1983-06-20

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 16, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) was arguing a point of order when the debate was interrupted.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out, when we adjourned debate on this Bill last Thursday I was replying to a point of order made at some length by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in which he suggested that because the Bill contained several principles it should be split, presumably by the House. The Hon. Member referred to a citation in Erskine May at page 380 under the heading "Complicated Questions" where it is stated:
-the House may order such question to be divided-
Further on down the page it states:
In 1888, however, the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately-
1 pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that that quotation is in there, of course, but the verbs which are used are very important. It does not say that they "must" be split. It does not say that they "shall" be split. It simply says that they "may" be split. Frequently Bills come before the House which contain numerous principles, and if it is to be held that there must be a separate Bill for each principle, I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, that the business of this House would literally grind to a stand still.
What will happen is that amendments will be put throughout the course of debate, perhaps after we have heard witnesses in committee and that sort of thing, and then we will arrive at a package. That package may contain some measures which the Hon. Member does like. It may contain some measures which the Hon. Member does not like. However, he has to make tough decisions. That is what politics is all about. You cannot have a separate Bill on every single principle.
Inherent in the Hon. Member's argument is really a rejection of the validity of omnibus Bills in certain situations. Omnibus Bills, of course, are a legitimate legislative device where the legislative body is dealing with a matter which relates to one over-all policy. That is certainly the case when we are talking about the whole question of railway upgrading and the rate structure. If my hon. friend were only concerned about the Dominion Coal Lands, I am sure we could solve that problem, but the response of the New Democratic Party to this issue is a typical NDP response. It, of course, wants the railway to spend more money on improvements, but it refuses to come to grips with the question of where the money will come from to do that. I feel it is legitimate and appropriate that one Bill deal with one issue which is destined to be interrelated. How can one talk about improving railways without dealing with the question of how the costs are going to be paid?
There was reference to the statement by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux made on January 26, 1971, when he said:
There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
He was referring in that statement to the comprehensiveness of omnibus Bills. There was also a reference to the statement made by Mr. Speaker Jerome on May 11, 1977, in which he expressed some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of Bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint that a Bill of this kind gives the Government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different although related subjects. Well, the current Speaker dealt with that question in a very final way. She ruled that the Bill, based on all of the precedents before her, was in order and that the proposition that it should be divided could not be accepted. She did that quite decisively.
In respect to the energy legislation, in which the appropriateness of the scope of an omnibus Bill was decided, the paramaters that Bill encompassed were much more comprehensive than those of this particular Bill. Of course that Bill was split, but it was split voluntarily, not because it had to be, but it was split voluntarily after negotiations, for procedural reasons.


Mr. Lewis:: After some reflection.


David P. Smith: In those negotiations the Parties agreed to cooperate.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Well, what has been the position of the NDP on this issue? They do not want it introduced or debated. They do not want witnesses to be heard. They are prepared to deny the right of people, particularly western Canadians, who want to have their views on the record-


Mr. Deans:: That is not true.


David P. Smith: They are prepared to deny that right by trying to block it from going to committee, which is the only place where witnesses can be heard.


Ian Deans: That is not true, either.


David P. Smith: This, Mr. Speaker, is a dilatory tactic, a stalling tactic; we all recognize that. You really have to scratch your head at the degree of good faith of the NDP in raising this point at this stage of the debate. If you refer to the ruling of Madam Speaker on March 2, 1982, in commenting on what Speaker Lamoureux said, she said that:
Although he expressed the reservation that the point of going too far may have been reached, he did not offer a solution, except to say that future omnibus Bills should be scrutinized at first reading stage-
At first reading stage, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first reading stage. This is the second reading stage and we are in the umpteenth day of debate on second reading in which we had countless NDP speakers participating. They did not do so under protest. They may have been protesting the contents of the Bill, but they certainly were not suggesting that it was not in order to present the Bill because it contained several different principles. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but they moved an amendment for a six months' hoist, and we then had dozens of speakers, including virtually the entire NDP representation in the House, on that amendment. Then, when they run out of speakers and they are going to continue to filibuster this Bill from going into committee and allowing the public to be heard, they have to come up with another argument. So they reach way back and pull out this argument which, if it had any validity at all, and if we are to follow the citations read by the previous speakers, should have been raised at first reading stage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude there is no merit in this point of order. It is a dilatory, stalling tactic.
We do not alter the rules of Parliament to accommodate political objectives and strategies. The rules are the rules; we all live by them. I think it is an abuse of the rules when there is an attempt made to frustrate the elected representatives in dealing with the nation's business. That is what is going on there. I think the point of order should be summarily dismissed and we should get back to the debate, get the Bill out of here and into committee, and allow the public to be heard.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to intervene on this point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and to support the contention that Bill C-155 is an omnibus Bill which, under the rules of the House, is complicated and should be divided.
Before proceeding to my argument I would like to touch on the arguments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). First of all he
finished his summation by suggesting that any objection to splitting the Bill must be made at first reading. This will have to be a very quick objection, if the Parliamentary Secretary can find some way for us to hear the motion for leave to print the Bill and then make the objection as it sort of travels to the Table before it is printed. One wonders just exactly how the mechanics of that will be worked out.
Second, I would suggest that it is not the position of the Chair to reject matters summarily, and thankfully the Chair does not reject points of order summarily, out of hand, as the Government would wish it to do. The Chair is naturally our protection that that shall not happen.
Third, I would like to comment on the voluntary nature of the Government's agreement to split the energy Bill, as the Government was dragged, kicking and screaming, to its point of volunteering on that very important Bill. The House will know that that manoeuvre, the Energy Security Act, which the Government tried to foist on the people and Parliament, was not backed up by the people, who supported our argument, the Conservative argument, that the Bill was odious and did not make any sense the way it was, with 12 pieces of legislation contained in the Bill. It was ultimately split into nine or ten separate Bills and the House dealt with them very expeditiously.
I have reviewed the argument made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), at the time of the Energy Security Act. I want to compliment him on the way he put forward the argument. One thinks that if he had not fallen by the wayside and became a Ph.D. in engineering, he would have made a good lawyer.
The first point I want to make to the Chair is that it is within the authority of the Chair to split a proposition placed before it by way of a motion or a Bill, as long as any Hon. Member objects to the items being taken together, and as long as each part is capable of standing on its own. I refer the Chair to Erskine May, on page 380, in which the reference is to complicated questions. It states:
In 1888 ... the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately if any Member objected to their being taken together (u). Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged (a). A complicated question, can, however, only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own (b).
We submit that the Chair does have the authority to split the Bill.
There are four arguments which I wish to place before the Speaker. The first argument concerns relevancy. The point is made, in the precedents, that there must be a relevancy between the various parts of the Bill. Citation 703 of Beau-chesne's, found on page 218, states:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill.
June 20, 1983

The question for the Chair is: is there a relevancy? Is there, as the Deputy Speaker said on May 6, 1971, a set of guidelines? Is there a theme that runs between the contents of the Bill and subject to the umbrella which is raided by the terminology of the long title of the Bill?
To expand my argument of relevancy I would point out that the title of the Bill is, "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'. There is no reference in the title of the Bill to the releasing of coal lands under Clause 62. There is no reference in the Bill to the upgrading of the railway lines. There is a reference to the setting of the freight rates.
Therefore, we submit that the question to the Chair, as far as relevancy is concerned, is this: is there a relevancy between trying to tie together, in one Bill, releasing coal lands, upgrading rail transportation in western Canada, and setting freight rates? We submit that there is no relevancy in the Bill as it is drafted.
The second part of our argument concerns debate at second reading, and just exactly what it means. Citation 734 of Beauchesne states that:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the Bill is required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House. It is not regular on this occasion, however, to discuss in detail the clauses of the Bill.
That citation is important because we are trying to debate what is contained in Bill C-155 on a coherent basis. It is difficult to do that when there are these competing interests within the Bill. More important, when debating time has been cut down through the new rules a Member must address himself or herself to three different aspects of the Bill within the ten-minute speech allotted at the second reading stage.
Once again I point out to the Chair that there are these three principles that we are debating-upgrading rail transportation, releasing coal lands, and setting grain freight rates. It is quite possible for a Member to be in favour of releasing the Dominion coal lands while at the same time violently opposing, as does the Progressive Conservative Party, the increase in grain freight rates. That is where we have difficulty in debating this Bill on a coherent basis at second reading.
The third part of our submission concerns the vote at second reading. At second reading stage the whole principle of the Bill is at question. Members of this House either affirm the principle of the Bill or deny it through one vote which we cast. It is impossible for us to cast a meaningful vote at second reading if there are competing interests within the Bill. We are not concerned if the Bill has one principle and its clauses expand on that principle to state how it will be carried into law. We are arguing that it is difficult to vote in a meaningful fashion if there are three competing principles upon which one vote must be passed. For that reason we submit that the Bill should be split by the Chair.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Finally, I wish to refer the House to Beauchesne, citation 120, which states that the Chair's responsibility is to see that debate, which includes votes, is carried forward in an orderly fashion. We suggest to the Chair that through that citation it has a responsibility to see that Bills have relevancy, that debate at second reading can be coherent, that the vote at second reading is meaningful and only addresses one principle, and that the Member should not be put at odds with different principles within the Bill.
In conclusion I would respectfully suggest to the Chair that the competing principles within the Bill, which are the upgrading of railway transportation lines, release of the Dominion coal lands, and the increase in the freight rates, set up an omnibus Bill situation or, "a complicated question" to which the Chair can rightfully address itself. In the interest of orderly debate and meaningful votes, the Chair should see the strength of our argument and split the Bill into the three areas suggested in order that the House can address itself to the principles of the Bill and vote in the way in which all of us were sent here to vote by our constituents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this point the Chair has heard spokesmen from each of the three Parties. The Chair does not care to have a repetition of the argument. If Hon. Members have something new to add to the point of order the Chair will listen, but it is asking Hon. Members not to simply repeat argument.
I see the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on his feet. I will ask him to be very brief and not repetitious.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order with what I think is new material and what also may be of assistance to the Chair in terms of what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say on the point of order. I agree with the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) that it was ridiculous when it was suggested that this point of order should have been raised at first reading. How it could have been raised at that time totally escapes me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North covered that point adequately. Does the Hon. Member have something to add to the point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Chair and the Parliamentary Secretary that roughly a month ago, May 19, we formally wrote to the Government requesting that the Bill be split. We made that letter public, and it was not until last Wednesday that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) was told that the Government was not going to split the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is prepared to give argument, the Chair is prepared to hear it. But the Hon. Member is not giving argument; he is giving a history of previous events. This has been well stated by his

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
House leader. The position of his Party has been given. The Chair invites argument on the merit of the point raised, not on another matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, you heard the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary on the item about which I was just talking. It was not until last Thursday that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain could raise the point of order with the Chair because we waited until we had a response from the Government on the matter, and then the Hon. Member raised it at the first opportunity. For anybody to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The timing is not an issue. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has made his point. He has had ample opportunity to do it. I invite the Hon. Member not to waste the time of the House but to give his argument.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that was an issue. It was made an issue by the Government, and I am responding to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance).


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not propose to hear fallacious and repetitious points of order which add nothing to the debate. At this point the Chair has heard spokesmen from each of the main Parties. The Chair will defer, carefully review the record, and render a decision. At this stage the Chair will go back to the Hon. Member for Rosemont who had the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought I had the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member was abusing the time of the House. He was not dealing with the point of order.


Ian Deans: That is nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not prepared to hear repetition and wasteful interventions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I will not be repetitious or deal with arguments that have been put by my colleague, the House Leader for our Party.
I want to deal just briefly with the role of the Speaker and the role of the House as it pertains to addressing points of order of this type. As Mr. Speaker will be aware, this kind of question has vexed successive Speakers, and the history of points of order of this type goes back a number of years. It addressed the fundamental question of the role of the House of Commons, the purpose of the House of Commons, and the intent and purpose of divisions in the House.
Among the roles of the House of Commons perhaps the clear and most important one is the role of legitimizer, to legitimize or to legalize, if you will, the proposals of the Government. Obviously it is in the executive, in the Crown's interest, that this function not take too long. The role of the Speaker in this natural conflict between Government, with its desire to have expeditious treatment of its proposals, and Parliament, with its desire to give fair and proper consideration to the proposals that have been put forward by the Crown, is that of uniquely protecting the House from the Crown. Indeed, when Speakers are appointed, as is traditional they resist such appointment because in the past there have been Speakers who have offended the Crown. They have been known to lose their heads.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair invites the Hon. Member to be specific about the point of order before us. The Chair is well aware of the problem in the decision and is aware of the responsibility, but would the Hon. Member deal with the particular point of order before us?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will get very quickly to the point I was trying to make. I have no desire to take undue time. In terms of legitimizing and legalizing Crown proposals, the House is required to exercise responsibility by ultimately reaching a decision, by dividing. When we do so the majority prevails and the question put has the force of law, if passed. To do so, it is absolutely fundamental or imperative that the question put be clear, be simple, and be understood. It is impossible to get that kind of clarity from questions which contain more than one simple principle. For that reason the question of second reading, which is vote on principle, must be clear. To put in two, three, four or more principles makes that fundamental division or decision unclear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point was well made by the House Leader of the Hon. Member's Party. He is not breaking new ground. I implore him, if he has something to contribute, to please get to the point, not repeat and take up the time of the House on a matter which has been well argued by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let me sum up by saying that the argument has been well argued by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. It has been well argued by many, many Members over a number of years. It has vexed Speaker after Speaker after Speaker, and it will continue to vex Speaker after Speaker after Speaker as long as there continues to be this mixing of principles. I suggest to the Chair that perhaps this is an appropriate time for this vexing problem to be put behind future Speakers, and that a decision be made in favour of the House, not the Crown-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point. Again the Chair is appealing to the House. The Chair wants to
June 20, 1983

hear anything which will assist in making a decision on the matter, but the Chair requests Hon. Members, please, do not give historical items or anecdotes, or matters that are irrelevant to the essential matters before us. Deal with the principles involved in a decision which the Chair must take.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on just a brief point which concerns the procedure and the process. As I understand it, you will defer decision on this and consider the arguments which have been made. I simply put to you that I suppose it will be with the understanding that the debate will go on. If you find that the Bill is improperly before the House, then the debate will certainly be superfluous.
While you, Mr. Speaker, undertake to consider the rendering of a decision, I would suggest that the debate on this particular measure be suspended or deferred. There are lots of other House business with which we can deal. While this issue is before the House, while the question of three or perhaps four basic principles fundamental to an omnibus piece of legislation is under consideration, I think the Speaker owes it to the House to have debate on the issue deferred and/or suspended. We can go on with other business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair is inviting argument in order to assist in rendering a decision on the point of order raised. The Chair invites interventions dealing with the point of argument at this point. After the Chair has heard argument that appears to be relevant, the Chair will give a decision as soon as it is possible to do so. The suggestion of the Chair is that the debate be continued, and the Chair will not unduly delay a decision.
At this stage are there Hon. Members who are prepared to contribute to the argument? The Hon. Member for Regina West, in the opinion of the Chair, did not get to any point of principle. For the Hon. Member to seek to be recognized on the same point of order when he has previously not dealt with the point of order, I think, is an abuse of the House. Are there other Hon. Members who are prepared-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the separation of the Bill. I rose once before and was ruled out of order because we were speaking on the amendment. As the Member of Parliament involved with the
50,000	acres in my riding-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been recognized. Will he please make his point of order?


Sidney James Parker: My point of order is the fact that this Bill will deal with 50,000 acres of coal land that are in my riding. I am the only Hon. Member in this situation who will have to vote on this piece of legislation. If I want to support the Transportation Act-and I want to try to support the improvement of
Western Grain Transportation Act
our transportation system-I will be allowing the Government to steal 50,000 acres of land from my riding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, this is not really relevant.


Ian Deans: Of course it is relevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is seeking argument to assist in making a decision. The Hon. Member is not giving argument. I understand his concern. He has expressed his concern previously in the House. It is very real. There is no doubt that in the minds of his voters what he does is a very serious matter. But will the Hon. Member please deal with the point of order before the House?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the fact that we have asked to have this Bill separated. I ask each and every Member of the House of Commons whether they can support a piece of legislation which unveils three items- the cost of grain transportation, improving the transportation system, and the actual outright stealing of 50,000 acres from the Province of British Columbia. I cannot, in all conscience. I say to every Member of Parliament that this Bill must be separated in a way that we can deal with the coal blocs. I, for one, want those coal blocs to be returned to the Province.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West. Would he please deal with the point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Crows Nest Pass Act of 1897 reserved certain lands and it also set certain freight rates. Those certain freight rates were removed from the Crows Nest Pass Act of 1897, put into the statutes of 1925 to 1927, and became the statutory rates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member can give the House a lecture on the history of the statutes and on the history of the rates, but the issue before the Chair is a very specific one raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. This is the fourth time in which the Hon. Member has not dealt with the point of order. How often does the Hon. Member expect to be recognized, if he will not deal with the point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if you had given me another five seconds you would have found out why the coal lands are totally unrelated to the other two principles in the Bill. That particular item can stand on its own.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That was a point made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. The Hon. Member is adding nothing to the debate at this point. He is only repeating what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain very ably said in a previous sitting of the House. I implore Hon. Members at least to give the Chair the credit of paying attention to what is said and ask them not simply to repeat argument.


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add something. I have listened very carefully to the debate and I do not recall anyone mentioning it. Very specifically in our rules we have

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Standing Order 73 which indicates that no Bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape. Of course our contention is that this Bill is presently in an imperfect shape. I would humbly suggest to the Hon. Speaker that when he discusses this or gives his ruling-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again the Hon. Member is raising a totally different point of order. This was not the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, which we are supposed to be discussing at this point. At this stage, after no many hours of debate before the House, it is very difficult for the Chair somehow to accept an argument that the Bill is in blank or imperfectly drafted shape. I invite Hon. Members to deal with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, who has already had ample time.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 want to ask you a question in order to clarify the matter. Am I to understand from the comments that you have just completed that the question relating to the amount of time the Bill has been before the House is relevant to a decision which might be made as to whether or not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a point of order. The Chair is trying to contain the debate to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member. If he is trying to deal with another point of order at this stage-


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) was raising a different line of attack on the Bill, an entirely different point of order. He was stating that the Bill was in imperfect form according to Section 72 of the Standing Orders, which is not the point raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. Therefore, in the interest of trying to be relevant and in trying to deal with the business before the House, the Chair is asking if there are any further interventions on the point of the order before us.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough just to hear me out for less than a minute, perhaps I can explain. The question of the amount of time that the Bill has been before the House was raised in the interjection by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). I am concerned that that particular reference may well influence the decision of the Chair. I am asking simply that if that particular reference is to influence the decision of the Chair, the Chair take into account, one, that we raised with the Government on May 19-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has set forth his record of what he has done. He has to have some confidence that the Chair will not be guided by extraneous considerations. The Chair does not intend to give the Hon. Member an opportunity to deal with every extraneous consideration introduced in this debate, because there have been many of
them. The Chair will deal with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member in the context in which the Hon. Member set his point. The Chair will do its very best to do justice to the point that he has raised. It invites other Hon. Members, if they are intervening, to deal with the point of order and not deliberately waste the time of the House.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the point of order, I intend to deal with the two parts of the Bill and try to show you, Mr. Speaker, that the two areas are quite separate and that, in dealing with the two parts together, the Members of this House, as well as the country, are being forced to look at the Bill incorrectly. The Bill deals with a change in the statutory rates for grain. It does not deal with potash-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making the same point made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain made the point. He called it a complicated question dealing with other matters. That is the point that the Chair must decide. Is the Hon. Member adding to the argument? If so, in what way is he adding something fresh?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Bill does not deal with potash, freight rates, or coal freight rates. It does deal with grain freight rates. Grain accounts for 14 per cent of the movement through the mountains, and it is a much smaller percentage of the freight moved across Canada. Therefore there is no reason why grain freight rates should be connected to the upgrading of the railways when all of the other freight rates are not connected to it.
We recognize that the grain freight rates are statutory and therefore have to be dealt with by this House. They should continue to be statutory and to be dealt with by this House. To attach them to the upgrading to the railways is unnecessary. It has no relationship. If you do that, you should bring in every other freight rate as well.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I will try to stay relevant and not waste the time of the House in reviewing the arguments advanced by the Opposition as to why the Bill should be split. 1 would bring to the attention of the Chair, however, that 1 have reviewed carefully the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary last Thursday. I did listen carefully to him in the House. I suggest that in our parliamentary tradition there must be some onus on the Government to advance argument as to why the Bill should not be split. There has not been one single argument advanced by a Government spokesperson as to why these principles should be contained in a single measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the Hon. Member cite an instance where the Chair has directed the splitting of a Bill? It would be helpful.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If we go back to 1888, on that occasion the Speaker acted on the advice and on the complaint of a single Member of the House who felt Members had difficulty in voting on two principles in one vote.
June 20, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this citation from our own proceedings, from our House? If the Hon. Member could give it, it would be helpful.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I believe it is from the British House from which our traditions flow and where the creativity of action on the part of the Speaker flows.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the Hon. Member give the citation?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Erskine May.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member quoting the citation given very eloquently by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), and by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, also eloquently? I believe that citation dealt with motions. It did not deal with Bills. Is that the citation? If so, the Hon. Member is not adding to the debate.


Ian Deans: It is a motion, a motion for second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a Bill?


Ian Deans: It is a motion for second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain please take his seat? The Chair has spent a little time with the particular citation. The citation appears to deal with something which is called motions which, in the procedures of this Parliament and in the Parliament of Westminster, are governed separately under the rules and procedures. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain may shake his head but that does not establish him as the authority on the matter.


Ian Deans: Neither are you; neither are you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to give evidence dealing with Bills. 1 am looking for it. If the Hon. Member for Calgary West has a citation that is relevant, the Chair would very much like to hear it. If it is merely a repetition of the previous citation, I suggest he is not adding to the debate. Does the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) have anything to add to the debate?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the contribution that I make to this debate is to point out to the Speaker that, while the issue has been raised on many occasions and the Speaker has found difficulty accepting the petition of Members of the Opposition, a careful reading of the previous debates will indicate that in every instance the Government was vigorous in its defence of the need to retain separate principles in a common piece of legislation. I suggest this situation is unique in the sense that the Government has not advanced a single argument as to why these three principles should remain in the legislation.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on a point of order. I would urge upon the Chair that the precedents be examined with a view to improving the operation of the House. If the precedent cited from Erskine May was strictly on motions, I urge upon the Chair to view that precedent as it will
Western Grain Transportation Act
assist the functioning of this House. If the Chair has to bridge the gap from motion to Bill in the interest of the House dealing properly with questions before it in terms of relevancy and votes on second reading and principle, I urge that the Chair look favourably upon bridging that gap from motion to Bill, and not cast out a precedent simply because it does not comply strictly with the definition of a motion vis-a-vis a Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will want the Chair to act properly with due regard to all the matters and all the arguments brought before us, which is what the Chair is trying to do.
At this stage are there further arguments dealing with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain? If not, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is rising again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise just to make my point again. The fact is that there is a clear possibility that you will find-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have dealt with the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. The Chair is taking the matter under consideration and, in fairness to Hon. Members, I am sure the House would be very unhappy if the Chair were to do otherwise.
The Chair is inviting the debate to continue, and the Chair will give a decision as soon as it is possible to weigh all the arguments that have been put forward. The Hon. Member for Rosemont.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been recognized on a point of order and the Chair has ruled on the point of order. If the Hon. Member is making the same point of order, there is no appeal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that this debate ought not attempt to go forward until the decision is available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Rosemont.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain rises on a question of privilege. Again, I appeal to Hon. Members not to make false points and interventions that are not directed to true questions of privilege. If the Hon. Member is raising a question of privilege, will he state it?

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that at the time the Chair interrupted me while I was attempting to raise a point of order, the Chair made reference to Members wasting the time of the House. I want to reserve the right to review the "blues" and I will, if need be, challenge the Chair on that particular assertion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. Members will have to judge the record by itself. The record will stand. The Hon. Member for Rosemont.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: the ideal place to discuss his proposals and eventually to make any necessary changes would be in committee. This is a matter for the Transport Committee to deal with. However, Mr. Speaker, they are opposed even to referring this matter to the Transport Committee. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, and because I think the House must come to a decision on this matter, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That the question be now put.
[ English ]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I have correctly understood the Hon. Member, he has moved the previous question. The Chair proposes not to accept or pass judgment on the motion until the Chair has had an opportunity to render a decision on a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. Therefore, the Chair will simply defer consideration of this motion until the Chair has been able to deal with the point of order.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I take it, though, that the previous question has in fact been properly moved by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), in the event the Chair does dismiss the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Depending on the finding of the Chair, it may well be that the motion could be considered. It depends on the view of the Chair and the Chair at this point is not passing judgment or putting the motion before the House.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: If I understand correctly, the question has been properly moved, but you are deferring presentation of the motion in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is correct.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification, am I to understand that in the event that the Chair finds that the Bill is properly before the House and that it should not be separated, you will then entertain arguments as to the procedural validity of the motion which has been presented?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair at that point will consider the motion which has been presented. Whether there is a point of order raised at that point, the Chair is not in any way going to try to anticipate. The Chair will deal with the motion as presented after having dealt with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Chair will then entertain points of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair makes no commitment other than to deal with the motion.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, following the reference to the previous question on page 157 of Beauchesne, wherein it refers to page 327 of Bourinot, it states that once it is proposed-that is the previous question-the debate may continue on the original question. Therefore, am I to assume that we will continue debate on the original-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This has been the procedure of the Chair, to continue debate until such time as the Chair has had an opportunity carefully to review the record, render a decision on the point of order, and then deal with the motion as proposed. I believe the House understands that. Are there other speakers on the main question?


Mr. Towers:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is that motion proper to be either accepted or rejected?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not dealing with the matter at this point. The Chair is going to render a decision on the point raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, at which time the Chair will consider the motion as proposed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, to go back to my original point, the fact of the matter is that this Bill may very well be improperly before the House. All you are doing by taking the position that you have is simply to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I understand it, that particular motion should be put immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will not put that motion until the Chair has dealt with the point of order. Hon. Members should understand this. It is a perfectly regular procedure.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Excuse me. Perhaps for the benefit of the record, the previous question is a debatable motion. There is no question about that. Any Hon. Member who would like to intervene in debate will certainly have an opportunity to intervene in debate on that motion, in case that was the point of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, you are not accepting that motion until you render a decision on the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is perfectly correct.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In that case, we have the potential of two possible motions-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will try to deal in an orderly way with the point of order and then the motion.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Meanwhile, the Chair asks the indulgence of the House to let the debate continue until the Chair can do its best to sort out the matters placed before it. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on a point of order?


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, it is really in the form of a question. Right now you are considering the previous point of order put by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). 1 wonder how you can accept a motion from-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has not accepted any motions at this point. The Chair has given the floor to the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, upon rising at this particular juncture to participate in the debate, I would like to say that I was somewhat amazed when 1 heard the comment of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who is proposing these changes that there should be so much opposition to his suggested changes. The Minister, as one well knows, comes from the Province of Quebec where the people take the issue of culture very seriously, and so they should. He was one of the members of the Pepin-Roberts Commission which studied the question. Of course, it was with the intent that a particular grievance in a particular part of the country had to be dealt with. What this Minister apparently is not aware of, as well as, apparently, all the Government Members, is that the Crow rate itself is part of western culture, and so it has become.
While many people regard Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta as the Prairies, it is not really so because while the CBC would have us believe that the people settled on the grass of the Prairies, much of western Canada was developed by the sweat of the brows of people settling there from many parts of the world. They did it by swinging the axe and many of us have participated in that development personally. I wonder if Hon. Members know what it is like to work in the heat? 1 see an Hon. Member here who originally came from my constituency. He knows what it is like. He knows that under the heat of the sun on a day like today every tree had to be hacked away. That land had to be developed by the sweat of the brows of these people who see in this Bill something being taken away. What they see is the Government telling them that all their efforts are for naught because the Government is going to change their way of life. It says so itself. The Government says it is going to change and transform western Canada. In other words, what has happened before has got to go by the board.
There has been opposition to this. Already two good amendments have been accepted by the Minister of Transport. How did they come about? Not by keeping silent.
The Indian wants his culture, and so he should. We in western Canada want it to be recognized that we played a part in the development of this country. It is for this reason, which goes beyond the development of a railway, which is strictly economical in terms of development of one particular segment of the economy, that we plead with this Government, and it is for that reason we have put up 52 speakers, as opposed to the
23 of the New Democratic Party and the eight of the Liberals. The composition of the committee is six Liberal Members, three Conservative Members and one New Democratic Member. It is there where the Government is going to open up. Why? Because it will overpower opposition Members.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville very clearly enunciated 14 points. Up until now the Minister has answered two of those points. He says he draws the line there. Why? Were the other 12 points not valid? Surely they are going to be considered in committee. If so, he must have had a chance to study them by now. If they are going to be valid in committee, they should be valid now. When will the answers be coming forward? Has the Minister or anyone else explained why the other suggestions or points are not to be put forward and are not valid? They had a golden opportunity to do this. We have already had some changes as a result of debate. A fifty-fifty payment was suggested and since then the Government has withdrawn this.
We came forward with another option concerning the right of the farmer to decide whether he gets the money himself or it should go to the railways. That evolved as the result of debate, not as a result of silence. The Government wants to impose silence upon us. For what justifiable reason? Just to hide this issue. When we debate an issue in this House it is on television, but in committee it is buried very silently with only a few reporters covering the proceedings and only the few people who care to read those proceedings know what has happened.
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is pointing an accusing finger at this Government which is trying to destroy western culture. I suggest it is time we call a spade a spade. For example, some of the mish-mash this Government is suggesting is that there will be some sort of a 10 per cent safety net. The Government throws in a little bit of this, a little bit of that. My wife does a lot of cooking and she throws in a little bit of this and little bit of that. Of course, she knows what she is doing but, watching from the sidelines, I do not. The Government might suggest that there is a safety net of 10 per cent. Nonsense. What about the amount in excess of the 31.1 million tonnes? Where does that enter into it? Has the Minister explained that? He has not. What about 6 per cent inflation? Has he explained that to my satisfaction or the satisfaction of anyone else? No, he has not bothered. He says: "Trust me". I am not going to trust someone who keeps silent, someone who will bury this Bill in a committee and then railroad it through.
What can one say in ten minutes, Mr. Speaker? Very little. I could go on and on, but because of the time limitation I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vegreville:
That this debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the motion. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
June 20, 1983


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
(Division No. 359)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Hawkes	McMillanAnguish	Hovdebo	MillerBlaikie	Howie	MitgesBradley	Huntington	MunroClark	Jelinck	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Brandon-Souris)	Kcmpling	MurphyClarke	Kilgour	Neil(Vancouver Quadra)	Knowles	NielsenCook	Korchinski	NowlanCossitt (Mrs.)	Kushner	NystromCrosbie	La Salle	Ogle(St. John's West)	Lawrence	OrlikowCrouse	Lewis	PattersonDeans	Lewycky	Reidde Jong	MacDougall	(St. Catharines)Domm	Manly	SkellyEpp	Mazankowski	StevensFretz	McCuish	StewartGurbin	McDonald (Ms.)	TaylorHaliiday	(Broadview-G reenwood)	ThackerHamilton	McGrath	Towers(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McKenzie	VankoughnetMountain)	McKinnon	WenmanHargrave	McKnight
NAYS Messrs.	Wright Young-65.Allmand	Demers	HopkinsAppolloni (Mrs.)	Deniger	HudeckiAxworthy	Dion	IsabelleBachand	Dionne	IttinuarBaker	(Chicoutimi)	Johnston(Gandcr-Twillingate)	Dionne	JoyalBeauchamp-Niquet	(Northumberland-	Kaplan(Mrs.)	Miramichi)	KellyBegin (Miss)	Dupont	Killens (Mrs.)Blais	Dupras	LajoieBlaker	Duquet	LalondeBloomfield	Erola (Mrs.)	LamontagneBossy	Ethier	LandersBujold	Evans	LangBurghardt	Ferguson	La pierreBussieres	Fisher	LapointeCaccia	Fleming	(Charlevoix)Campbell	FI is	Lapointe(LaSalle)	Foster	(Beauce)Campbell	Frith	LeBlanc(Cardigan)	Gauthier	LeducChenier	Gimaiel	LefebvreCollenette	Gourd	LoiselleCorbin	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	LumleyCosgrove	Gourde	MacBainCote (Mrs.)	(Levis)	MacEachenCousineau	Gray	MacGuiganCullen	Harquail	MacLellanCyr	Henderson	MalepartDe Bane	Hervieux-Payette	Maltaisde Corneille	(Mrs.)	Marceau
If Members would now like to proceed to Routine Proceedings, I could do that. However, I am ready to rule on the point of order that was raised about the Bill that is before the House. I could do that immediately before Routine Proceedings, or now.


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Madam Speaker:: Now, very well.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, since it was my point of order 1 would rather you ruled after Routine Proceedings.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, ours is an age where family life is seriously threatened by so-called marriage breakdowns. With divorce rates doubling in Canada between 1968 and 1978 from 124 divorces to 243 divorces for every 100,000 marriages, 456,000 children are now directly affected. When some current lifestyles are eroding Christian marriage and family values, there is a need for healthy family role models to help to restore the balance.
Today we are hosting such a role model in the persons of their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales. This Royal couple, despite the heavy demands of public life, show a strong commitment to each other and are mutually supportive.
The Prince fulfilled his expectant father's task as "labour coach" at the delivery of their son. Both are comfortable and enjoy their child. Both take time out for family life activities.
Their popularity attests to the respect the public holds for a couple who so generously expend their energies in the duties of their calling and on giving and sharing love within marriage and the family.

June 20, 1983



MEDICAL CARE


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that today we have a Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) whose actions are threatening to destroy the medicare system. I bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Minister has gone one year without meeting with provincial counterparts, and refuses such meetings. I bring to the attention of the House that the Minister chose New York City in which to announce a major change in health policy, a change which would double-tax Canadians. I bring to the attention of the House that, in response to that announcement, Mr. Nielson, the Minister in British Columbia, threatened to pull that Province out of the medicare system.
1 bring to the attention of the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in an interview in Le Devoir last weekend, said:
[ Translation]
-we risk the destruction of Medicare-

"We risk the destruction of the medicare system." Those are the words of the Prime Minister to Le Devoir. We have a Minister of National Health and Welfare who refuses to recognize the federal nature of the country and, in so doing, brings the whole medicare system into question, which Canadians will never forgive.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, under General Rios Montt, the Government of Guatemala continues to rage genocidal war against the Mayan Indians of that country. As a result of army activities against their villages, an estimated million Indians are internal refugees, while thousands more are crowded into refugee camps in Mexico. Recently the Guatemalan Government proclaimed a false amnesty and stopped military activity, but when people returned to their villages they had to register with both civilian and military officials and faced intensive questioning. Now many of these people face a process of selective assassination and torture.
In Canada the Assembly of First Nations presented information to the Department of External Affairs concerning sites where torture and mass executions have taken place. The time has come for Canada to abandon its policy of silent agreement with the Reagan line that the Guatemalan Government is only engaged in protecting the state from Marxist guerrillas. The killings and torture must be seen as a war of extermination
against the indigenous people of Guatemala, not as an extension of the East-West conflict. Canada must insist on a thorough international investigation, including visits to the sites where the atrocities are alleged to have taken place.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, on Friday last week the Mulroney Tories made it very clear through their spokesman, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that they are against all peaceful and democratic demonstration; they are against the peace movement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Denis Éthier: Do the Mulroney Tories know that peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right in our democratic system? Is this an indication of what a Mulroney government would do if ever given a mandate to govern? Would its first move be to abolish the right of peaceful and democratic demonstration? Since the Tories are given the respected title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it seems only reasonable that their Leader make a public statement on this issue and, while making such a statement, he could tell us where he stands on such issues as capital punishment, abortion, offshore resources, upgrading the rail system in western Canada, or the metric system, for that matter.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy is that the Minister must be responsible and accountable for actions and/or lack of actions of those in his Ministry. In other words, if a Department or corporation becomes inefficient, careless and dishonest, deliberately or otherwise, the Minister must take the responsibility.
Senator Austin, the Minister responsible for CDIC, has blamed the Corporation President, who has now resigned, for the $1.7 billion losses of Canadair and de Havilland Aircraft. The directors must share this responsibility, and the auditors' credibility is open to question, but most of all the Minister in charge must be held accountable for the gigantic loss of taxpayers' money.
Senator Austin inadvertently condemned himself when he said that the records "do not reveal the calibre of business shrewdness which we as shareholders should expect". When did the Minister reach this conclusion? What did he do about the continuing losses? Why is he hiding the facts? Even yet the commercial details of the losses have not been put on the table.
June 20, 1983

Did the Minister sit in silence, knowing that Canadair and de Havilland were spending public money like an intoxicated millionaire?
Negligence, and perhaps dishonesty, are written all over this loss of millions of dollars. I say that Senator Austin must resign and, if he does not, the people of Canada will want to know what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will do about it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in the temporary absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, perhaps I will direct my question even more appropriately to the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows that unemployment in the United States is now down to 10 per cent and is expected shortly to break that double digit level. Yet, earlier this month Statistics Canada released figures showing that for ten consecutive months unemployment in Canada exceeded 12 per cent. On behalf of two million unemployed Canadians, a million of whom are now classified as long-term unemployed, I want to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to revise the very pessimistic projections in his budget where he saw double digit unemployment going beyond this decade. Can he give us any hope?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is certainly confused in his signals. He referred to double digit inflation.


James Aloysius McGrath: I meant double digit unemployment.


Marc Lalonde: He meant double digit unemployment. The forecast which the Hon. Member has read as part of the budget indicated that we would be taking unemployment down gradually during the next four years to below the double digit level referred to by the Hon. Member. But I remind him that for seven months in a row we have had increased employment in this country. At the present time there are 330,000 more people employed than last November. The recovery, according to all the information we have been receiving, seems to be taking place in an even stronger rate than we anticipated.
Certainly the Hon. Member has noticed the leading indicator of Statistics Canada which in March had its largest increase since the early 1950s. Indeed it seems to be indicating that we will have and know a very strong recovery in this country as well as in the United States. I certainly expect that as unemployment levels in the United States decline they will also decline in Canada.
Oral Questions PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister knows that there are a million Canadians now who are classified as long-term unemployed. He also knows from his own statistics that unemployed heads of families have risen by 100 per cent. These are very frightening statistics, yet he talks about economic recovery.
How can the Minister stand in the House and talk about recovery when there are two million Canadians unemployed, when there are a million Canadians who are classified as longterm unemployed, and when there are a half million young people who cannot find jobs? Let him tell these people where the economic recovery is.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member may refuse to look at the whole reality, but the facts are there for him to see that recovery is taking place strongly in the country. We have created 300,000 jobs since last November. This is a critical record compared with any industrialized country at the present time.
I remind my hon. friend that unemployment is very high in other industrialized countries at the present time. We have been going through a recession the like of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. This has been the case for all industrialized countries. A number of countries in Europe at the present time have more than 12 per cent unemployment. These are countries which historically had much lower levels of unemployment than Canada.
The Government and I are very concerned about the level of unemployment. We have announced a number of measures that were contained in the budget, in addition to those the Minister of Employment and Immigration has announced. We are spending in this country at the present time record levels in terms of support for direct employment, job training, and recycling. This is the record of the Government. We have shown our care for the unemployed in the country and not only involved ourselves in rhetoric.


STUDENT UNEMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to another Minister who has responsibility, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that the unemployment rate for non-returning students between the ages of 20 and 24 is currently 31.6 per cent. The unemployment rate for returning students is 20.7 per cent which, I might say, is an increase of 75 per cent over two years. What hope does the Minister have for these kids out there who have no place to go but to take to the streets?
In the estimation of a sociologist at the University of Montreal, "Collectively we may see political riots and disturbances from a group that feels left out". Obviously they feel left

June 20, 1983
Oral Questions
out. They are graduates with no job opportunities in what is supposed to be a land of opportunity. What is the Minister going to do? Is he going to give us more money for student employment? That is the very least he can do for these unemployed young people.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad that the Hon. Member asked a question about what we are doing because it gives me the opportunity to tell him exactly what has been put in place. We have introduced the National Training Program through which, this year alone, we will be spending about SI.2 billion for training over 300,000 people, most of whom are young people under the age of 24. In the last six months we have invested in creating an additional 15,000 training places under that program in every region of Canada.
In addition, we have also brought forward a new employment program where we will provide direct subsidies to private employers to provide on the job work experience and training for students coming out and looking for their first-time job. That program will be coming into effect on September 1. We will be making the information available at that time.
We are following through on the principle of working with other major actors in the economy, like the private employers who can help young people and can give them the hope the Hon. Member is not prepared to give them by his comments.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, let us take the summer employment program, for example. If you take 1979 as a base year and take the rate of inflation since 1979, the Minister is actually putting in less money today to the Summer Student Employment Program than he was five years ago. These are the statistics. Is the Minister at least prepared to add more money to create more jobs in the Canada Student Employment Program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, one of the things I should point out is that in that five-year period we went through a very serious time under the auspices of the previous Government when all of the direct employment programs were cancelled by the Conservative Government. We have had to make up for that omission ever since, by having to build new programs and put them in place. That happens to be the case. What we are doing this year for summer employment is providing job opportunities for upwards of 75,000 students across the country. We are presently engaged in a nation-wide campaign to bring on board other employers at the provincial and municipal levels, as well as private employers. We are trying to do our best, unlike Members opposite who, when they were in Government, did nothing at all.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Minister conveniently forgets that jobs increased by 30,000 a month in the private sector when we were in Government.


EDUCATION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A study published today has found that most books used in Canadian schools are neither written nor published by Canadians and do not reflect a Canadian point of view. Does the same situation exist as far as francophone students are concerned, and if not, why not?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's interest in the subject, and I am sure that those of us on this side of the House who have children are equally concerned. However, the Hon. Member ought to know that education matters fall under provincial jurisdiction, and that especially at the level he is referring to, namely, primary and secondary schools, the Canadian Government has no authority to dictate what kind of books are to be used nor to influence their content in any way.


FUNDING SOUGHT FOR ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that under his predecessor, and carried on under his Government, a special program was produced for funding the creation of books for textbook purposes in the French language in Canada, in the late 1960s. Given the results of that study today, are the Prime Minister and his Government, some 18 years later, considering a similar program for English-speaking schools and English textbooks? It is long overdue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the funds that the federal Government in recent years, certainly under my administration, has devoted to the area of education have been essentially for post-secondary education. It is true that we have provided funds for second language training under various programs promoted by the Secretary of State. I know of none which were directed specifically at the primary school level. I cannot recollect the program in the late 1960s to which the Hon. Member is referring. I will draw the attention of my colleague, the Secretary of State, to that program and be in a position to answer the Hon. Member when he asks the question again.
June 20, 1983


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that on a number of occasions the Government of which he is a part indicated that it believed it was in the position to proceed with the implementation of certain legislation based on the fact that the legislation had received approval in principle, in other words, that the legislation had received second reading. I want to ask him a question specifically with regard to the grain transportation Bill. Can he assure the House that the Government has no intention of implementing those clauses of the Bill dealing directly with the changes to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates in advance of that legislation having received Royal Assent?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Quite right, Madam Speaker.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE RETROACTIVITY OF PROVISIONS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, can the Minister likewise assure the House that, under no circumstances, will the legislation dealing with the Crowsnest Pass freight rate sections be made retroactive upon passage of the legislation and its receiving Royal Assent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think 1 have to give legal advice, but to the best of my knowledge it is not going to be so. We have, however, made some interim payments to the railways.


Ian Deans: That is a different matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a different matter. We paid money for the purchase of hopper cars. Presumably that is a different matter also. Failing exact knowledge of what my hon. friend has in mind, I cannot read his eyes yet-on other matters, yes 1 can. When he tries to block a Bill, I can read his eyes all right. As I was saying not knowing full well what he has in mind, I can only say that, to the best of our ability, we have no intention of breaking the law.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It touches on a statement made by the Minister to the Canadian Manufacturer's Association recently, in which he stated:
-it would be very difficult to justify 8 per cent average increases for senior management salaries.
In fact it would be impossible to justify.
Having made that statement, will the Minister indicate to the House whether he is aware of the fact that the average
Oral Questions
increase for public servants in ten different Departments or programs that we reviewed was 17.2 per cent? In fact we find the National Capital Commission had wage increases of 18.2 per cent, DREE 18.6 per cent, and the Governor General 15.5 per cent. That is if you compare Main Estimates 1984 to Main Estimates 1983. Is the Minister aware of that and, if so, how does he justify it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would like to be a little more precise and also a little more accurate in the way he interprets the facts. The figures he is giving have no connection with the salary increases of the persons concerned. Federal public servants have had their salary increments limited to 6 per cent for 1983 and 5 per cent for 1984. Those are the ceilings that were set. Now, if, in a department, certain positions are reclassified, and if people are promoted to other duties, or if there is an increase in the number of public servants in a specific department, obviously, the total wage bill for that department will increase more than 6 per cent, but I challenge the Hon. Member to prove that the average salary of employees working, for instance, for the National Capital Commission, has increased more than 6 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, of course I will take up that challenge.


COMPARISON OF MAIN ESTIMATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my further question to the Minister of Finance is to ask, on behalf of the people of Canada, if he would look at what is set out in the Main Estimates 1984, compare that to the salaries in the Main Estimates 1983, then divide that by the average number of employees in whatever Department he wants to look at. If he would take the time to do that I think he would find that one-quarter of the 131 Departments and programs have average incomes increasing over 10 per cent between those two Estimates. Would he look at that, and then would he come back and have the courage to tell the House that he is sorry for giving misinformation and is duly critical of the Departments concerned?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can obviously see that the Hon. Member has already started shifting his ground. Having asked the first question in a specific way, he is now clearly changing the way he is asking the question. What happens is what I have said in French: the increases for individual civil servants are set at 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. If there are other changes in salaries they are related either to promotion or changes of functions, or if the total amount-
26528

June 20, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Now you are changing your position.


Marc Lalonde: I can understand, for instance, that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has enjoyed an increase in salary of more than 6 per cent this year compared to what he had before he succeeded the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: No one has been walking around being scandalized that he made that huge increase in the last little while. For all 1 know he may have a decrease before the end of the year.
One does not go around making a big show saying it is terrible that the six and five program is not respected. Situations have changed.
If the Hon. Member looks at the total levels of remuneration and the total amount of money spent on salaries, obviously it will increase by more than 6 per cent in a number of Departments. It is related to either changes in functions or the increase in the number of public servants, or both. This is quite normal and it had been foreseen. The law passed by Parliament is quite clear-6 per cent and 5 per cent, maximum. As a matter of fact my hon. friend will find that a number of individuals in the Government received less than six and five.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that under existing legislation she has no choice but to withhold federal funds from Provinces that adopt user fees under the medicare program, I wonder if the Prime Minister would please clarify comments attributed to him in today's press which seem to contradict the position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to do that without referring to the entire interview from which the Canadian Press seized upon an excerpt. I would say in general terms that I believe I made it clear that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is on the right track; that she is negotiating with the Provinces; that we hope that the Provinces themselves will see that it is the will of the people to preserve medicare in its integrity and its entirety, and that there will be no need for the kind of confrontation by the people that in this case the interviewer suggested.
I am convinced that the people of Canada-and I made this quite clear in the interview-are on the side of the Minister of National Health and Welfare rather than on the side of the Premier of Alberta. In the interview I said that for ideological
reasons, certainly not for reasons of the poverty of that Province, he is introducing deterrent fees of one kind or another.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with reference to press reports late last week which indicate that Canadian National and Cast had broken off negotiations for Canadian National's takeover of Cast. I wonder if the Minister could confirm whether this is true. Also, if talks have terminated could he confirm that this means that the Canadian taxpayer will not be asked to absorb 75 per cent of the Cast debt whereas the Royal Bank of Canada, which in fact is the principal creditor, would only have to absorb 25 per cent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there are two things to be considered. First, I have not been notified by CN of the ending of negotiations. Consequently I gather that they are still in negotiation in some form or other. Second, I read in the papers that the banks were trying very hard to save their investment, so I put the two things together and 1 say wait a little while longer.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, the sooner we lay this bogeyman to rest one way or another, the better.


BARGAINING BY CAST GROUP
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I understand from what the Minister said that he has not been formally advised by either Canadian National Railways or the Royal Bank of Canada that negotiations ought to be terminated. If that is the case, may I put the second part of my question to the Minister? It is of primary concern, notwithstanding any dispute between the Port of Halifax and the Port of Montreal in a competitive way, or a freight war which could very well flow from this. May I ask the Minister whether one of two situations exist? Is Frank Narby, the principal of Cast, applying tighter bargaining that extends beyond the Order in Council which authorized CN to enter into negotiations or, on the other hand, does this now mean that the Canadian taxpayer will not have to pick up a little bit more of the debt of the Royal Bank of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I would allow my friend to put whatever interpretation he wants on the events that are taking place now. I leave that to his freedom of thought and of expression.
The Government put in an Order in Council the terms it would accept. Between the two of us, I think the difficulties were irking earlier than that in the sense that the present owners were making difficulties before the Government issued the Order in Council. By issuing an Order in Council, the

June 20, 1983

Governor in Council indicated clearly what were the possibilities.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is about the same matter as that brought up by the Hon. Member for Algoma, the conflicting messages we are getting from the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister vis-a-vis the federal Government's intention to withhold funds from Alberta, either under existing legislation or under any future legislation which may provide for that kind of capacity on the part of the federal Government.
My first question is directed to the Prime Minister. It seems to me that it is not good enough to say that your Minister is on the right track. I would hope you would want to say that about any of your Ministers; at least you would want to say that.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Would you be more clear and indicate to the House whether, as you are reported to have done, you have ruled out the question of economic sanctions against Provinces-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -which continue to violate national standards for medicare? Have you ruled those kinds of sanctions out?


An Hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, may I answer the Member and confirm what I have often repeated in Canada in the last weeks, namely, that that particular decision, which would be to use the existing provision of withholding funds under legislation, has not been finalized yet by Cabinet.
As I have often said, following the basic philosophy of the Government which was so well expressed by the Prime Minister on Saturday in Le Devoir, if there is one case for universality in Canada, it is medicare. We are appealing to the Canadian public right now to make sure that we have understood well what we know for sure has been their wish for 20 years, namely, to strengthen medicare in the new Act, probably by introducing more adequate penalties to deal with each of the possible breaches of medicare-to strengthen it once and for all for another 20 or 30 years.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Minister has indicated her intention to go beyond the
Oral Questions
penalties which are now available to her under the existing legislation, hopefully by having more flexible penalties in any new Canada Health Act. Can the Minister tell us when we are going to see the Canada Health Act when the long awaited document is going to be before us? Are we going to receive it before the end of June, as I have suggested many times in this House, so that pro medicare people would have a viable political option around which to rally? Or are we going to have to wait the Fall and have action on the erosion of medicare postponed once again?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And if we are not going to receive it until the Fall, what are we going to get by the end of June-more homilies from the Minister, or are we going to get some kind of action?


Monique Bégin: By the way, Madam Speaker, may I take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for his good offices. For the first time in four years one provincial Minister had the guts and the common sense, thinking he would have to be reelected one day, to be on the side of medicare and of Canadians. I am referring, of course, to the Minister of Health and Manitoba, Mr. Laurent Desjardins. That was very welcome. In the same way, every one of the 22 million other Canadians is saying publicly that they are on the side of medicare. We believed the Provinces last May when they said they would be ready to control extra billing and user fees. Therefore, there were no requisite provisions to control user fees when suddenly the very provocative initiatives of Alberta, New Brunswick, and British Columbia are making it necessary to review the Act. As soon as it will be ready it will be presented to my colleagues first, and then the House.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister on the same subject. I do not believe the issue can be separated into some people or some provincial Governments not being in favour of medicare. I believe all Canadians want to see universal medicare preserved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It being the case that obviously there are negotiations which are critical in terms of the ability of the provincial Governments, and of the taxpayer, for that matter, to sustain programs, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, as he approaches these negotiations, whether he approaches them from the point of view that the federal will must prevail, or whether he looks at these negotiations in an attempt not only

June 20, 1983
Oral Questions
to strengthen medicare but also to establish a working relationship with the Provinces, so that the people who deliver these programs, that is, the Provinces, have the ability to bring those programs forward in a way which is also affordable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the last word.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Affordable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of the Hon. Member and I hope he is right that all Canadians support medicare. That is the premise on which, I believe, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is proceeding, that Canadians want the preservation of medicare. I must respectfully disagree with the Hon. Member when the suggests that there is no Province, if I understood him well, which wants to alter medicare as it now exists. I said quite clearly, in the interview which has been referred to, that 1 believe there is an ideological struggle here. I believe some provincial Governments do not believe in medicare as it has existed. I believe that they are introducing the kind of user fees which might, in the mind of the Hon. Member, and in mine, provide a deterrent to the universality of the scheme. However, that is precisely what the Minister of Health and Welfare is trying to determine now.
We certainly do not see a confrontation. We certainly do not want to use any financial penalty. That is what I was telling the interviewer. We would prefer to see medicare preserved in its essence through a process of discussion. In that sense, that is why the Minister is proceeding as she is. I do hope that the Hon. Member is right in so far as his Leader is concerned, that we will hear from Mr. Mulroney very soon, saying that he also wants the preservation of medicare and that he will realize that the Premier of Alberta, for one, for ideological reasons, does not seem to agree with the concept of medicare now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister will know the debacle which our Navy is in by reading the recent Senate report. He also is quite aware of the report which we completed on the reserve army and its complete and total lack of necessary equipment. He also is aware of the Fyffe Report, which stated categorically that the morale of the forces was low and that one of the easiest ways to put that morale back in place was to return to three distinctive uniforms. Would the Minister comment on whether or not he is recommending such a switch?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I believe the subject has been raised quite
often by my own Department, of course, and by individuals from the Air Force, Navy, and even the Army. My answer has always been that, despite the fact that this could well be desirable, in one way or another I feel what is more desirable for the armed forces is the re-equipment program which was started a few years back in order to provide members of the Forces with better planes, better ships, better tanks, and better weapons with which to fight with. After that we could possibly discuss uniforms.


SUGGESTION FORCES BE POLLED ON ISSUE OF UNIFORMS
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Minister going to recommend to Cabinet an extra $550 million in defence spending over the next few years as suggested by the Senate? Also, will he not use the Queen's Regulations to interfere, but instead allow a questionnaire to go to members of the Armed Forces concerning whether or not they would like to see a return to three distinctive uniforms?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I do not feel I can stop any Hon. Members from questioning their constituents on whatever they want. However, I am sure it would be a useless exercise to ask members of the Armed Forces if they would prefer the different uniforms because I know very well what the answer will be before the petition is sent.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Yes.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: They would like to have different uniforms. However, at the same time they should be asked if they want us to spend millions of dollars for three different uniforms or spend hundreds of millions of dollars for better equipment and weapons to fight with. I would say, as an exmilitary man, give me the tools to do the job, and the uniform can be dealt with after that.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. In view of the fact that all development agreements and subsidiary agreements, except one, between Canada and New Brunswick, will expire this year, will the Minister tell the House if negotiations are now under way for their renewal or replacement, and when might we expect some results?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Yes, Madam Speaker, negotiations have in fact begun with a number of Provinces toward concluding new economic and regional development agreements which will come into effect at the expiration of the general development agreements in 1984. There is a tentative date scheduled for negotiations
June 20, 1983

with the Province of New Brunswick. However, the Province of New Brunswick has not yet had the opportunity of having formal negotiations on that subject, although the regional Minister and I did meet with the Premier and his officials sometime before Christmas, as I recall, in a preliminary way to discuss the timetable for such negotiations.


URGENCY OF SECURING AGREEMENT WITH NEW BRUNSWICK- MINISTER'S POSITION
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will appreciate the obvious advantage of common development goals between the federal Government and the provincial Governments. Will the Minister tell the House what, if any, joint federal-provincial development agreements he has announced with New Brunswick since assuming his present portfolio some 18 months ago? Will he discuss the urgency of this matter with his officials?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the negotiations with the Provinces, of course, are ongoing on many fronts between the various sectoral Ministers. However, the economic and regional development agreement, the framework agreement itself, as I indicated, will be entered into, hopefully before the end of this year, with luck, and pursuant to that I would hope that a number of initiatives would be brought forward by the sectoral Ministers for implementation in the very near future.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it relates to the disastrous Air Canada flight out of Texas where in excess of 20 lives were lost, and the subsequent fire on a flight to Bermuda allegedly caused by a deportee, in the lavatory of that aircraft. Notwithstanding the question of fire retardant material, has the Minister of Transport, together with his colleague, the Minister of Health, considered an over-all policy of banning smoking, if not on all flights at least on short-haul flights or those of less than two hours' duration? Has the Minister given this matter serious consideration in order to protect the lives of the travelling public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 already answered the question some ten days ago, if 1 recall. 1 exposed myself to some chastisement by saying that smoking was still socially acceptable. 1 had some correspondence on the subject from people who told me that it was not. Be that as it may, the situation now in airplanes is that there are non-smoking and smoking areas, which implies that smoking is permitted. 1 am aware of a study that the Minister
Oral Questions
of National Health and Welfare is also involved in, having to do with smoking in general in public places, but it does not have anything to do with security in the air.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and is in relation to the attempt by the All Chiefs Budget Committee from the Province of Manitoba to reach a memorandum of agreement with him and his officials. For the last 18 months the chiefs have been trying to come to an agreement with the Minister to give them more control over budgetary expenditures on their reserves. Can the Minister tell us when he will stop stalling and sign an agreement with the chiefs?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, it is not a question of stalling. We are very close to an agreement. There is really only one impediment. They want a type of wording that the law officers of the Crown say would not be legal under our financial administration procedures and law here in Parliament. Subject to that, we are very close indeed.
May 1 also say that I am meeting with David Ahenakew, the head of the AFN, here in Ottawa this afternoon and we may adopt a type of umbrella agreement, somewhat modelled on the Manitoba agreement, to apply nationally. So I am hopeful it will be worked out very soon.


SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that the Assembly of First Nations have supported the Manitoba chiefs. They want that agreement signed, and the Minister has been telling those chiefs for over a year now that it would be signed soon. He has been saying that his Department officials should not be interfering with the process of Indian self-government. Again, when is the agreement going to be signed? If the Minister cannot say when, can he explain exactly to this House why he feels it cannot be signed?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I must reiterate that the Hon. Member's premise is totally incorrect. I have indicated to the Manitoba chiefs what I am prepared to sign. I think that captures completely the spirit of what they want. I do not wish to interfere in any way with their aspirations for Indian self-government; that is the objective. That is why the Government gave the widest possible mandate, one that was supported by the Hon. Member's Party, to the Standing Committee, without any restriction at all, so that we could come to a report on which we could base Indian self-government as soon as possible. It is just that some of the wording which I believe some of the chiefs in the Manitoba group wish

June 20, 1983
Oral Questions
to persist in simply cannot be provided on the basis of the independent legal advice 1 have received. If we could iron that out, we could sign any day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to the state of the Jewish community in Nicaragua under the Sandinista Regime. Has the Minister received the same information about the fate of that community as is available to me, namely, that it is being exterminated by the Sandinistas? The president of the Jewish Association is in jail; those who are out of the country are being refused re-entry permits, their lands are being confiscated, and the synagogue has been converted into a child daycare centre,


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have not received the information which the Hon. Member has mentioned. He has stated a series of facts which, if true, are certainly a cause for concern. I will check into the matter as quickly as possible.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate if the Minister would check into the facts. We do have an ambassador in the area and I hope he is still persona grata in Nicaragua.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT LODGE PROTEST
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I understand that all Jews in Nicaragua are under the ban. They are either out of the country and not being allowed back in, or they are being harassed and their property confiscated while they are there, or they are being thrown in jail. Will the Minister also consider the notion of making a very firm protest to the Nicaraguans about their handling of this particular community in Nicaragua?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I said, I will request immediate information on the points made by the Hon. Member, and indeed I will follow up with the appropriate action.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. I understand that Cabinet, through an Order in Council, has exempted a total of 19 information banks from the provisions
of the new access to information legislation. The Solicitor General's Department apparently controls five of these information banks which have been classified as exempt. We have learned in recent weeks that thousands of Canadians in the peace movement have been the subject of surveillance and that some citizens are indeed the object of, and I quote, "permanent wire taps and electronic surveillance". Will the Minister tell this House whether the information now being gathered on individuals in the peace movement is going into those exempt information banks?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I can certainly contradict, with my knowledge and the reports I have from the Security Service, the suggestion that thousands of Canadians are under surveillance because they belong to the peace movement. That is false, and 1 have indicated before that that is false.


HATE LITERATURE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who will be aware that hate literature has been distributed in Olds, Alberta, by the Nationalist Party of Toronto. Over the weekend it was indicated that this Party intends to distribute more such literature in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. Will the Minister tell us what, if anything, he intends to do about it?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the incident to which my hon. friend refers. But, given the way he describes it, I would not understand why this would not be a matter for enforcement by the Attorneys General of the various Provinces. That is the normal course of such prosecutions, and he has said nothing to indicate this situation is exceptional in that regard.


NATIONALIST PARTY OF CANADA
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, will the Minister tell us if the Nationalist Party of Canada, a neo-Nazi Party, is legal and registered under the laws of Canada or the Provinces, and whether the Government contemplates any legislation to make it illegal for neo-Nazi Parties to operate in this country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we do not normally proscribe any groups in this country on the basis of their name. I am not sure that under the requirements of the Charter it would be possible to take such an approach. But we do have laws which provide that certain kinds of activity on the part of people who stir up hatred or other forms of a breach of the peace can be prosecuted according to the normal way, in actions brought by the Attorneys General of the Provinces.

June 20, 1983

With respect to registration, I would not know about that. I guess that would come under the President of the Privy Council who is responsible for the electoral law.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a large number of citizens in the area of Trout Lake, Beaton and Galena Bay in the Province of British Columbia who face the loss of local rural box service for mail. The residents of these areas will now have to make a round trip of as much as 40 miles to get their mail through an area where winter traffic is often difficult or impossible because of road and weather conditions.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon this House to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure continued rural mail service for the British Columbia communities of Trout Lake, Beaton, Galena Bay and, by so doing, avoid imposing unreasonable travel requirements and
Petitions
the danger of winter roads on these people. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present the petition of the undersigned constituents of the riding of Broadview-Greenwood, in the Province of Ontario, and other concerned citizens mostly from other parts of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission broadcasting regulations do not extend to women the same protection against abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation as now exists for racial and religious groups; that the concerns of citizens have been recently heightened, not only by the so-called adult programming on pay televison, but also by the proliferation of pornography in various media; that the degradation and exploitation of women, children and men through pornography is abhorrent to all people; that the Minister of Communications has been willing to empower the CRTC to regulate broadcasting to ensure Canadian content, but has yet to intervene to assure the protection of women against this abuse, that it is Parliament's responsibility, as provided for in the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is arguing. At any rate, the enunciation of the petition is quite too long for what is admissible in the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to go to the prayer, because we know what the petition is about. It is sufficient to give the title of the petition and then go to the prayer.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, with the above in mind, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act as introduced by myself on March 8, 1983; and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition to the House from residents of Surrey, Delta, White Rock and Richmond, who find that under the Canadian Constitution every citizen is guaranteed the right to vote, yet there are many occupational groups which are deprived of it because of a lack of an absentee voting procedure in the Elections Act of Canada. Your petitioners would humbly pray that the House of Commons direct the Chief Electoral Officer to present to the House of Commons a proposal which will allow Canadian citizens who are away from their normal polling locations an opportunity to vote directly by absentee ballot.

June 20, 1983
Petitions


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, this petition is addressed to the Honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. These petitioners from Kelwood indicate that the changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contribute to the breaking up of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House of Commons here assembled a petition on behalf of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan from the community of Domre-my, which is in my home constituency. They express the fact that the change in the Crow rates will affect their community by $672,000 in losses per year if the higher rates are put into effect.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada, who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that any security service set up by the Government of Canada follow the rule of law and not have broad powers to infiltrate and disrupt legitimate organizations and associations.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation based on the principles of freedom and human rights. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-I.ake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled a petition from the undersigned residents from the town of Watson in the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that we should do everything in our power to prevent Cruise missile testing and that we call upon the Government to refuse to test the Cruise in our country. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. It is from the citizens of the towns of Rosetown and Dinsmore, Saskatchewan. Because of the high cost and the change which the Crow rate will bring into their lives, they have signed this petition. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by several residents of the Province of Alberta, especially the residents of the communities of Rocky Mountain House and Leslieville. In their petition the petitioners ask that the removal of the Crow rate will see its replacement by rates which will impose higher freight rates of 5.1 times the present Crow rate, and higher by 1990; that such increases are being imposed at a time when wheat prices for producers are now at 1974 levels. Detailed calculations show that the rate of 5.1 times the present Crow rate will cost the community of Leslieville $161,100 in payments for grain freight which otherwise would have stayed in that community, based on the actual deliveries in the 1980-81 crop year.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate as presently guaranteed by statute.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I received a petition on June 14 addressed to the Hon. Members of the House of Commons. The petitioners, the undersigned residents of the Province of Manitoba, now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth as follows. The Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada, one of the earliest incentives granted to settlers; that a change in the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contributing to the breaking of communities on branch lines and increasing trucking and road costs; and three royal commissions have recommended the retention of the Crow rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. It is signed by 20 people from Erickson, Manitoba.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition to the House from residents of Victoria, British Columbia, stretching up the coast to Prince Rupert and including communities such as Sointula on the mainland delta, North Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond. The petition, extensively signed by individuals, asks that the Government of Canada consider implementing a
June 20, 1983

marine industrial strategy because of the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars which are being lost offshore.
They are also extremely concerned that the federal Government has not implemented the law backing the new shipbuilding policy and these individuals are certainly concerned about the failure of the Government of Canada to develop a regional distribution of the new frigate program which would put the construction of two in British Columbia, two in central Canada and two in Atlantic Canada.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Government of Canada be encouraged to implement immediately a sensible and effective maritime policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of the Canadian shipbuilding policy and allied industries in spite of the Conservative opposition to such excellent proposals.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present to the House of Commons this afternoon in Parliament assembled a petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, mostly from the Aneroid area and incidentally mostly members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, who now exercise their right to present a grievance.
They humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, that the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, which is no change.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present the petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will thereby provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that the NEED Program not be used in a manner which allows the Government to substitute long-term regular employment positions for temporary and low paid jobs under the make-work program.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide proper employment programs and not allow job substitution under the NEED Program to continue. And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present a petition which 1 do so in all modesty. The petition contains 30 names of citizens from Ottawa, Edberg, Camrose, Bashaw, Peace River, Nampa and Red Deer, Alberta. They have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the NDP caucus, by Les Benjamin, M.P. for Regina West, and urge the Parliament of Canada to adopt its provisions in order that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate may be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada may be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
All undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the NDP alternative plan in order that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate may be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada may be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition.

To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted rights thus to present a grievance common to all petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will thereby find a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that
Canadians have been deprived of billions of jobs and billions of dollars worth of industrial spin-offs because we do not have a marine industrial strategy.
And that the federal Government has neglected to provide Canada with a consistent marine policy, although it promised, more than twelve years ago, to develop such a policy.

The petitioners who have signed this petition from the community of Sept lies in the Province of Quebec would ask that the Parliament of Canada implement a Canadian marine industrial strategy so that they may realize the full potential of employment benefits within this industrial field.
[ Translation]


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to present a petition.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted rights-

June 20, 1983
Petitions
there are not two but thirty-eight petitions here, even from Quebecers-
Humbly sheweth that
Whereas Western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 19811982 crop year.
That this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to Canada balance of trade.
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to Canadian economy.
And whereas Western Canadian farmers will not pay more than one times Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
As I mentioned before, the petition was signed by more than thirty-eight people.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the Vegreville area in Alberta who exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that the removal of the Crow rate will see its replacement by rates that will impose higher freight costs of five times the present Crow rate and higher by 1990, that such increases are being imposed at a time when prices for producers' grains are now at 1974 levels and that detailed calculations show that a rate of 5.1 times the Crow rate will cost the community of Vegreville $1,489,500 in payments for grain freight that would have otherwise stayed in that community, based on the actual deliveries that took place in 1980-81.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, 1 have another petition signed by the residents of the Shaunavon-Gull Lake area, almost all of whom are Members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They call upon this Parliament assembled and now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade and the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that the western farmers will pay one times Crow, which is no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever and forever pray.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the citizens of Saskatoon to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada now exercise their right to present a grievance. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall and his commission carefully studied the railroad situation in western Canada and indicated that the western Canadian economy is based on statutory grain rates, commonly known as the Crow rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever and forever pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have a different petition. It is to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that people in northern Ontario sometimes have to wait in unheated shelters in the wintertime for trains that are as much as four hours late.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to provide a modern and adequate rail service for which your petitioners will ever and forever humbly pray.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from residents of several small towns in Saskatchewan, most of them farmers, many of them Wheat Pool members, to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year; that this grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade; that the undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate, that is no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled a petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise the right to
June 20, 1983

present a grievance and humbly sheweth that whereas Members of Parliament are proud of the new Charter of Rights and the protection it provides handicapped persons; and whereas the recent CRTC decision denies the request that all telephones be hearing aid compatible and therefore acceptable to handicapped persons; and whereas this decision gives no commitment to modify eventually existing or all new phones for hearing aid adaptability; wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make a clear commitment to render our telecommunication system equally accessible to all Canadians.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Canada. In their petition they talk about the very sad fact that Public Service employees of the federal Government are not protected by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code when it comes to health and safety legislation. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the federal Government will enact legislation that will place public government workers under the jurisdiction of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code and hope that this legislation will be enacted soon and will be much stronger than the existing legislation in protecting the rights of government workers.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Saskatchewan from the communities of Kyle and White Bear. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party and that the Crow rate must be maintained and the railways of all Canada upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres):
That this House proceed immediately to Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to on division.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Madam Speaker:: I would now like to rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) before we entered into the debate. 1 have to tell him concerning this point of order that nowhere in our practice or precedents can I find any support for the Hon. Member's arguments. A bill may be objectionable to certain Hon. Members on account of its contents or scope but this does not make it procedurally unacceptable.
The citations used by the Hon. Member in presenting his argument do not sustain the point he was trying to make. He quoted from page 380 of Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition on the matter of complicated questions-and 1 emphasize the word "questions"-and for the sake of the record I will read the entire paragraph from which the Hon. Member quoted:
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House, the House may order such question to be divided, has been variously interpreted at different periods. Originally the division of such question appears to have required an order of the House, and in 1770 a motion 'That it is the rule of this House, that a complicated question which prevents any Member from giving his free assent or dissent to any part thereof ought, if required, to be divided,' was negatived on a division. As late as 1883 it was generally held that an individual Member had no right to insist upon the division of a complicated question. In 1888, however, the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately if any Member objected to their being taken together. Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged. A complicated question can, however, only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own.
This paragraph is contained in a chapter which is entitled "The Process of debate, by motion, question and decision". If one examines the context of the quotation selected by the Hon. Member, it is clear that it does not refer to the content and scope of bills. The chapter deals, as the title implies, with the various forms that motions can take, the rules relating to them and the putting of the question on a motion by the Chair and precedents in our own Parliament are to that effect as well. A

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
citation relating to motions and questions does not apply necessarily to bills.
The Hon. Member also referred to comments made by two former Speakers when ruling on similar bills. He quoted a comment by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the course of a ruling he gave on January 26, 1971, concerning a bill respecting the organization of the Government of Canada:
There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly paliamentary standpoint.
He did not, however, quote what Speaker Lamoureux went on to say later on in the ruling:
Having said this, I would have to rule-if I must rule-that the Government has followed the practice that has been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far and that omnibus bills seek to take in too much. All Hon. Members should be alerted to this difficulty of which the Chair is fully conscious.
Therefore, contrary to the impression left by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, Speaker Lamoureux ruled the bill in order.
The Hon. Member also referred to the concern expressed by Mr. Speaker Jerome in a ruling of May 11, 1977, concerning a Bill to amend the Criminal Code. While expressing sympathy with the point of order which had been raised, the Speaker nevertheless ruled:
However, [ certainly am bound by the clear language of our precedent rulings and previous practices to reject the point of order-
Thus, although some occupants of the Chair have expressed concern about the practice of incorporating several distinct principles in a single bill, they have consistently found that such bills are procedurally in order and properly before the House. In addition to the rulings cited above, there were others rendered on January 23, 1969, on May 6, 1971, and on March 2, 1982, which are also relevant and consistent with the precedents already referred to. Bill C-155 is therefore properly before the House and the Chair cannot intervene at this time as the Hon. Member has suggested.
It is now incumbent upon the Chair to put the previous question to a vote.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask whether it was in order for the Chair even to receive the motion, given that the Chair already had a question with which to deal relating directly to a matter, the outcome of which the Hon. Member making the motion was attempting to influence. I would suggest at this point that the motion was put before the Chair inappropriately and that the Chair does not have the motion in the proper form.
If it is the Government's desire to invoke closure in this way, the Government will have to wait its turn, until it legitimately has the floor to move such a motion. The motion could not be accepted by the Chair since the Chair at that point was deliberating on a ruling and had not yet given its decision.


Madam Speaker:: The motion has been properly proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance); it is in order.
Before the House is a certain discussion which the previous question will allow us to deal with in a certain way. The previous question is a legitimate motion. It was properly before the House and it is now the duty of the Speaker to propose the motion to the House.


Claude-André Lachance: That the question now be put.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a debatable motion under the Standing Orders. I would point out to the Chair that our research shows that the last time this was used by the Government was in 1955. It is closure by any other name; it smacks of closure. It is a cheap way of bringing in closure.
I suggest that under Standing Order 36(1) the motion is debatable. I refer the Chair to Citation 417 on page 151 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, at which point Beauchesne differentiates between amendments and superseding motions. Citation 417(2)(b)(i) refers to the previous question. It is very clear that the motion is debatable. The question under our rules now becomes for how long it is debatable.


Yvon Pinard: Unlimited.


Philip Derek Lewis: Unlimited is fine; we will get to unlimited in a minute. The point is that under Standing Order 35(1) specific rules are laid out for the debate of motions. If this is truly a superseding motion, not an amendment, then I submit the length of speeches in debating the motion should be 20 minutes plus a ten-minute question period.
In putting this point of order to the Chair, I suggest that the Chair is breaking new ground in making this ruling. If ever there was a case for giving Hon. Members an opportunity to debate a motion-and this is a motion-surely it is this one. Closure cuts off debate and it cuts off amendment. Surely at this point the Chair should come down on the side of Hon. Members of the House of Commons and give them the freedom to express themselves in 20-minutes speeches and ten-minute question periods rather than the ten-minute shots which the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and the Government would like as they cut off debate on this very important subject.
I urge the Chair to find that under Standing Order 35(1) this is truly a motion, not an amendment, and therefore the rules for the debate of motions should apply, that is, speeches should be 20 minutes long followed by ten-minute question periods.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, concerning the fact that the motion is debatable, no one is arguing with the Hon. Member. We asked for the question to be put because no one was rising to be recognized. We accept that the motion is fully debatable; that is clear under the Standing Orders.
June 20, 1983



Second, when he says that this motion is a motion of closure, he is entirely mistaken. I would invite my learned friend to read Standing Order 65 and Citation 452 and following of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, where it clearly says that once the motion is proposed, the debate may continue on the original question, which is the motion for second reading. Since we are now debating the second reading stage, a time limit on speeches is provided under Standing Order 35(2). In any event, the same principle applies when debating an amendment to the main question on second reading. We have just had a very clear example of this. A motion was proposed by the New Democratic Party Members to postpone adoption of the second reading stage for six months. The amendment in question was debated for many days in the House, and speeches were limited to ten minutes because Standing Order 35(2) applies to the second reading stage, and not to the amendment or the main question-it covers everything, consequently, the previous question. Madam Speaker, perhaps I may refer you once again to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 157, Citation 452(1), and I quote:
The previous question is moved when the original question is under debate-
That is settled, despite objections from the Members opposite. The Chair has just ruled on the question. The Citation goes on
to say:
-in order to-
That is the important part.
-in order to force a direct vote on it, thereby preventing any amendments to the original question to be proposed.
So this is the original question which is now being debated simultaneously with the motion, and the debate is on the second reading stage of the bill, whence the requirement for continuing our ten-minute speeches. Perhaps I may also refer the Chair to Citation 453, which says, and I quote:
Members who have spoken to the main motion or amendments may speak again to the previous question.
That is exactly the point 1 have just been trying to make. All Members who have already spoken to the main motion or amendments may speak again to the previous question, because the debate is on the second reading stage, and consequently, there is a ten-minute time limit on speeches. I agree with the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), when he says that a motion is debatable. If they have anything to say, let them seek to be recognized by the Chair. No one is questioning that, but 1 disagree when the Hon. Member claims this is a motion of closure. It is no such thing. It is a sensible motion that allows debate on the main motion and prevents any amendments from being proposed. This means that even Hon. Members who have spoken up to now may all speak again to the second reading stage of the Bill. Third, as far as a time on speeches is concerned, since we are at the second reading stage, there is no doubt that Standing Order 35(2) must apply and that speeches must be limited to ten minutes.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, you have an interesting point before you; it is one that I spent some time on over lunch
Western Grain Transportation Act
trying to determine whether or not speeches would proceed under the ten-minute rule. I would like to suggest that they should not. In fact, the time limit for debate as set out in the various Standing Orders detailing length of speeches also applies to the previous question.
I suggest, therefore, that when the previous question was moved, the time limits for debate start from the time of moving the previous question. Upon moving the previous question, the fact that the time limits as set out in the various Standing Orders apply means that you must go back to the beginning and apply them to the question that is before the House. The debate does not continue in the same way that it would if the motion were a motion of substance.
This is one of three potential closure motions or closure of debate motions. You can have a straight closure motion which would be subject to certain rules of debate; you can have a time allocation motion which is subject to certain rules of debate; and you can have this motion on the previous question which is subject to certain rules of debate. The rules of debate in the two previous situations are set out clearly in the Standing Orders. The rules for this motion are set out equally clearly in the Standing Orders inasmuch as the time limits for all other debates become applicable to this debate when it is moved to deal with the subject being dealt with under one of the Standing Orders in the House of Commons for debating purposes.
If the Government had moved closure, then the time limits are clearly set out as to the length of time debate would be permitted on that particular motion. The end result would be a vote on the bill. If the Government were to move time allocation, the length of time permitted is clearly set out and at the end the vote would be taken and a disposition of the Bill made at that stage. In this case it says that whatever Standing Order is applicable-and in this case we are talking about second reading stage-the time limits under the Standing Order become the time limits applicable for the motion to move the previous question.
I suggest, therefore, that at the time the motion is put the time limits become applicable based on the way they are written in the Standing Orders. In the Standing Orders the time limits are, one, that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government have indefinite time; and two, that Members speaking in the first eight hours of the debate have 20 minutes and thereafter Members speaking beyond that point have ten minutes each. I suggest now that that is the Standing Order in terms of time limits that we are working under and that we should begin by accepting that the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Official Opposition have unlimited time; that any Member during the first eight hours of debate has 20 minutes; and any Member speaking thereafter is permitted ten minutes. I would urge upon you

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
that any other ruling would clearly not permit the Standing Order as it is written to be put into force.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is right. The motion on the previous question is debatable and probably will be debated. However, it is not up to the Chair to decide.
My next comment is that the motion on the previous question is not closure, because after the House votes on the previous question, the debate on the main question will, of course, be resumed. When the previous question is put, this is done only in order to prevent the proposal of new amendments and to ensure that the debate continues on the main question.
As for the last question put to the Chair, namely, what time limits apply in the circumstances, I must say that the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) are right. In the opinion of the Chair, and after thorough consideration of how the new Standing Orders could be interpreted, the provisions of Standing Order 35(2) apply. We are, in fact, debating the second reading of a Bill and we have exceeded the eight-hour period. Consequently, a ten-minute time limit for each speaker applies to debates at this stage in the proceedings.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member.
1 understand that he has been recognized and has the floor for debate. Earlier this morning I was asked by the House Leader of the Official Opposition not to sit until five o'clock. As far as I am concerned, if the House wants to adjourn until five o'clock, I have no objection.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the sitting shall be suspended until five o'clock this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 3.45 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has the floor.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I last spoke on this Bill on the six-month amendment on May 24 and 1 put some rather strong remarks on the record at that time. I am very surprised that the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) would move the previous question motion today. I find it rather strange that a prominent Member who worked so hard on procedures with so many of us for the past year would
do that to the House, particularly on a Bill that is so important to the region I come from. The cleavage within the debate seems to be a regional one between Quebec Members and Members from the West.
It seems that Quebec Members are under the impression that allowing the subsidy to go to the growers in the West will work to the disadvantage of their cattle and hog-feeding operations, particularly the hog-feeding operation which has been so successful as a result of activities in the Province of Quebec. It is my understanding that even the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Government have tried to impress upon Members from Quebec that that is not really an issue. Feed grain prices in the Province of Quebec are a corn and soybean formula based on Thunder Bay plus freight or Chicago gate prices.
Please allow me to proceed with the debate that I want to make. It is my understanding that the strength of feelings in the West in no way, shape or form impinge upon the very successful hog raising activities in the Province of Quebec. I am sure that the Minister of Transport can agree totally with that statement.
I think the principle of the Bill was put in the most simple terms by Stan Price on May 16, 1983 when he said:
Put simply, if someone said they would cover all of the transportation costs on pork and I pay full compensatory rate on grain, where would I locate a hog operation-right next to the grain fields. Or if they said they would pay all of the cost of shipping grain and I had to pay full freight costs on pork, I would locate the hog production and meat packing right next to Montreal, New York or Tokyo.
That is the issue here. What we are debating is the method of payment. We do not agree with the method of payment that the Minister of Transport has finally proposed in Bill C-155. Members in western Canada, and particularly British Columbia where I come from, have been inundated by a powerful lobby by industrial leaders. The Council of Forest Industries of B.C. wants us to pass Bill C-155 and not delay the Government. The president and chief executive officer of B.C. Forest Products wants the same thing. We have received a wire from the president of MacMillan Bloedel who wants us not to delay the Bill. On Wednesday, June 15, we received a submission from the Employers' Council of British Columbia telling us not to hold up the Bill. I have received other wires from 15 or 20 industrialists from British Columbia who have lobbied us. They are absolutely shocked that we are so upset with the Bill. I have even had a telephone call from the Chamber of Commerce accusing me of not representing the interests of British Columbia. I want to say that that is totally false, Mr. Speaker.
Let me discuss the principle of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport had things in the palm of his hand, the way he was going. Even Mr. Bruce Howe, the president and chief executive officer of British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, who has been organizing the lobby on B.C. Members, made a speech on January 26, 1982 in which he
June 20, 1983

supported all of the essential points that we are trying to make in the debate on this side of the House. That is why the ability to debate and to have the time to debate the principle of the Bill is so important. We are shocked by the ten-minute speeches, the limitation and the closure techniques being imposed on us.
The people of Canada, let alone Members of the Government, do not understand the principle of the Bill. That principle is the method by which the subsidy is to be paid. If it is paid to the railroads, then secondary industry is locked out of western Canada forever. All we are saying is that we should study the Gilson and the Hall formulae-particularly the Gilson formulae-and that we should go that route where we have the freedom of choice to allow part or all of the payment to go to the producers.
We are not just producing grains for export but, rather, we are entering the whole world of research and development and variation in grain production so that we can start to build processing plants and hog feeding plants. I could stand here for 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to tell you about one of the most exciting operations I have ever been involved in in my life that could start up in western Canada should the method of payment be to the producer of the grain. That is the issue.
Mr. Bruce Howe has led the lobby on B.C. Members and he thinks he is going to ruin us politically because we are supporting what he refers to as "those guys from the Prairies". In January, 1982 the Minister was out pedalling the Bill before he changed it 180 degrees from what he knew was right. Let me tell you that Mr. Bruce Howe was supporting entirely the position of the B.C. Members on this Bill. In a speech which he gave in January, 1982 he said:
CP Rail estimates that grain accounts for 20 per cent of its workload but yields, at best, only 8 per cent of its revenue.
We agree that the railroads need more money. We are not saying they do not. He goes on:
Representatives from more than 50 different organizations covering every segment of the western economy-including nearly all the agricultural associations-joined together in an urgent request to Ottawa for "commercially justifiable compensation to the railways for the shipment of farm commodities currently moving at statutory rate levels".
We agree. Mr. Howe was right on when he gave his speech on the Crow rate.
-there will be a very strong temptation for the Government to side-step the issue by making direct cash grants to the railroads-
This is Mr. Howe speaking in January, 1982.
-for double tracking or building tunnels-to enable them to overcome their bottlenecks. This is the so-called 'project' approach to the problem.
I think it should be called the 'bandaid' approach. Because-while cash grants would certainly enable the railroads to start on major improvements-the problem of the Crow rate would merely be deferred. The railroads would continue to lose money handling grain;-
Mr. Howe, Mr. Speaker, said further in January, 1982:
A comprehensive solution would recognize-first and foremost-that grain as a commodity must pay its way. . . . recognize the need for statutory assurances to the grain growers; both for rail service, and for some form of compensation.
Western Grain Transportation Act
-I wholeheartedly endorse the need for such statutory assurances. The whole prairie economy has been built for 50 years on the premise of a statutory regime for grain shipment.
A fully compensatory rate to the railroads for moving grain would mean a four or fivefold increase in railroad rates.
Mr. Howe speaks against that. He said that would be a disgraceful injustice to the prairie farmers. Yet today he comes here and lobbies me, and other Hon. Members from British Columbia, against exactly what this Bill is doing. He says to pass this Bill even if it is imperfect. Yet in January, 1982 he was speaking out against everything this Bill does to western Canada and to the farmers in western Canada. Further on in his speech he said:
-the comprehensive solution has found a champion in Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin.
That is the way the Minister of Transport was before he tabled Bill C-155, Mr. Speaker, until the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) shook him by the ears and said it was not political. Then the Quebec caucus got hold of him and said: "You cannot do that; that is going to threaten our hog production". The Government of Canada knows, however, that it is not going to threaten the hog production of Quebec. It knows very well that the feed grain formula is corn and soybean and hog production would not be threatened.
Why should the Government shut off and smother the chance to have a secondary industry, a meat packing industry, a meat slaughter industry, a hog growing industry in western Canada? Most of our market goes out across the Pacific, Mr. Speaker, and south of the 49th parallel. In no way, shape or form are we doing any harm in asking for some decent consideration on this Bill. I feel it is despicable that the Government should treat us the way it is in forcing closure and ten-minute speeches when Hon. Members are still crying out, trying to represent their region in this great country.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain);: Mr. Speaker, this so-called second reading debate on the Crow Bill is the action of a lame duck Government. A "lame duck Government" is an American expression. When a new President in the US. is elected in November, he does not actually take power until the next March. In the interim period governments who have the power technically should carry out the wishes of the new regime. This lame duck Government is frozen with fear, paralysed with panic, too fat to fight and too frightened to run. This deliberate closing down of our right to make speeches on a subject which affects the whole constitutional basis of our country is the action of a Government which is paralysed with panic and too frightened to fight.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, belongs in Parliament. It does not belong in any Snavely Report. It does not belong in any consensus efforts by an economist. Under the law of this land the Crow rate is only debatable in this Parliament. However, Parliament cannot debate the Crow rate, although it knows what it is talking about. The Crow rate demands that we maintain the principle of the National Transportation Act, that we know the cost it demands, that the National Transportation Act machinery be used, and that we use the Canadian

ear to ear under this new proposal. If we allow a dying Government to impose closure on something which affects most directly an alienated part of Canada, the Prairies, at a time when we should bring them together with Quebec because of their common interest in protecting our resources, then this Parliament will not give justice.
As the Speaker gave her ruling today, we heard the rolling of the guns for the Royal Salute. In my mind I spoke the old Latin expression which translates into English as "Though the heavens fall, let justice be done". Justice was not done today, Mr. Speaker, in this House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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 Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker)- Crown Corporations-Certification of 1981 financial statements. (b) Inquiry respecting possible representations made to auditing firms; the Hon. Member for Temiskaming (Mr. MacDougall)-Mines and Mining-Impact of steel imports; the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin)-Farm Credit Corporation-Plight of farmers with high interest rate loans, (b) Development of agribond program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Crow rate is not the only issue at stake in Bill C-155. It must be recognized that this Bill attacks a number of other areas and we should have time to discuss that in this House. That opportunity was denied us in the Speaker's decision today.
One of the most successful Government agencies in Canada, Mr. Speaker, has been the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been in operation for many years and it has cost the Canadian taxpayer very little money. It was put in place to sell western Canadian grain and it was paid for by the grain producers, not by the taxpayers of Canada. Its area of jurisdiction includes
Western Grain Transportation Act
northern British Columbia as well as the three prairie Provinces. As far as freight rates are concerned, that is exactly the area affected by this Bill. Grain producers send the grain to port on the basis of the Crow rate.
This Bill is called "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereoF'. That description is almost in incongruous, Mr. Speaker, because that is only a very small part of the total effect of this Bill. The Canadian Wheat Board handles all of our export wheat, most of our feed, and controls the shipping of rye, canola and other prairie products. Its operation is paid entirely by the farmers from the sale of their grain. It also has buy and sell privileges, which were so abhorred in the Canagrex Bill. But even the most right-wing Liberal recognizes the value of the Canadian Wheat Board.
This Bill to change the Crow rate not only attacks the grain producers but also the agency which sells the farmers' grain. The Canadian Wheat Board has been able to take the speculation out of selling grain; regardless of what time of year you put your grain on the market, you get the best possible price that the Wheat Board can get for that particular year. This was done because many years ago the Board was given a mandate to get the best possible deal for farmers. The fact that this Government does not feel the same way about the protection of farmers is one of the really bad parts of this Bill.
The agency or group of farmers, I suppose, which is closest to the Canadian Wheat Board is an advisory committee, elected by farmers and put in place by the farmers of the area who are most affected by the Bill. On February 8, 1983, the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, a committee elected by those farmers who produce grain, passed a resolution. In the resolution the advisory committee informed the Government that it totally rejected the proposal for changes of the grain freight rate structure. That particular resolution in itself is very important, but perhaps much more important as far as the debate is concerned is the fact that it also gave reasons for that position. I will quote directly from the press release which stated:
One of the Committee's primary concerns is the erosion of the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction over transportation and quotas. The success of any sales organization depends on its ability to manage the movement of its product to market to make delivery on the date and to the ports stipulated by the purchaser. As you know, the Canadian Wheat Board has demonstrated itself to be one of Canada's most effective and respected sales agencies. Its success depends on close co-ordination of shipments and sales, and its ability to maintain the confidentiality of all aspects of its marketing decisions.
I am reading directly from the advisory committee's resolution which goes on to state:
Preliminary information indicates some of the Board's authority in this area will be removed and transferred to a new Government agency whose function, unlike the Wheat Board's, will not make it accountable to Western Canadian grain producers. The Committee believes it is imperative that the Canadian Wheat Board maintain the powers that are presently within the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
This Act will be attacking those powers. It goes on to state:
The proposed legislation also establishes an April 30th deadline for the setting of blended freight rates, based on the estimated amount to be shipped in the following crop year.
Referring to the advisory committee to the Wheat Board, it states:
The Committee feels the Canadian Wheat Board would be put into an impossible position by having to make predictions on the expected movement of grain at a time when the new crop has not been seeded. This could also have negative implications from a sales strategy point of view.
Again referring to the advisory committee to the Wheat Board which is elected by the western grain producers, it states:
In addition, the Committee is of the view that the implementation of a new grain freight rate structure will seriously damage the income of grain producers. It is a known fact that Canadian grain producers have virtually no income protection as compared to their major competitors in the USA and the EEC.
This is a statement by an advisory committee elected by 150,000 quota holders who are the producers of grain in werstern Canada. That is the way they feel about the Bill.
The Wheat Bord has controlled the flow of grain through the quota system. Most of us who are farmers complain on occasion about the quota system. We all know that it is there and that it gives no advantage to anyone. However, this will be attacked or will be affected by the new Bill. The Bill will put an end to much of the fairness and weaken the Wheat Board in the process.
The Wheat Board is a fundamental agency as far as the Canadian grain establishment is concerned. The Wheat Board has been able to control the movement of grains to the terminals because it can call on quotas of a particular kind of grain at a particular time.
Up until a half hour or so ago, I was planning to move an amendment. I understand that it will not be accepted now; is that right?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert is quite correct. There is now a motion on the floor that the House do now consider the previous question. Accordingly, no further amendment is possible.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Therefore, the Bill jeopardizes all the well planned and established procedures, those which have been established over the years and, in the process, eliminates the strength of the Canadian Wheat Board. If one eliminates the strength of the Canadian Wheat Board, one eliminates the strength of Canada. One affects the $6 billion of money which comes back into the system from the sale of Canadian wheat.
The motion which I would like to move, and I will read it into the record, is the following: "That Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time, but that the order for second reading be discharged, the Bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture".
Such a motion would give us the opportunity to discuss the Bill at length and in the detail that is required in the debate before it goes to committee so that all of Canada can consider
all the issues which the Bill should bring before the House. We are not given the opportunity because we are being cut off at this time. Therefore, I think it is very important that the people of Canada, particularly the grain producers, recognize that the Bill not only changes the Crow rate, but that it also starts the process of elimination of the strongest and the best agency that we have had, particularly for the western grain producer, that is, the Canadian Wheat Board. That in itself is a good enough reason to stop the Bill where it is now.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, to continue with the debate on Bill C-155, which is a Bill to change the Crow rate and shaft western Canada once again, I find it very disappointing that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is not in the House this afternoon. He has missed the contribution we have received from the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who have more knowledge about this subject in their two little fingers than does the whole Quebec caucus combined. I cannot understand, and I find it most disturbing, why the Minister of Transport should be taking all his advice from the Quebec Liberal caucus with regard to the Crow rate changes. However, all 1 have heard most of this afternoon is some giggling and laughing from the backbench Liberal Members. That is all the concern they have for this particular Bill.
I have received many representations from across western Canada with regard to the Crow rate changes. One of the best contributions I have received has been from the Alberta Government. Alberta has a strong industry with a potential to be stronger. However, the impact of changes means, first, that the economic distortions which inhibit the development of the western Canadian livestock and processing industry will continue to exist and, in all likelihood, will be exaggerated. Second, farmers will be unable to develop or to benefit directly from system efficiencies that could result from the commercial operation of a compensatory rate structure. The opportunity for innovations such as unit train movements and multiple car rates will be significantly delayed and reduced. Third, shippers will be unable to affect the development of the grain handling system through the exercise of free choice. The opportunity to allow the market to create and maximize system efficiency at all levels will have been lost. Fourth, farmers and grain companies will be subject to an increasing bureaucratic and regulatory burden. That is the last thing that we need in this country. Crisis rather than the market place will continue to dictate the pace and location of private industry investment and affect systems operations. Fifth, farmers will be unable to take advantage of domestic feed barley, canola and crop diversification, production and market opportunities.
The Saskatoon Star Phoenix, in an editorial of May 25 of this year, pointed out:
A governing party as unpopular as the present Liberal regime may have little to fear in yet more evidence that it is digging itself into greater political
June 20, 1983

quicksand. But there is an overriding concern-this Crow reform effort is turning out to be too divisive between regions and within regions to be safely pursued. A new beginning must be made, a fresh approach found. And most importantly, new players must enter the game. It is a part of the reality that the Government must face that, in large measure, the wall of resistance to the present Crow initiative is because of massive distrust of the central power force in the country.
It goes on to say:
A new political force, which is almost certain to emerge following the next general election, may have better luck at tackling the job.
There is no doubt about that.
But even with western support for the governing Party, it will be a difficult
one.
The Liberals cannot succeed. Their best bet is to keep the present statute intact and hope the creaky rail system holds together until someone else can find a way to fix it, and maintain the viability of the agriculture industry at the same time.
As well, the Palliser Wheat Growers Association, in a news release from May, 1983, pointed out:


PALLISER REPRESENTATIVES SEE PRODUCER CHOICE AS THE ULTIMATE COMPROMISE
[Stage Direction]
Palliser Crow Committee Chairman Paul Orsak and Executive Co-ordinator Barbara Isman were in Ottawa on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday with other major farm group representatives to investigate the possibility of achieving a key amendment to Ottawa's Crow Reform legislation. This amendment being the option for producers to individually decide whether they wish to receive their portion of the Crow Gap Benefit directly or pay it to the railways.
Orsak expressed optimism for this possible solution to the division which has existed between farm groups. He said, "Western Canada has lost a great deal because governments and farm groups were unable to develop a consensus. While major farm groups, the Saskatchewan and Alberta Governments believe in the producer payment method, the prairie Pools felt it would jeopardize their position. This created a rift which allowed Quebec to make the decision for Western Canadians."
Which is totally wrong. He continues:
The option was initially brought forward by Don Mazankowski as an alternative to forcing one method or another upon Western farmers. Orsak agreed that this option would be fairest to all concerned. He explains, "As there is no difference in net cost to farmers under either method a farmer can opt for whichever method he or she feels most comfortable with."
Isman also agreed that this is the fairest solution, saying "The additional benefit to producer choice is that it will be a true test of which method works best. Then when the comprehensive review comes up in 1985-86, a clear decision can be made."
Both Orsak and Isman feel it is imperative that Western farmers move quickly to give an opinion on the compromise because Ottawa is moving rapidly toward implementation of the current bill which is a Quebec solution to a Western problem. Orsak expressed his belief that the Federal Government could be made to change their mind if a Western consensus was reached.
It is imperative that the Government hoist the Bill for at least six months so it can consider the representations from these knowledgeable groups and individuals.
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the debate which has occurred on the Crow thus far has been one that has impressed me as containing two major elements. The first concerns the process through which we have gone and the second relates to the substantive issues.
The process which we have experienced thus far is one that should discourage anyone who has followed the Pepin proposal and the prior Hall Commission and Gilson reports. Not only
Western Grain Transportation Act
western Members of Parliament, who are particularly affected by the Bill, but the whole country has not had the opportunity in the first instance to become part of the proposal to help develop and improve a system which everyone agrees is in some jeopardy since it does not have the proper mechanisms not only for improving grain transportation but for the entire rail system. These problems have not been properly considered by Parliament.
When the Minister finally did make a proposal which took into account all other recommendations and presented it to us, that proposal was changed once again for what must be described as very crass, partisan political purposes. Yet again the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has contributed to offending western Members by saying that those who could yell the loudest would be heard and in fact be responsible for changes that are now before us. We have seen a number of occurrences as a result of different representatives from various groups lobbying on one side or the other. We have seen some grand conversions on the part of some railway officials. One such incident was described very well a short while ago by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Hungtinton).
As a Member, I have found the whole process disturbing as I watched it evolve with arbitrary changes which do not include what I would consider responsible input by Members of Parliament, particularly from this side. Clearly, Members from the Government side of the House do not understand what is important on behalf of the grain producers in western Canada.
Even as recently as today and last week, we saw the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stand in his place and indicate his intention to bring in time allocation on debate. We have seen the concern that has been raised by the NDP regarding the number of different principles involved in this Bill. It is a mini omnibus Bill, if you like. All of these factors should give anyone who is considering this proposal some concern with respect to its process. That in itself is enough to ask the Government to back away and let the substance of this issue come before a committee before the Bill is put through. It could then be properly considered after proper representations have been made. That is the first major point.
Returning to the substance of the Bill, in my opinion it concerns an issue which affects not only western grain producers but almost all matters that are important to our country. The Bill ranges from the rail system itself, which was so important in the beginning of our country toward uniting it and achieving Confederation, to questions regarding the farm economy. If there is anything that is vulnerable right now, it must be the farm economy. This Bill and some of the elements in it could affect the farm economy. Listening to the grain prices this morning on the radio we heard that a significant drop has occurred in the last few days. That kind of pressure is being felt by the agricultural producers. This, I think, threatens some of the basic economic factors that are important to

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
this country in seeing an economic revival and in getting back on the right track again.
&ed590;-l We now have a degree of economy recovery. We need to be able to count on that sustained recovery if we really want to have the jobs and the opportunities that all Canadians should enjoy. But when we put in another element such as that contained in this Bill, we then seriously raise in question the viability of many of those farming operations in the West. I do not think that in the short term we can tell precisely what the consequences of this will be. But there is no doubt that it does raise serious questions and could, in fact, result in some very negative effects on the farm economy.
With regard to the farm economy, we must not just zero in on the grain producer. He is the primary producer and he is producing grain for export and domestic use, but he is also responsible for many of the other economic activities in the country. The multiplier factor is probably seven for each dollar's worth of activity on the farm. There are many things involved. The production of vehicles and all the other things that go into making the farm operation work, all of those things, have impact right across the country and are basic to the economic health of Canada. We must also look at the export markets. As far as Canadian export markets are concerned, we do not have very many bright lights. But one of the bright lights, second to the forest industry, is agriculture. We can expand that.
We have had many discussions about the ways in which we could expand. Canagrex is what we have. It is also under closure. But this is something that needs to be secure in terms of the producers and in terms of the producers and in terms of our ability to deliver that which we contract for with other countries. The markets look bright. We are exporting now over thirty million tonnes per year. We may be able to go as high as exporting forty million tonnes by the years 1990 to 1992. Those things are possible. But we know they depend on the ability to transport that grain and that means some major changes in the attitude of the railway companies. We know that it will take additional capital in order for it to occur.
One of the things I ran across over the last several days when I was wondering what was happening and what was right or wrong about the CPR and the CNR was an item in the Financial Post 500. Many things have been said about the history and what was agreed upon at the very beginning when the Crow rate was brought into existence. Of interest was the question of the CPR and the CNR and the way the Financial Post 500 listed them. On the negative side was the listing of the big winners and the big losers. Most of the companies in this list are not a surprise to us. But the one that did surprise me was CN. As far as Crown corporations go, CN is the big loser. We have to question who is running CN, how it is managed and who is responsible for it. But that company as a crown corporation has not been doing well. It might be suggested that it might be as a result of the Crow rate, and so on. But on the other hand, if we look at the CPR, listed as one of the biggest of the winners and one of the largest Canadian corporations in terms of economic activity, maybe there is a lot
to be said in terms of how that company is being managed and that changes should occur in the management of CN. Regardless of whether it is CN or CPR there is no question in anyone's mind that both of these companies have an opportunity and a need for major significant capital investment in order to provide the type of transportation facilities that are required by the western grain producers and that is being brought into question.
The final point in terms of substance that is important to me is the statutory agreement that had been put in place initially which is being threatened by the proposal before us in the House now in the form of Bill C-155. It seems to me there is a commitment made to the West and the grain producers. This is a fundamental factor in the whole existence of the western agricultural economy. Whether we are from Ontario, eastern Canada or British Columbia, it is one that we cannot take too lightly. I think it is probably impossible for us not having grown up with this issue, to have a full sense of it, but on the other hand, I think it is a commitment that the Government has a responsibility to honour.
I think I understand the Bill reasonably well. I know the amendments which the Minister is proposing suggest that there will be a safety net and there will be something to help protect. I do not think those things go far enough or can give the sense of security that is needed if we are to have the healthy farm production and economy that we need on behalf of all Canadians.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. As a Member of Parliament from Kootenay East-Revelstoke, I want to say how much I resent this piece of legislation. Our House Leader on May 19 appealed to the Government of Canada to have this Bill split into three portions, first, into a transportation Bill that would deal with problems of transportation with which I and our Party very much want to deal. We want to deal with this in a very constructive way to meet the needs of our transportation in the years to come. Second, we suggested that the Bill deal with grain, the handling of grain and costs in a constructive way, to see what the costs and the consequences would be. We need to look at what would happen with regard to farmers. Third, we want to deal with the Dominion coal blocks, fifty thousand acres of which happen to be situated in my riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke. I want to speak for a few minutes about that.
It is important to know that over 85 years ago the constituents of Kootenay East-Revelstoke allowed over 50,000 acres of their most prime coal lands to be set aside in the name of the Dominion of Canada. During that period of time they did not have the opportunities to exploit and carry out the kind of developments that took place. Eighty-five years have now gone by and the Canadian Government wants to do away with the Crowsnest rate. That may be something that should be considered, but if you do away with that you should look at the
June 20, 1983

basic construction of how the Crownest rate came about and how those coal lands became available. I want to take issue with the fact that we cannot debate the coal lands in a separate Bill so that the people of Canada can understand the concerns of western Canada. When we see that the Government of Canada is mainly represented by eastern representatives dictating policies and programs that will adversely affect the people of British Columbia and the Prairies, I think that matter should be looked at in a democratic, sincere and sensitive way.
For a moment I want to reflect on some of the things that have happened. This land was turned over to the Dominion of Canada back in 1897. In 1897, through the Crowsnest agreement when it was made, the 50,000 acres were set aside. It was said that the land could only be developed if it was to produce for domestic use and the produce could only be sold at $2 a tonne loaded on the cars. We realize on this side of the House and we in British Columbia realize that that is not feasible today. We are prepared to discuss the removal of that land from the Crowsnest agreement but not if we have to support the transportation portion of the Bill and have to take it out on the farmers of the Prairies and of British Columbia. We think that is wrong, and we have said so. We have asked to have the Bill divided, but the sensitivity on this side of the House is ignored. For the life of me I wonder why.
I know that CP and the Fording Coal Company, a subsidiary of CP, have made inquiries with regard to the development of these coal lands. It could be that some sweetheart deal is already in the process. On Thursday of last week I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) if it would be possible for the West to supply coal to central Canada for its industrial belt which is now buying as much as 16 million tonnes of coal from the United States. I would like to indicate the answer I received from the Minister and the concern I have for those coal blocs when I receive such an answer. He said:
-I am informed that some coal has been imported from British Columbia to the East in small quantities.
Imported from British Columbia! Is that what the Government of Canada thinks of British Columbia? As a Member of Parliament I resent it in the strongest possible terms. I resent the fact that we were unable to separate the Bill so that we could deal with the coal deposits. These are 50,000 acres of the richest coal land, estimated to be valued at $450 billion. While I am speaking in the House, there is ongoing research in drilling for oil. A contract was let in that area for the drilling of oil. If Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland can have their energy policies and dictate their energy programs, the energy policy in British Columbia should not be dictated by the House of Commons or the Dominion of Canada. B.C. energy must be turned back to the Province of British Columbia from where it first came. To suggest that it is imported is an insult to British Columbians, and I resent it in the strongest possible manner.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Also I resent the fact that MacMillan-Bloedel, Fording and other companies from the West to which Conservative Members referred are lobbying us. They are subsidiaries of CP. They are lobbying us to pass this Bill. I will not be a lobbyist for CP or any other large company which feels its interests are more important than those of my constituents. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Energy are not even in the House when this important piece of legislation is being discussed. It is another insult which we cannot and must not allow to go unheard.
I have people lobbying me and suggesting that I am opposed to the restructuring of our railways and our transportation system. For 35 years I have worked on the railways. I know as well as anyone else that our transportation system must be upgraded. There must be a method of doing it. I know that railway workers and miners in British Columbia do not want to have it upgraded on the backs of the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That is not how it must be done. It must be done under a transportation Bill which recognizes the needs of the country. It must be done in a way which will not destroy another very viable and valuable industry which the country needs. For farmers to be designed as the ones to pay for the improvement of the railway system is wrong, and we cannot understand it.
At the present time the railways are offering to purchase railways in the United States which would provide a possibility for diverting grain to the South while Canadian farmers would pay the extra rates. I think that is wrong. The Minister should immediately step in and say that Canadian products, especially grain and other commodities, must be shipped on Canadian railways through Canadian ports before any subsidies will be offered by any government or any group.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-155. I would like to make a few comments on closure and then indicate how I personally feel about the Bill before the House. When I first came here as a Member of Parliament, I felt very strongly that I could represent the people of my constituency with honour, integrity and a sense of feeling which is only gained from living in a constituency or in a particular area. Basically I thought all Hon. Members of Parliament would sit with open ears during debates and allow the exchange of ideas to take place so that Opposition Members could play their role by modifying bad legislation. In the parliamentary system which I understood, we in the House of Commons, as Members representing all of Canada, would reach a solution that would be palatable to every part of the country. Instead I found much to my dismay and sorrow that every time a piece of bad legislation came before the House or a piece of legislation with which some Members disagreed, the Government moved in with closure or time allocation which is another form of closure. It is not a place for debate; it is not a place in which to exchange ideas.
I doubt whether Hon. Members sitting on the Liberal backbenches really understand what the Crow rate is all about or what Bill C-155 does. For example, let me indicate what

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
exists right now as a statutory freight rate. The Crowsnest Pass Agreement was signed in 1897, nearly 100 years ago. CPR agreed to reduce rates for transporting grain and flour from western Canada to the Lakehead to five cents per ton mile. The rate became statutory in 1925 when it was incorporated in the Railway Act. Subsequently it was extended in later years to include Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Churchill and was broadened to include certain oilseeds and semi-processed grain products. That is what farmers in western Canada understood, and it has become part of the very social fabric of western Canada.
Now the Government virtually proposes to transfer $1 billion from the pockets of western Canadian farmers directly to the railways. That is exactly what is happening. The total revenue from farm commodities, grain from western Canada, is $6 billion. The Government is proposing to take $1 billion of that $6 billion and transfer it directly to the railways. It will not come from Government coffers; it will come directly out of the pockets of farmers in small communities in my riding and in every other western grain producing area.
It is an attack on the social fabric of western Canada. I am talking about the very small communities on the Prairies, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The very existence of places like Rochester is threatened. When you threaten the farmer, you kill the family farm. When you do that, you kill the very small communities such as Kinsella, Smith and other places Members have not even heard of. I repeat, they are the very social fabric of western Canada.
The Government has come in with Bill C-155. I outlined what the statutory Crow rate was all about. It is very simple, five cents a tonne mile. That was the transportation cost. What will the farmer pay now? I want to quote directly from the Bill. I say to Members opposite, for God's sake, read the Bill and see if you can understand it. I know you cannot. I quote the annual rate scale, Clause 35 on page 16. This tells the farmer how much he will pay in freight rates to ship his grain from western Canada to market. I quote:
35.	The Commission shall, on or before April 30th of each calendar year, by order, prescribe the annual rate scale in respect of the next crop year.
36.	(1) The annual rate scale in respect of a crop year shall be determined by multiplying the amount per tonne for the movement of grain over each range of distance set out in the base rate scale by the quotient obtained by dividing the estimated eligible costs of the railway companies in respect of that crop year less the CN adjustment in respect of that crop year by the base year revenues within the meaning of subsection (2), as those revenues are adjusted in accordance with the grain tonnage forecast for that crop year provided by the Administrator.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), "base year revenues" means the amount obtained by multiplying the rates applicable to the movement of grain under the tariffs of rates of the railway companies as derived from the base rate scale, taking into account sections 44 and 46, by the number of tonnes of grain actually moved by the railway companies from each point of origin on a line of railway in the Western Division in the most recent base year.
How much a tonne? When a farmer in western Canada picks up a piece of legislation like this, he wants to know how much his freight cost will be because he has to figure that in his overhead. He wants to know that he will make money if he plants his wheat, barley or oats. It makes eminent common sense. What do we do? We have Members opposite who do not
even take the trouble to read what is in the legislation being proposed by the Minister.
Let us review what has happened. There was the Hall report and the Gilson report. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) introduced Bill C-155, which does not even resemble the suggestions made by these gentlemen. All producers in western Canada recognize that there has to be change somewhere.
We ask our western producers to produce the grain to be shipped. We ask them to create wealth for this country. We want to ship $6 billion of grain to the foreign markets to help with our balance of payments. That is what we ask them to do. We compete on the international market with countries like Argentina, the United States and Australia, which heavily subsidize the grain producer. What does this Government propose to do? It proposes to take $ 1 billion out of the revenue to the farmers and transfer it directly to the railroads. We have discussed that in this House.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) put forward the proposal of the freedom of choice option. It suggests in effect either paying the subsidy directly to the farmer or giving him the choice of paying it directly to the railroad. It would be easy to administer. What does this Government do? Nothing. It closes its ears.
When the Government introduces legislation into the House, it will listen to no argument. It will not listen to debate. It will not take into consideration the problems faced by the areas affected. It brought in closure on the national energy policy which devastated the oil industry in western Canada. Today, even with all of the backtracking it has attempted to do, rigs are still idle in the western basin. The numbers are down 10 per cent from last year, and last year they were down 40 per cent to 50 per cent from the year before. This is shortsighted stupidity.
We are seeing exactly the same thing again today. We ask the farmer to invest a lifetime in producing wealth from the land, wealth that every person in this country can enjoy. As I mentioned before, this contributes to our balance of payments.
The Crow is a form of subsidy to the grain producer. We all recognize that. It was put in place to allow the farmer to compete in the international market against other grain-producing countries. That subsidy is now being taken away. This is not being done in the United States, Argentina or Australia. They are adding subsidies. They recognize that the production of grain is the production of wealth. Selling grain on the international market contributes to our balance of payments and to our foreign trade deficit. This is used consistently.
I wish I had more time. However, this is part of the closure episode that goes on constantly. Members opposite will not listen to the debates that go on. I am sorry I am only permitted ten minutes. I may have an opportunity to speak at a later stage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking to a motion that the question now be put. There is a practice in Parliament whereby Members can put reasoned
June 20, 1983

amendments. The motion by a Government Member that the question now be put prevents the Chair from considering whether an amendment is in order and is a reasoned amendment. That surely is some kind of an assault on the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament on all sides of the Elouse. Since the Chair is the servant of all Members, I hope that sometime in the course of the debate on this Bill, however long it will last, the Chair will decide that that is enough, and that as a servant of the House it will say there has to be an opportunity to speak for the Members on all sides.
I want to move a motion, seconded by an Hon. Member. The Chair will probably have no choice but to rule it out of order or inadmissible. If nothing else, it may get a message across to the Government Member who would move such a motion before any other Member of the House had an opportunity to present a reasoned amendment.
1 want to deal with some of the points made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) whom I consider a friend and colleague. We have served in this House together for quite a few years. I should like to deal with what he and his Party call freedom of choice. Whose freedoms are the Tories trying to protect, Mr. Speaker-the grain farmers, members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the farmers' union, the Manitoba elevators, cow-calf operators? The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities has said that the difference between the Crow rate and the proven cost of hauling grain should be paid directly to the railroads and that the Government should have some say in what it does with the money. The Hon. Member for Vegreville says that farmers should have freedom of choice. What kind of freedom of choice does that give them? It gives them the freedom of choice to pay more money to the railroads. That is the great freedom that is proposed by the Conservatives.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How can you say that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Conservative Party has been in favour of the grain producers paying more money for freight changes. That is one of the freedoms of choice that the Hon. Member for Vegreville and other Members of his Party want to propose and see proposed in Parliament.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Be honest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us consider another freedom of choice that the Hon. Member for Vegreville wants to give to grain producers in western Canada and that is the freedom of choice to reduce the price for grain at the farm gate by $25 or $30 per tonne. The freedom of choice that the Conservative Party offers to farmers in western Canada is the choice to reduce the price at the farm gate.
Under the proposal of the Hon. Member for Vegreville farmers have the freedom to dilute the benefit to producers by spreading the so-called Crow benefit to cultivated acres which do not produce statutory grain. Then there is the psychological freedom of choice which is outweighed by reduced economic
Western Grain Transportation Act
choices. There is the freedom of the railway companies to manipulate freight rates to close down country elevators and branch lines, and that is called freedom of coercion or legalized blackmail. That is the so-called freedom of choice proposed by the Tory Party. It would force the farmer to take the money and haul his grain 50 or 100 miles farther away. The branch lines would be closed and and the elevator of which the farmer is part owner would be shut down. That is the freedom of choice that the Tories offer.
I have listened to Tories talk about efficiency in Government. It seems to me that freedom of choice means that instead of sending two cheques in payment, one to the CNR and one to the CPR, what we would have would be an administrative nightmare.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville went to great lengths to show how complicated the Bill is and he quoted several clauses for that purpose. His so-called freedom of choice alternative would mean that the Bill would have to be rewritten and would probably be twice as long as it is now. It would mean sending out 150,000 cheques instead of two. It would mean setting up a bureaucracy for those farmers who decide that they want to take the money and for those farmers who want to let the railroads take it. I invite you to kick me in the head, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -but I should like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That Bill C-185, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that the order for second reading be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Chair may have no choice in this in view of the motion presented by the Government, but Members of the Opposition have a right, and we exercise this right, to present a reasoned amendment and, as the Chair well knows, reasoned amendments are difficult to arrive at. I should like to hear from the Chair not only whether it is in order but whether it is a reasoned amendment. From some comments I heard this morning from the Chair, I think the occupant at that time had run out of string. I hope that the Chair will respond today, tomorrow or next day-I do not care when.
I hope the Conservative Party will explain about its so-called bastardization of freedom of choice, the freedom of grain producers to pay more, the freedom of grain producers to lose their branch lines, the freedom to lose their country elevators. I should like the Conservatives to explain that. They have been getting away with this Proposition 13, Ronald Reagan syndrome imported from California and have been peddling that nonsense which flies in the face of Canadian practice, which flies in the face of our national unity, which flies in the face of co-operative federalism and pits farmer against farmer, one region against another. Surely that is a betrayal of our Confederation. You cannot have livestock producers trying to gyp grain farmers, their neighbours, out of $25 or $30 per tonne on

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the farm gate price. The Hon. Member for Vegreville wants to give them the freedom of choice to do that.
I will keep talking until you cut me off, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If I understood the expression used earlier by the Hon. Member, he has run out of his string.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the Chair's generosity to continue-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I heard the Hon. Member indicate that he would like to seek unanimous consent to continue his remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is clear that there is not unanimous consent. On the matter of the amendment, the Hon. Member declared that he understood that the rules prohibit putting the amendment. I can do no more than assure him that he was correct in his assumption.
The question of whether it is a reasoned amendment is hypothetical. I would refer the Hon. Member to Citation 445 in Beauchesne's fifth edition to the effect there can be no amendment once the motion has been put for the previous question.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I am surprised that the Official Opposition has taken this opportunity to remain silent on this very important Bill. It would look as though they have knuckled under to the Government's desire to push this Bill through quickly, despite the implications of Bill C-155 not only to the farmers in the Prairies, but certainly on the whole issue of transportation in western Canada. Obviously the resolve of the Conservative Party of Canada to see that this Bill adequately protects the grain farmers, as well as provides adequate transportation for mineral and forest products in western Canada, its resolve to fight this Bill and to see that the Government does not jeopardize the livelihood of western Canadian farmers, has evaporated in this House this day.
The Bill with which we are dealing will do a lot more than take approximately $6,000 from each farm family by the year 1990. It jeopardizes the whole western farm future. As a Member from the Province of British Columbia I can say that we have concerns not only for the grain farmers in the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we also have some very sincere concerns as to how changes to the Crow rate under this Bill will affect the producers of timber products, coal and other minerals in the Province of British Columbia.
There seems to be a perception, and a false one, that the New Democratic Party in fighting this Bill is jeopardizing
increased transportation. The proposition which we have attempted to put forward regarding Bill C-155 would split the Bill and would see the House of Commons deal with transportation, in the upgrading of the rail system which we know as woefully inadequate and antiquated. We would split this Bill in order to deal with transportation needs in Western Canada, to protect the farmers and the statutory Crow rate, and to deal with the infrastructure of western Canadian products. I believe this indicates that this Party has an appreciation for the importance of rail transportation in Canada.
To support that statement I would like to comment on a situation in terms of the Government of British Columbia under former Premier David Barrett between the years 1972 and 1975. In recognizing the needs for improved rail service in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party Government of the day responded to the real need for upgrading the service by constructing, through B.C. Rail, a rail car plant at Squamish, B.C.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is indicative of Tory, Liberal and Social Credit Parties that they do not want any kind of successful Crown corporation which might employ people and provide services. That Crown corporation set up one of the most modern rail construction companies in North America. It was producing a car and a half a day for the B.C. Rail services. It employed 300 people. There was no indication that the rail car orders were decreasing. Yet, when the Socred coalition formed the Government in 1975 one of its first acts was to close that rail plant and lay off 300 people. We now know the need for upgrading the carrying capacity of our rail system. That rail car plant should have been producing constantly from 1975 on, which would have provided a large economic stimulus to that area which is now somewhat depressed because of the forest industry concerns.
Not only did the New Democratic Government propose and construct that rail car plant, there also were proposals to open up the North. This vision of the North would have included a rail system stretching from Vancouver through northern British Columbia, through the Yukon and into Alaska. This would open the North for the mineral and forest industries, and, more importantly, it would bring Alaskan gas and oil from Alaska down through British Columbia and into the southern States. That was a vision which never saw fruition simply because, again, a Social Credit Government did not see the economic viability of that system.
The proposal of the New Democratic Party for rail upgrading would serve the purpose of this Bill. It would serve the purpose of creating 100,000 more jobs than the Government is suggesting this Bill will produce. It would save the Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian prairie farmers hundreds of millions of dollars. It would produce a rail system which would be able to carry increased grain exports, and the mineral, forest and potash requirements of this country for its own domestic use and for export.
June 20, 1983

The record of the CPR is dismal in terms of providing an adequate rail bed for both transportation of passengers and of freight. As an Hon. Member whose riding includes the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway system, I can speak from some experience in terms of how the CPR has neglected the needs of that rail system both for the transportation of bulk products and for passengers.
What the Government is doing with this Bill is simply adding greater subsidies on top of the estimated $13.5 billion which the CPR has received over the past many decades, with no equity for the Canadian public. Bill C-155 could adequately have been split. It could have protected the rural communities in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. It could have provided an adequate rail transportation system for products in my Province of British Columbia. We have seen the neglect of the CPR in anticipating increased demands. We have seen the neglect by the Liberal Government of the Canadian public and this Parliament through a hurried debate without giving any recognition of what the prairie farmers themselves have to impart to this House of Commons. The need for rail upgrading, Mr. Speaker, is recognized by everyone in this House. It would appear, however, that the Official Opposition is quite satisfied that this Bill go through. It is quite satisfied to see the final debate on second reading of this Bill conclude without putting up any more speakers this evening. It is quite prepared to see the western farmer pay the extra $6,000 a year by the year 1990 without trying to force this Government to split the Bill and to recognize that rail upgrading and prairie grain transportation costs can be achieved without ruining the western economy.
The obvious difficulty in dealing with a Bill of this nature, in terms of the perception which the public has, is that there are some aspects of it we can all support. There are other aspects which none of us can support. Certainly, the New Democratic Party has difficulty with the way in which this rail upgrading is going to be financed from the public purse without any equity.
We are very concerned that the coal lands in British Columbia are going to remain under federal jurisdiction. Despite the failure of the Government, through the refusal to maintain the Crow rate, it would appear these lands are going to remain in the hands of the federal Government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tolerate a situation in which prairie farmers are going to have a significant decrease in the amount of income they and their families can expect.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to put on record certain things pertaining to this particular debate. I find it particularly repulsive that the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) moved closure on a motion which gives Members like myself, who are seriously affected, the opportunity of trying to convince my hon. friends opposite of the drastic affect this Bill will have on people in my constituency. I want
Western Grain Transportation Act
to outline several of the reasons I feel that way. I want to update some of the information I gave earlier in the House regarding the disproportionate impact of this measure on constituencies such as mine.
Within the last week I was able to obtain a 1982 Government of Manitoba report which tabulates the average income of certain constituencies. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) said that every farmer could afford $2,800. I would point out the disproportionate impact that would have in the town of Benito, for example. The average annual income in that town for the year 1980 was $6,911. If you took $2,800 away from that, I would ask my hon. friends opposite what kind of impact that would have, and what impact it would have in their constituencies? In the town of Ethelbert, which is half way between Dauphin and Swan River, the average annual income is $6,060.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Members opposite might at least give me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are busy playing cards.


Laverne Lewycky: If not, maybe they could at least excuse themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Clearly, the conversation taking place on my left is not very helpful to the Hon. Member who was recognized by the Chair. I would therefore ask Hon. Members to lower their voices somewhat.


Laverne Lewycky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, as I said, Ethelbert is a town with an average annual income in 1980 of $6,060. If you take away the $2,800 that the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex suggests is not much, what type of income would be left for these people on which to survive? I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this average annual income includes the wife and children, who are unpaid labour. We are talking about communities where the wife does not have the opportunity of obtaining a second income for the family. Even if people from farming communities such as Ethelbert were to try and get a job in the service sector they would have to travel up to 60 miles one way to work in let us say, a restaurant or some other area of the service sector. We are saying that the deduction of $2,800 from the annual income of people in my constituency will have a very disproportionate impact.
I could go on and list several other communities which would be affected in the same way. For example, we have Langruth which presently pays, under the Crow rate, some 16 cents a hundredweight. The elevator handles 8,700 tonnes. At 5.1 times Crow, that community would suffer a loss of $125,900.
I could point out the impact this Bill will have on all the elevators in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, but it would be difficult for my friends in urban constituencies to understand what this would mean. However, Mr. Speaker, instead of going

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
through the 66 communities in my constituency, perhaps I could suggest to Hon. Members opposite that they take a block from their constituency, take a street from that particular block, and suck out $220,600. From another block and another avenue they could suck out $133,700. From a crescent they could suck out $125,900. From a driveway they could suck out $199,000. Take a short street, one that does not have quite as many people on it, and suck out $95,500 from that particular street. I could go on endlessly. 1 could speak of the disproportionate impact upon the 66 communities. I could speak of the impact it would have in terms of destroying these areas. I make that illustration simply so that my friends opposite will understand that when 1 have presented these petitions from various people in my constituency I have not been speaking through my hat. 1 have been bringing forth the real concerns of real people, showing that this will have a real negative impact upon their livelihoods.
In contrast, consider what the railways are doing and what is happening in some of these areas. For example, let me refer to an article in the New York Times of May 16, 1983, wherein it is reported that the CNR is bailing out the Milwaukee Road Railway to the tune of $250 million, and refers to the CP's proposal to bail out the Rock Island Railway to the tune of $100 million. There have also been rumours that the CP might be putting in $350 million to salvage the Illinois Central Gulf Railway. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker-1 will conclude.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Mr. Prud'homme:: More! Question!


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Members of the Government asking for the question. It is that very attitude which led the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) to stand today and, in a sort of specious way, move closure under Standing Order 56 which states:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and it shall be in the following words, "That this question now be put".
The Hon. Member for Rosemont, who posed the motion today, virtually cut off all means by which the Opposition may have assisted the Government in improving a very bad Bill. It does not seem reasonable to us that a Bill as important to western Canada as the statutory rate for the movement of grain should be treated in this manner by a Government which is supposedly made up of democrats.
I found it strange to hear the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) speaking in the House just a few moments ago about the freedom of choice. I know that the Hon. Member does not hold a Canadian Wheat Board permit book. I am not too sure that he has ever held one, or that he understands how a permit book works. As a matter of fact, I
think there are only two Members of the NDP who do hold either an A or B Canadian Wheat Board permit book.


An Hon. Member:: Is that a bad percentage?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member for Regina West was asking that the Government subsidize the railroads. He said, "Please, taxpayers of Canada, subsidize the railroads. Please, farmers of Canada, subsidize the railroads". He did not want anything for the farmers, the grain producers. He wanted the Canadian Pacific Railroad to receive a subsidy from the taxpayers of Canada. After all the things I have heard the Hon. Member say about the bad Canadian Pacific, here he is begging and pleading in the House of Commons to the Government, asking for subsidies to the Canadian Pacific Railroad. I find that to be really strange. We will not go into the employment record of the Hon. Member. However, I would like the Hon. Member to understand that under his proposal, a sort of freight VIA Rail would be created, something which would cause the two railroads of Canada to continue to escalate their cost, shoving it at the grain farmers of Canada as an individual cost item. I heard the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) condemn that process at the VIA Rail hearings, and I will hear him condemn it tomorrow. However, today the Hon. Member for Regina West, a Member of the NDP, is requesting that the Government allow the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railroads to create the same increase and the same inflationary product there was with VIA Rail.
It is strange to discover who is criticized when the Party to my left gets into a problem. The Bill has been presented by a Liberal Government. The Progressive Conservatives are criticized, yet they are the only people who are carrying the debate, the only people who have maintained something of credibility in the eyes of the grain producers. They are trying to assist the Government and stop it from passing a bad Bill, and perhaps stop it from being completely wiped out forever in western Canada. I am not to sure that even we can do that.
The NDP proposed an amendment requesting a six month hoist. The vote was held the other night, but 35 per cent of its Members were not here to vote for their own amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Thirty-five per cent were not here to support a six month hoist. Even the Leader of their Party was not here to vote for the six month hoist. It makes one wonder whether they are just putting up a facade or whether they are really serious. They said they would fight the Bill to the end, that they would have nothing to do with the Bill. What did I hear the Hon. Member for Regina West ask? He moved a motion that Bill C-155 be referred to committee. I do not know what is happening over to my left. I notice that the Leader of the NDP is not there. I notice that his House Leader is absent. I just cannot understand the Hon. Member for Regina West who said, "We will fight the Bill. We will kill it. We will do everything we can". Yet at the first opportunity Members of the NDP had to vote on the six month hoist 35 per cent were
June 20, 1983

absent. Yet they are here today to move a motion that it be referred to committee. I am not too sure what to expect.
I would like to continue. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) changed the Bill he added some crops; alfalfa meal and pellets, mustard seed, sunflower seed, sunflower seed oil and triticale. I do not know where the rational for the inclusion of these crops originated, or why the Minister of Transport wanted to include only those crops, however, I would simply like to read some numbers into the record.
In 1982, some 125,000 acres were producing lentils, in comparison to 16,000 acres producing sunflowers. In Saskatchewan, canary seed is a specialty crop, and in 1982, some 136,000 acres were used for that purpose, compared to 16,000 for sunflowers. Some people wonder what a specialty crop means. A specialty crop may be defined as being any grain or forage crop other than wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax or canola. Those crops are grown in Saskatchewan to produce a cash flow. Producers have used their own management ability to decide that by growing those crops they can generate more income than they could by growing other crops. That is something 1 know the Members in the NDP do not understand, but that is also called freedom of choice. That is using the management tools of a manager, a farmer, to grow a crop which will give him more return.
Mustard was grown in western Canada starting back in 1936. Canada is the largest exporter of mustard in the world today. We export to Japan, the EEC and the United States.
I should like consideration given to the inclusion of pulse crops, which are lentils, field peas, fava beans and dry beans. Pulse crop production and marketing is growing yearly in Saskatchewan. Western Canadian production of peas has increased from 53,000 acres in 1968 to 125,000 acres in 1980, and these are not included under the Minister's Transportation Act. It does not seem to make much sense when we hear people arguing against freedom of choice. That freedom of choice as was proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and supported by our Party is one method of taking one of the bad items in the Bill which we want removed and making it positive. It does not require huge administrative machinery, as some would have us believe. The Western Grain Stabilization Program has the exact figures for every permit book holder in western Canada. It would not require a lot of effort and work to put another page in the Canadian Wheat Board permit book. This could be done on the volume that went through the book, and on the yearly average under the Western Grain Stabilization Program.
Let us consider the 31.1 million tonne cap that has been imposed by the Minister of Transport. If it means that farmers in western Canada, after they reach the 31.1 million tonnes, will have to pay the full cost of the movement of Board grains, people will look for other grains to grow, and continue to grow them. By doing so they would receive more money in their hip pocket. If they could receive more money by growing all those pulse crops such as canary seed Lentils, mustard and alfalfa,
Western Grain Transportation Act
they would not dilute the benefit of the Crow on movement over 31 million tonnes.
I find it difficult to adequately express my concerns about this Bill in ten minutes. I hope I will have another opportunity to do so when it comes back to the House. I find it difficult to debate a Bill of this magnitude under closure.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, since the Tories have lost their guts I am willing to speak on this motion. The score now is seven Tories, six NDPs and one Liberal. It shows that the Tories have caved in and they are in fact unwilling to admit that they are supporting the Liberal legislation by refusing to oppose it. I am interested in speaking to this Bill as often as I will have the opportunity.
When I was a child I remember going to court in Winnipeg as a spectator to hear a damage suit against the Canadian Pacific Railroad. This suit arose from an incident in a little railway town in eastern Manitoba where a nine-year old girl going to school had been crushed between some boxcars that were being shunted. On the only day I heard my father speak on a case, he was acting for the family of the girl who had been killed. Of course, if he had not won the case after two or three years of debating it through to the Supreme Court, he would have had to pay the whole cost out of pocket because the father did not have anything, being a railway worker. He also had to deal with the fact that the CPR in the meantime had moved all the witnesses around the country.
The reason I bring this up now is that we are dealing with the same company which has used every means within the law, and a good many means outside the law, not only to cheat the public generally but often to cheat its own shareholders and very often to cheat its own workers. In this particular lawsuit, the company was finally found to be at fault in as much as it failed to put a brakie on the leading end of the boxcars being shunted. Had there been a brakie there, there would have been no accident.
At that time the company had the gall to argue that it had no obligation to have the brakie as far as the little girl was concerned because she was a trespasser. This occurred in a little railway town where this girl was following a beaten path from her home to school which she and others had followed every day for months. However, the company was shunting boxcars on that day and it claimed that the laws this country had passed specifically to regulate the railroad did not apply to the railroad because to this little girl was trespassing.
The Supreme Court finally threw that silly argument out and referred the case back to the court in Winnipeg where it was to be heard by a jury. When the company found that it was up against a jury of 12 Canadians, it caved in. It knew it had lost and decided to settle.
The point I am making is that this is a company which has savagely robbed and risked the lives of Canadians ever since it was charted in 1881, which is almost the entire history of Canada. It is continuing to do so today.
The company has the same hold on the Liberal Government now as it did on the Conservative Government of John A.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Macdonald and on the Conservative Government which held office a few years ago. Whether a Conservative Government or Liberal Government is in power, the CPR can use the Government in this Parliament of either of those two Parties to milk the public for the benefits of the shareholders of the CPR.
Within approximately five years of its incorporation, the CPR had received over $100 million in funding from the Canadian Government. A small new country had given it over $100 million, which represented the majority of its total claim funding of $175 million. While $100 million of that $175 million was public money, the CPR claims total and absolute ownership and right to profit from all of that public money in addition to the private money that was put in.
It also received close to 44 million acres of land, and up to 18 years ago when it sold off a half billion dollars worth of that land it still had immense holdings which it gave to Marathon Realty. Here we meet up with CPR again since Marathon Realty is CPR.
The main disrupting force to rational city planning in downtown Toronto has been Marathon Realty, it is the main force blocking us from developing railway lands. It was the main force in disrupting the use of the lands around what is now the site for the new concert auditorium that is to replace the previous auditorium in Toronto. Marathon Realty's lawyer has told me that they will never build rental housing in Ontario so long as Ontario has the affrontry to maintain a rent control law. In other words, Marathon Realty holds all Governments in contempt as well as the people of Canada. This land that was received free from the people of Canada is now used to blackmail the people of Canada and to try to destroy legislation passed by a Conservative Government for the protection of the tenants of Toronto.
I meet up with CPR again through its lead smelter in the eastern part of downtown Toronto which has for many years flagrantly polluted and poisoned the air around Pape Avenue with its lead dust, pollution it could have restricted but did not.
My point is that Canadian Pacific Railroad can well pay for all of the improvements that are needed. At a time when it claims it cannot pay for a half billion dollar tunnel through the Rogers' Pass, it is claiming to spend that amount to buy airplaines for its other subsidiary, CP Air.
There are dozens of companies providing revenue to Canadian Pacific Limited. Let me name a few of them. Canadian Pacific Limited's net income from CP Rail in 1977 was $65 million. By 1981, that figure had almost doubled to $127 million. Its net income from Canadian Pacific Enterprises, a great conglomerate, jumped from $170 million to $287 million. Its total revenues had almost tripled from $4,899 million to $12,336 million. Its total net income went from about one-quarter of a billion dollars to almost half a billion dollars during the five years from 1977 to 1981. Its total assets more than doubled from $7.6 billion to $16.3 billion. Yet Canadian Pacific clearly knows that it has so well funded the Tory and the Liberal Parties it is assured there will be no effective means of opposing a new money grab from the people of Canada.
Canadian Pacific Limited knows very well that the Tories will put up a sham battle and that the Liberals will put on closure in one form or another, as it has attempted, and CP will be able to rob the Canadian taxpayers. The working people presently pay $3 in taxes for every $1 paid by the corporations, and will do so until the new income tax laws come into effect. Then the proportion will be greater than that for the individual. Therefore, the tax money that is being donated free and unneeded-free to Canadian Pacific Limited-is the tax money of the working people of Canada. It is being stolen from them with connivance of the silent Tory caucus to my right and the Liberal Party opposite.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply distressed that the Government has decided to use its majority in the House to attempt to limit debate on this all important issue of the Crow. No single issue has aroused the concerns of western Canadian farmers for at least a decade as has the change to the Crow. It is equally true that no other issue has so divided public opinion in western Canada as has the Government's proposal to abolish the Crow and hence increase the farmers' transportation costs. Consequently, one can only regret that this Government should attempt to limit parliamentary discussion on this topic. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that Government should attempt to encourage more discussion rather than curtail it when the issue before the House is as crucial to western Canada and is as divisive as this particular issue.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, agricultural conditions in western Canada have been severely depressed for some time, and I must with regret inform the Members of this House that this Government's policies have only aggravated those conditions.
The problem of western agriculture are severalfold, but the farmers' greatest difficulties lie in the fact that they, unlike most businessmen, do not have the capacity to control either their costs or the prices paid for their produce.
In many, if not most, economic endeavours the businessman has some opportunity to pass increased costs on to the customer. The farmer is in a largely unique position in that he has no such opportunity. He must sell the bulk of the produce on the world market, a market that unfortunately is most depressed at the moment. What we as legislators must do therefore is to strive wherever possible to help the farmer to limit his expenses in every conceivable way.
It is extremely regrettable, therefore, that this Government is proposing to abolish the Crow and hence to increase the farmers' transportation costs at precisely the worst possible moment. For that reason, I urged the Members of this House last week to postpone consideration of this Bill for six months so there would be more adequate time to consider the implications of this proposal. Unfortunately, only two-thirds of the NDP were here to vote on their own motion on that occasion, and the Members of the Liberal Party have been permitted to push ahead, regardless of the consequences.
June 20, 1983

As someone who owns a grain farm and has been in close consultation with many farmers in my constituency of Bran-don-Souris during the last several months, 1 wish to take this opportunity to state unequivocally that many farmers are experiencing very severe financial problems. Those farmers need to be reassured that they are going to be able to continue in their chosen careers. The Bill before this House, unfortunately, has caused many to fear that they may not.
The vast majority of the farmers with whom I have been in contact recognize the need for an improved rail transportation system. They understand fully that the key to the agricultural industry's survival lies in attaining increased productivity and in moving additional tonnes of grain to market.
The Government's present plan, however, is seriously deficient in several vital aspects. First, the farmer is being asked to pay far too great a share of the costs of improving that transportation system. As I suggested last week in this House, the farmer must be protected from the spectre of rising costs on the one hand and declining world grain prices on the other. The answer is to guarantee by statute that the farmer's transportation costs should never exceed a ceiling of 7 per cent of the initial price of grain or 7 per cent of the average price for non-Board grains. While it is hoped that the farmers' share of the transportation costs would not reach that 7 per cent ceiling, farmers at least should know what their maximum costs could be. I would ask, therefore, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) substitute my proposal of a 7 per cent ceiling for that of the overly expensive 10 per cent safety net he is currently proposing.
1 have another serious concern with the Minister's proposal, a concern which is shared by many of my constituents. Where is the guarantee that the railways will provide the improved railway system promised by this proposal? Farmers, with good cause, have grown skeptical of this Government's promises over the years and they now understandably fear that they may not receive the improved transportation system for which the Government is expecting them to pay.
Finally, 1 and many of my constituents would like a written guarantee that we do not return to that system of variable freight rates which used to affect so detrimentally the interests of those farmers who were served only by branch lines. At one point in the history of western agriculture some farmers were severely penalized by the fact that they, by chance, had no choice but to use the services of only one elevator company and/or one railway line. Those farmers who find themselves in similar circumstances today want to be reassured that they will not be charged more for transportation than those who, again by chance, happen to reside in an area where facilities are more numerous.
1 will conclude by reiterating that western Canadian farmers require an improved transportation system, but the proportion of the costs which are to be allocated to them must correspond to their ability to pay. Second, the Government must indicate more clearly than it has done to this point how it proposes to ensure that that improved transportation system will be made effective. Finally, the farmers' concerns about the possibility of
Western Grain Transportation Act
the reintroduction of variable freight rates must be dispelled. These reservations are so significant that it is of the utmost importance that the Government's motion to restrict debate on this vital issue be defeated.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I heard some of the Conservative Members say that they have smoked me out. I do not think there was any problem smoking me out because I was prepared to debate this matter at any time. I am told by the mining industry of British Columbia that the Conservatives really want the Crow rate changed, but prefer that the Liberals do it. There is a lot of hypocrisy to my right. We will leave the Conservatives to their own internal problems, to decide which of their leaders, or would-be leaders, they are prepared to support.
1 want to deal very briefly with the Crow rate and with the Liberal Party opposite. I see very few Members opposite.


An Hon. Member:: There are four of them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There are five now.


Jack Wendele Shields: There are six NDP Members here.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to ask the people in British Columbia and Liberal Members just to visualize for a moment that all the forests and minerals of British Columbia were situated in the southern part of the Prairies. We would need some means to get our products to market. We would not have them on the coast at tidewater. We would need a statutory subsidy; we would need some method of help. That is the history of this country. That is why we give a subsidy to the Prairie farmers for grain transportation.
When people ask how we in British Columbia can support retaining the old statutory rate, I say there are all sorts of reasons. The main one being equity.


Jack Wendele Shields: That sounds like a leadership speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Conservatives should know about leadership. They are experts at leadership but at nothing else.
Let me deal with this matter in a little more detail. The mining industry in British Columbia is a great friend of the New Democratic Party. That industry is in great trouble now, not because of anything to do with us but because of world markets. That industry is coming to us saying we have to support the changes in the Crow rate because we have to update and upgrade the railways. Of course 1 believe in upgrading the railways, but not in making Canadian wheat farmers pay for that upgrading. That is a whole separate issue. I believe in improved rail capacity, but there other ways of doing it. Farmers cannot charge higher prices for grain because most of it goes to very competitive world markets. What will farmers do? They must absorb the cost. That means that farmers will buy fewer tractors, fewer cars and fewer consumer goods. As Don McGillivray, an economic journalist,

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
put it in his column, a Crow change could hurt the Canadian economy. He put it very well. He said:
You can't get rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another.
This legislation takes money out of the pockets of farmers and puts it into the pockets of the railways. That is really what this debate is about.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said we are reactionary because we will not agree to the change. We are not reactionary. The Crow rate was an historical bargain with Canadian farmers. If the Prime Minister means that we are reactionary because we want to preserve the structure of small towns and prairie life in which a lot of people take pleasure, then we are reactionary. I do not believe that is being reactionary; 1 believe that is being realistic.
1 also object to the Liberal Government bringing in this change without really consulting farmers. It is a Government without support in western Canada. Again I make the point that if we were in the same position as the Liberal Government and we brought in a bill like this to fundamentally change the social structure of Quebec there would be a revolution. The Government has no right to change this matter.
The Government is not listening. It made changes when the Quebec caucus wanted some changes for Quebec farmers, but it will not make any changes for western farmers. It will not split this Bill. If the Government will not listen we will make it listen. There are various ways to make the Government listen. I do not think it is listening. There are very few Official Opposition MPs here this evening. There is very little interest by the Liberal Party in the debate, and there are very few of its speakers taking part. In other words, there is no listening at all, so I have no alternative but to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), the adjournment of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Hon. Members have heard the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). 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 will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am rising to continue my speech on the Crow Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been recognized and has finished his speech. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the Liberal Members opposite for showing up to take part in this debate simply by voting to continue it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was previously recognized. He used his time and finished his speech. He cannot be recognized again.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Van-couver-Kingsway please state his point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My complaint is, Mr. Speaker, that I still have three or four minutes left in my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member, according to the records of the House, has no time left. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there were 133 Liberals-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Chair to tell us exactly how much time the Hon. Member has used up?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West has the floor. The Hon. Member is not raising a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of the 133 Members of the Liberal Party who showed up tonight to vote to continue this debate, not one single Member has had the courage to speak to the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Western Grain Transportation Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: At 12 noon today, Mr. Speaker, a Liberal backbencher stood in the House and moved closure on the Crow Bill. Since that time we have not heard one Liberal Member speak to that closure motion. Not one! There are 133 Liberal Members who say they want the debate to continue, but for what reason, Mr. Speaker, if they will not contribute to the debate? Are they ashamed? They should be, if they are not. Do they have a contribution to make?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Do they have an excuse to offer? There are two Liberal Members elected west of the Lakehead, who are pushing through a piece of legislation in the House which is vital to the interest of western Canadians, and yet not one Liberal Member since 12 noon today has had the courage to stand in this Chamber and speak to the motion which is before the House.
[ Translation]
Silence is the rule in this party. They acted the same way during the debate on the Constitution. The Members from Quebec did not have the courage to speak in the debate on the Crow rate.

It is an abomination of the democratic process that 133 Liberal Members will show up in this House to vote the way they are told, but not one single Member has the courage to stand up, enter into this debate and tell us why we have to discuss this under closure. Not one Liberal Member, Mr. Speaker, has entered into this debate, of the 133 Members whose constituents should take down their names, addresses and telephone numbers and the next time they get a chance to vote, they should take every one of those 133 Members of Parliament and chuck them out of this Chamber, chuck them right out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This is a fundamental change in the law of this country which affects the western Canadian region, and not one Liberal Member out of 133-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather difficult to believe that in this place an Hon. Member of the House can vilify a Party for having its-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Hon. Member is giving an argument, not making a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it speaks to a certain state of mind that when you can tell the thruth in this Chamber, a whole Party takes it as vilification. If the truth is vilification to the Liberal Party, so be it.

A party and its Members, ruled by silence.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act

When I asked to be put on the agenda to speak here earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker, it was the New Democratic Party and its hypocrisy which motivated me to speak. That motivation has been superseded by the hypocrisy of the 133 Liberal Members who show up to vote and do not show up to speak. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we get some of them sufficiently energized to enter into this debate and to tell us why they think it so important-


Mrs. Appolloni:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -but the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Members on this side of the House, I would have it noted that there are those in this House who feel that if they have nothing intelligent to say, it is better to shut up!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has not made a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will be seated, please.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please be seated. The Chair appeals to the House to observe decorum because it is very difficult to hear the remarks coming from Hon. Members. The Chair also would appeal to Hon. Members not to raise false points of order because the debate cannot be conducted on the basis of continuous interruptions based on false points of order. If the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has a point of order, the Chair will hear it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, of course, is that I agree that the Liberal Member was correct, of course. If they have nothing intelligent to say, of course, they should stay down. But my point-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to state a point of order. The Hon. Member is not making a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that, of course, the Leader of the speaker who is speaking at the present time is misleading the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) had really done it when she gave us a new definition of intelligence-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) rises on a point of order. The Chair does not wish to recognize Hon. Members on false points of order. Hon. Members detract from the decorum of the House when they do so. If the Hon. Member for Kootenay West has a valid point of order, would he please state it succinctly.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), I am the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke. I have a point of order. I believe that we have a responsibility to stand up in the House to express a point of order. The fact remains-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please express his point of order.


Sidney James Parker: The point remains that you have been dictatorial in your manner of dealing with points of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sidney James Parker: -and I have no-


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member, or any Hon. Member of his Party, has a complaint concerning the occupant of the Chair, the Hon. Member is aware of the procedures available and the methods to follow. Idle words will not serve his purpose, nor the purpose of the occupant of the chair. The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni), gave us in this Chamber a little earlier this evening a unique definition of an intelligence test. It is interesting to find out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) on a point of order.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat shocked at the demeanour which we have seen tonight in this House. Let us continue with the debate. These baseless allegations made against the Chair only bring disrepute on the Hon. Members who espouse them. I, for one, commend the Chair in the way it is attempting to run this Chamber with decorum-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not intend to recognize continuously Hon. Members who have not succeeded in establishing a point of order. For the last time, if the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) has a valid point of order, will he please state it?


Sidney James Parker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to express my point of order. I think it is a valid point of order and I have tried all day today to express my point of order. This House has not given me the opportunity to express my point of order.
June 20, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sidney James Parker: The fact remains that the Chair has repeatedly stood up and stopped my point of order by saying that I do not have a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sidney James Parker: 1 believe I have a point of order and it is this: the Speaker of the House has not given us the opportunity on this side of the House to express our concern as to what is happening in this House today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making an attack on the Chair. He knows the procedures. This is not a point of order and the Hon. Member is well aware of the procedures available. 1 suggest that he not attempt to use a false point of order, nor make threats against the Chair.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, may I commend you for your patience and diligence. Earlier this evening we had the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) stand in this Chamber and talk about freedom of choice. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the hypocrisy of that Member, just pure hypocrisy. The Liberal Party of Canada is the Party of silence, and the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party West, is the Party of hypocrisy. I heard that Member stand in this Chamber and say that, given our freedom of choice, there would be-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skeliy) rises on a point of order?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 am certain it is a valid point of order. It pertains to the maintenance of decorum in the House of Commons, which is absolutely imperative if we are to maintain any credibility on this issue and beyond. Of course the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) knows that what he has stated here is absolutely false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. There have been a whole series of interventions from the Hon. Member and the group with him-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are making fools of yourselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -which are not points of order. They will have ample opportunity to participate in the debate. But in the interests of this House and of the respect and decorum that they owe the House and that other Members owe to them, I appeal to them to observe the rules and procedures.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the NDP, the Liberal Party West, fails to understand freedom of choice because every time they are faced with a real choice of whether to serve their constituents or their own selfish interests, they always opt for the Liberals in that way serving their selfish interests and never serving the issues of their constituents.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Earlier this day, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) stood in this House and said: if you follow the proposals of the Conservative Party, there is going to be rail line abandonment. They would leave the impression with farmers in western Canada that they are in favour of stopping rail line abandonment. Back in December, 1979, there was a Government in place in this Chamber which had stopped the abandonment of 1,400 miles of rail line.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What did Members of the NDP, the Liberal Party West, do about that? They threw that Government out of office and put in that bunch over there, the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Have the NDP Members travelled across western Canada and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Again, the Chair has difficulty. When Hon. Members have raised spurious points of order which are not valid, it becomes more difficult to see Hon. Members as they repeat the exercise. But if the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a valid point of order, will he please state it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The point of order is that one has to tell the truth in the House of Commons and 1 wish to apologize for voting against Joe Clark.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I was just making the point that the NDP, the Liberal Party West, threw out a Government that was stopping rail line abandonment. The NDP Members, one right after the other, have stood in this Chamber and told us that it is important to move the grain. Well, any Member from western Canada can tell you clearly and absolutely that Canada is a healthier country with a better economy if the grain gets moved, if it is exported. The NDP says that is what they want. Well, Mr. Speaker, in December, 1979, the hypocrites called the New Democratic Party stood in this Chamber and threw out the Government that was moving the grain, Mr. Speaker. That is what they did. They threw it out. How can you believe members of a political Party who say they stand for the non-abandonment of rail lines and for the movement of grain, and the first time they are faced with a choice they throw out a Government which stops the rail line abandonment and a Government which in fact was moving the grain of western Canadians?
If you sit in this Chamber and listen to Members of that Party they will tell you they care about unemployment. Well, they threw out a Government that was creating 30,000 jobs a month, Mr. Speaker, then they replaced it with the Liberal Party of Canada which is losing 30,000 jobs a month.
26560

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member in view of the interruptions, but having made some allowance for the interruptions, the Chair has come regretfully to the conclusion that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek permission of the House for unanimous consent to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, when 1 rose earlier on a point of order I did so, wrongly I admit, because of the accusations the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) was making. I use the word "honourable" advisedly. I hesitated to speak on this issue because when it is referred to the committee I shall probably be chairing the committee that will deal with it and I want to ensure that the committee hearings are fair, forthright and complete. However, when a Member of the Opposition gets up and makes the accusation that the Hon. Member for Calgary West made here tonight, it cannot go unchallenged.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When the Hon. Member, without knowing the motivation of Hon. Members on this side, makes-


Mr. Lambert:: The hatchet man!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, acts as a hatchet man, and 1 thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for his contribution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No; you!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When he acts as the hatchet man, when he gets up without knowing what he is talking about and casts reflections on Members on this side of the House who come from areas other than western Canada, and suggests that we are not Canadians, we do not have an interest in Canada as a whole, that cannot go unchallenged.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: How about talking about the Crow?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When he says that we are the people who threw out a Government that was stopping rail line abandonment and leaves it at that, that cannot go unchallenged. He did not say that we were also the Party that stopped a Government that was prepared to impose excessive taxation-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -and that was prepared to do away with the universality of medicare and
hospitalization, an that was prepared to Balkanize this country, then I cannot sit quietly by and let him get away with it. There are Hon. Members on that side of the House but the speech we just heard was not honourable. It was totally dishonest. I hope that in continuing debate of this matter we will in fact discuss the issue of the Crow rate. It is a situation affecting the livelihood of all Canadians, one which I hope will be debated in full in committee and one which will receive the serious attention to detail that it deserves.
When an Hon. Member of the House rises in an attempt to condemn a Party because its Members were here to vote when his own Party did not, when there were 51 Tories present, on an issue on which they had claimed to be the saviours of the nation except, of course, for the pious protestations of the socialists, one finds it to be stretching credulity to believe that they are really serious. I think that we can give the 51, or at least most of the 51 who were here, credit for being serious because they were here. However, like the story of the ten lepers who were healed, where were the other nine, or the other 69, or whatever it is they have here?
I therefore suggest to all Members of the House that, rather than trying to score rather hypocritical points, rather than trying to inflame the issue, rather than trying to divide Canadians and to protect one area of the country against another, we take a little time. We should all examine our consciences and look to the real motive of the debate, asking ourselves whether we are in fact promoting the unity, the prosperity and the future of this country or whether we are trying to destroy it. If we are trying to unite it, in uniting we had better start talking to one another. We had better start discussing with each other rather than hurling brickbats at each other, inflaming the issue and trying to divide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Let us try to use
reason. Let us remember that what was good in 1897 is not necessarily ideal in 1983. What was good in 1897 does not necessarily promote development, prosperity and growth in 1983. What was good in 1897 does not necessarily meet the needs of 1983. Let us bear that in mind. Let us talk to each other. Let us not talk at each other. Let us try to be a little conciliatory. Let us try to unite rather than divide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi has just made a truism out of the statement made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order.
June 20, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) was on his feet. Was it for debate or to raise a point or order?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for York-Peel.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 was wondering if the Hon. Member would reply to the question, which is simply this: As he has such preconceived notions concerning the Crow, does he feel that he can carry on as a truly neutral chairman of the committee to consider the Bill?


Mr. Dionne (Northumberiand-Miramichi):: I would be glad to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I have no preconceived notions about the Crow except to know that what was good in the nineteenth century is not necessarily, absolutely good in the twentieth century. That is what makes me different from the Hon. Member who just rose to ask me a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Tonight, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that there is much emotional tension in the House, yet we are debating a matter which 1 think, and I believe everyone in the House thinks, is a serious matter. It is important that when we discuss this matter we consider it seriously, we study it and we take advice. 1 say that for myself in the same way I say it for everyone else in the House.
The question involving the Crow is something which has been part and parcel of the life of the person who was born on the Prairies. I am a prairie person, as are many other Hon. Members. We will all attest to the fact that the Crow rate was something which was part and parcel of our upbringing. For that reason, people on the Prairies have always been worried when there was talk of a serious change in the socioeconomic structure put in place to make it possible for them to live in equality with the rest of the people in Canada. I think the people in this House understand that fact.
In past years, studying the problem of grain transportation on the Prairies has taken on a big proportion of the time and expense of western Canadians. Mr. Justice Hall, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, has made a name for himself, as a Canadian person, as a result of his great care for the social and health needs of Canadians. As well, Mr. Justice Hall was asked to chair a commission to study specifically rail transportation and grain handling in the West. The commission studied the problem of the upgrading of railroads and the problem of how grain would be moved and how the movement would be financed, and then produced a report which I am sure everyone here has seen. This took place several years ago.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall presented a summary of the commission's findings with regard to the Crow rate at a rally called "Keep the Crow" in Regina on November 24, 1981. Although I suspect that everyone here knows what Mr. Justice Hall said in the summary, it is important to consider his advice
Western Grain Transportation Act
again. We have all taken advice sometime in our lives from our fathers, mothers, teachers, priests, ministers, grandfathers or from other older persons. As our life experiences went on, we frequently found that such advice became increasingly valid.
At the meeting in Regina in November of 1981, Mr. Justice Hall said, "If once tampering with the statutory rate is accepted or condoned or is an item put on the bargaining table, all will be lost". It was not a relative matter. He said, "All will be lost. For once the subject is on the bargaining table, it will only be a matter of time until it is lost, step by step". That is advice given by a person in whom I have great faith, one who understands the problem thoroughly. He went on to speak a little further at the rally. He said:
There is no position to take except to adhere through thick and thin that the Crow rate is not bargainabie.
I repeat that this is serious advice.
He then explained what the Government had already done. He said:
Railways have been given the use, rent-free, of 14,000 hopper cars which cost roughly seven hundred million dollars besides money to rehabilitate their own fleet of boxcars-and money to rehabilitate their neglected lines on which they have been collecting subsidy.
Justice Hall clearly indicated that in order to carry the grain of western Canadian farmers it would require an input to ensure that the machinery and lines were in place to do that.
However, in the termination of his speech that day he concluded with what I would consider a kind of threat. It was a threat to those who had tampered. He said:
Lastly, all grain producers and particularly those in Saskatchewan must be alerted to the fact that if the Crow rate can be breached and in time lost, that the next assault will be against the Wheat Board itself and the system of orderly marketing the west now enjoys. The danger signals can now be detected and must be recognized for what they will do in the long run.
I suggest that that is extremely serious. I suggest that this advice should not be taken lightly.
During this continuing debate Members have attempted to rise, sometimes in frustration, and say the same thing, through other means, but to flag the danger of what is taking place and not to listen to that kind of advice.
It has been suggested this evening that Members on the Government side do not have any seats in western Canada. That is an obvious and clear statement. It is an important fact because if one is not close to the advice it cannot be heard. When making those types of judgments without hearing the advice clearly, the odds are that a poor judgment will be made.
Again, I ask the Government side to reconsider seriously the advice that has been given to all of us by Chief Justice Hall. His statement did not concern any particular situation. When he gave us that advice through his report and later through his travels across Canada, he made it absolutely clear that he was against any tampering with the Crow rate.
I too would offer some advice. Since the Government's ear is a long way away from that of the Members who represent that

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
part of Canada, it should listen carefully to the advice coming from Members who live there. Let me repeat that as Government Members take this advice into account they should remember that Justice Hall is not a Member in this Chamber who is taking part in our controversial system but a Canadian with the good of Canada at heart. He has given this advice to all of us. Since my time is almost up, I wish to go on the record to state seriously that the advice given by Chief Justice Hall in his report to all Canadians should be seriously considered by the Government.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, this public and parliamentary debate is now being seen in the West as legislation primarily aimed at killing our statutory Crow freight rate. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that Bill C-155 is not seen as at least an attempt at new legislation to improve our grain handling and transportation system in western Canada.
Surely this is the point and purpose of this entire debate: to replace the present Crow with a new policy that will stand the test of time, perhaps for another 86 years if necessary.
The opposition to Crow reform is primarily based on the concept that western grain producers cannot afford any increase in transportation costs. That is the basis for their opposition reduced to a nutshell. It is so regardless of whether that increase is two times the Crow or perhaps five times, comparisons which have been made freely in this debate.
This is the position of the National Farmers Union, the three Prairie Wheat Pools and the New Democratic Party. This was the thrust of their persistent lobby here in Ottawa over approximately three straight months, of which I am sure all Members are aware.
Some Members may have been visited by representatives of the National Farmers Union and three ladies in particular who represented their interests. They visited me in my office and gave me their point of view. I found it rather interesting. They persisted in their view that they could not afford the cost of higher rates. They said over and over again that grain producers could not pay any more toward higher freight costs.
Therefore I posed a question to these three NFU representatives. 1 asked them to assume that we will keep the Crow. How will we finance the ever-increasing grain handling deficit? 1 gave them some examples such as the loss in moving grain by rail, that is, the difference between the actual cost of moving grain and the statutory Crow derived revenue that comes from that .5 cent per tonne mile rate. I asked who will continue paying for hopper cars which are now paid for by the taxpayers of Canada through the federal Government, the grain farmers themselves through the Canadian Wheat Board or from the various western provincial Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I asked who will finance the necessary Prairie Railway Rehabilitation Program and what would happen to the CPR's ten miles of mountain tunnel and the CNR's double tracking through the mountains that is now expected to be a major contribution by both railways. How
would those costs be met without new and higher grain rail rates?
There is no guarantee that these rail line improvements can be financed and built, without a new grain handling and rail transportation system to replace the Crow. 1 repeat that there is no guarantee that these costs will be picked up by the federal Government or that the present program for hopper cars and rail line rehabilitation or the annual grain freight deficit of approximately $400 million will be continued at taxpayers' expense. Indeed, we are being very naive if we believe that.
If this is what "keep the Crow" means, then surely it also means that we are headed for state managed farms or the feudal system of the Middle Ages. I do not like either one of those concepts.
The Gilson recommendation to the Government almost a year ago was a good report. It was prepared by the best brains in western Canada. They were not politicians but practical, experienced farmers and livestock people. They persisted and eventually were able to coalesce around the reality that something had to be done, even though they initially could not agree what that something was that had to be done. Their consensus became a compromise eventually or what 1 term a trade-off which fixed the cash surrender value of the Crow at $651 million per year to be paid mostly to the grain producers on the western Prairies after a phased in payout over the six-year or seven-year suggested time frame of the trade-off. The trade-off also provided for a new blended grain freight rate to be determined on a cost basis every spring. It follows that this proposed rate cannot be a truly statutory rate since it changes every year, but it would be a rate resulting from a statutory process. It is important that we remember that difference.
I was personally very supportive of the Gilson recommendations, and I still am of the original recommendation in June, 1982. It was a well considered compromise by the people who knew the situation and devised a solution that received broad support in western Canada. I was also able to support the February 1 fifty-fifty program of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), although, I will say, somewhat less enthusiastically. But I was able to support the statement of the Minister at that time. This statement proposed that the Crow benefit of $651 million per year be split equally, with half going to the railways and half to the grain producers. It was shortly after this February 1 statement that the intense political lobby amounting to almost outright blackmail began and it came from two sources. The first was the three prairie Wheat Pools, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which favoured the "pay the railway only" proposal. The second was Quebec's UPA, the Quebec farm umbrella organization, and the Quebec Liberal caucus. Both supported the Crow benefit going to the railways only.
Finally, two Crow debate developments took place that changed everything in western Canada. This was the turning
June 20, 1983

point for me personally concerning how I feel about this whole debate. First, Bill C-155 was introduced on May 10 with the totally unexpected provision of paying the full amount to the railways and nothing to the grain producers in the west. Second was time allocation or closure, whatever you want to call it, that was moved by the Government after only two days' debate on second reading. These two developments caused an explosion of opposition by western farmers to Bill C-155, especially the "pay the railways only" provision. There was widespread anger, frustration and disbelief that such legislation could develop after all the good work done by the Gilson group. It was also this development that encouraged our Conservative support for the freedom of choice option that would allow western grain producers to designate who should receive that Crow benefit. Either the producers would get it themselves or they could designate that it go to the railways if they so desire. Unless this option is provided in Bill C-155 either at committee stage or in some other way, I have to say that 1 cannot and will not support this legislation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How much support do you have from your own colleagues?


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Dr. Clay Gilson has quite recently indicated that this option or this approach could still be incorporated in a revised final transportation policy. He made that statement just a few days ago. Gilson also stated that Quebec's fears of excessive competition in its beef cattle and hog operations from western Canada are vastly exaggerated.
I want to conclude by reading an interesting letter I received quite recently. It is dated June 6, 1983, and it comes from a mixed grain farmer and cattleman at Aden, Alberta, located on the Milk River near the Montana border. His letter reads:
Dear Sir:
What is wrong with freedom? Specifically what is wrong with freedom of
choice?
If we lived in the Soviet Union or one of their satellite countries we wouldn't have a freedom of choice. Government would make our decisions and choices for us. They would tell us what crops to grow, when to deliver it, and how much we get paid for it.
Increasingly the agricultural policies of the Government of Canada seem to be designed to weaken and undermine whatever freedoms we have left. If they go ahead with the "pay the railways" scheme it will essentially become unprofitable to grow anything in western Canada except wheat for export to the Soviets.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is rising on a point of order, but again 1 appeal to Hon. Members not to make false points of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) finish, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I hope you hear my point of order before you decide whether or not it is false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appeal to the Hon. Member to respect the rules and procedures of the House, as I am sure he will. Will he please state his point of order?
Western Grain Transportation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, you will not know whether or not my point of order is false until I have said what it is. I expect the Chair to hear my point of order. I want to ask the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat whether he believes that the livestock producers of Alberta want to rob-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not a point of order, that is debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -their neighbours, who raise grain, $25.00 or $35.00 a tonne when they lose the Crow rate. If that is what he is up to, I want to tell all the grain producers in Alberta-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the Hon. Member realizes that he does not have a point of order. If he chooses to intervene in the debate that option is open to him. The Hon. Member cannot make complaints about the Chair when the Hon. Member in the course of one sitting has raised a whole series of false points of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Hon. Member has to recognize that the Chair is trying to preserve decorum and respect for the rules and procedures of the House. The Chair appeals to all Hon. Members to remember that they have an obligation to do so. The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat has the floor.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Regina West please take his seat?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does its best to preside impartially. The Chair has pleaded with Hon. Members not to raise false points of order. The Hon. Member for Regina West was recognized and he was given ample opportunity to argue his point. He did not have a point of order. I ask the Hon. Member for Regina West to consider perhaps letting the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat finish his speech. The Hon. Member for Regina West can be recognized for debate at the end. Apparently the Hon. Member has something he wishes to contribute to debate-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -I am sure that before these proceedings are over the opportunity will be afforded to him again. The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Regina West does not have the right to interrupt the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat continuously on false points of order. There is a point at which the Hon. Member has to desist when he does not have a point of order. The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bachand:: Sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member has a legitimate point of order-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West on what I hope is a valid point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask you how you can rule in advance of anybody saying anything about whether or not it is a false point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a complaint against the Chair, he is aware of the procedures available to him. It is not up to the Hon. Member to reflect idly on the Chair and not to follow through with a motion. If the Hon. Member believes what he says, he should do so. In the meanwhile will he allow the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat to finish his speech?


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I just have two sentences left in the letter to which I was referring from Warren Brower of Aden, Alberta. He wrote:
If the Government of Canada is determined to go overboard on their Crow legislation then the Soviet Union will be in a stronger position to shape and mould the Government of Canada.
Perhaps we had better take stock of the freedoms we have taken so long for granted to see if we have a choice.
The cattle organizations and hog associations of western Canada will not accept Bill C-155 as it is now prepared and written, unless freedom of choice is included in it and made part of the Bill.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) appealed to the House for Hon. Members to talk to each other. He said that we should speak to each other. He appealed for reason. The motion before us now is in exactly the opposite direction. It is to prevent discussion. It is that the question now be put. It has been impossible to discuss this
subject reasonably. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wanted to put-and indeed he did put it but it was ruled out of order, a motion to refer the subject matter to committee. This is the kind of motion which would have enabled a really frank discussion for which the Hon. Member called. He asked for us to be conciliatory. Certainly this is the ideal way to be conciliatory, to go back to the drawing board, to hear all sides and to set out a procedure that is fair. To proceed in the way we are now is cutting off debate. Merely to refer to committee under the terms we now have will not be adequate. A committee can make only relatively modest amendments. There cannot be the fundamental rethinking of this legislation that is called for.
I have actually prepared a serious speech on this subject. I am glad to see that tempers have cooled off, and I hope to be able to give it. In order for us to adress the question properly, we really have to understand something about CPR. We have to understand its background and the kinds of subsidies the CPR has been receiving because this is fundamentally a transportation Bill, a Bill to give a lot more money to CPR. We must understand the immensity of the gifts of the Canadian public to CPR.
The subsidy to the company that was passed in 1881 was to the tune of $25 million. There was also a grant of 25 million acres of land. As part of the agreement, the Government was to complete the rail line it was then working on, Fort William to Selkirk and Port Moody to Kamloops or, in other words, 760 miles of the 2,600 to be constructed. It was to turn over this amount of rail absolutely free of charge; an enormous subsidy. The company would build the section from Callander to Fort William and from Selkirk to Kamloops, but all the land which would be needed for rail beds, stations, yards and water frontage was free land. The company was given the right to take stone, gravel and other construction materials from public lands. There was to be an exemption from taxation by any level of government forever on properties used for railway purposes; an enormous subsidy from the Canadian people. There was to be duty free importation of materials and equipment for construction, and there was a monopoly clause.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret that I do not have the actual Standing Order to put before the House, but I suggest to you and to the Hon. Member who is in the course of her speech that notwithstanding the difficulty she may have with the light in this place-and we all have that difficulty-I think the rules are quite clear that when Hon. Members rise in their places to speak they shall rise uncovered, which I believe has always traditionally meant that one takes off one's hat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) Standing Order 32 which reads:
Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and address the Speaker.
June 20, 1983


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. That rule says that men shall be uncovered, not women.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has obvious difficulty hearing. The rule very explicitly indicates "in his or her place". I regret that I must call it to the attention of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. The Hon. Member will have to take the word of the Chair that it is with considerable regret that the Chair brings Standing Order 32 to her attention. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to be able to wear a hat. The lights are excessively bright in the House. Hon. Members who are wearing glasses are all going bling as a result of the lighting in the House. I have been here for less than a year. I do not want to go blind. I am not a sheep like the rest of you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greewood have unanimous consent of the House to wear a protection against the glare?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Dionne: No.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would hope that some sensibility would come to the House and that unanimous consent would be given. I point out to the Hon. Member who is now trying to run to his seat that when he said, "no" he was not in his seat and therefore it should be disregarded. I believe there was unanimous consent.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to let my colleague of the Opposition think that his party has a monopoly on sensibility. That is why I would urge my colleagues to understand that the Hon. Member ought to be allowed to make her speech with a hat on. I plead with my colleagues-

1 plead with my colleagues to give their consent and to bring a little sense to the debate tonight. I ask them at least to understand that there are all kinds of reasons, but the one given by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is extremely valid. I do not see why we should have a debate on it tonight. I am very anxious to listen to what Hon. Members have to say, not to delay by various procedures taking a decision tonight. Therefore I ask my colleagues, as the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) indicated, to allow the Hon. Member unanimous consent.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, this Party agrees unanimously. We note that all NPD Members are blind ideologically but we do not think they should be blind physically.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Ever since I have been here we have heard about equality of the sexes in the House. I agree with equality of the sexes in the House, but there has continuously been blatant discrimination here. I moved a motion under the provisions of the old Standing Order 43 many years ago that there be equality in the House among Hon. Members of both sexes. It was not even allowed by the then Speaker who ruled in a rather imperial manner-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Chair understand that the Hon. Member is refusing unanimous consent?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In that case there does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I regret that you ruled on this just a few seconds ago. I wish the Minister of Health, who I think is a compassionate person, were also a medical doctor. She does not have the technical Ph.D. but has a lot of common sense. In the name of all Hon. Members, I would like to support the one who needs a hat because of the exaggerated volume of the lights in the House. I have written to the Speaker more than once on this matter. It is a physical problem which should be recognized and Hon. Members should be permitted to wear hats.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, two years ago I raised with Madam Speaker the matter of the damage these intense lights are doing to our eyes. I think the Hon. Member is correct when she draws this to our attention again. The reason she did not get unanimous consent is her reference that she is not going to be like the rest of the sheep in this Chamber. If the Hon. Member withdraws that remarks, she will probably get unanimous consent.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) to reconsider on a number of grounds. In particular, I think there has been considerable dialogue between the Members of the House of Commons and the administration of the House of Commons with regard to the problems that the lighting is causing. The Hon. Member is aware, I am sure, that there has in fact been a study under way for some time as to the effect of the lighting on the vision of the Members of the House. I want to assure the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi that if he should ever desire to wear a hat, we would be delighted to give unanimous consent to allow him to do so.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
In the interest of my colleague who has been very detrimentally affected by the lighting, which happens to strike more severely on the back rows than it does on the front rows, I would ask that she be permitted on this one occasion, without establishing a precedent, to complete her remarks, which could not take more than five minutes, with the protection of the hat.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will ask for the last time, is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. The Chair in the circumstances-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would simply like the record to show that there was unanimous consent from the Progressive Conservative Party. Unanimous consent was denied by the Liberal Party Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members will understand the reasons for which the Chair is ruling, reluctantly, at this point that there is not unanimous consent. I am sure it is quite clear to all Hon. Members that there is not.
Would the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) please take his seat while I am standing. The Chair invites Hon. Members at this point to recognize the obvious fact that there is not unanimous consent. The Chair will therefore ask the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, your tolerance is appreciated. The question really spoils over into a very interesting debate on a question of privilege. It would be my assessment that my privileges as a Member of this House are being impaired by those lights.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: I wish to suggest, Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to continue for a moment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot challenge the fact that there is not unanimous consent. The Standing Order is clear. The Chair will not hear any further-


Raymond John Skelly: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. Please. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat. The Chair has heard considerable argument from representatives from all sides of the House and does not propose to hear any more argument on the Standing Order which is abundantly clear. There is not unanimous consent to dispense with it and therefore the Hon. Member cannot add to what has been said.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to know whether the Speaker is denying me the opportunity to raise a question of privilege which I understand to be in order at any time in which it is raised. Second, we are not
debating or discussing the matter of the hat at this time and the reference under the Standing Orders. We are discussing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair does not quite understand how the Hon. Member can talk about privilege when we have had a very specific appeal under Standing Order 32. That is the issue. The Chair is ruling with regard to Standing Order 32, a very old Standing Order of this House, the origin of which is beyond any doubt and the application of which is clear. The Chair is ruling with regard to Standing Order 32 with genuine reluctance. The Chair would like to say to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood that if anyone sympathizes with the problem she has raised, it is the Chair. In the circumstances, the Chair must ask the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood to remove her hat to complete her speech.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, before resuming my speech, I would just like to point out that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) denying me the privilege of-


An Hon. Member:: Don't reflect on a ruling of the Chair.


Lynn McDonald: I would like to point out that these were sexist remarks. My appeal to the House was on the basis of my eyes. 1 did not appeal on the basis of my sex. He assumes that when a woman rises, she is dealing with a matter of sex. This is a preposterous assumption. I happen to have extremely sensitive eyes. I resent his remarks. I resent his interpretation of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi, and the Chair again pleads with Hon. Members not to raise spurious points of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am not raising a spurious point of order. My point of order is that the Hon. Member has attributed to me motives that she does not know I have and which I do not have. When I can come into the House without a jacket and a tie, as she can, I will agree to what she wants to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no point of order.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, to resume my discussion of the subsidies to the CPR, among the enormous subsidies made to CPR were land rights, including mineral rights and timber rights. All together, $106 million in cash was received and about 44 million acres of land, including surface and mineral rights. It is impossible to say what the total gift was because the full value of all the subsidies has not been realized. According to John Gallagher in "To Kill the Crow", a rather useful book on the subject, and I quote:
The land grant gave the CFR a mammoth fortune, of staggering dimensions, from which the company has drawn and continues to draw enormous profits.
The CPR profited immediately by selling some of the land, but more so by encouraging people to get free government lands and to hold theirs for the future sales. The City of
June 20, 1983

Vancouver was initially built on CPR-owned land; in other words, land given by the Canadian public to the CPR in the subsidies. By 1955-56, the CPR had realized $500 million net from the sale of land. It then turned over the remainder of its holdings to a holding company, Marathon, and in 1981 Marathon reported profits of $24 million.
Canadian Pacific Limited, which is the same company as the CPR only with a name change, is the largest and richest corporation in Canada today. In 1981 its profits were $485 million on assets of over $16 billion. Its rail operation is one of the most lucrative and one of the most stable sources of profit with $127 million in profits for that year, despite cries of Crow-induced poverty and the ravages of inflation. That is a preposterous cry with profits at that level. I again quote John Gallagher "To Kill the Crow":
The far-flung empire and vast earnings of Canadian Pacific Ltd. are a direct result of the grants in land, resources, money and business opportunities given to the company by the Canadian people. Despite the efforts of the company to disguise itself, to separate its various parts from one another, to obscure its links to the past, it cannot escape its obligations. It's almost pathetic to see a company with profits of more than $2 billion in five years shamelessly claim that it does not have the revenues needed or investment in rail capacity in an attempt to wheedle public assistance. All of its assets come from transportation activities and the gifts given to the company to provide and maintain more transportation activities. There is no other source. Yet the company brazenly claims that it cannot fund improvements to the railway at the same time that it sends off $1.16 billion to the United States to buy a paper company and set aside $5 billion for its money-losing airline. The company is clearly in violation of the original charter-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to her has expired. She may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by saying that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) reminded me of a very whiny little boy. When I used to go to school in northern Saskatchewan, if a guy was losing the ball game he would take his bat and ball and go home. Even the tone of the Hon. Member's voice and the way he whines, talking of a problem he knows nothing about, irritated me to a great extent. I wish he would listen now instead of speaking to one of his front-bench caucus colleagues, because I should like him to respond and show people across Canada that he knows nothing about Bill C-155 and, in particular, even less about the Crow rate. In no way should be consider
Western Grain Transportation Act
himself a candidate for the Committee that will study Bill C-155. We want someone in the Chair who will be objective and take into consideration not only the wishes of the railway companies like the CPR and the grain companies like Cargill, but also the wishes of grain farmers throughout Canada. We want this to be a special Committee. We would like to see two NDP Members on the Committee in order to provide some kind of fairness and to offer us an opportunity to move and second motions within our own group in Committee to make changes.
We also want the Committee studying Bill C-155 to be able to travel across Canada. The Committee should have an opportunity to hear not only people who can afford to come to Ottawa and sit here for a few futile hours, if the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi is the chairperson, but also to travel across the country and hear from those people who cannot afford to come here-people who are the producers of the grains that the Bill so drastically affects.
I strongly oppose Bill C-155 because of the conglomeration of things it contains. It is an omnibus Bill with three main features. The first is the upgrading of the rail line system; second is the leasing of the coal lands; and third is the statutory rate itself.
We in the New Democratic Party believe the Bill should be broken up into at least those three separate and distinct parts. We see the need to develop a more efficient and better transportation system throughout the country, particular in areas of western Canada where the rail is so important in getting the primary product, the grains, to the processing plants and to the ports for export markets.
I think of a situation in my own area where a branch line goes into Meadow Lake. Hopper cars do not go into the delivery point there where there are about one million bushels of grain stored because the track is not heavy enough to support a fully loaded hopper car out of that point. There is a need to upgrade the transportation system. We do not think the cost of upgrading the track should be borne by the grain producers many of us represent. We have been trying to convince the Government that Bill C-155 will be very detrimental to their interests.
It must be remembered that even if the rail transportation system to the West Coast is upgraded by the year 1990, when the full impact of the new statutory rate will be felt, less than 20 per cent of the volume of traffic to be hauled under that rate will be grain.
The CPR has asked the people of Canada for $500 million to upgrade the rail transportation system, while at the same time it has drained that $500 million from its other subsidiaries for CP Air to buy a new fleet of aircraft. That is just robbing the people of Canada many times over. As the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenview (Ms. McDonald) pointed out, the subsidiaries and the CPR itself have derived all their wealth from the handsome cash grants given at its beginnings, and from the land grants of some 43 million acres.

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
On the leasing issue of the coal lands, it is obvious that the CPR has been well enough provided for until now. The 43 million and more acres of land it received is reward enough for preserving the statutory Crow rate. Why should the CPR receive more gifts from the people of Canada to bleed off to the subsidiaries under its blankets? There is no reason that the people in western Canada who produce the grain should pay again and again because of the tax base being drained off when the rich coal lands, agricultural lands and urban lands were given to the CPR in the beginning.
The third issue is the statutory rate itself. We in the NDP do not believe that the CPR should get a cent more from the people of Canada without having equity in the company. On that issue some people would say that the CNR is not any better. Why should we have equity in CPR? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people who may be listening tonight, that the CNR was formed in 1923 by a Government that did not wish to see a bunch of private rail companies that had received handsome rewards from the people go into bankruptcy. That would have been a disgrace for the Government. It did not want to allow those companies to go into bankruptcy and rob the people who had invested their hard-earned savings in them, so the Canadian National Railways was formed. At the outset in 1923 it had a debt in excess of $1 billion. That is a lot of money even today, Mr. Speaker, let alone 50 or 60 years ago.
As the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi said, to take the rate in isolation is archaic. But you cannot take it in isolation, Mr. Speaker. You must look at all the other agreements that went with it to provide the statutory rate, the Crowsnest agreement, so the farmers could be competitive domestically and internationally.
If the Crow rate reaches what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has proposed by the year 1990, it will mean millions and millions of dollars extra cost to the farmers in the constituency I represent. They cannot afford that, Mr. Speaker. Farm bankruptcies have increased by 130 per cent in the last year. If the freight rates go up as much as is proposed in the Bill, the price of grain will have to go up accordingly. They would not really be competitive because they would be out-pricing themselves in the international markets of the world. They would not be able to sell the grain they produce right now in Canada, and we would not have that balance of trade to which the farmers of western Canada contribute in excess of $6 billion.
We in the New Democratic Party say it is a bad Bill. It should be split up. Certainly, the upgrading of a rail transportation system should not go on the backs of western Canadian grain producers.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, after all that has gone on heretofore with respect to Bill C-155 one might readily ask why I, coming from the heart of Niagara, the riding of St. Catharines, should rise to speak on this Bill. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of St. Catharines suffer from the same abuses and afflictions perpetrated in this country on all the other regions. In particularly, they now suffer from the same power abuses inflicted upon this House. My constituents in St. Catharines pay taxes as well, and since this Bill has been so aptly described as a "railway relief Bill" I would not be doing my duty if I did not rise to speak in opposition to it.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, St. Catharines is an industrial community. If the people of the West are suffering, as they are, from the abuses of the national energy policy, and if they suffer more by reason of the passage of this Bill, then 1 ask who will be purchasing those consumer goods which we in the Province of Ontario produce and want to sell? Where will those jobs be found for the numbers of unemployed who exist in my riding of St. Catharines? This Bill gives me the rare privilege of speaking on behalf of two communities, St. Catharines and my home community of Govan on the Prairies of Saskatchewan where my roots have been established, and where the people have for a long time suffered the infliction of these abuses. Now there is the possibility of one more. I would be betraying my roots, Mr. Speaker, if 1 failed to rise in opposition to this inflammatory legislation.
I, along with all other Hon. Members of the Opposition in this House, cannot think of a worse time for the Government to introduce changes to the Crow rate. Canada is only now, slowly and haltingly, starting to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Having been born and raised in Saskatchewan I know what the Depression of the 1930s was all about.
Grain producers, like everyone else, have suffered enormously. In 1973-74 farmers were receiving $4.57 a bushel for No. 1 hard wheat. This fiscal year, the initial price for No. 1 wheat has been set at $4.63, an increase of six cents over what it was ten years ago. Inflation over that same period has risen 135 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the price of a bushel of wheat today should be in the order of $10.75 just to track inflation. It is not yet over the $5 a bushel mark. Needless to say, the western grain farmer has found it difficult simply to get by.
Net income in 1982 fell by 35 per cent over 1981 and the situation is not expected to improve this year because grain prices are down comparatively. By any reasonable yardstick, or should I say, metre stick, now is not the time to set in place a freight rate increase that will wrench some $155 million out of the prairie economy by 1985-86. Yet this is what the Government is proposing to do. I know the Government is disputing that figure, but I ask, on what basis? The Government claims that the prairie farmer will not be losing out because wheat prices will reach $12 a bushel by 1990. What is the magic in $12 a bushel? Why stop there, Mr. Speaker? Why not set the figure at $24 or even $36 a bushel and tell Canadians that the prairie farmers will soon be millionaires, so what is their problem in paying the freight rate? The simple fact of the matter is that no one seriously believes that grain prices will triple in under seven years. If the Government chooses to be optimistic about this that is fine, but why bankrupt the prairie farmer? It is abundantly clear to anyone
June 20, 1983

living and breathing today that this is the worst possible time for any tampering with the Crow rate. Only a callous, indifferent Government such as we have now would think of doing so.
Setting aside the freight rate increase aspect of Bill C-155 for a moment, I am appalled as well that the Government would scuttle the producer in favour of the railroads. A cynic might even suggest that the railways wrote this legislation themselves, for themselves. Indeed, under the terms of Bill C-155 the railways will receive 100 per cent of their long-run variable costs; 20 per cent contributions to overhead costs; 20.5 per cent contributions to capital costs and, by 1990, a 1,000 per cent increase in today's freight rate. And what does the producer receive? What does that primary producer of the West who established himself as the bread basket of the world receive? The producer sees his freight rate going up by five and a half times today's rate in under ten years. He loses his statutory protection. He has no performance guarantees from the railways for at least three years. And he has little or no choice in how he transports the products which he produces. That is the unacceptable portion of this Bill. It is unacceptable to the grain farmers and it is unacceptable to this Party. I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the effect Bill C-155 would have on my constituents who are approaching the point of no return.
This Bill is not in the nation's interest and should not be passed as it is. Canada is a trading nation and grain accounts for some $6 billion worth of exports annually. But, and this is often forgotten, Mr. Speaker, Canada must be competitive in the marketplace. Other nations besides Canada are competing for grain sales. There is no free ride for Canada. If our prices are not competitive, we will not sell those bushels to build up our export market. And, Mr. Speaker, the competition is stiff. You must establish your market and work for it.
Subsidies to producers exist in every major competing nation. Producers in Argentina are given free rail transportation for shipping their grain from station to shipping port. The grain farmers in the European Economic Market are subsidized to the tune of $2.53 a bushel. American grain producers are nearly on a par with Canadians. In fact, while we are dreaming up ways to soak the Canadian producer, the Americans are trying to work out ways to assist their producers. That is the difference between the Americans and this Government. Last, but not least, Australian farmers pay less than 50 per cent of the average cost of freighting grain, and their taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline have been reduced by six cents a litre. We must meet those nations head-on in the marketplace. If we fail to meet that kind of challenge, then literally billions of dollars in export sales will be lost to Canada.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if 1 did not mention the historical side of the Crow rate issue. I see the Speaker rising, but since the Government Members are not rising to speak, I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to conclude my remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It does not appear to be unanimous.


An Hon. Member:: It was a Liberal who said no.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see a friend of mine from the Niagara Peninsula remember his roots back home on the farm in Saskatchewan. I wish more of his colleagues who come from western Canada would get up in this debate and give us more support in our attempt to keep the Crow rate for western Canadian farmers, something that is so important to them and our whole country.
I noted during the leadership campaign of the Conservative Party that most of the candidates were very wishy-washy when it came to making a clear statement of protecting the Crow. I am afraid that Party is going to cave in, so I am very pleased to see the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) get up and remember where his roots are and what those farmers back there want. 1 hope he can persuade some of his western Members to get up and make the same kind of speech.
I note also that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) has been very quiet on the Crow ever since he supported a certain candidate in the leadership race. The new leader of the Conservative Party is not sure he wants to keep the Crow for western Canadian farmers. All of a sudden the Hon. Member for Assiniboia has been muted, he has become a political eunuch on this particular issue. He sits in this House dreaming the impossible dream of the day when he might be the Minister of Agriculture instead of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) or the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). Where does he stand? Why is he not getting up in this House in favour of keeping the Crow for our farmers back home in Saskatchewan?
If this Bill goes through the House, Mr. Speaker, between now and 1990-91 the increase in the grain freight rate will be about 500 per cent for the farmers in the constituency of Yorkton-Melville. That will drive a lot of small farmers off the land. The price of hauling grain under the Crow is now around 16 cents a bushel. If you increase that by 500 per cent, it will be about 80 cents a bushel by the year 1990-91. There are a lot of farmers in my part of the country who cannot afford that, and they will be driven off the land by this insensitive Government across the way which does not understand the reality of western Canada.
It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that we keep the Crow because of jobs in urban Canada. If farmers are going to be driven out of business and they sell less and less grain, there will be less money in circulation to buy farm machinery and chemicals and other things that farmers need, and more and more people will be unemployed in eastern Canada, indeed in our western cities. If we get rid of the Crow rate and we let our competitors like the Europeans, Americans and Australians continue to massively subsidize their farmers for the shipment of grain, then our farmers will no-longer be competitive and we will lose grain markets around the world. As long as the Americans subsidize their farmers, as long as the Europeans support their farm prices and their grain prices, and the

June 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Argentinians and the Australians as well, and we get rid of the Crow rate and in effect increase the price to producers of transporting grain, then they will no longer be competitive. That alone is a good argument for keeping the Crow rate for our western Canadian farmers.
Many Members of this House may not realize that the western Canadian farmer, particularly those in Saskatchewan, live further away from a sea port than any other grain farmers in the world. The farmers in Saskatchewan are about 400 to 600 miles further away from ports than the farmers in the U.S. who have the Mississippi-Missouri River system, or the Argentinians who have the ocean, or the Australians or the Europeans. If we get rid of the Crow rate and increase the cost of shipping grain by 400 per cent or 500 per cent in eight or nine years, then a lot of those farmers are going to be driven out of business because, once again, they will not be world competitive.
As far as jobs are concerned in this country as a whole, the farm machinery business of Massey-Ferguson or White Farm depend on the western Canadian economy and farmers staying on the land. If we slash our assistance to farmers, which is what the Crow rate is, and other countries continue to support their farmers or become more and more protectionist, then everyone in this country is going to suffer. It will be the country as a whole that suffers, not just the farmer.
This is not just a regional issue on the Prairies, it is a national issue of importance to all of Canada. That is why this Bill must not pass the House of Commons. That is why every Member should be aware of the irreparable damage being done. The fight to save the Crow has united many farmers and westerners who are often on the opposite side on political issues. The fight to keep the Crow is more serious than any that has been fought on the Prairies for many, many years. It is the most serious challenge our prairie farmers have faced probably since the great depression of the 1930s when we had a depression and drought at the same time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And Liberals and Tories.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a fight which must be won, Mr. Speaker. We must persuade the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the mandarins in his Department to keep the Crow. The farmers in western Canada need the Crow and they are going to keep it because it is so important to each and every one of us. It is very frustrating to see them buy, hook, line and sinker, the arguments of the CPR or the big grain companies that the rate must go up by 400 per cent or 500 per cent. It is very frustrating to see so many Conservative Members from western Canada sitting on their hands and remaining quiet when it comes to saving the Crow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Here they are not putting up any speakers any more. They have three times as many Members as we have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But they are putting up speakers at a rate of only one to one, and sometimes not even that. They are caving in. I suspect their new leader with all his ties in the corporate boardrooms and all his friends in the CPR, Power Corporation-


Mr. Kempling:: And all your friends in the Socialist International.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With all the friends he has which are the same friends of the Liberal Party, he has said, look, 1 would sooner see us get rid of the Crow before the next election campaign because-I am told that Brian Mulroney was a Member of the Liberal Party. I am not sure about that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You ought to know, you have been there for the last five years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The same difference, Mr. Speaker. He has the same friends and he is not going to stand up for western Canada. In fact, I have a quote here from him during the leadership campaign which says: "Montreal businessman Brian Mulroney agrees that the Liberal Government is going in the right direction on the Crow issue".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No wonder the Hon. Member for Assinoboia sits very quietly in his seat. Brian Mulroney, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, has already sold out western Canada by saying that the Liberal Government is going in the right direction on the Crow rate. No wonder the Conservative Party is not putting up a fight in this House. No wonder so many of their Members from western Canada are sitting on their hands. No wonder the Hon. Member for St. Catharines gets up and sympathizes with western Canadian farmers, because that is where he grew up. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the Conservative Party has sold out to big business, to the CPR. They have a leader who comes from the corporate boardrooms and wants to get rid of the Crow rate for the farmer. The Liberal and Conservative Parties on this issue are exactly the same. They are not interested in helping the farmer, they are more interested in helping the CPR. The CPR has probably been the biggest welfare recipient this country has ever seen. We have a Bill before the House which will give even more money to the banks. Therefore, in closing I make an appeal to Hon. Members across the way that they take another look at the Bill and withdraw it. If they do not there will be thousands of farmers on the Prairies who will go bankrupt because they cannot afford to pay the increase in the freight rates.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, this is not my favourite day for speaking. I have followed the debate, if we could call it that, with some interest. We have now heard from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I must say that it is a relief to hear some sober thoughts from that caucus today.
June 20, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: Incoherent, but sober.
I must say that this really began last week when we were debating the amendment the New Democratic Party put forward, one which was to give the Bill a six month hoist. We supported it, and we wanted to support it. The tragedy is that the New Democrats themselves did not support it because 35 per cent of their caucus was not here to vote, including some of the prairie Members, who were absent for the vote, as well as their Leader.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville spent part of his speech tonight attacking the Liberals for this legislation. I would remind him, and the people on the Prairies certainly know, that it was because of the New Democrats that the Liberals are in office and have had the opportunity to bring this legislation forward. It does the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville no good to shed crocodile tears tonight for what the Liberals are doing, because all along the New Democrats have been aiding and abetting the Liberal Party.


Mr. Fulton:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to remind the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) that when this legislation was brought into the House, 37 Tories were missing and the Government only got in by 24.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have a point of order.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) does not have a point of order, and there are lots of other things he does not have as well.


David P. Smith: Explain.


Benno Friesen: Then the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the audacity to come in here tonight, after botching the vote last week, and bring a motion to refer the subject matter of the Bill to committee and stall the debate some more.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't you want to?


Benno Friesen: The Members of the NDP are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they said that they would do anything to block the legislation, but on the other hand they say they want to send it to committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, no, the subject matter.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) is already giving the House instructions as to what kind of a committee we ought to have. How do they want to have it? They want to block it at all stages and do anything to prevent it from being passed, yet on the other hand they want to sit on the committee. Where are they?
Then I listened to the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) speak this afternoon about the Dominion lands in his riding. I listened to him as he very clearly said that the provincial Government ought to have all powers related to energy resources. That is not in agreement
Western Grain Transportation Act
with his neighbour, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) who said that he and the former Premier, David Barrett, would turn over all their resources to the federal Government. If those neighbours cannot get along, it is understandable why 84 per cent of the people of Canada cannot get along with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They are only part of the 16 per cent solution in Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Benno, get some notes from somebody so you can keep talking.


Benno Friesen: However, there is good reason why we should oppose the legislation. First, we should oppose it because of the process under which it was introduced in the House. For a year and a half the Minister travelled across the country holding press conferences, giving bits and pieces of information to the Canadian people as to what the Crow legislation ought to be. However, he never tabled a Bill in the House. He would not give us a Bill. He would not let us study it. All the while, he was giving pieces of information, to the Liberal lobbyists across Canada, just enough, at least the desirable parts which he felt they would like to have, so that they would lobby for the Government and put on the heat here, hoping there would be a stampede of support for the Crow legislation. We heard the people from the lumber industry in B.C. saying, "Support the legislation". This was said a year and a half ago when the proposals which the Minister brought to us were completely different from the legislation that was tabled a year and a half later. Those good Liberal lobbyists from the West Coast said to support the Bill, but then the Government radically changed the legislation, and the Liberal lobbyists still say, "Support the legislation". Is it any wonder why we give scant attention to the imprimatur of that kind of lobbyist? The process has been wrong, first, giving it by news conference, but also, by withholding it from the legislators so we could not study the legislation itself. The process is wrong.
Then around May 10, the Government brought in a complicated Bill with a complicated payout formula, a complicated subsidy formula. Two days later, it wanted to debate it. Then two days later, it wanted to impose closure. If the Bill is good, then it surely deserves open debate. Surely if it is that good it can withstand scrutiny under the light. Why is it that after two days of debate the Government wanted to impose closure?
When a Bill affects a $6 billion industry in one part of the country, when the livelihood, the lifestyle, the way of life of millions of people is affected, why should closure be imposed? Rest assured, as someone pointed out the other day, if it had been legislation with regard to the fisheries industry in the Maritimes it would not have faced closure in two days. However, it affects the farmers in western Canada. The well-versed Hon. Member said, "They don't have a subsidized industry". I wish that the Bill included a subsidy for the producers, but it is all going to the railways.

June 20, 1983
Adjournment Debate
One of the things to which we object as being so wrong with the Bill, is that it enhances and perpetuates a monopoly for the railroads. There is absolutely no guarantee in the legislation that the $800 million, or whatever amount it would be per year, would go to the producers in any way, shape or form. I would ask the Hon. Member, who refuses to speak on the Bill, to look for any guarantee at all in the legislation that the $800 million which would be paid to the railways would enhance the transportation system for the grain producers of western Canada. They can spend it on anything.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Ask the NDP. They'll make them do it.


Benno Friesen: We do not ask the NDP for anything.
This is why we find the legislation to be reprehensible. First of all, the process is wrong. Second, the principle is wrong. We should not perpetuate or make permanent a monopoly which will destroy the lifestyle of the people on the Prairies. It is wrong. There is no justice in it. There is no equity in it. That is why we oppose it. It destroys the incentive system of the farming community.
Mr. Speaker, I would call it II o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just to set the record straight, the Hon. Member's allotted time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my objection relates to the certification of the 1981 financial statements of Canadair. You will know from my question to the Minister of June 17 that I made the point that the certification by the auditors of companies is the entire underlying basis of confidence in our whole financial system.
In short, when we go out to buy shares in companies we look at the annual report of that company and we must be able to rely on the auditor's statement, that the auditor has gone through the financial affairs of that company, and that its financial affairs are solid and sound as reported. We know that auditors carry out an extensive examination and practically come to know everything about a company.
My remarks relates to the statement made by Thorne-Riddell on January 22 regarding the 1981 financial statements of Canadair. In that auditor's statement there were no comments with respect to the huge debt that subsequently arose. If that were a private company, hundreds and thousands of Canadian citizens might have gone out and bought shares,
only to find that three weeks later Canadair showed a loss of $1.3 billion. That is how much the citizens of Canada have had to put up for Canadair.
I submit that it does not matter that Canadair is in a situation where there is only one shareholder, the Government of Canada, there is still something wrong. 1 directed my question to the Minister because 1 wanted to know how that could happen. How is it that the certification three weeks earlier before the demand for the money made no reference at all to that money?
Thorne-Riddell has a longstanding contract with Canadair and collects fees of $60,000 or $70,000 a year for professional services. I asked if the Government, any Cabinet Minister of that Government, the Board of Directors or any specific director implied, asked, forced or put any pressure on Thorne-Riddell so that we as citizens could not rely on that statement. The Minister did not answer properly; he did not give any answer at all.
The Cabinet is clearly involved in a cover-up. A task force was appointed to go through those financial statements and report. This was only after incredible pressure was brought to bear. But the Government is refusing to make that report available to the committee looking into the whole question. That is a cover-up. If there was nothing to cover up, there would be nothing wrong with producing that report.
Let me suggest why the Government will not give out that data. There is something in there that should have been reported to the shareholders, the Government of Canada, by Thorne-Riddell. I suspect that because Thorne-Riddell is a nationally respected firm there was some pressure put on it, either by the Cabinet, or the Board of Directors who are all appointed by the Cabinet. There is something wrong happening and I object to the answer given by the Minister.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises an issue which has been raised in two committees examining the affairs of Canadair-the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Canadair's auditors, Thorne-Riddell, have insisted in all of their testimony that they were not subject to pressure from either Government of management to conceal the financial situation at Canadair in the 1981 financial statements. They have defended consistently their judgment expressed when they signed the 1981 financial statements that the Financial results represented a fair and accurate view of the situation according to generally accepted accounting principles in Canada. That was their responsibility as auditors. As a national firm with a professional reputation to maintain, Thorne Riddell would not allow others to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the auditors. That is what, in the final analysis, the matter is all about. Thorne Riddell assessed the
June 20, 1983

situation and concluded that the 1981 financial statements were satisfactory.
The issue was clearly put by the Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye, before the Public Accounts Committee on June 7, 1983:
I think that the accounting principles employed here are the generally accepted accounting principles prevailing in Canada and that they are acceptable. There is a great deal of judgment used when you come to apply accounting principles and therefore, dates of commencement of full production and so on have a considerable impact on the financial statement. But it would be my view that the accounting principles are generally accepted in Canada.
There was no pressure on Thorne Riddell to make the judgment it did in early 1982, when assessing the financial situation of the company.
One can agree or disagree with the judgment that Canadair's order book for Challengers was sufficient to recover past capitalized costs. But, Mr. Speaker, it is specious and irresponsible to suggest that one of the country's leading accounting firms subordinated its own professional reputation, as is the alleged and unfounded suggestion that Government and the management applied improper pressures on the auditor.


MINES AND MINING-IMPACT OF STEEL IMPORTS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in a debate on a question I raised in this House on June 2 with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to steel dumping in Canada. On October 27, 1982,1 raised my first question in the House with regard to the iron ore industry in Canada. Again tonight I would like to rise on the same point concerning the closure of iron ore mines, and the dumping of steel in Canada. There were 440 employees laid off at one site for a three-month period with a salary equal to $370,000. The amount involved at another site was another $370,000, and another three months. Three quarters of a million dollars, therefore, was taken out of the Canadian economy as a result of the dumping of steel products into Canada. Indirectly we are looking at over $2 million in one riding in Canada. There are numerous other areas of Canada in which the iron ore industry has been affected.
1 would like to address a few points outlined in a letter I received from the Managing Director of one of the mines. In part his letter reads:
The effects on the Canadian steel industry of the economic downturn in 1982 are well known, and only too visible in your own riding. Strict cost reduction, cash conservation measures, and a general belt tightening have resulted in lengthy closures of steel mills and iron mines, and the resultant lay-offs and hiring freezes.
There is, however, another factor which compounds and aggravates the domestic market weakness which is controllable by the federal Government, that is, dumping of steel on the Canadian and American markets by foreign producers.
This letter is very long, so I shall just quote several parts from it. It goes on to state:
Adjournment Debate
In the 1982 annual reports of the Canadian steel companies, one can detect an increasing sense of frustration at the inability, or unwillingness of the federal Government to limit imports to protect the jobs of Canadian producers.
The problem is serious enough in both Canada and the U.S.A. that domestic steel producers are being seriously injured, and growth of domestic producers will be restricted in the future.
The chairman of Algoma Steel Corporation and Peter Nixon, President and Chief Operating Officer stated:
The surge of low priced steel imports into Canada from countries with excess capacity or with subsidized steel industries caused an unhealthy accumulation of inventories that threatened to disrupt the domestic market. Continuing vigilance by the federal Government on monitoring of steel products entering Canada and prompt investigation of suspected dumped or subsidized imports is important to Algoma and to the Canadian steel industry.
I know Mr. Speaker has had a long day, but I would like to continue reading from this letter as follows:
Regarding the problem of dumping in general, it is a long, complex and expensive procedure and by the time all aspects of a dumping investigation are completed, a company can be permanently injured. In fact, if it were not for the support of the Corporation, Atlas Steels would be in a difficult financial position. We need a better process and I urge that the Government and Canadian steel producers work together to create procedures that, while allowing free and fair trade to continue, do not allow dumping to impair the health of our domestic industry and jobs of our workers.
In closing, I urge the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to look deeply into the problem of dumping steel into Canada.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) rose in the House on June 2 of this year and put his question to the Hon. Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), the Minister's answer at the time was that the problem was due to over-production of iron ore. I did say over-production.
For a more detailed answer to this question, it is unnecessary to dwell at length on the depressed situation of the world's economy. It is enough to say that the world economic situation was weak in 1980 and 1981, and became even worse in 1982. We are now seeing some signs of improvement, but it is still too early to speak of any sustained activity.
To give some indication of the situation in the steel industry throughout the world, I shall give a few statistics for 1982. Consumption of steel dropped 34 per cent in the United States, 34.9 per cent in Canada, 3 per cent in the Common Market and 1 per cent in Japan. With the slump in demand, steel production dropped 38.2 per cent in the U.S., 19.6 per cent in Canada, 11.6 per cent in the Common Market and 2.2 per cent in Japan. These figures show that generally, the drop in production was greater than the drop in consumption in these countries, while in Canada, the reverse has been true. We might say that Canada seems to be better off.
During this long period of depressed markets for steel, producers throughout the world have become very aggressive

June 20, 1983
Adjournment Debate
in competing for markets, and prices have remained low. Reference is often made to unfair trade practices such as production subsidies and dumping, which occurs in most countries, including Canada. There has been a major dispute about steel trade between the United States and the Common Market. Many other trade conflicts have been occurring on the world market.
Revenue Canada has become twice as active in monitoring steel imports. A number of cases of dumping have been revealed in Canada. Revenue Canada is now proceeding with an investigation. Although dumping is forbidden, Canada cannot afford to take an overly protectionist stance as far as the steel trade is concerned. Canada exports a host of other products besides steel, especially mineral products.
In the specific case of the Adams Mine, production ceased at the beginning of May and is to resume on August 1. Subsequently, the Sherman Mine is to close down temporarily until October 31. Both mines belong to Dofasco, which has organized production in its mines in terms of the ore requirements of its steel mills in Hamilton. Although there are temporary shutdowns in the mining industry, Dofasco expects to be operating the Adams Mine in 1983 at about 80 per cent of its normal capacity in other words, at the same production level as in 1982.
There is some solid indication that the demand for steel in the western world in 1983 is slowly improving. This should result in a stronger demand for iron ore towards the end of 1983 and in far better prospects for the iron ore market in 1984.
e (2315)


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-PLIGHT OF FARMERS WITH HIGH INTEREST RATE LOANS. (B) DEVELOPMENT OF AGRI-BOND PROGRAM
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, we would all like to see the Chair and others have a rest after this day. I am quite prepared to reduce my intervention as long as the Parliamentary Secretary does not use up the extra time at the other end in his response to me. I think we are all agreed that we should keep it short.
On June 16 I had a response from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to a question posed to him regarding the Farm Credit Corporation and rates that were being applied at 16% per cent. Farmers were locked in when the rates were that high. The farmers locked into those rates were having a great
deal of difficulty trying to renegotiate or refinance at lower rates. The rate today of the Farm Credit Corporation is 12% per cent.
There are several points that need to be made, and 1 will not try to get into the agri-bond issue tonight. That was a supplementary question. The basic point is that this is a Crown corporation under the jurisdiction of the federal Government. The interest rates were being charged for approximately half a year at 16% per cent at a time when many people could not get financing in other areas. Indeed, the interest rates were very high at the regular lending institutions at that time and 16% per cent looked better than some others. That was fine, but in many cases those people were under distress. They were having difficulty refinancing. They were having difficulty making ends meet. These people are now stuck at those rates for a period of five or ten years, or whatever, depending on what happens to the rates when they have to refinance. They have to carry that 16% per cent, but are unable to do so.
There should be a mechanism, because it is a federal Crown corporation, whereby those people can refinance with some degree of certainty, even if they have to use another institution as intermediaries. There should be some mechanism so that the Farm Credit Corporation can give them the assurance that they will take them back as customers and allow them to carry on at the lower rates. Otherwise they too will find themselves in a distress situation and this will put an extra drain on the federal treasury. In fact, it will bring into question its viability.
I think this is a reasonable request. Even though the Minister of Agriculture perhaps does not remember saying it, he said he would have an answer in a month. I can quote from Hansard for April 26 where he said precisely that. This is a reasonable and important request, something the Government should and hopefully will pay attention to.
[ Translation]


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and co-operate with the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) by saying that during the period when interest rates reached unprecedented levels, namely from April 1981 to December 1982, the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada made loans to farmers at rates as high as 16.75 per cent for terms of up to 30 years. The Farm Credit Corporation of Canada borrowed money from the CRF at 15.75 per cent. Since the Corporation's interest rates dropped to 12.75 per cent on April 1, 1983, it has come under strong pressure to lower its rates on unpaid loans at high rates. However, its margin of profit is historically limited to 1 per cent and the Farm Credit Corporation has been unable to accumulate enough undistributed profits to be in a position to reduce the high interest rates on the loans which have been made to eligible borrowers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)
June 20. 1983

is now considering various options to help those farmers, but I should point out to the Hon. Member that such a measure would cost the Government a lot of money since the amount of lost interests would exceed $100 million. Those factors must be taken into serious consideration before a final decision is made on this issue.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 11.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 21, 1983