report which is the federal cultural policy review committee. As a Member of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, he knows full well that the committee is looking at other aspects of the Applebaum-Hebert Report, part of which is this very subject. Therefore, the Minister is waiting to get some response from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture as well as from the Provinces.
I believe it was a year in May that the Minister met with his provincial counterparts when this subject came up. He asked for a provincial response. We have not received any response to date. Until we get some input from the Provinces and from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture very little can be done about it.
1 can assure the Hon. Member and the House that we in fact are very cognizant of this particular problem and would certainly hope that we would be able to get the co-operation of the Provinces, municipalities and all others concerned to come up with a workable solution to this very pressing problem as it affects Canadian authors.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS-FEDERAL EXAMINATION OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION. (B) GRANT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA ORGANIZATION
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, last week I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) relating to the practice of the Government in funding organizations that operate in each of the Provinces. Specifically, I was alerted by the fact that the Government had given grants to two different organizations in British Columbia with the expressed purpose, apparently, to enable those two organizations to demonstrate-using today's language-against that particular Government.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) first raised this question in the House regarding Government funding of organizations in the Province of Quebec first, and now of organizations in British Columbia.
If there is any one thing at which the Canadian people will point as the legacy of this Liberal Government to the country-and I think there are many prime choices-it is the state of anxiety and conflict which exists. The fact is that the Government under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has caused region to fight against region and different levels of Government to fight against each other. It has caused sectors to fight against other sectors. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has been thriving on a program of divide and conquer.
There is no question that the Government has the ability to do what it has done. It has the financial resources to fund these organizations in each of the Provinces, and it may even have the law on its side, in order for those organizations to fight legislation or programs within those Provinces. The question is not whether the Government has the legal right to do it; not a question of whether the Government can, but a question of whether the Government ought to do so. It is a
matter of propriety; whether the Government should use federal tax dollars to fund organizations in any of the ten Provinces in order that those local groups can demonstrate against any of the programs within the Provinces.
The Minister of Justice says in this case it is a matter of human rights programs. Who says? It well may be, but is it the prerogative of the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to decide that possibly human rights will be violated in the Province of British Columbia? Is it the prerogative of the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State to decide whether human rights or language rights will be proscribed in the Province of Quebec? Are they doing the same thing in the Province of Manitoba? Are they doing that in the Province of Alberta? There are about ten provincial Governments that would be interested to know what are the criteria which allow the federal Government to decide it can spend tax dollars to fight programs within each of the Provinces.
The question is not whether it is lawful or whether it is within the purview of the Government, but is it right that each of the ten Provinces now should have to look over their shoulders when they pass legislation, when they conduct programs, when they institute new programs, to see whether the federal Government is going to run counter to the Provincial program?
It seems to me that if Confederation has matured, and we all believe it had when we debated the Constitution two years ago, to the degree that the Provinces can now make their own decisions, should they not democratically rise and fall on the basis of their own legislation? Is it within the purview of the federal Government to fund organizations to fight provincial Governments? Should the Government do so?
I think the Prime Minister would be the first to say that democratically this Government will rise or fall on the basis of its own programs, and that the electors will decide whether or not this Government should be elected on the basis of how it has administered the affairs of state. If he believes that to be true federally, why should he not believe that to be true provincially? Are there not ten Provinces elected democratically? Are they not also defeated democratically when they violate the trust of their electors?
I would like to have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the criteria the Government uses to spend our tax dollars to fight provincial programs initiated by democratically elected Governments which can also be democratically defeated ? Is it right for the federal Government to use our money to fight against provincial programs? That is what we have a right to know, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to apologize to the Hon. Member opposite in that neither the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State are here
October 4, 1983

today. 1 will endeavour to comment briefly. I believe a number of points have been made sincerely by the Member opposite.
1 want to assure the Hon. Member that it is not the policy of the Government of Canada to fund any group, in the words of the Hon. Member "to fight the provincial Governments." I want to assure him also that it is not our policy either to fund any group to promote policies of any particular provincial Government or political party. Let me refer to the days of the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the Constitution of Canada when all Parties sat around the table and discussed the issue of the Charter of Rights for this country. It discussed the many issues involved in human rights in Canada. It should be apparent from that experience that it is the policy of the Government, as it always has been, to promote wherever possible free, open and democratic discussion of what the Charter of Rights means to Canadians and, more important, during the process of evolving those rights, to hear the views of all groups concerned, in
Adjournment Debate
particular the views of every minority group. The will of the majority is often heard without any assistance or motions from anybody.
1 assure the Hon. Member opposite that this Government, or any government in Canada for that matter, is not interested in funding groups to promote or, in the words of the Hon. Member, to fight legislation of any provincial Government. We are not in the business of asking such organizations what their views may be on any particular legislation of any Province of Canada. We are interested in the promotion of free, open and democratic discussion of the rights of Canadian citizens, particularly those rights which have now been entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Wednesday, October 5, 1983